Morality and Meno’s Paradox

[Nick_A]

I’ve noticed that people who believe or deny objective morality do not understand each other. But is this lack of understanding just a natural result of Meno’s Paradox?

The argument, which is known to be ‘Meno’s Paradox’, may be formulated differently in the following way. Firstly, if a person knows what he/she is searching for, the inquiry as such is needless. Secondly, if a person does not know what he/she is searching for, the inquiry as such is not possible. Thus, an absolute conclusion demonstrates that either a person knows what he/she is searching for, or a person does not know that. Therefore, the inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible. The result of this paradox in both formulations demonstrates that the investigation is meaningless.

The question is politically incorrect since it suggests the necessity of a conscious source for Creation if morality can be remembered and secondly that everyone is not the same in their awareness of objective morality. Be prepared to swallow the hemlock if you bring it up in polite secular society.

I would appreciate discussing this question with another who has pondered it.

Is the investigation really meaningless or is it essential? Should the inquiry be banned in institutions of higher learning as impossible and unnecessary in favor of debating methods for cursing out Trump?

On the other hand, is there a way that Meno’s Paradox can be put into a context in which it makes perfect sense once a person experiences it?

[Age]

In not all cases where a person knows what they are searching for, the inquiry is needless. If one is searching for how they could become a much better human being, for example, then they obviously know what they are searching for, but this is certainly not needless. They just do not yet exactly know how to become a much better "person" yet, so in order to change properly and successfully then to continue to search is actually 'needed'.

By the way, when one does start Truly changing, for the better, and they have also discovered who they Truly ARE, then things like 'morality', and what is Truly right and wrong in Life, are also discovered and can then be and are Truly understood.

[Nick_A]

In not all cases where a person knows what they are searching for, the inquiry is needless. If one is searching for how they could become a much better human being, for example, then they obviously know what they are searching for, but this is certainly not needless. They just do not yet exactly know how to become a much better "person" yet, so in order to change properly and successfully then to continue to search is actually 'needed'.

By the way, when one does start Truly changing, for the better, and they have also discovered who they Truly ARE, then things like 'morality', and what is Truly right and wrong in Life, are also discovered and can then be and are Truly understood.

First we have to define what it means "to know." I define what I know in relation to human meaning and purpose by what i do. So with this definition it seems that knowing is impossible since the drive not to know and do other things is dominant . Of course if a person has no need "to know" then it is unnecessary and just gets in the way of enjoying life. Do you agree?

[Age]

In not all cases where a person knows what they are searching for, the inquiry is needless. If one is searching for how they could become a much better human being, for example, then they obviously know what they are searching for, but this is certainly not needless. They just do not yet exactly know how to become a much better "person" yet, so in order to change properly and successfully then to continue to search is actually 'needed'.

By the way, when one does start Truly changing, for the better, and they have also discovered who they Truly ARE, then things like 'morality', and what is Truly right and wrong in Life, are also discovered and can then be and are Truly understood.

First we have to define what it means "to know." I define what I know in relation to human meaning and purpose by what i do. So with this definition it seems that knowing is impossible since the drive not to know and do other things is dominant . Of course if a person has no need "to know" then it is unnecessary and just gets in the way of enjoying life. Do you agree?

No. Not at all.

To me, all you have done here is just make up a definition that fits in with your already held belief that there is only a 'one or the other' situation.

A definition to the term 'to know' I would say is not much like your own personally given so called "definition" above at all. When I look in a dictionary for a definition of the two words 'to' and 'know' I do not see anything at all resembling; "in relation to human meaning and purpose by what they do". In fact to me this sounds so far fetched I wonder why you would arrive at and say such a thing?

''Know', to me, just means being already made aware of some thing and there is no doubt about that thing. 'Knowing' some thing is very distinct from 'thinking' some thing. So, as I said previously, I can know what I am searching for, and the inquiry is still 'needed'. This is because the answer that I am searching for is still unknown, so in order to gain that knowledge I still 'need' to keep inquiring and seeking. Therefore, to me, the inquiry for some answers are completely necessary and completely possible, which is completely contrary to what you say and believe is true.

