Whatever the "meaning of life" may be (I interpret "meaning" as "purpose" here) is for us, Homo Sapiens, do we assume the "meaning of life" for humans differs fundamentally from the "meaning of life" of other animals?
Asked
Active
Viewed 315 times
4
-
1I think we still lack the ability to understand animals to give meaningful answer. – rus9384 Mar 30 '18 at 09:48
-
Since mankind was created in the image of God, we have a higher calling to strive to live in conformity to God's moral excellence. – Mar 30 '18 at 10:26
-
@rus9384 Yes, and that means we can not assume it's different for us than for other animals, right? A mouse, for example, does not understand us very well. So she has no reason to say "our purpose of life is different than that of humans" (and implicitly more important - to them - which is perfectly fine, just like we do) right? – Volker Siegel Mar 30 '18 at 11:08
-
@PédeLeão The mouse can, just as valid, say: "Since mice were created in the image of God, we have a higher calling to strive to live in conformity to God's moral excellence." Obviously the God she refers to looks like a mouse, just like we think God looks probably like us - without really knowing. **Note that the God of the mice and our God may well be the same God!** Do you see any reason mice should not think they are better than us, just like we do to her? – Volker Siegel Mar 30 '18 at 11:14
-
1Mice don't speak, but God has spoken and informed us that we were created in His image. As Augustine said, "For since man is most properly understood (or, if that cannot be, then, at least, believed) to be made in God's image, no doubt it is that part of him by which he rises above those lower parts he has in common with the beasts, which brings him nearer to the Supreme." (*City of God*, Book XI) – Mar 30 '18 at 12:17
-
@PédeLeão Wait... Mice do communicate, they just do not call it "to speak". Ok, " created in His image" means he is the human God, and mice do have a different God, and were created in His image. No problem with this, right? (Note that we have thought we are "special" and were wrong many times - we're on earth, which is the center...oops, Ok, the sun...oops, some oops later, we find out that there may be no center at all...) – Volker Siegel Mar 30 '18 at 12:17
-
So, our God tells us we are special. What do you think does the mouse God told them? Just the same. But we already found that they are different Gods, so both can be right. So we are special for us, they are special for them. Sounds pretty good, I think! – Volker Siegel Mar 30 '18 at 12:23
-
I meant we are not even close to subjectively truthful answer. Maybe in a few decades, after further advancements in biology we'll can do it. – rus9384 Mar 30 '18 at 12:55
-
@rus9384 I totally agree. My question is "while we do not understand animals, how can we assume our meaning of life is any different than theirs" – Volker Siegel Mar 30 '18 at 13:13
-
1People do not agree on humans' meaning of life not to mention animals' meaning of life. Although in case of humans there are a few popular points. In case of animals points usually become beliefs. Noticeable point of view there can be darwinism - animals just meant to exist and survive. – rus9384 Mar 30 '18 at 13:45
-
+1 The "differs fundamentally" or "how can we assume our meaning of life is any different from theirs" is where the problem lies. We are different species from other animals. So differences exist. However, we do have similarities perhaps more than we think possible today. A book that tries to deal with moral issues of animals is Jessica Pierce and Marc Bekoff's "Wild Justice". Also don't forget plants. – Frank Hubeny Mar 30 '18 at 14:31
-
@FrankHubeny Oh, good point, about difference. Plants are relevant for the question - but I try to get the animals sorted out first... Instead of plants, I sought of one cell microorganisms. There you can actually argue "they can not think" - but that does not imply they have no meaning of life. (I ignore viruses for now, that's really too mind-bending... first time I have that feeling...) – Volker Siegel Mar 30 '18 at 14:43
-
@VolkerSiegel for what it's worth, we know that the universe may have no center, but we haven't actually made that observation or refuted "the universe has a center". Instead, the "Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi (LTB) models... describe possible forms for a universe that could have a centre. Since the [conventional Big-Bang cosmology's] FLWR models are actually a special limiting case of the LTB models, we have no sure way of knowing that the LTB models are not correct." Philip Gibbs, 1997, "Where is the centre of the universe?" http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html – elliot svensson Mar 30 '18 at 18:32
-
To repeat my comment to @elliotsvensson below: A wolf does not wake up in the morning and think, "Who am I?". "What is my purpose in life?". "Does it really, cosmically speaking, matter if I don’t get up and go to work?". If a wolf in the forest ignores the meaning of life, does it even **have** a meaning of life? No, really... I mean it: do you have a purpose in life if you are ignoring the purpose someone has assigned to you? – MichaelK Apr 03 '18 at 10:21
-
1@MichaelK I do just the same as the wolf (change forest to city). – Volker Siegel Apr 03 '18 at 14:16
-
1@MichaelK regarding "do you have a purpose in life if you are ignoring the purpose someone has assigned to you?" - good points. Do I have a purpose in life? I don't know- that's worth a separate question. And why should anybody bother to assign a purpose to me? And I do not see why anybody else should assign purpose in the first place. – Volker Siegel Apr 03 '18 at 14:21
2 Answers
1
▻ LIFE AS CHOICE
A non-human animal has a set of dispositions and behaviours which are typical of its kind. It may learn certain skills. It may develop certain preferences. It may acquire certain emotions. It can make at least rudimentary choices, as when a house cat hesitates between one bowl of food and another then selects one. There is so much continuity between non-human and human animals but one point of difference, to me, is that human beings can and do have lifeplans. They can imagine the distant future and project plans into it. They can inject meaning into their lives by conceiving projects, often of considerable complexity through time, and carry them out. They can of course refuse to regiment their lives in this way but to do this is itself to adopt a lifeplan of a sort. They can also decide that their lives are meaningless or have become so, and end them by suicide.
