The three big question everyone may or may not pose at least once in his/her lifetime are:
Where do we come from ?
Where are we going ?
What is the purpose of life ? or my life ?
I do not pretend to know an answer that will satisfy everyone, and please if you may feel uncomfortable about these questions, then may I suggest not to read on as the answer I will provided if any, may be even more unstetling for you. They are the answer I accept to be the answers, and may not be so explaining as some may hope, such comfort as you would hope, but hey are enough comfort for me. I used to ask these question a lot sometimes, but I also have answers now that I find sufficient, but others may not.
These questions may look clear, but they are not as clear as they look. For example. What is the purpose of life, of my life ? The answer depends on the level one looks at. Does one mean the pure biological/genetic level or does mean a higher level that is only related to humans, or both ?
Lets try to do both.
1. Where do we come from ?
- Biological/Genetic level: We are the result of an evolution that started when life started on this earth, and gradually over time evolved all creatures on earth to there current state, of which the course of that evolution was influenced by events and objects that had no relation whit Earth but did influences the evolution process on Earth in sometimes dramatic ways, sometimes subtle ways. For example the meteoroid that hit earth and had as a consequence of the process happening as a result of that impact that non avian dinosaurs died out.
- Human level: each and everyone of us, currently alive, or alive before us, are the result of a women and a men meeting, in a loving relationship or not, that produced/produces offspring, namely us. This answer is the same for all animals on this planet as well, with the difference that humans can choose there mate from a bigger group then some other animals might.
2. Where are we going ?
This question is the most difficult to answer as nobody knows the future.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Steve S
The purpose of the life on this earth, be it plants or animals, or bacteria or viruses, is simple: To survive
I would think virus's that kill the host would dispute your theory.
2 - The Theory
42!
3 - Tan The Man
My answer is to procreate.
4 - Aaman
There are 4 questions up there, I personally lean towards 42, or perhaps
a) the oceans
b) space
c) procreation
5 - Bob A. Booey
Floris Vermeier ... what a name.
Is that your Christian birth name like mine?
Or is it like your hippie "Take Back the Night" name?
That is all.
6 - Aaman
Bob, why should it be a 'Christian' name? Why not Juju-inspired, or Buddhist, or Merovingian?
7 - Bob A. Booey
What the hell is Merovingian and Juju? Stop being weird for weird's sake.
I'll tell you why. Because ....
The Lord God is my sun and shield,
He gives grace and glory.
Floris, I don't think you're quite characterizing Heidegger correctly. In fact, you may be more Heideggerian than you think :) You're right that he says that we come into the world in a state of "thrown-ness" -- as you point out, we can't choose our genes, parents, geography, gender, race, etc. He calls these ontological accidents our "facticity." But these don't really matter to Heidegger in determining whether our not we lead authentic lives -- as existentialists are fond of saying, "Existence precedes essence." While Heidegger is very interested in our status as biological animals, the central imperative and question for him is the very one you point out, to choose a life for oneself beyond that biological facticity. He does think that the life of Das Man ("The They," the herd of other-directed people oriented toward technical management of the world who ignore the call of Being) is empty. But that's precisely WHY we choose for ourselves -- that gives life some responsibility and forces us to be active in shaping our ontology. Quite the opposite of life being empty, once we reposition our Being-toward-others, that choice is part of what allows us to be open to the disclosure of Being in the world and Being for oneself. His language there is somewhat more cryptic and mystical than it needs to be, but the basic idea is that we can come closer to (I don't think he'd like the term understand) our Being outside the rush of technology and the inauthentic values of social life in modernity.
I'm sure Dr. Carmine can offer more on Heidegger and the questions you pose.
8 - gonzo marx
Merovingian is a subreference to an old, french dynasty of kings..reputed to be the decendants of christ
and JuJu, may his tusks alway glow with the Light of Reason, is our very own BC Elephant God, of whom i happen to have the honour of being his Prophet and personal pooper-scooper..
nuff said?
