Falando neste assunto, a *The Monist* (http://monist.buffalo.edu), um dos mais antigos e tradicionais periódicos de filosofia do mundo, tá preparando uma edição sobre o tópico (CFP abaixo).
Mas os Monty Python provavelmente continuarão imbatíveis: ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python%27s_The_Meaning_of_Life http://www.hulu.com/watch/16090/monty-pythons-meaning-of-life A propósito, a última edição tendo um tópico diretamente relacionado com "Lógica" foi em 94 ("Uses and Abuses of Logic in Philosophy"), e antes disso "Logic and Philosophy" em 86. Mas em 99 houve uma edição dedicada à "Philosophy of Computer Science" e em 2000 dedicada a "Applying Mathematics". Lista de temas: http://monist.buffalo.edu/backissues.txt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Meaning of Life Deadline: January 2009 Advisory Editor: Quentin Smith (Western Michigan University) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The vagueness and ambiguity of the question 'Is there a meaning of human life?' is standardly resolved by reformulations using more precise categories from the philosophy of religion or from moral realism. But are there alternatives to such reformulations? Consider: (1) Biology: the meaning of human life is to survive and reproduce; because we no longer have to struggle to survive and reproduce, we are no longer in a position to experience this meaning. (2) Physics: Hawking has argued that the meaning is in principle expressible in terms of a 'complete unified theory', which will throw light inter alia on'the question of why it is that we and the universe exist.' (3) Psychology: People talk of sensing 'emptiness' in depression and 'fullness' in joy. Can these metaphors be justified as referring to modes of epistemic access to some mind-independent meaning of human life that is neither religious nor ethical in nature? (4) Art: Some hold that there are artistic symbols which somehow express the meaning of human life but in a way that is not expressible in linguistic form. Can such a linguistic ineffability theory be philosophically defended? Are there other approaches to defending a theory of the meaning of human life? Is it possible to articulate a formal structure or account of meaning which all such theories must share? Articles are invited addressing these and related questions in an analytical spirit. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Logica-l mailing list [email protected] http://www.dimap.ufrn.br/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/logica-l
