Philosophical Debate on the Purpose of Life

Is There One?

What does the word "verb" mean anyway? Sure it's an action, its something one does, something you do, something that moves. But what if it's transitive? Does it stop being a verb then? Because what is "is" anyway? Bill Clinton ought to know. When one has a hard time describing a word like "verb" in simple terms anyway, why should anyone do better with the meaning of life? It is an incredible concept to wonder about, some philosophers see it as one with religious fervor being all important, some say that the purpose in life is to procreate; some say that it is to make life better for the next generation through discovery and care. This paper will look at these typical arguments and use philosophical arguments to consider the points made by these philosophers.

"Helping Him to make a beautiful world," (6, Walters) is a common thought process on the idea of what the purpose of life is. It is a constant idea for religious fervor. We are here to do God's work but just what does that entail? Does it require going to church? Making movies like the Passion of the Christ? What is the overall purpose? This school of thought is still lacking in that it does not finitely define why this religious fervor is still important. According to Walters, the majesty that is the earth, all the beauty of the rivers and forests are proof of God's existence. Without putting personal interpretation on it, one can still see it is lacking and inconsequential to his overall point. He is legitimizing God but not yet making a philosophical argument about why it is our duty to serve him. He makes the point that if there was creation, it must have been for a higher purpose. Again he has not qualified creation, much less proved a higher need; many create card houses for amusement there is no intrinsic higher purpose in creation. Inayat Khan another religious philosopher believes in the idea of enrighcing our souls. He assumes the idea of a soul in his argument. In the world of philosophy of religion we should hold no "truth to be self-evident" and he clearly does in his argument, thereby making it weak on those grounds alone.