Excelsior!
9 - Mark Sahm
Outside of being the most prized trivia question of all, the answer to "Where do we come from?" is meaningless in terms of living one's life. IMHO, the present is what matters, with an morning coffee eye to the future.
10 - Bob A. Booey
Gonzo ... you're weird. Stop with that "Excelsior" schtick, nerd.
I'm familiar with Merovingian in historical reference, but as a religion? That's what Aaman implied.
Stop making up stupid mascots for yourself.
Mark: did you get that off a Bazooka Joe wrapper?
Excalibur!!!!!!! [edited]
11 - Shark
Booey to the Great Gonzo: "Stop with that "Excelsior" schtick, nerd."
Yeah, I'm with you, Booey. I hate those stupid, semi-clever trademark closings. They do get old.
...but Booey, after your admonition, you forgot to add:
"That is all."
=========
PS: re. "nerd" --
I looked it up in the dictionary: it says:
"One who pedantically attempts to summarize Heidegger in 50 words or less on a internet discussion board."
*Seriously.
*Shark's lame trademarked "closing".
12 - Nancy
Well, Booey, now you've done it. Why should Gonzo stop using 'excelsior' just 'cause it annoys you? If anything, that will ensure he keeps doing it, because it DOES annoy you so much. It certainly would encourage ME to keep on, if I were Gonzo.
13 - gonzo marx
like i care a rabid rat's ass about someone that names themselves after a Howard Stern sidekick?
puh-leeeeeEEEEeeezzzzeee
you have earned a ...
{8^P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
fer that one...
as for the religion of the Merovingians, one might easily place them within one of the gnostic sects...for various reasons...
as for JuJu, may his tail keep the mites of intolerance from the Holy Anus, he serves many purposes when it comes to some topics of debate...i will leave it to the gentle Readers for discerning the meanings and implications...
nuff said?
Excelsior!
14 - Eric Olsen
not just a rat's ass, but a RABID rat's ass
15 - Mark Sahm
Booey--- you figured me out. I run my life according to candy. Now if you don't mind, I must get back to my Skittles meditation.
16 - Floris Vermeir
"The purpose of the life on this earth, be it plants or animals, or bacteria or viruses, is simple: To survive
I would think virus's that kill the host would dispute your theory."
It looks like that, but there is a answer for that. For example the difference between Ebola, Hanta and hiv/aids. I'd rather prefer they didn't exist.
Ebola is know for its high mortality rate, and also because coming into contact with any body fluids can cause one to become infected. Yet although outbreaks do happen, they never, or not to my knowledge, seem to get as large as aids has. The reason is that they kill there host to fast. Now you could say that if the purpose of life for a virus is to survive and spreads it genes/rna then them killing there host, would endanger that survival. Let me explain why this contradiction does not invalidate the answer on the question of what is the purpose of life.
The reason that Ebola kills the host so fast is because it is a non native human virus, we are susceptible to it, but its not something that has already co-evolved with us, like other viruses have. It does kill people so fast, and as such almost never seems to spread far, and counteract its ones survival. It has not yet adapted well enough to the new host. In this case us.
That takes time, and apparently one could say, that luckily we have not come into contact with it enough for it to adapt so that it spreads slower, and infect more of us, and as such getting a better chance for survival amongst humans. But even if this is the case, there must be a host, a carrier with which it has co evolved or adapted enough not to kill that host. Otherwise indeed it would no longer be there.
If that would not be the case it could have become endemic in the human population, like the Hanta virus is in rodents. The rodents do not have problems of that virus although they are carriers of it, everywhere I thought except the north and the south pole, and other places rodents don't live. But when humans come into contact with it, then we do get sick from it and some people die and have died from it.Yet not every rodent carries the same strain of the Hanta virus.
The reason is that it is a virus that co-developed with rodents into a non lethal form for them, but when it encounters a new host, for example human beings then it is not that adapted to it, and it causes illness and deaths as a consequence.
