14 Answers

  1. There are three completely different questions here:

    1. The question of the meaning of life is beyond the competence of science, since science is concerned with the analysis of what exists, phenomena, and meaning is rather what should exist, or what the existing thing strives for. Science doesn't deal with goals, science deals with causes. But science (for example, cultural studies) can tell in detail what ideas about the meaning of life existed in different epochs and cultures, how they changed, and how they were applied in life. But to give you a concrete answer to the question of what is the meaning of your life, science can not, and should not.

    2. The situation is similar to the first one: good and evil are not related to phenomena, but rather a certain assessment of phenomena as “desirable/approved” (good) and ” undesirable/rejected “(evil). Science does not deal with prescriptions – “you need to do this and that”, it describes what already exists. This is roughly the same situation as the difference between a lawyer and a legislator: a lawyer should not evaluate laws as correct or incorrect, but rather study those laws that have already been adopted. But the legislator is the one who corrects laws or even creates new ones, naturally, he should have an idea of which laws are needed and which ones should be repealed. A scientist can study morality – but again, from the point of view of how it already exists, what are the moral concepts, how they relate to each other, and so on.

    3. But with beauty, everything is a little different: in fact, to explain why this or that picture, or symphony, or poem is beautiful – any art critic of the appropriate specialization can cope with this. Because all these areas have their own canons and traditions: in painting-composition, color compatibility, perspective, chiaroscuro, in music – fret structure, harmony, rhythm, melisms, and so on. These are quite objective, often even measurable characteristics. But here's what's interesting: an art critic can easily explain why this particular painting or sculpture was recognized by everyone as a genius (if it's already recognized), but when he comes across something fundamentally new, it's extremely difficult to guess in advance whether it will become a genius or not. In other words, the scientist is more likely to correctly explain why it is considered a genius, but cannot say whether it will be considered a genius in the future. And, of course, an excellent knowledge of the laws of perspective, composition and working with color does not make an art critic a brilliant artist – you need something else, but what exactly-no one knows…

  2. Science can and should provide optimal answers to all these questions, and science has already provided rational answers. There is nothing extremely complicated in these matters.

    All questions of this kind have infinitely many stages of deepening into the topic-from the minimum / initial deepening to the full Truth.

  3. Conceptual and Gnostic philosophy of the Queen of Sciences. Life has not been and will not be, it only exists, this requires people only to accept it as a fact, and not to explain it.

  4. Science cannot answer many questions solely because of its applied nature. Science is simply not designed to answer many questions. All the main questions were answered by our God and Savior Christ on the pages of the Gospel!

  5. Science can't answer that. Even Chelloweck can't explain exactly what a beautiful picture is for him. Science is the subject of accurate statements, so it's funny to hear about the imminent power of AI. Robots learned how to risk, smear on the bummag and compose poems? Funny. What's even funnier is that what we think of as art, for the soulless machine, is just mussolini and deviations from harmony. Chelloweck is generally a misunderstanding. How he survived. How does he even live if he is so powerless that in 99.9 cases he should have been born and died long ago? So the answer to what is Good is correctly expressed by the neural network. Good is the death of all humanity.

  6. Science is not a philosophy, science answers specific questions.

    Science can answer the question of why most people like such and such pictures. (psychology)

    Science can answer that from the point of view of biology, our bodies are necessary for survival and reproduction. (theory of evolution)

    Science can find a moral strategy that will benefit you in a particular society or the whole society.(selfishness is good for you, but if everyone is selfish, it will be bad. Better cooperation. – game theory, social sciences)

    Science can tell why people tend to help each other (egoistic gene, etc. – behavioral biology)

  7. Think for yourself. How can science answer such a fundamentally personal and subjective question about the meaning of life? This is not a derivative formula that will be the same for everyone, no matter what a person is. The answer to this question strictly depends on the person himself, on his views and on how superficially (or vice versa, highly) he judges. There is a parable about three workers who built the temple. They were moving bricks in a wheelbarrow and they were asked: “What are you doing?” One of them said that he transports bricks, the second – earns money, the third – builds a church. Everyone answered differently, although in fact they were doing the same thing. And we also live on the same planet, in the same world. But this question can only be answered by ourselves if we want it to be true.

  8. As long as science does not recognize morality as a scientific category and does not study it, it will not be able to answer this question.

    And modern psychology is far from the subject that it should study – the psyche (soul), because of its exclusively materialistic approach. It is necessary to study everything, considering it in duality.

