I would like to call a false premise here (emotion has or must have a function), but will give the you benefit of the doubt anyway. As I understand it, the function of emotion is the function of the will. Without emotion, there is no desire to act, and so no action may take place. Ergo, no will. I move across the room purely because it was preferable to me as a will. So, asking me about the function of emotion is essentially asking me about the function of existence. I am my emotion. I have no function that I do not give myself. It only follows that my emotion is a function of my will. Its function is to motivate me to do any such thing, and that is all. I do not believe that there is any real purpose to life for many reasons. Foremost among these is the existence of the will. It is assumed that I am an individual will, and that I give myself things to do in this world. The fact that I am typing right now, or, more central to the point, thinking of these words right now makes the alternative impossible. At least from my side of things. No one else decides my actions for me. My purpose is my own in this way. But, that purpose would really only be a goal. And the value that I place on that goal is what matters here. You see, I hold that life has value and meaning, but no purpose. Purpose denotes a future act or promise. Because of the existence of the will, no such things can exist, and you are left only with the value that life holds at any one moment. If people in general have a purpose, it would clearly be for all to be able to get what they wanted at the same time, or for them all to hold the same value on each individual life itself unanimously. Whether everyone regarded life as dirt or as sacred, if they all valued it in the same way, then all would be happy with the outcome that it brought. That is life's purpose to me. And it is boring. PS: P asked these in Voxli, for anyone who was wondering. Sorry for not mentioning that earlier.
Well, I counted the word Function 8 times in the first answer, and emotion 6 times. :3 Gosh, I don't know why I did that. I would answer the first question quite simply: Emotion defines us. It's what makes us unique and unites us. Without it, this world would be so boring that we wouldn't even realise. For the second question, I found this quite a good answer to it: "There is no meaning to our world. There is no meaning to those of us living there. We meaningless beings ponder the world, Though the realisation of meaninglessness itself means nothing."
Maybe so, but I still can't read something like that at this moment. Maybe at some other time. If I even remember.
For the most part, I agree with your assessment on emotion. I don't quite get the angle you're using for the purpose of life though.
That is understandable. Maybe I was not coherent enough... If man is to have one general purpose, that purpose is to be as happy as possible as often as possible. Or, more to the point, to get what he wants the most all of the time. This is because of my will argument made earlier. I should counterpoint other arguments on the meaning of life, such as something put in place by a god.... If there were a god and he decided a purpose for me, it would be meaningless in the face of my own meaning in my life. Any external meaning or goal is useless, because meaning and value are clearly subjective to who is viewing it. If you tell me that my purpose is to do a certain thing, I may laugh at you. The same would be true if you were a god. This is because you decide your purpose, and I decide mine. Who decides your purpose, if you decide mine for me? You? Well then, as we are both wills, why do I not decide my own as well? We are both self aware minds and we are equal in that. And, of course, my goal in life is to satisfy myself. This would be true if I wanted to practice direct hedonism or found my satisfaction in helping others; either way, I do things purely because I want to, or because that action satisfies me the most out of the options that I see as available to me at the time. Notice that even if you claim to do something in the name of some greater purpose, it pleases you to do it, and that this is why you do it, and not because it really was your purpose. It is always you who chooses your path even if you choose to follow someone else, or think that you are. Back to the earlier point; because it is generalized, this would mean that everyone would have to be happy or get what they want, and that happiness could not be at the expense of others, because they would be included in the generalized example. If many are happy at the expense of some, then what was the purpose of those some? To be victims for the 'greater purpose'? I think not. In order for all people to have a purpose, that purpose must apply to all equally. So, all people must be happy at the same time. This can only happen when all people hold the same value on each life or thing in the group. This means that if there are two people in the group, and one of them hates himself, and the other hates the one who hates himself, then they can both be happy with whatever outcome such hatred brings. If the one kills the other, then the one who was killed wanted to be killed, and the one who killed him wanted him killed. It all works out. The same values make for the same happiness. And I hold that such an outcome would be boring. Is that clear enough for you, or do I need to elaborate more? Sorry for all of the confusion.
Aha, I see the direction you're coming from now. Yeah, I agree with the first paragraph there. Not so much the second. I think it's reasonable that some people are sacrificed for others. That is why I use the purpose 'strive to be as happy as possible as often as possible" instead. It shifts the importance from the result to the method, and allows for a different interpretation to yours.
