Meaning of life: Love vs. reproduction and power in Spain

The Meaning of Life: Love Versus Instinct and Power

One perspective holds that all perishable success—wealth, fame, glory—fades with time, and only what resonates in eternity gives meaning to a finite life. This thesis, detailed in a conspiracy forum, argues that this eternal criterion is love: the conscious choice to deny oneself to give and create. It is not a new idea, but the discussion it generates has sharp edges.

What Is Meant by Love and Why It Is Debated

The initial premise is ambitious: if God is perfect and self-sufficient, He can only give, and giving without receiving is pure love. Everything that exists, including heavenly realms, would stem from that primordial act. Those who have had near-death experiences—according to circulating accounts—agree on a judgment based on love given. Therefore, the criterion would not be success or wealth, but something harder to measure.

The response does not wait long. Some argue that energy and the law of the strongest prevail on Earth, and that evil eclipsing good is merely warriors winning battles they should never have won. Others point directly to the practical problem: loving is complicated, bordering on impossible, which is why only a few are saved.

The Counterargument: Living Experiences, Not Loving

Against the spiritual thesis emerges a raw materialist stance. The meaning of life would not be to love, but to live it and accumulate experiences. The problem, it is argued, is that 95% of that experience is routine and suffering. The figure cited is stark: 4,000 people commit suicide annually in Spain because the experience of living is unpleasant and does not compensate for the price paid for fleeting moments of pleasure.

The discussion then shifts toward instinct. It is asserted that the meaning of life is to reproduce, which life has been doing since the first second for billions of years. The data thrown out as proof: Spain is not reproducing. The rebuttal comes from biology: letting the reptilian brain dominate when possessing the most advanced prefrontal cortex in the animal kingdom does not seem sensible.

The Theological Objection: Christ’s Advantage

The initial premise invokes Christ and His summary of the Law: love God above all things and your neighbor as yourself. The response is a classic objection: Jesus cheated because He knew there was another life after death. If He had been a simple mortal with doubts and antiestéticars, His example would hold validity. It is added that, from the perspective of the Holy Trinity, the cheating would be even greater: He knew He was God the Father and knew His timeline.

The discussion moves to the institution itself. It is argued that the Trinity and other norms were invented by religion to create basic behaviors, and that faith and God are respectable until they interfere with people's lives.

Justice, Mercy, and the Problem of Self-Denial

One of the most elaborate interventions nuances the concept of love. God is Love, but humans can only aspire to be kind, which is not the same as being loving. Denying oneself, it is warned, can be misunderstood and create inert, incapable beings, as certain mysticisms demonstrate. Without a high sense of justice, there is no social pogre. The initial premise responds with an image: God’s throne rests on two legs, Infinite Justice and Infinite Mercy. The first is hell; the second is heaven.

The conversation also flirts with metaphysics. It is asserted that everything that exists is oneself, so it is impossible to deny oneself for the sake of the other, because there is no other. That philosophy, it is warned, would lead to a niceness that ends in ethnic replacement. The statement remains there, undeveloped.

The most earthly closure is provided by the observation that the meaning of life is not to complicate things, because without progeny the world will still turn. And the disorienting data: while some discuss eternity, Spanish demographics have been saying the opposite with facts for years.