  9. Your question concerns the emotional sphere of human existence. Science, by definition, is outside the realm of emotion. Example. All the scientific geniuses of the 20th century participated in the preparation of nuclear weapons. They did this “for the sake of science” (as Welles well showed in the excellent warning novel “The Liberated World”). And when the bombs exploded over Japan, and the Soviet thermonuclear bomb exploded over Severnaya Zemlya, these bastards (I'm talking about Einstein, Sakharov, Oppenheimer, Khariton, etc.) suddenly felt remorse, began to protest, write protest letters, and dance on the potty… Why-after? They didn't know what they were doing? Then they belong in a madhouse, and they are called geniuses. But because science has nothing to do with the categories of emotions. Morals, morals, ethics – not for these assholes. And you ask about beauty, painting. they don't know what good and evil are. Only when thousands of people are reduced to ashes do they open their eyes.

  10. Science cannot give an answer to the question of the meaning of the existence of Life, because of its weakness.

    This question is answered by the science of “Understanding the Word”or, in church parlance, the Word.

    The answer is: LIFE is a set of measures that, due to its existence, do not give rest to the MIND. They force the MIND to take actions aimed at self-improvement and development.

  11. As Yulia correctly answered, evolutionary biology has already answered the first question: the meaning of life is eternal life, which is possible only by filling new ecological niches to insure against all sorts of disasters in the old ones.

    And this is a strictly scientifically proven fact. A vivid and accessible description can be found, for example, in A. Markov's lectureThe evolution of cooperation and altruism: from bacteria to humans. There are also links to more detailed materials with proofs, for example, “Hamilton's rules”, which mathematically accurately describes the relationship between relatives through evolutionary expediency.

    In the case of humans, the meaning of life is the dissemination and development of genetic and cultural heritage. A particular person, accordingly, has a fairly wide choice of the meaning of life: children, security, science, art. Here, by the way, development is an increase in the ability to spread (adaptability), which makes it possible to populate a new habitat (the same Alpha Centauri).

    The answer to the rest of the questions follows from the first: good is something that in the long term contributes to the spread and development, evil is selfishness and shortsightedness. Beautiful is what is harmonious (corresponds to the purpose).

    The problem is that selfishness allows you to quickly get undeserved pleasures and therefore so quickly corrupts the human character (soul). As a result, these scientific discoveries are not popular with those in power of all four branches and young people who are generally inclined to selfishness (hence the eternal conflict between fathers and children). And scientists have to justify themselves verbosely that, despite the rigorous evidence, they did not even think of attacking the prevailing ideology, as, for example, Dawkins crumbles into excuses in the book The Selfish Gene.

  12. I can't say that my words are correct, but it seems to me that the meaning of life from the point of view of science is in its eternal continuation. This is if we perceive life as an eternal process, and not as a separate life of an individual, which begins with the birth and ends with the death of this individual. As for the meaning of the life of this particular individual, he comes up with it for himself, based on his perception of the world, moral attitudes, values, habits, and so on and so forth. And nowhere is anything predestined and no one has any fateful destiny. Here everything depends on the person.

    The concept of good and evil, in my opinion, appeared when people who occupy lower positions in primitive society (the elderly, the sick, the weak) wanted to live just like everyone else (in general, in fact, I think, they always wanted to live like everyone else, here just finally some weak, but at the same time smart, individual suddenly figured out what to do for this). Then they came up with a moral to somehow make the stronger ones respect the weaker ones. It was all explained by religion. Here, they say, do not kill your fellow man, love your neighbor, respect the elderly, because God will punish you otherwise. And so, over the centuries, “good” and “evil”were formed.

    But about art I can't say anything definite, the topic is unknown to me.

  13. As long as people are engaged in assigning concepts to a certain specific person, whom these concepts cannot have, until then, you can turn these concepts as you want to do it.�

    Science can't have a happy face. Science is not a living thing. Science is an abstract concept that exists as a generalization of the activities of scientists who accumulate information about the world around them and use it to solve current problems.

    If we take into account that the most generalized understanding of the word “science” is divided into less generalized branches, which are also called “sciences”, then it turns out that what one science can answer, another will not answer, and vice versa.

    That is, each science has its own sector of questions that it is designed to answer.

    So you should have a more accurate understanding of the different meanings of words (including the word “science”) and therefore try to ask questions more correctly, so that there is no unnecessary confusion.

    Another point is that, according to their specifics, different sciences have a different form of representation of the same phenomena – a kind of separate language. Thus, if you try to answer the same question with the help of different sciences, the answers will most likely be expressed using different forms, “languages”, and meanings.

    Therefore, the sciences can answer that, but will these answers suit you and will you understand them? “that's the question.

  14. I don't think so. Science is too rational in its approach to this type of question. The person is too subjective. As for the meaning of life, we may not yet be able to understand it. Whether it is too simple, as we see, this is some kind of catch, or it remains incomprehensible or unknowable at this stage due to our development. The concepts of good and evil are relative and situational. And art can be called everything man-made and not-made, seen or heard. Art is a subjective understanding of reality.

Leave a Reply