The Meaning of Life

An interesting take on an obviously insurmountable task – the view that humanity is a scourge on the planet is a widely-held one and it has some validity, but I think James is right to challenge this and take the more optimistic view that most people are good at heart; the profound problem isn’t that there are too many people on the planet – for starters, as recent studies have shown we produce more than enough food to provide for everyone – but that the 1%, the rich and powerful, are the cancer at the heart of the species who want everything for themselves.

When I was asked recently what I thought the meaning of life was I responded, “to search for the meaning of life”. It gives me more time to think of a proper answer.

Advertisements

4 responses to “The Meaning of Life

  1. James is a supercilious self-important twat.
    He’s right that Humanity has value, but I couldn’t stand to hear him unctuating on about it for another 26 minutes.
    His ignorance in using Bill Hicks as a proponent of ‘Humanity is a cancer’ was truly phenomenal. I mean, sure, Bill had his cynical days [and that clip was an example of his cynical humour] but, remembering some of his poetic diversions into philosophy, he was full of love for the human race. No doubt.

    I prefer ‘mould on an apple’ as an analogy for Humanity’s less savoury role on the planet. But a fascinating and beautiful mould, with such potential surprises as becoming, as a species, immortal [we need to leave this planet for this to be possible].

    Inventing the beauty of the idea of beauty. Life itself is a miracle. Humanity is the epitome of that miracle. Incomplete, of course, and in danger of self-destruction, and precious beyond compare.

    As to the ‘meaning’, by which he seems to mean ‘purpose’ …. possibly life is it’s own purpose. The goal of life is to continue living, or to personify, the goal of Life is to live. The goal of all Life.

    • orwellwasright

      Supercilious twat is a bit harsh, don’t you think? Don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge fan of Bill Hicks and agree completely that the clip used isn’t a benchmark for Hicks’ position on humanity, but I think Corbett was using it more as an example of the ideology of “humans as a cancer” than as an attack on Hicks per se. By the same token, I like a lot of what Joe Rogan has to say, and as I said in the blurb under the video I think there’s some validity to the idea that we’re a “destructive species” – I just happen to agree with James that this is misrepresented as being something we all exhibit when the reality is, as we’ve both said, that it is the 1% rich and powerful who are the ones who exhibit the cancerous traits.

      I think you agree with Corbett more than you realise on this one but have been irked by what you perceive as an attack on/misrepresentation of how Hicks felt about the issue. I like Corbett a lot – more for the information he provides than for him as a personality, to be sure. I think he’s committed to searching for the truth more than most in the alternative media.

  2. Postscript: The 1% are causing most of the human race to act like a virus or cancer. By promoting competition for life they undermine the security we should all now be able to enjoy.

    • orwellwasright

      Quite – through cultural conditioning and propaganda you could argue that many folk have become sort of “secondary psychopaths” just through the act of conforming to the ideology of materialism and the ego.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s