On Jan 28, 10:35 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom Caylor wrote: > > > The question of the "meaning of life", and also the problem of (the > > existence of) evil (whether you believe in God not), has at its core > > the question of what is this "non-thing" entity called a "person"? > > > By the way, the problem of evil that I am referring to is simply the > > problem of the existence of evil. We just know it exists. We see > > people treated as things. We know it is wrong. The simple existence > > of evil is a problem. > > If you don't believe in an omnipotent, benevolent God who orders the universe > it isn't a problem. It's just a consequence of different people having > competing values. >
You are talking about a different "problem of evil" than I am. You are using the word "problem" in the sense of a logical contradiction. I think you saw below that by "the problem of evil" I mean "evil" itself. It is something that is more direct and palpable, something that requires a *person* to be conscious of its existence, rather than just a mathematical processor cranking out a logical inference. Evil *is* the problem. At the risk of overkill, but I don't want to take any more chances, let's take an analogy: weeds on a lawn. You are looking at the classical "problem of evil" in the sense that if you believe that a benevolent and all-powerful gardener is in charge of this lawn, then (if you narrow the scope of all of the definitions enough) the existence of weeds is a contradiction. A mathematical processor could infer that. I'm just looking at the weeds themselves, independent of any gardener, and saying, "This is bad." Being able to make that judgment requires a person. > > >I'm not talking about the wrongness of a > > logical contradiction. I'm talking about something that is even > > "wronger than" that. When I talk about the problem of evil, I'm > > talking about something that is *really* wrong, down at the core level > > of reality. The reason that something defined by persons (such as a > > person being treated as a "non-person" > > What it mean to treat a person as a non-person? > Even Kant's categorical imperative was not to treat a person *only* as a > means. > It's not evil to fail to ask your bank teller how they feel about cashing > your check. > This illustrates my point that the core of these problems and questions is the essence of personhood. > > >) can be "really wrong" at the > > deepest level is that the essence of a person is something that lies > > at the deepest level of reality. > > It's words or concepts that are defined by people. What people judge as > right or wrong seems far from "basic reality" since they so often disagree > about it. > This is my point. Personhood is at the core of these concepts. It is irreducible (personhood, that is). > > >This is why the "problem of evil" in > > general has been so hard to "figure out". It's because the very > > definition of the problem is illusive without defining what a person > > is. We try to define the problem by saying evil is a logical > > contradiction with whatever theory someone has, but this actually only > > proves even more how lost we are in figuring it out, and even more > > lost in solving it. > > > In the same way the "meaning of life" question on one hand seems > > nebulous and unuseful from a scientific viewpoint. But it is the > > ultimate question. We may ask, "What is the meaning of the 'meaning > > of life'?" But that just illustrates the meaning of the question > > itself. Perhaps this is one of the attributes of a "person", that we > > continually, recursively, as the question of meaning. We just *know* > > what the meaning is of the question, "What is the meaning of life?" > > Thus, the essence of what a person is is key to this question, and key > > to the answer! > > The trouble with "the meaning of life" question is that it implicitly assumes > that life has some external referent that gives it meaning, the way "grass" > is given a meaning by pointing to grass. People who ask about the meaning of > life usually want something like "the purpose of my life", "what goals should > I pursue", etc. Thus reformulated this has a simple answer, "Whatever you > want!". The problem is that people want their lives to have purpose without > providing it themselves. The question of "the meaning of life" I am referring to is deeper than a "what" question. It is a "why" question. For instance, why is it that a person is able to somehow create meaning? At the core is the essence of personhood. Tom > > Brent Meeker > "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" > --- motto of the Hellfire Club, B. Franklin, member > > > Now when it comes to mathematical/logical systems, and Bruno's > > arguments, I think that we can see a "type", or analogy, of what is > > going on here. Through arguments that use things such as Church's > > Thesis, diagonalization, the excluded middle, we can see that there > > are always some systems or sets which are provably not describable by > > other systems or sets. I don't think this ultimately resolves the > > problem of evil or the meaning of life. But I do think that it is > > perhaps a "picture" of the limitlessness that is possible, even > > necessary. It shows us the infinite proportions of these problems. > > They are intractable by human persons, and yet have at their core the > > essence of what a person is. > > > Tom --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