To me, there is and was no paradox here at all, and investigation can be a Truly meaningful thing to do, in some cases.

The reason most people do not understand 'each other' is because they are yet to understand their 'own self' first.

As soon as one begins to search for how they can become a much better person, and is Truly Honest and serious about this, then they soon become knowledgeable of how and why they are who they Truly ARE, which in turn leads to True understanding of each and EVERY person.

Discovering and FULLY understanding what True 'morality objectivity' IS is just an incidental outcome of discovering, knowing, and understanding one's True Self, which is just EVERY one together as One.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I’ve noticed that people who believe or deny objective morality do not understand each other. But is this lack of understanding just a natural result of Meno’s Paradox?

The argument, which is known to be ‘Meno’s Paradox’, may be formulated differently in the following way. Firstly, if a person knows what he/she is searching for, the inquiry as such is needless. Secondly, if a person does not know what he/she is searching for, the inquiry as such is not possible. Thus, an absolute conclusion demonstrates that either a person knows what he/she is searching for, or a person does not know that. Therefore, the inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible. The result of this paradox in both formulations demonstrates that the investigation is meaningless.

The question is politically incorrect since it suggests the necessity of a conscious source for Creation if morality can be remembered and secondly that everyone is not the same in their awareness of objective morality. Be prepared to swallow the hemlock if you bring it up in polite secular society.

I would appreciate discussing this question with another who has pondered it.

Is the investigation really meaningless or is it essential? Should the inquiry be banned in institutions of higher learning as impossible and unnecessary in favor of debating methods for cursing out Trump?

On the other hand, is there a way that Meno’s Paradox can be put into a context in which it makes perfect sense once a person experiences it?

Problem here is you started with the wrong presumption.
You presume objective morality exists ontologically without proving the argument and proofs.
In this case, yes Meno's Paradox applies, i.e. how can you know something when you do not know what it is in the first place. "Know" in this case is justified to be true objectively.

In Morality-proper, there is no presumption objective morality pre-exists.
It is only in theistic morality that claim objective morality pre-exists because God exists.
Problem is, theist cannot prove God exists as real.
So there is no grounds for objective morality within theistic morality - thus it is pseudo morality.

On the other hand with objective secular morality, what is objective morality is justified from empirical evidences and supported with sound philosophical reasoning.
This objective moral ought is to be used as a GUIDE only, i.e. no enforcement.
I have presented my argument for the above, here;

• OUGHT from IS is Possible
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27245

[Nick_A]

Age

A definition to the term 'to know' I would say is not much like your own personally given so called "definition" above at all. When I look in a dictionary for a definition of the two words 'to' and 'know' I do not see anything at all resembling; "in relation to human meaning and purpose by what they do". In fact to me this sounds so far fetched I wonder why you would arrive at and say such a thing?

''Know', to me, just means being already made aware of some thing and there is no doubt about that thing. 'Knowing' some thing is very distinct from 'thinking' some thing. So, as I said previously, I can know what I am searching for, and the inquiry is still 'needed'. This is because the answer that I am searching for is still unknown, so in order to gain that knowledge I still 'need' to keep inquiring and seeking. Therefore, to me, the inquiry for some answers are completely necessary and completely possible, which is completely contrary to what you say and believe is true.

Socrates knew all of this but still was considered wise because he knew he knows nothing. Obviously there are degrees to what we know. In chess for example a person knows the game but their knowledge is relative and proven by their wins. Knowing the value of a good move requires appreciating what it means, how the pieces interact as a whole as well as what we know.

We can assert what we know as you’ve pointed out but what does it mean? Socrates saw that his associates were all experts in their chosen fields. They knew many facts related to their interests but didn’t know what it means as a whole. Socrates realized he didn’t know the meaning of life so had to admit he knew nothing in relation to the wholeness of human meaning and purpose.