The difference whit HIV is that, HIV has been in contact long enough with human beings, to have mutated in a form that spreads over a longer period before it becomes lethal. Well in most cases. One can live with a HIV infection for a while, and will only die after a while of AIDS.
There are three main factors that are at play here: Rate of mutation/rate at which it multiplys/produces offspring, structure of the virus and compatibility with the (new) host. One could say that mortality rate is a factor as well, but mortality rate depends on the rate of mutation and the compatibility with the new host, as well as its structure which may or may not allow for it to swap parts with other viruses.
These are the main factors, there will be others at times, but I will stick to these.
Hiv that causes AIDS has a very high mutation rate and has a very high compatibility with humans. Because of its high mutation rate, we have problems finding a good vacin against it. By the time we may find one for one strain of it, another strain may have evolved that we have nothing against. For example although HIV spreads in most cases slow, this is not always the case. A strain that appeared recently, in to my knowledge a separate case, caused mortality far faster, and would if it spread, of which there is no indication that it has, that I know off, cause a far greater mortality rate, far faster then AIDS currently does. If this strain would ever become endemic then we would be in a lot more trouble then is currently the case.
While one could say that mortality rate and how fast a virus spreads are important factors and so the sentence should be 4 separate factors instead of three, in my opinion that is not correct. Rate of mutation and how fast a given virus multiplys hang together, one can not do without the other.How fast a virus multiplys depends on how much food it finds. So the rate of mutation depends on how fast the virus multiplys and this on its turn depends on how much food the virus find, which hangs together with how much concurence there is of viruses that eat the same food.
If there is less competion and a lot of food then this means that initially the virus has the chance to produce much offspring which results in much competition for the same food, and as there will be a higher rate of mutation, this may mean that a new mutated form develops an advantage to existing viruses in the same bowl, and as such has a bigger chance of survival. For example supose a virus is in a bowl filled with the food it needs but does not have the possibillity to hibernate when there is no food, or low food.
It would multiply and produce a lot of offspring, but because it cannot hibernate it would eventually most likely come in as ituation where there is no food left and in strong competition with its offspring, and this may or will most likley result in that virus dying out. If now there would occur a mutation or a series of mutations that allow the mutated strain to hibernate then it would have an adavantage compared to the other offspring which means that when the competion becomes fierce, the mutated strain cappable of hibernation, can hibernate and as such let the rest of the offspring whiouth that capability drive themselves to extinction. I am not sure, but I thought this already has happened.
The ratio at which a virus can survive depends on its ability to infects host, and to how fast it can spread to new hosts, and how fast it mutates as well as of its structure which may or may not allow it to swap parts with other viruses and/or strains.
How fast a virus spreads depends on how high the compatibility it is with a host it encounters, some viruses that we encounter do us absolutely nothing, or very little. The compatibility with a host also means that if its is more compatible then it can use other means to spread, and the rate of mutation means that if a virus mutates very low, then there is a big chance of us finding a cure against it or the hosts immune system taking it out or unarming it. On the other hand if it mutates very fast, it means that it evolves very fast into different possibilities. Natural selection on that level does the rest.
Rate of mutation hangs together with how fast it produce offspring, if the rate at which a virus produces offspring is slow, then there is less chance for mutations to occur, and that slows down the rate of mutations, meaning that there is more time for the immune system to possibly find something against it, and/or more time for us to find something against it.
If on the other hand the viruses is capable of producing offspring fast, then there is much more chance and much more likely that mutations will occur, and as such the rate of mutations goes up, meaning that the compability with the host may change very fast, and also meaning that the immune system gets less time to find a defense, and way to deal with it. The same goes for us.
A virus also gets more chances to mutate if there are more hosts. That is why TBC for example is gaining resistance against some medication, because not everyone who is infected with the strains we can cure, is getting the medication they need, and may not be able to afford it as long as needed. I'm not saying that there are strains we cannot cure, only that if things keep going on as they do that may/might happen on the long term.
