Analyst - Consultant, WNS Global Services

This conversation is closed.

What is the most prominent duty of every human being?

I think, the most prominent purpose of every human being is to find out the ULTIMATE TRUTH. Ultimate Truth is the truth of creation of universe. This fact is like something we can not imagine even however we have to find it out. Many theories are revealed on this issue such as Big Bang Theory. But question remains unanswered are ---
what was there before the Big Bang incident?
Is the sky really unlimited?
If yes, How unbelievably unlimited huge the cosmos is?

These are prominent because if we dont know the reasoning of our existence, we will not deserve to be prideful of our life. After this purpose, the next would be to become a generous and a Great Human being. This is undoubtedly very very difficult, but we can not ignore it. Rather than accepting we are weak to find it out, we should put efforts in it.

The first purpose is more difficult to achieve, so we should work on the second purpose, accomplish it and turn to the first purpose.

And always remember that the first purpose is more important because if we failed in it, we will die ignorant.

  • Aug 30 2011: To leave the world in a better state better than you found it in - just like house-sitting :D
  • Aug 29 2011: to make a difference in the world. or to effect one person you really care about in a positive way.
  • Sep 1 2011: Hi Mr. Nandrekar. ?? You would like feed back on the ultimate truth? You really want a debate, yes? Humans are killing each other over your very question. " The reasoning of our existence". With all the respect to your question. Humans need one thing, in this day and age. That is to simply to EXIST and stop questioning the ultimate! Alas, it will not happen. We humans will destroy our own kind. It will be the religious against the other religious. I will bet my last $$$, "we will die ignorant" With Respect to You!! We do not stand chance in hell. ( i don't even believe in hell)
  • thumb
    Aug 30 2011: I think (because I am not sure) my first duty is to live my life fully.
    My second duty would be to support that in everyone that I can.
    • Sep 3 2011: I guess, Live life means it would have some Goal. We are talking here about the Goals.

      Well I understood, your second duty and I agree with it as its the second duty according to me as well.
  • Aug 30 2011: I believe that the most prominent duty of everyone is to help less fortunate people around the world, educate yourself and others and to stand for human rights (freedom, equality) of others? I think this duty comes from the fact that in the past many people scarified their lives in order for some of us to have freedom and better life today.

    As others mentioned our duty should also be to preserve life and nature on the Earth for future generations.

    I support scientific research and search for truth but I am not sure if that search needs to be duty of every human being?
    • Sep 3 2011: Thank you very much for your comments..

      Your opinion is truly inevitable. However my point is as the first duty of searching the ultimate Truth is quite difficult, we should become a good human being keeping the ultimate truth in mind.

      This is important because, we should not die ignorant of the truth...........
  • Aug 30 2011: "I think, the most prominent purpose of every human being is to find out the ULTIMATE TRUTH"

    How do you suggest to pursue this target?
    • Sep 3 2011: I noted in my initial comments, ---
      "The first purpose is more difficult to achieve, so we should work on the second purpose, accomplish it and turn to the first purpose."
      So the first purpose is to do something positive and welfare for the society. ....
      Although we died ignorant, we should died being a proud Human being.......

      I am not enough Great to suggest what we can do to find Ultimate Truth.. Still I would say, as we are not scientists, we should probably work on the second duty to become a problem-solving prideful Human being?
  • thumb
    Aug 30 2011: More important than knowing it all is to love one another and keeping from judgments about other people as well as yourself.