We are like this. We know facts but don’t know the rules of the game so don’t know its “meaning.”

The argument, which is known to be ‘Meno’s Paradox’, may be formulated differently in the following way. Firstly, if a person knows what he/she is searching for, the inquiry as such is needless. Secondly, if a person does not know what he/she is searching for, the inquiry as such is not possible. Thus, an absolute conclusion demonstrates that either a person knows what he/she is searching for, or a person does not know that. Therefore, the inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible. The result of this paradox in both formulations demonstrates that the investigation is meaningless.

If a person is on such a level of being that they know the rules of the game and the meaning of life, then the inquiry is unnecessary. If a person is unable to sense that they are part of an interacting living machine we call universe, then the search is impossible and meaningless

So what I know requires also what it means to know for it to have value. Socrates said he didn’t know and have to admit that I am in the same boat. Yet the deeper part of my being is attracted to the question that there is something to know and plato said it is something we can “remember.” Is it possible?

[Nick_A]

V A

Can you be open to the idea of an ineffable source as Einstein described it?

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

If the universe is like a living machine serving a necessary purpose. is it more logical to conclude it exists to serve us or do we exist to serve a universal purpose we do not understand as we are? If true, what would it take to open to understanding free of pre-conceptions?

[Sculptor]

I’ve noticed that people who believe or deny objective morality do not understand each other. But is this lack of understanding just a natural result of Meno’s Paradox?

The argument, which is known to be ‘Meno’s Paradox’, may be formulated differently in the following way. Firstly, if a person knows what he/she is searching for, the inquiry as such is needless. Secondly, if a person does not know what he/she is searching for, the inquiry as such is not possible. Thus, an absolute conclusion demonstrates that either a person knows what he/she is searching for, or a person does not know that. Therefore, the inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible. The result of this paradox in both formulations demonstrates that the investigation is meaningless.

The question is politically incorrect since it suggests the necessity of a conscious source for Creation if morality can be remembered and secondly that everyone is not the same in their awareness of objective morality. Be prepared to swallow the hemlock if you bring it up in polite secular society.

I would appreciate discussing this question with another who has pondered it.

Is the investigation really meaningless or is it essential? Should the inquiry be banned in institutions of higher learning as impossible and unnecessary in favor of debating methods for cursing out Trump?

On the other hand, is there a way that Meno’s Paradox can be put into a context in which it makes perfect sense once a person experiences it?

If I know I'm looking for my keys, I still need to find them. So the search is not invalid.
If I do not know I am locked out of my house because to do not know about keys, The search for the reason is still not invalid.
I do not think this so called paradox applies to all situations.

In the matter of moral objectivity, there is no door. Those that think there is a case for moral objectivism have a key, but the door is not a moral one, but a scientific one; the key does not fit. The key can fit such a door, but for morality there are many doors, and the key can only fit the one specifically designed subjectively by those who think that there is one door.
Those that reject moral objectivism has a master key.

[Nick_A]

I’ve noticed that people who believe or deny objective morality do not understand each other. But is this lack of understanding just a natural result of Meno’s Paradox?

The argument, which is known to be ‘Meno’s Paradox’, may be formulated differently in the following way. Firstly, if a person knows what he/she is searching for, the inquiry as such is needless. Secondly, if a person does not know what he/she is searching for, the inquiry as such is not possible. Thus, an absolute conclusion demonstrates that either a person knows what he/she is searching for, or a person does not know that. Therefore, the inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible. The result of this paradox in both formulations demonstrates that the investigation is meaningless.

The question is politically incorrect since it suggests the necessity of a conscious source for Creation if morality can be remembered and secondly that everyone is not the same in their awareness of objective morality. Be prepared to swallow the hemlock if you bring it up in polite secular society.

I would appreciate discussing this question with another who has pondered it.

Is the investigation really meaningless or is it essential? Should the inquiry be banned in institutions of higher learning as impossible and unnecessary in favor of debating methods for cursing out Trump?

