Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On 3/7/07, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> > experience.
> >
> > Stathis Papaioannou
> >
> I hope that didn't come across as facetious, Tom. These are serious
> questions and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss them with an
> intelligent and scientifically well-informed theist.
> Stathis

Actually if all we're talking about is first-person experience and
personal tastes, then there would be cause for alarm if someone is
claiming that there's some normative rules governing them.  I agree:
How could any such normative rules ever be verified as being the
"right" way of interpreting things?  Not! This is not what I am
talking about.  You need to look at the *whole* control loop in order
to be able to talk about sharable 3rd person meaning.

Personal feelings of "oo that's good" or "bleah" are fine for what
they are, but are they sufficient as the total input into our decision
making system?  Without real morality the answer *must* be yes.  As in
Russell Standish's post, the answer *must* be that "whatever I
*happen* (for no reason that I need to worry about) to feel is good
stuff, is good stuff".  Marquis de Sade with no escape.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to