    My view on the answers you seek can be found under the question of Juan. Maybe you like it?
    • Aug 30 2011: I wouldn't resort to god just yet... Strictly logically speaking if something is not observable it is correct to presume it does not exist - like if I had a dragon or googol (1x10^100) dollars in my basement, would you automatically take it as truth if you hadn't seen it? It would certainly make deception easy :P

      Believeing that something like "god" exists is simply a human need, however you define it. Also what is your precise definition of word "god" ? I would only agree if definition of "god" would be some underlining pattern, not a deity or "person looking from above" (anyway what the hell is that supposed to mean, just because it's in placed in direction opposite to that of gravitational pull on person standing on planet earth [oh how ignorant were people ~2000 years ago] it doesn't make it any more significant, and it would either suggest earth is center of the universe - which it's not, or god is outside of edge of observable universe if that statement does not hold only on earth - that would also make it casually disconnected from us due to speed-of-light-limitations, thus it would not have any direct effect on us and it would be pointless of argue about it's existence in the first place).

      There's an article on brain differences found between believers in god and non believers:
      • thumb
        Aug 30 2011: Hi Mr. I've read the article end it looks to me that the conclusion they draw from the results is speculative. It is very much possible that the difference they found in the believing group was the cause of their choice to believe and not the other way round. It is thinkable that those kind of brains won't ponder about things a lot if they are commonly accepted. The other group want to check things out and aren't that easy satisfied.

        About your comment I will add that the earth is the centre of the universe even as you are and I, as anyone is. There's no place that's not the center or you may say that there is no centre. And about the creator I will add that if there's a creation isn't that creation not part of that creator. If we call that creator God, Zeus, Brahma, Allah or something else it would not change that creator. That creator would be still be 'what is' because that was created. To be or not to be that's the question. It is as simple as difficult to comprehend. To know the light of consciousness is knowing yourself because that's what you as anyone always was and will be. You are the creator. (Not that one you think you are but the one you really are.)
        • Aug 30 2011: I don't think it's speculative in any way. It's pretty straight-forward results are consiquence of their belief as you have said. Yes but they found correlation with errors on multiple tasks, so it might be even benificial to some point to believe some deity exists. Lack of brain activity which is related to error making may also be damaging to their learning process - which may be mechanism fueling their belief.

          If universe is finitely large, finitely old and roughly symmetrical in shape (observations suggest that), then it would make sense to define it's center [at some point of time] (maybe mass center, or geometrical,...)- which I find very hard to believe would be on earth in you or in me). How do you even know it is a creation - maybe it's spontaneous process. Even IF creator existed, I believe we have no reason or right to build complex theories about it without any observational evidence, and share/enforce predictions of those theories with anyone - it's all theory/speculation of the highest order (but that's what organised religions do anyway). I suggest you to look at Occam's razor:'s_razor It is a concept which basically states: given same data/evidence, simplest theory/hypothesis - the one which makes as little assumptions as possible, is the one most likely to be correct.

          Okay, so let's get to cognition now: Basically your brain generates reality for you, so your brain is thus creator of everything (for you). But I'm not really interested in my reality or yours (they are both probably flawed), I'm more interested in reality that vast majority of people have in common and can observe.
      • thumb
        Aug 31 2011: MR. It is not logical to assume that something does not exist simply because you are not observing it. It does not exist for you but it may exist as you cannot observe everything at once.
      • thumb
        Aug 31 2011: Mr. If you look for reality you won't find it outside of you. I think that I went too many steps too fast. And here isn't the place to spell it all out. What I suggest is to flex the mind a bit to become able to see without falling into fixed patterns.

        About space: imagine that all measure, size, distances all were doubled in the blink of an eye, would there have anything been changed? And when it halved, and over and over a billion times would it change anything. What matters is only the proportionality between all parts including the observer.

        Do you have any recollection of a dream where you occupied any space? Where was the center, where the boundaries. In reality there is no such thing as an object versus a subject it is all interconnected.

        The human mind separated his being by identification with the thinking process and hereby pointed at the generator of that thinking with the words: "That's me. I am". The 'I' that he pointed at is just a fractal of his being. It is the operator as is the radio being the transmitter of the program.
        • Aug 31 2011: @Helen Hupe

          It is logically correct. Maybe you don't understand logic. You cannot possibly observe everything at once, but before you observe something it is more correct to say it's not there (according to binary logic). You can always say with some confidence level that If you did not observe something in certain context (time, space) it does not exist. If you always presume "everything exists (I don't think it's even possible to comprehend word everything)", you don't get anywhere do you?