On the other hand, is there a way that Meno’s Paradox can be put into a context in which it makes perfect sense once a person experiences it?

If I know I'm looking for my keys, I still need to find them. So the search is not invalid.
If I do not know I am locked out of my house because to do not know about keys, The search for the reason is still not invalid.
I do not think this so called paradox applies to all situations.

In the matter of moral objectivity, there is no door. Those that think there is a case for moral objectivism have a key, but the door is not a moral one, but a scientific one; the key does not fit. The key can fit such a door, but for morality there are many doors, and the key can only fit the one specifically designed subjectively by those who think that there is one door.
Those that reject moral objectivism has a master key.

How would you explain amoral behaviour? Is it the result of insufficient analytical knowledge or corrupted emotional intelligence?

[Sculptor]

I’ve noticed that people who believe or deny objective morality do not understand each other. But is this lack of understanding just a natural result of Meno’s Paradox?


The question is politically incorrect since it suggests the necessity of a conscious source for Creation if morality can be remembered and secondly that everyone is not the same in their awareness of objective morality. Be prepared to swallow the hemlock if you bring it up in polite secular society.

I would appreciate discussing this question with another who has pondered it.

Is the investigation really meaningless or is it essential? Should the inquiry be banned in institutions of higher learning as impossible and unnecessary in favor of debating methods for cursing out Trump?

On the other hand, is there a way that Meno’s Paradox can be put into a context in which it makes perfect sense once a person experiences it?

If I know I'm looking for my keys, I still need to find them. So the search is not invalid.
If I do not know I am locked out of my house because to do not know about keys, The search for the reason is still not invalid.
I do not think this so called paradox applies to all situations.

In the matter of moral objectivity, there is no door. Those that think there is a case for moral objectivism have a key, but the door is not a moral one, but a scientific one; the key does not fit. The key can fit such a door, but for morality there are many doors, and the key can only fit the one specifically designed subjectively by those who think that there is one door.
Those that reject moral objectivism has a master key.

How would you explain amoral behaviour? Is it the result of insufficient analytical knowledge or corrupted emotional intelligence?

No.
Amoral behaviour is simply things we all do that are not related to matters of morality.
I think you mean immoral behaviour.

I used to smoke pot, this is widely regarded as immoral, especially by those that think morality is objective. I do not regard my practice of pot smoking as immoral.
I also have had sex outside of marriage and whilst separated from by wife have had sex with several other women. I do not personally regard this immoral practice as bad.

I've had other drugs too...
Maybe you think taking MDMA is the result of "corrupted emotional intelligence"?

[Nick_A]

Sculpture

How would you explain amoral behaviour? Is it the result of insufficient analytical knowledge or corrupted emotional intelligence?

No.
Amoral behaviour is simply things we all do that are not related to matters of morality.
I think you mean immoral behaviour.

I used to smoke pot, this is widely regarded as immoral, especially by those that think morality is objective. I do not regard my practice of pot smoking as immoral.
I also have had sex outside of marriage and whilst separated from by wife have had sex with several other women. I do not personally regard this immoral practice as bad.

I've had other drugs too...
Maybe you think taking MDMA is the result of "corrupted emotional intelligence"?

No, I did mean amoral as defined below

Definition of amoral
1a: having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrongamoral politiciansan amoral, selfish person
b: being neither moral nor immoralspecifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply Science as such is completely amoral.— W. S. Thompson

Science is only concerned with how things work so cannot reflect “value” If a person feels it is not right to kill, it cannot be a scientific judgment but when true enough is an expression of conscience. Science is amoral so cannot have a conscience

I don’t believe that the universe is here to serve us but rather Man’s purpose on earth serves the universe mechanically as does the rest of organic life with the potential to serve the universe consciously by connecting us with our source: a higher purpose

So objective morality is unconcerned with subjective concerns like drugs or other secular moral dictates, It is concerned only with what denies a person’s ability to awaken to reality and experience the “value” of consciousness It is the purpose of our conscience If a person kills with no remorse it just means they do not value life. When a person loses their value for life they are amoral

Immoral is often defined by people in power. It is a mixed blessing and provides both a useful and harmful influence in society but is limited to society. Being amoral refers to a quality of being lacking a sense of the value of life in relation to universal purpose. Objective morality as opposed to subjective morality is a universal quality serving the universal purpose of becoming capable of conscious action as opposed to mechanical reaction.

