Tom Caylor wrote: > On Feb 5, 4:37 pm, Stathis Papaioannou > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Tom Caylor writes: >>> On Jan 31, 10:33 am, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > OK. But in >>> that case your question is just half of the question, "Why do people have >>> values?" If you have values then that mean some things will be good and >>> some will be bad - a weed is just a flower in a place you don't want it. >>> You must already know the obvious answer to this given by Darwin. And it >>> doesn't even take a person; even amoebas have values. I suspect you have a >>> set answer in mind and you're looking for the question to elicit it.> >> > >>> Brent Meeker> >> Also Stathis wrote:> > Sure, logic and science are silent >>> on the question of the value of weeds or anything else. You need a person >>> to come along and say "let x=good", and then you can reason logically given >>> this. Evolutionary theory etc. may predict what x a person may deem to be >>> good or beautiful, but this is not binding on an individual in the way laws >>> governing the chemistry of respiration, for example, are binding. Unlike >>> some scientific type s, I am quite comfortable with ethics being in this sense outside the scope of science. Unlike some religious types, I am quite comfortable without looking for an ultimate source of ethics in the form of a deity. Even if this conclusion made me very unhappy, that might be reason to try self-deception, but it has no bearing on the truth.> >> > Stathis Papaioannou> >> > Brent and Stathis exemplify two possible answers to meaning. Brent> reduces meaning to something based on mere existence or survival. Thus> amoebas can have such meaning.> Stathis says that meaning is an unanswered (unanswerable?) mystery.> We just somehow self-generate meaning.> > My introduction of the "Meaning Of Life" thread asked if the> Everything perspective could provide any answers to this question.> Looking at the contributions since then, it looks like the answer is> apparently not. This is what I expected. Thus, meaning is either> limited to trivial (non-normative) values or is without basis (the> No ble Lie). If you really read the modern philosophers seriously this> is their conclusion. Of course there is a third possible answer to> this question: Meaning is based on a source outside of ourselves, by> "making connections with others based on such ideals as honour and> obligation" (a quote I read from Dr. Laura Schlesinger off of a> Starbucks coffee cup this morning!) Of course people can poo-poo such> ideals as simply "sentiments", debunking them on a surface level> (which is the only level there is without them), just as C.S. Lewis> pointed out in his lectures on "The Abolition of Man". And indeed,> without such ideals, man will be discretized into a trivial skeleton> of his true self.> > Tom >> You seem to keep arguing that it wouldn't be very nice if there were no >> ultimate meaning. Is there any actual evidence that this alleged meaning >> exists? For example, suppose a society believes that the Sky God provides >> ultimate meaning and live their lives happily, whereas it could be shown >> that they would all be miserable and kill each other if they believed it >> were not true. On this basis there may be reason to think that belief in the >> Sky God is useful, but is there any reason to think that belief in the Sky >> God is true? >> >> Stathis Papaioannou >> _________________________________________________________________ > > I'm saying that there is no meaning at all if there is no ultimate > meaning.
So you say. I see no reason to believe it. >Again, I haven't just pulled this out of thin air. If you > really read the modern thinkers and writers, that is what they were > saying. Hegel, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, Russell, Camus, Sartre, > Dostoyevsky, Orwell, Godel, Monod, Lewis, Schaeffer... I don't think you've read these writers. Russell, Camus, and Sartre were definitely advocates of each person providing their own purpose. Incidentally they hardly qualify as "modern" anymore. >I hope that > people who are trying to be on the cutting edge of "theories of > everything" will go back and pick up from where these thinkers left > off. Not just stand on the shoulders of the physics giants, but also > the philosophy (and spiritual!) giants. I know that the modern > philosophy road is depressing and unlivable. They bring us to the > edge of the cliff. It was depressing for people like the young genius > Nick Drake who was found dead on his bed in his 20's after a drug > overdose, with Camus' Myth of Sysiphus beside him. But we have to > face the reality of where the modern age has brought us in order to > find the answer before we all exterminate ourselves. ...taking the > "leap of faith" that it is bad to exterminate ourselves. It's not modern existential angst that threatens our existence. It's the religious zealotry of worshippers of the sky god - in Iran, Pakistan, and the bible belt. >In light of > modern thought, your argument about the sky god society begs the > question of meaning by assuming that they *shouldn't* "be miserable > and kill each other". This is not a dilemma to pass over lightly. I > believe it is at the heart of the matter for where mankind is at > today, on the brink of something great or terrible. Or is it REALLY > all just meaningless? (What would "REALLY" mean in that case? ;) Not to me it isn't. I'm all for not exterminating ourselves and I've got grandchildren to prove it. > Isn't that what this Everything stuff is (ultimately ;) all about? We > want to solve the modern schizo dilemma of nature vs. grace and bring > about wholeness. Sounds like a problem invented in the Vatican. >I'm tired of hearing questions about scientifically > *proving* which god is the right one, as if the question is supposed > to show that it isn't worth it to pursue the answers to the *ultimate* > questions. While we're busy trying to scientifically *prove* which > way to go, or show that you can't scientifically prove which way to go > (which has been done already cf above thinkers), we're gonna walk off > the edge of the cliff. And, pardon my presumptuous risking the danger > of a false belief, but "that wouldn't be very nice." Scientists never "prove" anything; they observe, invent theories, collect evidence, test,... Only mathematicians prove things - and then only relative to axioms they assume. Brent Meeker "It does not matter now that in a million years nothing we do now will matter." --- Thomas Nagel --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---