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
types, 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> Noble 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. 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 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. 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? ;)> 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. 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."> > TomSuppose, as
a thought experiment, that a world exists that was not created by a loving God.
It might have been created by a deistic god, by advanced aliens, or even by the
devil. This world contains intelligent beings who arrive at exactly the same
beliefs about science, religion, ethics etc. as we do in our world, because the
design parameters are such that they have a similar capacity to reason as we do
and are fed similar data about the world, even though some of it is false data.
The question is, will this society differ from ours as a result of the fact
that they only *think* they have an ultimate purpose? Would it necessarily fall
apart if it were revealed to them after centuries that they are in fact just an
experiment? What would you say to those who, after the revelation, dismiss it
as interesting but irrelevant as far as their personal lives are concerned, and
carry on as usual?Stathis Papaioannou
_________________________________________________________________
Live Search: New search found
http://get.live.com/search/overview
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