[Age]

I’ve noticed that people who believe or deny objective morality do not understand each other. But is this lack of understanding just a natural result of Meno’s Paradox?

The argument, which is known to be ‘Meno’s Paradox’, may be formulated differently in the following way. Firstly, if a person knows what he/she is searching for, the inquiry as such is needless. Secondly, if a person does not know what he/she is searching for, the inquiry as such is not possible. Thus, an absolute conclusion demonstrates that either a person knows what he/she is searching for, or a person does not know that. Therefore, the inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible. The result of this paradox in both formulations demonstrates that the investigation is meaningless.

The question is politically incorrect since it suggests the necessity of a conscious source for Creation if morality can be remembered and secondly that everyone is not the same in their awareness of objective morality. Be prepared to swallow the hemlock if you bring it up in polite secular society.

I would appreciate discussing this question with another who has pondered it.

Is the investigation really meaningless or is it essential? Should the inquiry be banned in institutions of higher learning as impossible and unnecessary in favor of debating methods for cursing out Trump?

On the other hand, is there a way that Meno’s Paradox can be put into a context in which it makes perfect sense once a person experiences it?

Problem here is you started with the wrong presumption.
You presume objective morality exists ontologically without proving the argument and proofs.
In this case, yes Meno's Paradox applies, i.e. how can you know something when you do not know what it is in the first place. "Know" in this case is justified to be true objectively.

In Morality-proper, there is no presumption objective morality pre-exists.
It is only in theistic morality that claim objective morality pre-exists because God exists.
Problem is, theist cannot prove God exists as real.
So there is no grounds for objective morality within theistic morality - thus it is pseudo morality.

God can be very easily proven to exist. But only to those who do NOT believe that God does not exist.

While one is believing that God does not exist it is impossible to prove to them that God does actually exist, obviously. But in saying this it is also impossible to prove that God does actually exist to a person who believes God is some thing, which It obviously could not be.

By the way, there is NO such thing as "morality-proper". This is just a term you like to use that infers any sort of morality that you do not agree with is not what you call "morality-proper".

On the other hand with objective secular morality, what is objective morality is justified from empirical evidences and supported with sound philosophical reasoning.
This objective moral ought is to be used as a GUIDE only, i.e. no enforcement.
I have presented my argument for the above, here;

• OUGHT from IS is Possible
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27245

[Age]

Age

A definition to the term 'to know' I would say is not much like your own personally given so called "definition" above at all. When I look in a dictionary for a definition of the two words 'to' and 'know' I do not see anything at all resembling; "in relation to human meaning and purpose by what they do". In fact to me this sounds so far fetched I wonder why you would arrive at and say such a thing?

''Know', to me, just means being already made aware of some thing and there is no doubt about that thing. 'Knowing' some thing is very distinct from 'thinking' some thing. So, as I said previously, I can know what I am searching for, and the inquiry is still 'needed'. This is because the answer that I am searching for is still unknown, so in order to gain that knowledge I still 'need' to keep inquiring and seeking. Therefore, to me, the inquiry for some answers are completely necessary and completely possible, which is completely contrary to what you say and believe is true.

Socrates knew all of this but still was considered wise because he knew he knows nothing.

Socrates may have never meant he knows nothing at all. He could have just meant he knows, relatively, nothing at all. Are you aware that people do have a tendency to speak figuratively instead of literally?

The Truth IS there is only One thing that can be known for sure, 100% without doubt. And, absolutely everything else is in doubt anyway, so cannot be Truly known. So, is absolutely every person wise? Every person after all only Truly knows one thing only, and relatively speaking "nothing at all".

