if you know

The consequence of all life may be death but the goal?  If this is the case I've been wasting my time.

From a biological standpoint I'd say that the goal of all life is simply to propagate your genes, and from a humanist one to live your life in such a way that you have a net positive effect on the well being of others.

I was thinking the same thing-- goal is definitely the wrong word to be applied just because there's a fixed outcome.  I also agree that if "life" has a goal, it is for "living" entities to make more copies of whatever particular combination of atoms constitute their corporal form. Our species likes to get tangled up with philosophical foofah with respect to our existence, but, to our knowledge, anyway, most life forms on this planet don't give a hoot about that.

We are but slaves to our immortal genes.

To enjoy the sun?

It's 9:35pm!  And it was raining when I was outside trying to play tennis

Why does there have to be a "point"?  This is part of the foofah I was talking about that many people (most?) apply to a question that I don't see as requiring it.  What is the point of the evaporation/consensation cycle for a fluid?  There isn't one-- that's just the way things work.  Just because a species has attained self-awareness and its members can distinguish between activities they enjoy and activities they don't enjoy doesn't mean there was or will be some point to their existence.

Some people have no problem with the idea of a lack of a "point to it all" or overall end purpose, and yet still pursue "purposeful" existences while they're around.  Others are uncomfortable with that apparent dichotomy and seek to apply or invent some rationale they think gives them some special reason for living.  Many of the second type make the error of thinking that any who don't share their need for a grand purpose must therefore feel no reason to live, and are thus amoral, or untrustworthy, or whatever. The worst are the people who reach that conclusion and seek to either convert or eliminate the different thinkers-- we see examples of this all the time in various events from around the planet.

>The ultimate point of life seems utterly bereft of meaning.  When the sun fizzles out, what has been the point of life??

I don't believe there's a point -- I think the notion is rather superfluous.  Schools of thought about how best to live, yes, but not because there's any grand design.  Anything that remotely resembles a "meaning of life" is most assuredly an abstract construction of man. 

Especially the Monty Python version. 

Precisely -- as I alluded to earlier: every sperm is sacred.

I did start a topic for this type of discussion called "Absolute truth is..." 

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/absolute-truth-is

if anyone would care to add to the few comments made there already...it would be appreciated: my initial prompt was: 

"While reading portions of Frank Brady's excellent biography 'Bobby Fischer' (1974 UK ed.) I came across the phrase "the truth of the board" (p.268 final page).

It got me thinking as to what we perceive to be 'truth'. We see reflections of truth in a number of ways, e.g. the precision of mathematical formulae and scientific discovery, the harmony of music, the transcendent beauty of a beautiful painting or a brilliant game of chess, etc... they all contain elements of 'truth'. But how would we define the essence of truth in a few words?"

Point taken oh BorgQueen, but it has kind of gone the route of "meaning of life" and all that. Anyway, just thought I'd mention it for the philosophers.

Then is the idea that there is no meaning to life not also an "abstract construction of man?" The answer is, yes it is. So, it is logical to assume that there is a point. It really is confusing when you make the argument that an ideal was created by man, therefore has no merit, yet you choose to believe in another man-made ideal. Quite contradictory.

It's suspicious. What can man know? Besides, if both ideals were invented by man, which would you rather believe: the possibility of an actual greater purpose to life, or that life is meaningless? People choose different sides. I chose the one that puts a purpose in life other than reproduction.

Lastly, I think we all miss the point. We could discuss this subject for a lifetime and still gain no additional knowledge or 'wisdom', what say you, that would aid us in the search for truth. In my opinion, it's an endlessly pointless topic. Of course, my opinion doesn't mean too much, I guess.

You hit the nail on the head.  Most people go with what they would rather believe, because even the possibility of an alternative makes them uncomfortable. This is why they assign adjectives such as "greater" (as in greater purpose) to their own viewpoint-- any other belief is by their definition lesser or lower.  When it comes to this type of topic, a lot of people can't fathom the idea that others are perfectly comfortable with different conclusions.

This topic is so awesome that my mind cannot perceive its awesomeness!

Sorry about that.  I keep forgetting you're in charge.

Just speculating:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that we all partake in the forum of a website for a man-made game called 'chess'. Right? Right. Glad to see we agree. Anyways, the depth of this game, 'chess', is far deeper than human comprehension. So, why bother discussing it? For pleasure? Sure. Why not? So, cannot one take pleasure in discussing philosophy? Sure, even if one cannot understand it, one can still take pleasure in discussing philosophy. {Though, I would personally choose a different subject, I do think this topic can be appropriate in this forum if people allow it to be so.}

I made my point. Although, it might be strange to be discussing philosophy in a thread titled "if you know" by our favorite famous philosopher, kurogkug. Just saying. 

The purpose of all life is to make my life more enjoyable and, let me tell you, nobody is doing a very good job. You can all make amends by sending donations to....

 lol!!

I think I'd draw a distinction here between choosing to believe in something and choosing not to believe in something.  They are not so equivalent as you suggest -- lack of a  "greater purpose" is not a man-made ideal -- it is, in fact, a lack of a man-made ideal so there is no contradiction at all.

When you put it that way, BorgQueen, I concur.