          @Frans Kellner

          Okay maybe very generally speaking not. I believe we are going into existencialism debate now. I simply presume what my brain generates and "what other's brains seem to generate in my brain" is true, and I draw my conclusions based on those artifacts. It is however possible we live in very advanced computer simulation after all - one so advanced we cannot tell it apart from "real world" - whatever is that supposed to mean :P It probably depends in what context do you take it. If absolutely everything - all relations as you call them would mathemathically double or halve we would be unable to observe it - but why would we even care if that ever happened? I also don't see how proportionality between all parts suits as valid argument against "mass/geometric center of the universe" here, except if it's meant to be presented as fact - but we alreadly know all we care is about relations. I'm not sure how exactly the word "space" was meant, can you clarify that? I guess, in my dreams, I was often fully aware of concept of "space" (as in most general term we currently know - universe). Center was some "point I imagined" in abstract geometrical center of the universe, I precieved boundaries to be analogue of open set from topology (I also had fairly realistic dreams of doing linear algebra few times :P). "In reality there is no souch thing as..." I think you are in contradiction here - there cannot possibly exist two realities (your subjective and some "external")
        • Aug 31 2011: There is only one reality, if there is not, system is not logically consistent. I don't think any distinction can be made between human mind and preception of "being". "Being" is merely an artifact of human brain function.
        • Sep 2 2011: Mr Anonymouse,
          You are going to have to provide me with the actual logic you are using. With all due respect, research logic if necessary.
          Logical statement:
          If it is observed, then it exists. It is observed, thus it exists.
          Not logical:
          If it is observed, then it exists. It is not observed, thus it does not exist.

          Are you arguing that there is no absolute truth- that there is only relative truth defined by our interpretations of our observations? If so, are we not free to interpret our observations however we like?

          Is this your argument?
          If it I not observe it, then it is not true. I have not observed god, thus god does not exist.

          I've never actually seen a hammerhead shark. Does that mean that they don't exist?
      • Sep 2 2011: Observability is not a requirement for existence. Did planets around other stars not exist until we observed phenomena that suggest that they do? Atoms were named such because it was believed they could be divided no further.
        • Sep 2 2011: Physically true, but logically speaking it is. We did not know they orbit around other stars thus it was correct for us to assume by observations (or lack of them) done at a time that they don't orbit other stars - as we had not seen any. However, now we now know they do, intentional observations lead us to those conclusions. Souch reasoning has so far proved very successful. So I'll assume god does not exist and it is artifact of human mind, created in humans lacking the ability to comprehend some aspects of reality, rather than the opposite, based on current lack of any kind of evidence. It is currently most logical explaination. But it depends how you define god in the first place, I'm referring to it in this reply as any deity that is capable of influencing us anyhow - as most people believe it. Regarding atoms, I believe definitions should get regularly updated, so we don't drag unneccesary logical/historical nonsense with them. Same goes with language, which I unfortunately find illogical and self-contradictory...
        • Sep 3 2011: Actual logic where exactly?

          Assuming on observability issue: If something can be repetadly observed by vast majority of different subjective observers, then it it true (vast majority because some people are unable to: blindness, mental disorders - delusions). If vast majority of you/them do not or can not observe something, it does not exist.

          I'm arguing with different types of logic (binary logic, fuzzy logic, bayesian logic) and viewing on world (statistical probability[objective], bayesian probability[subjective]), as persons arguing me use them as well (knowingly or unknowingly) thus I'm not consistent troughout my whole argument, but in context of arguments regarding single examples of those logics I am.

          Yes, god does not exist for me and I don't think I can observe it because I have good, more probable alternative theory which does not support it's actual existence. However I would be willing to consider any valid evidence/observations which would prove it's existence and maybe change my mind, but I'll keep things less complicated until that happens.