Also, are you aware of just how contradictory it sounds to say; Some one knows ALL OF THIS, but they still know NOTHING?

Are you able explain your obviously extremely contradictory statement here?

Obviously there are degrees to what we know.

Do you know this for a fact? Are you absolutely, positively 100% sure you know that there are degrees to what we know?

In chess for example a person knows the game but their knowledge is relative and proven by their wins.

What does "knows the game" actually mean? Do you know what that actually means? If yes, then what does "know the game" actually mean?

Knowing the value of a good move requires appreciating what it means, how the pieces interact as a whole as well as what we know.

But if the 'wise' supposedly know nothing, then are these people who know the value of a so called "good" move as well as "what we know" (whatever that actually mean?) mean that they are not wise?

If knowing nothing makes one wise, then does knowing something make that one not wise?

We can assert what we know as you’ve pointed out but what does it mean?

What the word 'know' means is to be aware of some thing without any doubt at all. And, if thee Truth be known, there is only one thing that can be known, without any doubt at all.

Socrates saw that his associates were all experts in their chosen fields. They knew many facts related to their interests but didn’t know what it means as a whole. Socrates realized he didn’t know the meaning of life so had to admit he knew nothing in relation to the wholeness of human meaning and purpose.

That may or may not have taken place, so that may or may not be true. But, "to know" the meaning of 'life' is about one of the most simplest and easiest things to do in life. To gain the actual proper and correct answer to the question; 'What is the meaning of life?' one just needs the same thing that is needed to gain the proper and correct answers to all of Life's meaningful questions, which is extremely easy and simple to find or discover.

We are like this. We know facts but don’t know the rules of the game so don’t know its “meaning.”

Speak for yourself. Thee Truth IS you can really only truly speak for you, and for your self, ONLY anyway.

So, you say that you know facts, but you do not know the rules of the game, so you do not know its 'meaning'. This is fair enough.

But is this meant to prove anything other than you do not know the 'rules of the game'?

The argument, which is known to be ‘Meno’s Paradox’, may be formulated differently in the following way. Firstly, if a person knows what he/she is searching for, the inquiry as such is needless. Secondly, if a person does not know what he/she is searching for, the inquiry as such is not possible. Thus, an absolute conclusion demonstrates that either a person knows what he/she is searching for, or a person does not know that. Therefore, the inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible. The result of this paradox in both formulations demonstrates that the investigation is meaningless.

If a person is on such a level of being that they know the rules of the game and the meaning of life, then the inquiry is unnecessary.

Once I KNEW the these rules and the meaning of 'life', then yes OBVIOUSLY any inquiry into the exact same things that I had already found would be completely unnecessary. This would apply for every thing, which is already found, and would go without speaking, correct?

But, what I said previously had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with this. The examples I provide earlier SHOWED another perspective of your 'black and white', 'this or that', 'one or the other' thinking and perspective.

If a person is unable to sense that they are part of an interacting living machine we call universe, then the search is impossible and meaningless

Absolutely EVERY person is 'able' to sense that they are a part of the Universe anyway. So, there is NO person who is 'unable' to sense such a thing. Just like EVERY person is 'able' to learn and understand what thee actual Truth of the Universe IS, as well as being 'able' to learn and understand ALL the proper and correct answers to ALL of the Truly meaningful questions in Life. But what has this got to with 'the search' supposedly "being impossible and meaningless"?

So what I know requires also what it means to know for it to have value. Socrates said he didn’t know and have to admit that I am in the same boat. Yet the deeper part of my being is attracted to the question that there is something to know and plato said it is something we can “remember.” Is it possible?

The 'remember' part is in relation to ONCE the actual Truth comes to be KNOWN, then what also becomes KNOWN is that what thee actual One and ONLY Answers ARE, to ALL of the Truly meaningful questions in Life, then that was ALREADY KNOWN deep within 'us' (or deep within our psyche if you like). This ALREADY KNOWN KNOWledge was just unconsciously KNOWN. But when this KNOWLEDGE becomes consciously known, then it is like a 'aha' moment, or like one of a 'remembrance' 'of course' moment. Even a bit of a 'how could I have been so stupid to not have recognized and remembered this' like moment.

