At 01:46 PM 9/15/2007, you wrote: >Hi Marsha -- > > > > How do you get from epistemology to "the very purpose > > of human existence?" Purpose? How do you make such a leap? > >Interesting question. You know, I wondered myself, after typing that reply >to David, whether I had short-circuited the loop between the "how" and the >"why". I decided I had not. All I really did was outline an epistemology >for value-perception, and then ask if that concept might also suggest a >purpose for man's existence. It's a related question, but I don't believe I >forced the issue, even though I'll admit that purpose (teleology) is always >a goal to be pursued.
Hi Ham, My original question was to clarify the meaning of your statement. I wondered at whether it was rational for humans to define the _purpose_ of human existence. I still wonder. There might be some species bias in such an endeavor. And you might add in all other kinds of cultural biases too. And how could you ever know anything about the totality of human existence when you are so deeply embedded in it yourself? > > Is there a logic for such a leap? Is such a leap necessary? If so, why? > >I think there is logic in my conclusions. What I've proposed is a cogent >theory supported by propositions that are consistent with the conclusion. >Since traditional logic is applicable only within a relational system, one >can't furnish "logical proof" for a non-relational hypothesis. That, >unfortunately, is a limitation of intuition as applied to metaphysics. It seemed you went from an epistemology where existence equals experience, to a speculation of a purpose for human existence. Sorry, I didn't follow the reasoning. >As for whether such a leap is "necessary", that depends on how serious you >are in resolving the enigma of existence. I think most people reach a >certain plateau in their understanding of reality, and leave it for others >to explain the rest. Please Ham... Don't do attempt any Nureyevian leaps. >Some are resigned to the ineffability of the unknown, >and are content to live out their lives as if it had no meaning or purpose. And some find joy in the ineffable, with meaning and purpose discovered as a creative part of the individual journey. I certainly wouldn't want the purpose for my existence defined or explained by you (nothing personal) are any one like you, neither philosopher nor theologian. No, no, no. No, no. No, no. This woman has no need for a Great White Father. > >As you see, I refuse to accept life at face value, even in the realization >that we can never have empirical certainty for our convictions. I see. >What it all boils down to is that philosophy is ultimately an individual >matter. We are guided along the way by perspectives that may or may not >conform to our own, and most of us arrive at some >philosophical conclusion, whether we express them publicly or not. Yes, I totally agree. >Thanks for your penetrating insight, Marsha. I hope I've answered your >questions. > >Essentially yours, >Ham Thank you Ham. Marsha Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