From this point of view one could say the less fast a virus produces offspring, and the less fast it mutates the better for us, that means that we have more time to find something against it. Unfortunately that still does mean that people die, withouts us having anything to cure them.
The structure of a virus is also important. It is the structure that allows for swapping of genes/rna bits. One of the reasons flu viruses and how they evolve, are kept under close watch is the ability of that virus to swap parts with other flu viruses of for example birds and pigs, and so on very fast. There are examples known where viruses mutate in a form where the structure they have no longer allows for swapping parts, and makes them sterile. I am not sure about this, but I thought to know of only one example. That is against there survival, I know, but natural selection weeds those out mutations out that are not favorable to survive. One may then counteract that some things that do seem not favorable to survival have survived. This may because they fill a niche, and can survive that way, or because they have so co-developed with there host that they become symbiotic. If one would check the human DNA then there is such an example that can be found I thought, whiteout which we would never have evolved at all. Something all living species of animals and most likely those species lived before have in common with each other, and or common ancestor, which in this case is so small that it can't be seen with the human eye.
Swapping one particular part, or a minimum of parts can make the difference between it being just a minor flu and flu as deadly as the 1918 pandemic. We have vaccine against flu strains, that only work against a limit number of flu strains, and most flu strains do not kill us, but once in a while one comes along that has that potential.
One could say that the whole way in which viruses spread and the elements and factors at play that form different relations between those elements could explain it perhaps clearer in a graphical way. Well the higher relations anyway, the lower relations might take up several pages, that does not make it very clear. The explanation as a whole is influenced by my progress in perception philosophy (which you can't find yet on blogcritics).
This answer does not explain everything, or may not go well enough into details for some people, but I thought it would become to long otherwise. But if you want to know and I will try to answer your question, if I know the answers.
I have to double check somethings myself to make sure they are correct, but you can always check with the people of the CDC, the center for disease control, as they are experts in this matter. I'm only a person interested in what is going on in the world.
You are free and welcome to check this answer with them or with anyone you know who is specialized in this, and if any mistakes found, to point them out to me, I will be most grateful for that.
As for the explanation about Heidegger, you may be right. I have been wondering these last few days, since I wrote it down, if my answer to Heidegger was as good as I thought it was for the last 2-3 years. I will have to think about this one. The answer most likely is going to take some time.
As for my name, you're not the first english or other language speaking person, who did not write it correct, but I won't react further on it. Lets just say that it has happened so often in the past that one doesn't react every time anymore.
For those interested in philosophy the following might or might not interest you. It hasn't been posted on blogcritics as yet, because not all arguments have been worked out yet, and it isn't that easy. I have known this for 2-3 years now, and it hasn't happened yet, and/or may not happen for a while. It is about Descartes sentence : I think therefore I am. Its about the exception on that. I'm open for discussion.
http://mistwereld.blogspot.com/2005/07/i-think-therefore-i-am-exception-ii_26.html
http://mistwereld.blogspot.com/2005/07/i-think-therefore-i-am-exception-iii.html
17 - Dave Nalle
>>Bob, why should it be a 'Christian' name? Why not Juju-inspired, or Buddhist, or Merovingian?<<
Um, why would she have been named by an early medieval family of Frankish kings most of whom were insane and one of whom had to be kept in a cage? Are you implying something?
Dave
18 - Aaman
Heh, for some reason, I was thinking of a romantic religious connection (romantic in the classical european sense), and merovingian came to mind. She/he seems to be somewhat gnostic as well.
19 - Bob A. Booey
You're an odd bird, Floris. What country are you from? France?
That is all.