What there is 'to know', like 'to know' thy Self, for just one example, is some thing, which discovered and so becomes consciously known is one of those 'aha', 'I should have realized this before as I 'remember' always knowing this before' moment. This unconscious KNOWING is deep within our beings. And when this KNOWING becomes consciously known, then it is KNOWN to be thee One and ONLY absolutely True KNOWLEDGE because how this is gets judged is by KNOWING that absolutely EVERY one could agree with It.

There are hundreds of examples that can be given, if any specific clarifying questions are asked for.

And, as I say I LOVE and ENJOY being questioned and/or challenged about absolutely ANY OF THIS.

Obviously it is pointless searching for what you have already come to KNOW. But, as I said earlier, you can know that you are searching for how to become a Truly much better human being, (which by the way is another 'aha', 'I remember, feeling stupid' moment when you discover HOW you always KNEW how to become a much better human being already), but anyway, it is through this process of 'changing' for the better that ALL of the Truly meaningful answers in Life start coming to light and being revealed, automatically and instantly. By the way it is NOT because one is searching for these answers at all, but because they are being Truly serious about changing them 'self' for the better. Obviously, how EVERY person is now, they do NOT YET KNOW the answers to the Truly meaningful questions in Life, so then that means that it MUST BE through the 'changing of the self' that answers could come to like.

By the way, obviously searching for the answers, themselves, to the Truly meaningful questions in Life has NEVER worked. So, if they do exist, AND THOSE ANSWERS CERTAINLY DO, then there MUST BE another way. Once that way is discovered, then that is a Truly 'aha' and 'light bulb' moment of discovery and of realizing and knowing that 'I knew there was something to know', and now I 'remember what it was'.

Just about EVERY person just does not yet exactly know how to change and become a much better "person" yet.
So, in order to change properly and successfully then to continue to search is actually 'needed'.
Therefore, people can KNOW that 'they need to change', for the better, (but just frequently 'forget' this) and it would NEVER be a needless nor impossible thing to know to do, and nor a needless and impossible thing to keep searching for how to continually keep changing for the better.

I even suggest doing it, and just see what happens to come out of it. What possible harm or damage could come out of 'changing for the better'?

The Truth might so call "hurt" at times, but what does not kill 'you' only makes 'you' stronger. You may even find out who 'you' really ARE?

We will just have to wait and SEE.

[Age]

V A

Can you be open to the idea of an ineffable source as Einstein described it?

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

If the universe is like a living machine serving a necessary purpose.

What is the 'meaning of Life', like 'What is the 'necessary purpose' questions in Life are Truly the simplest and easiest ones to answer, properly and correctly, that is; Once you discover or learn how-to.

In fact, it becomes not an actual effort to find the proper and correct answer to them, but thee Answer just almost immediately becomes KNOWN.

is it more logical to conclude it exists to serve us or do we exist to serve a universal purpose we do not understand as we are?

The universal purpose is ALREADY UNDERSTOOD.

If true, what would it take to open to understanding free of pre-conceptions?

Absolutely Honesty.

That is all it takes to unlock the previous, so called, "mysteries" of Life.

Honestly is the key that unlocks ALL of the doors, which are the pre-conceptions, which is preventing and blocking thee actual Truth of being found and realized.

Full Honesty leads to absolute and full OPENNESS, and when Truly and FULLY OPEN, then there is not one door or pre-conception that will stop you learning more and anew.

It is pre-conceptions, assumptions and beliefs, which are the very things that prevent and stop a person from learning more and thus becoming wiser.

Once one is Truly OPEN and thus Truly learning, then they also gain True understanding of what living and being alive actually means.

