On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Tom Caylor wrote:
> > I agree with the Russell quote as it stands.  Unendingness is not what
> > gives meaning.  The source of meaning is not "living forever" in time
> > (contrary to the trans-humanists) but is timeless.  However, the quote
> > makes a bad assumption when it talks about losing value.  The real
> > problem is how there can be any true objective value to love in the
> > first place (other than the so-called "irrefutable" first person:
> > "It's all about me").
> Why should there be?  Values are relative to people.  Love is our
> word.  We invented it to describe what we feel.  Having some Platonic form
> of LOVE out there is superfluous.  You're just making up a requirement for
> "the really real ding-an-sich" so that you can say God provides it.

You could replace "love" with "chocolate" and "God" with "the chocolate
fairy". You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can be
explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evolutionary biology etc., only
the chocolate fairy can give ultimate meaning to the chocolate eating

Stathis Papaioannou

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 

Reply via email to