His whole point is that there is no conclusive evidence that there is no purpose to life, and there will never be if there is none to be found, and that is precisely why the only way to find one is to keep looking for it.
Specific religions as we know them have nothing to do with this. Indeed, even he said he had logically convinced himself there is no God. It doesn't all have to be about God-in-a-book.
What would it even mean? What if the purpose of life is to build as many feeling entities as possible and kill them all at once in a slow and torturous way, so as to maximize the amount of pain that can be dealt in a single moment?
What I mean by that example: even if life had some purpose (for whom, set by what?), why should it be a purpose you agree with? Why would some external purpose override your own values?
If the purpose of life is to "build as many feeling entities..." then that is what should be done. You see, it is the way that we arrive at our understanding of the purpose that convinces us that it is right. By using the scientific method we can feel confident that we have discovered truth. Science provides us with evidence for why we should believe things and when we have evidence we have two options: we can either be rational and change our beliefs based on evidence, or be irrational and ignore the evidence. The type of "purpose of life" that I'm talking about would only be discoverable by intense scientific activity. It would be like the laws of physics: so undeniably true that you'd be a fool to not believe them. That said, I think your postulated "build as many feeling..." purpose of life is particularly unlikely. However, because no one has ever seen the purpose of life before, we must be careful to not rule out things prematurely, no matter how absurd they seem. I imagine most people of Darwin's time were so set on the idea of creationism that evolution was inconceivable, thankfully Darwin saw through that.
This is the first time I've publicly posted about this, and I'm glad to see that someone (you!) understands it. You're comment is spot on. I'll add a bit:
Venus says life has no purpose. After venus makes that statement, what does venus do next? Lets say it is some action, X. Why did venus do X? Well, because of Y1 (Y1 could be 'to sustain living' or 'to be happy' or 'to help others'). Ok, but why is Y1 important? Because of Y2. Ok, why is Y2 important? Because of Y3. And why is Y3 important? And so on and so on...and eventually there is no answer because venus believes life has no purpose. Any action venus takes, at its core, is illogical without a purpose.
So that is why I am saying that I was depressed: everything I did was meaningless, I had no idea what I should be doing. Then I realized the most important thing I could be doing was figuring out the most important thing I could be doing. If it turns out that venus is right, and there isn't a "most important thing I could be doing" then the fact that I wasn't doing "the optimal thing" doesn't matter because there isn't an optimal thing to be doing and I can be confident that I gave it my best shot.
Firstly, thank you for talking about it - I do not mean to argue with you about your own thoughts. But I think differently.
When I said life has no purpose, I didn't mean it was futile or nihilist or anything else. I mean that words like "purpose" simply do not apply. Purpose is an anthropological term and is meaningless in this context. To what "purpose" do mountains rise, volcanoes erupt, meteors explode in the sky? It is inappropriate to try to find purpose in these things. Purpose is a human concept.
This applies to life too. We are here because we, by whatever crazy turns of chance and happenstance, are here. There is no other answer; indeed that is not even one. We may be wiped out by a meteor tomorrow and the universe cares not one whit.
Why, you ask? Who on earth are you asking? There is no "why". Why did the coin come up heads or tails? Why does someone live and someone else die in an automobile accident? Why is that rock here, and not over there? There is no "why". For there to be a reason, someone needs to have thought about it, and there is no someone. There are causes and effects, yes, but no "why".
So what do we do next? We do what we are programmed to do, after thousands of generations of trial and error - we love one another, treat each other with kindness, some of us screw up, but mostly we try to pull together to improve our world and the lives of the people we love. Because that is all we are, animals with organic computers for brains and this is the program we are running, and there's no "why" for that, either.
These types of responses always reek of the need to be right (thus claiming very important Internet Points). Or, closer to home: "I've given up looking, and so should you."
Purpose is essential. You can cut it out, claiming you're somehow above it all, but you're cheating yourself, ultimately.
There are depressingly few subjects in the world amenable to anything like what the mathematicians would call "proof".
I have no "proof" of anything philosophical. No-one does. But in my experience, laymen banging on about "proof" are likely doing so in defense of some ludicrous belief whose nonsensical tenets they loudly invite all comers to "disprove" - an impossible task. Let's hope you're not one of them.
I can prove you have no purpose to yourself.
If you say you have purpose to yourself, you then ask: but then what's the purpose of myself? You enter infinite recursion.
You can only have purpose to others.
Life can only have purpose to something else other than life.
Does that other thing matter?
Then Swartz was no threat. He was going to upload the articles to other people if he wanted to. He was going to have to provide the search tools.
I don't understand why they would "[secure] from Mr. Swartz the content that was taken, and [receive] confirmation that the content was not and would not be used, copied, transferred, or distributed".
I believe most people would like a cheap and small board to use it like they would use a regular computer: high-level development, media player, various "apps", small home server. Clearly, for these people, performance/price is the first and foremost criterion. If it works like it's supposed to, it's a done deal.
As for lower level development, you are probably right, few boards can claim to beat the Pi.
Yes, for Kanji. These hieroglyphs is what most people are having trouble learning in Japanese and Chinese, as far as I know. Grammar is hard but it's not such a barrier.
You're going to parties with too many people if you're marking people as do-not-communicate at a second's notice. It's not like you're in public with hundreds around.
I do. It's hard enough to bring people out of closed OSes while Ubuntu is free. I still think Canonical should do like many successful startups these days: make a large userbase and only then start to deploy the business model.
We're not going to bring many people to OSS if we make it as expensive as the system they're locked in. One more obstacle.
"I still think Canonical should do like many successful startups these days: make a large userbase and only then start to deploy the business model."
But isn't that exactly what they are doing? Ubuntu has been around for 8 years now, would many startups last for 8 years without being profitable? And when should they start deploying their business model? When we are happy with it?
I think that many of us are being two-faced about Ubuntu. We want Linux to succeed, but not Ubuntu. We want to prove that you can make money from open source projects, but object to Ubuntu doing so.
But it is NOT as expensive as the system they're going to. Ubuntu is and always will be free. It's also open source. The majority of users are not thinking of freedom when choosing an OS and price is only part of the story. In the end, like it or not, Users choose OS's based on a number of factors, including the eco-system of the operating system, software availability, hardware and device support. etc etc.
Ubuntu users are not getting locked in. They can still do whatever they like with their operating system once ubuntu is installed.
His whole point is that there is no conclusive evidence that there is no purpose to life, and there will never be if there is none to be found, and that is precisely why the only way to find one is to keep looking for it.
Specific religions as we know them have nothing to do with this. Indeed, even he said he had logically convinced himself there is no God. It doesn't all have to be about God-in-a-book.