The way human beings have so called "progressed" hitherto, up the days of when this is being written, is an absolutely a joke and stupefied in relation to what is soon about to come about after human beings evolve out of the human stage and into the next stage of the constant evolutionary progress of Life, Itself.

Also, and just by the way, Life, Itself, and 'meaning' are just absolutely so simple and easy things like 'spirit' for example in your quote above just refers thee One and ONLY Mind, itself, which is obviously manifest deep within humans, and within Life, Itself.

The One Truly OPEN Mind within Life and within ALL beings will manifest and REVEAL Its True Self. Showing just how It has always been obviously superior to human beings themselves. But has just been waiting patiently and humbly for those human beings who have been prepared enough (through evolutionary processes) to be Truly Honest, and thus then become Truly OPEN, for It to REVEAL Its True Self to.

[Age]

I’ve noticed that people who believe or deny objective morality do not understand each other. But is this lack of understanding just a natural result of Meno’s Paradox?

The argument, which is known to be ‘Meno’s Paradox’, may be formulated differently in the following way. Firstly, if a person knows what he/she is searching for, the inquiry as such is needless. Secondly, if a person does not know what he/she is searching for, the inquiry as such is not possible. Thus, an absolute conclusion demonstrates that either a person knows what he/she is searching for, or a person does not know that. Therefore, the inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible. The result of this paradox in both formulations demonstrates that the investigation is meaningless.

The question is politically incorrect since it suggests the necessity of a conscious source for Creation if morality can be remembered and secondly that everyone is not the same in their awareness of objective morality. Be prepared to swallow the hemlock if you bring it up in polite secular society.

I would appreciate discussing this question with another who has pondered it.

Is the investigation really meaningless or is it essential? Should the inquiry be banned in institutions of higher learning as impossible and unnecessary in favor of debating methods for cursing out Trump?

On the other hand, is there a way that Meno’s Paradox can be put into a context in which it makes perfect sense once a person experiences it?

If I know I'm looking for my keys, I still need to find them. So the search is not invalid.
If I do not know I am locked out of my house because to do not know about keys, The search for the reason is still not invalid.
I do not think this so called paradox applies to all situations.

In the matter of moral objectivity, there is no door. Those that think there is a case for moral objectivism have a key, but the door is not a moral one, but a scientific one; the key does not fit. The key can fit such a door, but for morality there are many doors, and the key can only fit the one specifically designed subjectively by those who think that there is one door.
Those that reject moral objectivism has a master key.

Or, there is another scenario where there just happens to be some things, which just happen to be in agreement with and by every one in morality issues, and so these shared views by every one on moral issues are the Truly morality objectivity views. Like for example, every one agrees 'we' human beings and other living things on earth need oxygen to keep living. If what is needed to keep living is a moral issue, then doing what destroys the actual oxygen and air we all need in order to keep living is a wrong and or immoral thing to do, which we ALL agree with anyway. If any one disagrees with this, and does not have a logical, reasonable, sound and valid argument for it, then just ask them if they want to be put in a room with the oxygen and air removed or polluted and see how long they are willing to stay in that room for to prove their point?

Obviously, every point of view of every person is 'relative' to them, but what happens when a 'relative' point of view, just happens to be the exact same point of view for EVERY one, then what I say happens is this 'relative' view of EVERY one becomes an 'objective' point of view. If, from absolutely EVERY perspective, one shared upon, accepted, and agreed upon view is seen, then that 'relative' to EVERYONE seen view is One view shared by EVERY one as One, is this, to me, is how an 'objective' view of things is formed and gained.

Moral objectivity, to me, is just those views on moral issues, which EVERY one happens to see, agree with, and accepts as being what is right (or wrong) in Life to do.

When ALL doors are OPENED, which is done when ALL preconceptions are gotten rid of and let go completely and wholly, then there is nothing blocking nor stopping one from learning, seeing, and understanding things far more clearly, and far more quickly as well. It is actually assumptions and beliefs, which is what is preventing and stopping people, in this day and age when these words are being written, from learning, seeing, and understanding things far more clearly, accurately, and collectively.