The Instigator
RavenArkBlue
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Aguilajoyce
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Meaning of life is to support life and create change.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 217 times Debate No: 88655
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

RavenArkBlue

Pro

If no living thing supported other life their would be no life. For example leaving a child in the wilderness but plants and animals could not support the child the child would have nothing to eat and therefore die. If plants could not feed other living things animals of all sorts wouldn't be able to sustain life. And other animals would be unable to feed their predators, ect. So, why should a living thing live if life can not continue after it? This provokes creativity and the want to make a change in the world. So they will be remembered and their life and death will matter. Because if their is nothing to remember someone for, the person therefore had no life. No one remembers the explorers that aided Lewis and Clarke but they provoked a change in the world and their life had meaning. We have knowledge of their existence even if we don't know their name or birthday; because life is not measured by the number of breaths you take it is measured by the impact you have left on this world.
Aguilajoyce

Con

Hi!! I do not accept that the meaning of life is to support other life and create change. The argument, or your layout of it, falsely imposes the human characteristics of altruism or selflessness onto nature, without any logical basis. You have erroneously situated the food chain as the end (to support life) and not the means to an end (survival), but according to our scientific and lay apprehension of the world, we know that self-preservation is the driving force behind nature, i.e, the gazelle does not deliver itself up to the lion, the flower does seek out the herd, but rather flees danger, and seeks out sun and nutrients, respectively.

And as far as your stipulation that only living things that support life should live, we have only to use the example of the largest supporters of life on the planet, and that is water and sun. These are not living things and yet without them there would be no life on this planet. Conversely, how would you even justify the concept of death, an end to which all living things move, in a system where the purpose and meaning or end of life is to support life? There must be destructive as well as constructive forces in life.

The motivation for change, or adaptations/mutation/evolution again has survival as its prime motivation, not altruism or the want to be remembered. This is an exaggerated imposition of human traits onto nature. But even as far as humans are concerned, change is inevitable, the individual will change as he evolves/moves toward the end of life. There is no objective measurement for what changes result in one being remembered, or indeed how or when remembrance came to be the primary motivation behind life, or the changes one makes in his life.

And lastly, the number of breaths or changes that people make during their lives have nothing to do with life, which is quantitatively and qualitatively the same. You are either alive, or you are not. There are children who die within a few hours of childbirth, and though they never had the opportunity to support another life or affect change, (beyond their brief time on this earth), it is possible that they will be remembered until the end of some interested party's days...

This was painful...lol.

Thank you very much for your time and attention
Debate Round No. 1
RavenArkBlue

Pro

I see your point about prey not "giving itself up" to its predator, but my point is not about animal or human instinct but more or less why there is life and why life has any point; not whether death supports life. Therefore, wouldn't the only reason life continues be because in the past living things died (not necessarily giving themselves up) to support future life; as well as different species evolving to support life whether they evolved to adapt to climate or to hunt prey or grow food ect.
So, what about the "circle" of life? The supposed "Live, die, and your death supports new life?" What about how everyone dies but their death brings more life to other creatures.
Step back for a moment and think of the population of earth. So, how many people were born on the 12th of January in 2001? How many people love the color red? How many people are married? How many are under the age of 18? Does any of this information matter enough to be considered life's meaning? Now, step back again and think of how many more people are born every day, how quickly the population is expanding, how many new technological advances are happening as you read this; these are reasons we all live, making us more invested in this information than others.
Now, we think of people who are unkind and unrespecting of life and we think of these people lowly, as if they are terrible and sickly. These are people who do not care for others and do not respect life. People who have done amazing things to support the human race though, we remember them kindly and instead of being forgotten they are remembered and have had an impact on future life for the better. Leaving their memory with more respect than that of someone who did not aid in supporting life or advancing our species.
Aguilajoyce

Con

You: I see your point about prey not "giving itself up" to its predator"
Me: Cool
You: but my point is not about animal or human instinct but more or less why there is life and why life has any point; not whether death supports life.
Me: This is understandable, but not your assertion which, was that the Meaning of life is to support life. you go on to say, that there wouldn't be life without this support. I countered by with examples, like the ocean, the water (non-living things that support life. I also asked you where death (a very natural part of life) fits in if the whole point of life is to support other life. I think I have stayed very close to the terms of this argument..(without self-inflicting wounds) And yet you continue to impose your value on the meaning of all life (it'd be okay, if it were just your own) by saying things like:
You: Therefore, wouldn't the only reason life continues be because in the past living things died (not necessarily giving themselves up) to support future life; as well as different species evolving to support life whether they evolved to adapt to climate or to hunt prey or grow food etc.,
Me: Don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful theory, but it doesn't hold up for things like death, or the extinction of species. Life is equally destructive (unsupportive) as it is creative (supporting). That is why the survival of the fittest theory is so prominent.
You: So, what about the "circle" of life? The supposed "Live, die, and your death supports new life?" What about how everyone dies but their death brings more life to other creatures.
Me: So what about how fossil turns into petroleum, or diamonds..these things though valuable, do not necessarily nurture life. Your points are compelling, but to go as far as to say that it is the definitive meaning of life, I believe is a step too far.

You: These are people who do not care for others and do not respect life. People who have done amazing things to support the human race though, we remember them kindly and instead of being forgotten they are remembered and have had an impact on future life for the better. Leaving their memory with more respect than that of someone who did not aid in supporting life or advancing our species.
Me: Oh my gosh.. cruelty marks our memories and our souls, just as much, if not more than kindness...
Yes Ghandi, but also Pol Pot.. Yes Isaac Newton... but also Hitler... and so on
memories, both good and bad stick with us...and this too, I think is a survival mechanism!!!

Thanks for listening
Debate Round No. 2
RavenArkBlue

Pro

RavenArkBlue forfeited this round.
Aguilajoyce

Con

My reponse in round two will suffice as a closing....

Thanks to all for reviewing!!!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by vi_spex 11 months ago
vi_spex
maybe its the purpose of life

a sunrise can be a joyfull sight, and a light to bright can hurt my eyes
No votes have been placed for this debate.