          Yes, hammerhead shark does not exist for you i.e you cannot prove it's existence without observation (observation being any interaction with enviroment not only visual), but you can assume it exists (because you heard many sources claiming so - and some are reliable) and undoubtedly prove it's existence with observation at "local aquarium" - if you like (don't believe your eyes?) you can escalate it and make hand contact with it, or go even further and become it's food. It's up to you how far you want to go with it to believe something exists.
  • Sep 7 2011: To serve each other in good ways and treat all people as no less than human, in other words be a good person to mankind.
  • thumb

    E G

    • 0
    Sep 6 2011: Buddha said something very interesting about the ULTIMATE TRUTH , I guess you know that : the illumination.
    • Sep 17 2011: No.. unfortunately I dont know.. Please let me know what did he say?

      What is illumination?
  • thumb
    Sep 4 2011: Well I have no idea how my car works. I'd be a nice goal to take everything apart one day and find out how I've managed to drive around all this time...
    But I really have so much places I'd rather be than in my garage.
    So as long as I know a little about it, that it's not moving to please me, that it's not controlled by a man in the sky with a remote, I"ll be safe on the roads and I won't be fooled by the mechanics.
  • Sep 3 2011: Hi Tishe,

    Thanx for your expressing your opinion. Your opinion moves around the fact 'To find the Ultimate Truth is the very difficult or rather most difficult.
    I noted in my initial comments, ---
    "The first purpose is more difficult to achieve, so we should work on the second purpose, accomplish it and turn to the first purpose."
    So the first purpose is to do something positive and welfare for the society. ....
    Although we died ignorant, we should died being a proud Human being.......
    the next would be to become a generous and a Great Human being.
    And always remember that the first purpose is more important because if we failed in it, we will die ignorant.
  • Sep 2 2011: I would argue that the most prominent duty of every human being is to relate to ourselves, our world, and each other with respect, kindness, understanding, and compassion.
  • thumb
    Aug 31 2011: 1. Every human being is unique and born with a special purpose.Our first duty is to define our lives,our goals and then work toward it with full efforts.

    2.Accquiring good education,knowledge and skills....and spread it among others follow humans.

    2.We should always work l towards making our life better thereby helping others to make their life better
    3.Helping the people.

    4. Being united and peacefull.
  • Aug 30 2011: I agree with you that our duty is to discover not only just the answers to the questions you listed but thousands more. I think more importantly than that our duty is to inspire future generations and our peers to have the same passion for discovery. I think that discovering the "Ultimate Truth" is not a task one would be able to accomplish alone, so the best thing to do would be to convince others to join in a crazy journey of discovery with you, and to continue it after you're gone. Spreading your ideas and your person as much as you can so that your legacy is one that will help the future is the duty that I will attempt to accomplish.
    • Sep 3 2011: Thank you very much for your comments..

      I noted in my initial comments, ---
      "The first purpose is more difficult to achieve, so we should work on the second purpose, accomplish it and turn to the first purpose."
      So the first purpose is to do something positive and welfare for the society. ....
      Although we died ignorant, we should died being a proud Human being.......
  • Aug 30 2011: I believe that people are more fulfilled when they can accept and understand

    1] the interconnectedness of all things

    2] the duality of all experiences
    • Sep 3 2011: I am sorry but I could not understand your opinion completely. Could you explain in simpler way with examples.....
  • Aug 30 2011: Why should we be prideful of our life? What have we done to be proud of other than killing anything and everything around us?
    I think,
    How do you restrict the Ultimate truth to the creation of universe?

    What is generous?. In my opinion, helping others is not being generous, Helping ourselves by stopping killing other Living Beings to maximum extent possible is generous IMO.