20 - Steve S
The difference whit HIV is that, HIV has been in contact long enough with human beings, to have mutated in a form that spreads over a longer period before it becomes lethal.
no, Floris, the virus did not extend it's 'shelf life' in order to survive longer. It's the pharmaceutical cocktails, because in countries where there are no cocktails of 20-40 pills taken at a time, people die just like at the onset of the disease.
And also, you say the purpose of life is to procreate, and use the virus to illustrate. A virus does not procreate, it replicates. There is no 'carrying on' of itself, even at the molecular genetic level.
21 - Floris Vermeir
Steve you are partially correct. It is indeed a fact that one of the reason people in the west can live longer with HIV is because of the cocktails of medication. Whit out that the image of how bad it actually is would be much clearer, but more people would die a death they don't deserve.
But it must be said that is also a strain of hiv, which has a more extended shelf live, then most other strains. It does not seem to spread much beyond certain regions in Africa, and that is if my information is correct,the people who get infected by it live longer with it, get less ill from it.
You are completely correct about the fact that it does replicate and does not procreate. I am wrong in that part and it is in part because I could not find the good word to use. So thanks for that, for pointing that out, it is much appreciated. You seem to know a lot about this.
But could replication, so not carrying on itself, but making a copy of itself with a possible mutation, also not be seen as a form of procreation ?
Humans procreate and do not replicate, or perhaps not as yet, but at the current state of technology and knowledge even if we would be able to replicate a human being, then that would not be a exact copy of the person that is being replicated.
There could be changes on the level of expression of genes, and even if that would not be the case then currently we are not able to replicate/clone a person or animal in such a way that it is exactly the same as the animal that is being replicated.
If the dictionary and the the web pages I looked trough are correct, but if they're not then please correct me, then replication is much the same as/equals cloning and is the creation of a genetic copy of in this case a virus with the possibility of a mutation occurring.
One could pose the question if viruses and the like have a personality, but I think it is rather unlikely and that even that would turn out to be wrong,we probably would never be able to find out. Not all copy's of a viruses may act/react in the same way, but that more looks like differences in structure due to a mutation that has occurred.
(http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml#whatis)
Looking at some of the websites, especially the one, with the slides, one could conclude that replication is a form of procreation, although it is no carrying on itself. But if this is an incorrect conclusion then please point it out.
So to call it a draw we are both right. And your comments are most valuable.
Unfortunately for all three of these viruses and many others there exist no magic bullet that cures everyone. I wish there was, and I sincerely doubt to be the only one, wouldn't you agree whit that ?
A definition of viruses, with which I
think we both will agree would be the following (this is a definition related to plant cells but most of it goes as well for animals):
"Viruses are "submicroscopic" entities that infect individual host plant cells. Once inside a plant cell they are able to infect other cells. Viruses are obligate parasites: They can only replicate themselves within a host's cell. Because the virus commandeers the host cell to manufacture viruses identical to itself the plant cell is unable to function and grow normally.
"
22 - Floris Vermeir
Link from here
Other web pages checked for this comment:
this
and this
23 - Floris Vermeir
I'm belgian/flemmish. But I am learning not to react on things about my name as it is so often written incorrectly even in my own language. But Then I am not alone in that.
24 - Steve S
But could replication, so not carrying on itself, but making a copy of itself with a possible mutation, also not be seen as a form of procreation ?
it's not procreation to me anymore than Dr. Frankenstein procreated a monster.
To me, procreation is offspring, replication is creating a whole new entity.
Virus's would not have personalities as personalities are manifestations of the brain and single celled organisms do not have brains. They do not think but act solely in response to outside stimuli, which is why they lay dormant outside of the host body for long periods of time.
So to call it a draw we are both right.
If you want to get back to your original premise of 'the purpose of life is to procreate' then I would STILL take issue with you being right.
25 - Nancy
Floris, I think they're just giving you a hard time, as we say in America. Pulling your leg. Pushing your buttons. Saying silly things that you should not react to. There are a lot of names on here that are far stranger than yours, which is actually pretty normal, to me. Ignore them.