It is true that our knowledge of the capabilities of animals is still rudimentary but there seems no evidence that non-human animals can inject meaning into their lives in these ways. It makes them in no way inferior, only different.
▻ LIFE AS NARRATIVE
Human lives are stories, texts, narratives. By which I mean (to personalise) that my life takes on different significances as I view it in retrospect now from one angle, now from another. As I recall it across many decades now, I can rotate my perspective on it; it looks different, and is different, as I consider it under different aspects : as a series of relationships, as a string of careers, as a 'chapter of accidents'. I not only have a self-image, accurate or not, but a history of self-images : and this history has significance. My life has a sort of meta-meaning as succession of self-images that have come and gone. And all this I can tell, communicate, to others as I am doing now.
I doubt if anything in the life of non-human animals matches anything like this.
▻ LIFE AS SIGNIFICANCE
Here I find, or think I do, complete commonality with non-human animals. Religious people may see everything, human and non-human, as having a role in a divine plan. The life of everything 'signifies' or matters within that plan. But I take no stand on religion, at least here, either for or against. It is not what I have in mind just now. I am thinking of something else : that the significance of my life, as a living organism, is no different from my cat's : we come into existence and pass away and in the long run 'Leave not a rack behind'. If there is life after death, nonsense to some and a firm belief to others, that makes no difference to my point : our organic life begins, ends, and is forgotten. Biologically and historically it is, my life and my cat's, a temporary and evanescent incursion. A sobering thought ? No, just a fact of life and death.
Geoffrey Thomas
- 35,303
- 4
- 40
- 143
-
"No one remembers the former generations, and even those yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow them." Ecclesiastes 1:11 (NIV) – elliot svensson Apr 04 '18 at 14:18
-
+1 However, I wonder if you are saying in the first part that non-human animals do not make choices? I can see my cat choosing to eat or not, to go here or go there. Animals have alternatives they can choose from as we do. – Frank Hubeny Apr 04 '18 at 15:10
-
@Frank Hubeny. My cat chooses, too, or seems to. I've revised the text - with thanks. GT – Geoffrey Thomas Apr 04 '18 at 16:09
-
@elliot svensson. A beautifully apt quotation. My final para. can't compete. Thank you for this contribution. Best : Geoff – Geoffrey Thomas Apr 04 '18 at 18:48
0
Meaning in life is generally received from some higher authority or external reference, as with the notions of "worth," "purpose," "value," etc. Thus a wolf living wild may gain meaning in its life by becoming tamed by a person. You might say that the success of an ecosystem makes the life of its members meaningful.
Anything higher than a person can function to provide meaning. All the ideals of good, of progress, of success, or of power (and many others) are commonly used this way.
Although many people refrain from doing so, many other people look for meaning in supernaturally-sourced writings or direct revelation, to find what higher beings think their life's meaning is. Nearly all religions maintain recordings of supernatural revelation.
Because texts cannot communicate directly to animals, humans must act as mediators for supernatural writings to provide animals meaning. If animals were to receive revelation directly from supernatural beings, we would not know because they can not communicate that with us; we would not know if they had meaning or not.
Some related links obtained through Google:
elliot svensson
- 4,065
- 7
- 25
-
A wolf does not wake up in the morning and think, "Who am I?". "What is my purpose in life?". "Does it really, cosmically speaking, matter if I don’t get up and go to work?". If a wolf ignores the meaning of life in the forest, does it have a meaning of life? – MichaelK Apr 03 '18 at 09:51
-
1@MichaelK I do just the same as the wolf (change forest to city). – Volker Siegel Apr 03 '18 at 14:13
-
@MichaelK, according to my answer above, the wolf by itself in the woods has meaning because of its ecology and won't suffer existential angst. But if the wolf is somehow tamed by a person (if it becomes like John Wren's dog Chips, for instance), then the tamed wolf will have a purpose for which it will put aside its other needs. – elliot svensson Apr 04 '18 at 14:09
-
@elliotsvensson "the wolf by itself in the woods has meaning because of its ecology and won't suffer existential angst". What? I have no idea how you derive the statement "the wolf has meaning" from that which I just quoted. A wolf **exists** in a biotope. A wolf **acts** within that biotope. The wolf's actions **affect** that biotope. Animal populations within that biotope tend stay somewhat balanced, even if they do oscillate somewhat over time. But how do we go from this to saying "The wolf has meaning", as in **purpose**? – MichaelK Apr 04 '18 at 14:14
-
Here's the thorough response: The success of the ecosystem depends on the wolf doing its part to support the pack, transport seeds and fleas, keep down the rabbit population, etc. If the wolf is lazy or mopey, the rabbits will eat all the plants and the ecosystem won't make it. Thus in the woods, the wolf's life is for the purpose of fulfilling its ecological role. – elliot svensson Apr 04 '18 at 14:25