Steven said:
...obviously I wasn't referring to the meaning of the word "life." I was
discussing the meaning of life. In pragmatic terms "what does life mean?"
cashes out to "how is life used?" Obviously,life is used in lots of ways. Some
good and some bad. The intent of someone asking the original question is then
likely more clearly stated as "how ought life be used so as to be a good life?"
That is, unless someone presupposes that life has some externally imposed
purpose in which case the question amounts to "why was life created?", but that
is a question that anyone who does not believe in a great nonhuman power with
intents and purposes does not have.
dmb says:
Well, no. If you check the archives you'll see that you had posed a more
specific question about the meaning of "meaning". And so I made the distinction
between "meaning" as a definition or description of the content of an idea on
the one hand and "meaning" as significance and importance. These two senses of
the word "meaning" are such that one simple sentence can ask two completely
different questions. What does life mean? You can answer that by telling us
what the term refers to or you can answer that by talking about what makes live
worth living or how to live a life of meaning. Clearly, the second question
goes much deeper.
Steve said:
Obviously there is a boot strap problem with humanity thought of as sustaining
its own value, but note the inherent problem with the notion that the value of
human life can only come from something non-human. By attempting to ground
human worth in a God, one has to start by devaluing the worth of humanity as
incapable of sustaining its own value. (There is also the problem of regress or
the same bootstrap problem in the question of the value of God.)
dmb says:
Who said being precedes essence? I think Sartre formulated it that way and it
means, basically, that there is no inherent or pre-existing meaning to which we
must submit but rather meaning is created in the process of living. We see the
same sort of thing in Nietzsche, wherein the death of God forces a revaluation
of all values or in Dostoyevsky dark and pithy lament, "without God all things
are permitted" (or something like that). I mean, at this point in history we
find ourselves asking about the meaning of life in a new way largely because
the traditional answers have eroded and dissolved. The death of God creates a
vacuum, if you will.
The forth and final volume of Joseph's Campbell's "Masks of God" series is
called "Creative Mythology" and this new existential situation is the
over-riding theme. Roughly speaking, the main is idea is that it's
bootstrapping time for all of us. It's time to grow up and take responsibility
a create meaning rather than being merely obedient like children or slaves. As
Joe paints it, we are emerging from our childhood and that means we need to be
something like the artists, poets and visionaries to give new shape to the
symbols and myths. The idea here is to be the author of your own life wherein
you don't discover THE meaning so much as create one of many possible meanings.
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/md/archives.html
