[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Bornsatin

Life as I see it, is the will to exist individually, to grow and reproduce. The word 'will' here is used very literally. It is cruel to it's meaning that you understand what this means.

I highly recommend you study what Schopenhaur wrote about “the World as Will and Representation.”

Originally Posted by Bornsatin

For the sake of argument, a man who spends his own life in solitary confinement and dies, (practically speaking) never mattered at all. No one had to shed tears, and even though materialisticly his absence would've been noticed, that was where it ended. "If a tree fell in the woods and non one heard it, did it make a sound?" That concept is being applied here.

From this we can conclude that life has no 'essential' value. An individual within itself carries no influence without another entity it could influence, which happens to be one of the conditions that have to be satisfied for something to carry value. Hence my life as a person carries no value but our lives as people do. So life holds a 'relative' value. We are important to others is why we are important to ourselves.

Wrong, or rather not necessarily. Life has “no essential value” only from your particular point of view. Which is why I’ve commented earlier that this is not a particularly fruitful philosophy, as it seems to me to be a sure-fire recipe for suicidal depression.

Originally Posted by Bornsatin

So to define the value of a human life, we need something of comparison.

So yes, individual life carries no value. But when two lives relate, as in a relationship.. that has value. And all relations, material and non-material (physical and spiritual) eventually constitute the universal value.

This is where I think you’re getting very confused. You’re talking about something derived possibly from the Taoist concept of dualism, ie, yin-yang, the empirical observation of how every natural phenomenom has an opposite.

But dualism does not in any way suggest that life has no inherent, universal value of its own. It merely proposes the view that where there is life, there is death. Where there is beauty, there is ugliness. Where there is kindness, there is cruelty. One does not define the other. It merely is.

To put it another way, before you can truly “live”, you need to accept death. To understand beauty, you need to know what is ugly. So on and so forth. This by no means imply that your life is meaningless. It’s merely a suggestion of how to live in acceptance of the Way (Tao).

Originally Posted by Bornsatin

-Now Metaphysically, all humans should be able to go around killing each other without consequences, the strongest survive and form a most efficient and positive community till they eventually die out an somewhere out there in the billion stars, an alien specie replaces us. But that would be an eugenic concept and that is ethically wrong.

-Ethically speaking, taking another life is a crime, a sin, it's not against human nature but it's against the natural law that governs the human nature. That nature should left alone to do it's own job, eventually and naturally kill this human. (although some would consider murder that too)

Ofcourse they need to be punished for them to 'learn' a lesson but there is no gurantee to this, so we end up ruining another human life so other's can feel safer.. a selfish motive? Is that ethical? I'm quite honestly ambivalent.

I think you’ve completely misunderstood what it means to be “metaphysical”.

Quoting from Wikipedia:
“Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science.”

In other words, metaphysics is what happens before physics. It’s when philosophers try to think about the rules that existed prior to physical reality.

Epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge, is required for almost any discussion on metaphysics. Basically, epistemology is that branch of philosphy where we study what we can know.

There is one view that there are concepts that exist outside of our reality (absolute rules), and that we can “know” some of these concepts through rational thought alone. There is the opposing view that it is ultimately pointless to ask about these concepts, because it is humanly impossible for us to “know” these concepts. That’s because these phenomena lie outside of human experience (what we cannot verify through our physical senses, we cannot know).

What you’ve described about “humans should be able to go around killing each other without consequences” has nothing to do with metaphysics at all. Instead, you’re talking about Ethics. Or, to put it more directly, you’ve merely expressed one out of many possible ethical systems, based on your subjective opinion that life is essentially meaningless (which I strongly disagree).

======

So, back to square one. What you’ve been wanting to discuss all along is really about Ethics, not Metaphysics. You’re looking for a way to think about “meaning” in life. And you’ve got yourself horribly confused in the process.

As I’ve suggested earlier, read more. As someone else has already commented, you’re chasing shadows.

You’re clearly someone who is interested in such matters of philosophy, but you’ll get nowhere by thinking in isolation — other thinkers have explored the same issues you’re thinking about, and they’ve covered the ground in far greater detail than I can possibly explain. You’ll make a lot more progress by doing further research on your own.

Good luck. I think you have potential, but you need to work at it. No one else can help clear up your thoughts for you.