    Helping others is an act that humans should be ashamed of. We should be ashamed of ourselves for letting a fellow human to ask for help.
    • Aug 30 2011: I also do not understand the viewpoint suresh has, except that it is a step towards seeing what I believe to be true. When I learned to lose shame in who I am (some might call that being prideful) I began to believe in my own values instead of being swayed by others belief. Knowing yourself, your strengths, your weaknesses is important in becoming fulfilled. Knowing tht sometimes your greatest weakness can become something great [duality]

      Being generous could be also a step in the direction of learning what I believe. . . the interconcectedness of all things. Authentic generosity.
    • Sep 3 2011: Hi Prashant,

      Yes, they should not be prideful who have indulged in oppressing people. But why they should not be prideful who have worked for Happiness of others....

      The Ultimate Truth is some thing the most significant as it holds the truth of our past, reasoning of our existence.

      To empower weak people, you have to help them first. Its not about helping others and taking credit and recognition but improving their life. If we some thing more than we need, and some one needs it as to maintain his/her existence, we must sacrifice it. It may be Time, Labor or Money.
  • Aug 30 2011: To explore. I don't think actually achieving ultimate truth as you suggest is possible - you can just get close to it (arbitrarily?). Question of what was before the Big Bang is completely irrelevant, as there was no "before" or no "where" (space). Big bang is not something in chronological scale it is the beginning of chronological scale!

    Universe is FINITELY large, contains FINITE number of particles exists for FINITE ammount of time. Infinity is purely mathemathical concept, it does not apply to the universe in the way you are suggesting!

    Comoving (that simply meaning taking into account universe is expending) radius of observable universe believed to be 45.7 billion light years. So it's volume is around 4*pi*(45.7)^3 /3 . Also not all of the universe is connected considering speed of light to be the limit (because of it's accelerating expansion and hyperinflation on the beginning). It's age is around 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years. So notice how space is expanding "faster" than speed of light.

    @Cheyenne Lin

    You make a difference in the world simply by living in it. Point is to make highly benificial difference as you possibly can in my opinion. Also, you cannot preform a negative change (matehamthically speaking). Change is always positive :P It can just be benificial in different degrees (more, less).
    • Sep 3 2011: I am really thankful for your comments..

      I must study Big Bang theory thoroughly before commenting on incident of Big Bang...

      However, by your explanation of finite Universe, I could guess, the Sky is then ends somewhere.... and what is there beyond that limit....

      I dont understand you note that the space is expanding.... How it is ? and because of what?

      The point is this Truth of existence is very unimaginable, and incredibly difficult. We humans are quite weak to find it.... But we have to find it a day.. It make take 100s of years....
      • Sep 4 2011: Hello!

        Observations suggest universe is of finitely large dimensions, however from what we currently know universe is all there is (space, time, energy). So idea "what" is beyond that, is irrelevant as there is no "when"(time), "where"(space) or "what"(energy) outside of our universe. It may sound strange to you but it's just the way it is from what we currently know.

        Space was expanding ever since the big bang. But people observed/deduced (Edwin Hubble) that universe is ACCELERATING in expansion rate (further something moves relative to you more "red" it seems and closer something moves relative to you more "blue" it seems) [ ;]. He observed that further the galaxies were (he got the notion of their distance by comparing light intensity from known events or relations [like supernovaes] []) more their spectrum is shifted in "red", they also had red shift to eachother (for 2D presentation, draw some dots on baloon and blow it). ('s_law). Reason behind that is still unknown to this day, we call it "dark energy" - the name "dark" is referring to our ignorance not some evil force :D.

        There is also some form of matter which we call dark matter (not necessarily connected with dark energy [probably not at all as we invented the name for it]) - we don't know what the heck is it, but we suspect it's composed of massive weakly interacting particles [which are suspected to interact primarily trough gravity] ( , but so far nobody has been able to directly confirm (prove) it's existence as they usually just pass trough ordinary matter - very rarely interacting.

        So we basically don't know much about majority of the universe right now :)