Today,I thought about three basic questions of life for which i dont think anybody has an answer. But we can have a discussion so that i can also pour out my thoughts. My questions are:

What is the beginning(not origin) of life?
What is the end of life?
Why is everything taking place?

Any thoughts!!!!!!!!!

Let us begin with my following replies


The begining of Life for a human being is when s/he starts living in the true sense of the word



When one stops thinking for others, its an end of life for him/her



Everything is taking place in an attempt to induce life into the lives of people

On a more serious note I think I concur with the following lines:



Source: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ECE2/html/beginning_of_life.html

Interesting indeed! Here's my bit

I did a long search on the internet for philosophy of life, the threasd is in the philosophy forum you know

And here is what i found most interesting.

A web Page developed by Masahiro Morioka who is a 50 year old philosopher, a writer, and a professor at Osaka Prefecture University. His works include:

11 books on philosophy and ethics of life.
More than 100 papers and essays
Columns and book reviews in major Japanese Newspapers
Appearances on Educational TV and Radio

The webpage i discovered is entitled: International Network of Life studies.

In this article he says, "The task of philosophy of life is to think deeply about the question, "What is life, death, and nature?" Philosophy of life was a major branch of philosophy in ancient times in Europe and Asia, however, especially in the context of contemporary philosophy, it disappeard from the scene. (The exceptions were vitalism, Nietchze, Bergson, and philosophy of biology). "

" The word "life" has a variety of meanings and implications. For example, human life means not only the state of being alive but also one's journey through life. We believe that life, death, and nature are closely connected with one another."

Intereted? read more

Interesting questions indeed!

You know Pratt, the very fact that you can ask these questions to yourself (along with the rest of the world) is a testimony to the consciousness of the human-brain.

#Now, don't get me wrong here, animal-lovers, for this doesn't imply that animals don't have any consciousness, but I hope that you would agree with me that consciousness is a rare trait in the biosphere, and that not all living-organisms can be called 'conscious' of their survival!

Further, at least some of the humans can be thought to have that trait, and that's why we're discussing this #@*& here!

By my opinion, life, for any organism holds value only when it is aware of itself.
Self-awareness should be the basic criteria for distinguishing between the lively and the lifeless, which could be gauged by reaction to the stimuli (e.g. the reflex-action, like the withdrawal of the limb right after it is poked by a sharp needle)

One measure of gauging the quality of the human-life could be gauging the level of self-consciousness of a person.. which tells us whether one is conscious of one's own existence, and can raise uneasy questions over one's own existence, like:

Why am I here? What was the need for god to create us, if there exists such a thing as the omnipotent god?
Why does this universe exist?

...Food for thought.

I think raghu is confusing consciousness with intelligence. You could have one without the other. The questions that pratt has asked are not clear enough. For example, one interpretation of her first question could be asked by the pro-life lobby who wish to know at what point during pregnancy does it become unethical to abort? Another interpretation could lead us to the theory of evolution that explain how living beings evolved. That line of reasoning is the best for those who are scientifically inclined. Coming back to raghu's musings, I think what is most amazing is that out of several million species only one developed intelligence It is not obvious that it is in anyway useful to us, especially if we were to take ourselves and the whole planet towards extinction.

Here is a link to a slightly related question http://physics101.wordpress.com/2008/07/12/why-there-is-something-and-not-nothing/

Though i said the questions were basic, they are not really. Because when i start thinking about any of the three, a series or a network of questions arises in my mind.
I dont have any answer but questions and more questions as far as this querry is concerned.
My first question doesnt ask about the origin of life as may be taken by biologists ( as said by tarun sir) but its beginning and that restricts it to individual level. If i consider what Hallen sir said, that is applicable for a philanthropist probablyand i dont fall in that category(completely).
A few days back, i was reading english translation of Quran.Though i went through only 20-30 pages,it made me to think . It stated that human life is a n examination for man where in he undergoes several adversities and his attitude ,struggle and honesty decide his life afterwards.
I know ,being a science student, many people here may not take it seriously but then you dont have a scientific answer for the three questions either.

Did you mean to say that only those people who have a lot of worldly assets. money property etc. can be philanthropists? Secondly i really do not understand how my post implies or requires one to be a philanthropist.

Oh, the lure of a happy afterlife Either that or nirvana to rid ourselves of the cycles of birth and rebirth. Existential literature leans towards making of a man through conscious choices, the original having no purpose. If you wish to lead a happy life you might choose any of these depending on your social leanings. Recently I got a mail regarding the memoirs of G. Padmanabhan, an ex-director of IISc. Here are a few excerpts.



I especially like the part where he says that his wife shielded him from domestic chores 'Simple living high thinking', said MK Gandhi, but why? How is quality of your thoughts related to the quality of your life? I my view freedom to choose how to live is very important. If someone were to judge us they should judge us on the quality of our thoughts and actions not on personal details. My friend often tells me the story of how Hitler was extremely nice to his maid who was Jewish. Does that make him any less evil? In our personal conduct we might be angel like, but what matters is the legacy we leave behind. So I would say that how you live matters very little but how people remember you depends a lot on what you have given to them, either in terms of thoughts or otherwise. This is perhaps what hallenrm meant and not some vague notions of philanthropy.

That's precisely was in my mind when i wrote the above post. But, after reading your post fresh ideas have entered my mind Human geings like most animals are social animal. They need a society to survive (live?). So unless an animal (person) makes his existence desirable for the fello living beings its life is soon terminated.

Here's the fascmile of the New Year greetings i received from Savithri Singh (savithri on vimarsh)

one more imust say i missed an intersting talk..

one more question that forget to ask. i think.........why we all are getting a birth?
why we are fighting for saving our human species ........we know every one has to die. ..so why we are so concious about end of our species end ?????????????????????

I dont have an answer to these questions either but as far as the fact that everyone has to die one day is concerned, i can say only one thing :
Yes, everyone has to die one day but not on the same day.Perpetuation is necessary because survival of species is possible.


Then,another question arises that when i know at my individual level that i have to surely die one day,why am i striving for anything in my life?

Today morning, while exploring some documents on scribd, i came across this rather interesting blog by my old friend Bill Allin (builder) Going through it i was reminded of this thread, so here's a part of it