What is morality?

[Gary Childress]

Think of it this way. If you tell me a story, it's just a narrative. If I ask you for the "meaning," you have to go beyond the mere phenomena of the narrative, and speak about how it contributes to a pattern of signification about life. Likewise, that an organism feels things does not imply it is understanding it in any way, or that it signifies something relevant to the pattern of purpose of that organism's life.

IF the story has meaning, and if you need to ask "what is the meaning?", then you have not comprehended the story.

Not all life forms can even ask the question. In fact, there's only one we know of that can.

That fact, in itself, is remarkable. And as philosophers, we would do well to pause and ask, what does that fact mean?

And if Evolutionism were true, then the "story" wouldn't have any "meaning." One cannot ask about the "meaning" of genuinely random, chance events.

Why can't a human being assign meaning to random events? If I go to a casino and, through random processes, lose all my money, can I not say the meaning of that is that I'm broke, cannot pay my rent, and will therefore probably die on the street homeless?

[Immanuel Can]

IF the story has meaning, and if you need to ask "what is the meaning?", then you have not comprehended the story.

Not all life forms can even ask the question. In fact, there's only one we know of that can.

That fact, in itself, is remarkable. And as philosophers, we would do well to pause and ask, what does that fact mean?

And if Evolutionism were true, then the "story" wouldn't have any "meaning." One cannot ask about the "meaning" of genuinely random, chance events.

Why can't a human being assign meaning to random events?

Well, he can -- if he doesn't mind deceiving himself.

If I go to a casino and, through random processes, lose all my money, can I not say the meaning of that is that I'm broke, cannot pay my rent, and will therefore probably die on the street homeless?

That's what's called the "consequence." But its not a "meaning," in the semiotic sense of that word. It lacks the element of signification. You're then just a random monad, experiencing a random consequence, in a universe without purpose, direction or actual "story" into which that random even can be slotted. If you make something up, then you're just making it up...fooling yourself.

[Gary Childress]

Not all life forms can even ask the question. In fact, there's only one we know of that can.

That fact, in itself, is remarkable. And as philosophers, we would do well to pause and ask, what does that fact mean?

And if Evolutionism were true, then the "story" wouldn't have any "meaning." One cannot ask about the "meaning" of genuinely random, chance events.

Why can't a human being assign meaning to random events?

Well, he can -- if he doesn't mind deceiving himself.

If I go to a casino and, through random processes, lose all my money, can I not say the meaning of that is that I'm broke, cannot pay my rent, and will therefore probably die on the street homeless?

That's what's called the "consequence." But its not a "meaning," in the semiotic sense of that word. It lacks the element of signification. You're then just a random monad, experiencing a random consequence, in a universe without purpose, direction or actual "story" into which that random even can be slotted. If you make something up, then you're just making it up...fooling yourself.

Everything has meaning. If I go to the casino and lose ALL my money it literally MEANS I am broke. That's is what meaning is and how it works.

[Immanuel Can]

Why can't a human being assign meaning to random events?

Well, he can -- if he doesn't mind deceiving himself.

If I go to a casino and, through random processes, lose all my money, can I not say the meaning of that is that I'm broke, cannot pay my rent, and will therefore probably die on the street homeless?

That's what's called the "consequence." But its not a "meaning," in the semiotic sense of that word. It lacks the element of signification. You're then just a random monad, experiencing a random consequence, in a universe without purpose, direction or actual "story" into which that random even can be slotted. If you make something up, then you're just making it up...fooling yourself.

Everything has meaning.

Not according to secularism. Everything is an accidental product of a random-chance universe, and nothing has any meaning beyond itself. Whatever IS, simply IS. No more can be said. It doesn't signify or mean anything.

If I go to the casino and lose my money it literally MEANS I am broke.

You're not using the word "meaning" accurately there. To "mean," used precisely, means not merely "to cause" or "to have a consequence" but "to signify something" beyond itself. It means that the event fits into a narrative that adds up to some sort of message or intelligible narrative.

If you go to the casino and lose your money, it will cause you to be broke. But according to secular thought, that won't mean anything. It's not that the universe hates you, or you're under a curse from the universe, or that the universe cares about how much money you have...In other words, it will not have any narrative or teleological significance. It will just be how the dice happened to roll. Nothing more.

[popeye1945]

IF the story has meaning, and if you need to ask "what is the meaning?", then you have not comprehended the story.

Not all life forms can even ask the question. In fact, there's only one we know of that can.

That fact, in itself, is remarkable. And as philosophers, we would do well to pause and ask, what does that fact mean?

And if Evolutionism were true, then the "story" wouldn't have any "meaning." One cannot ask about the "meaning" of genuinely random, chance events.

Why can't a human being assign meaning to random events? If I go to a casino and, through random processes, lose all my money, can I not say the meaning of that is that I'm broke, cannot pay my rent, and will therefore probably die on the street homeless?

Meaning is the evaluation of experience and never belongs to the world of objects; all meanings are the subjective properties of consciousness.

[Immanuel Can]

Not all life forms can even ask the question. In fact, there's only one we know of that can.

That fact, in itself, is remarkable. And as philosophers, we would do well to pause and ask, what does that fact mean?

And if Evolutionism were true, then the "story" wouldn't have any "meaning." One cannot ask about the "meaning" of genuinely random, chance events.

Why can't a human being assign meaning to random events? If I go to a casino and, through random processes, lose all my money, can I not say the meaning of that is that I'm broke, cannot pay my rent, and will therefore probably die on the street homeless?

Meaning is the evaluation of experience and never belongs to the world of objects; all meanings are the subjective properties of consciousness.

That's something you'd have to prove. It's not at all obvious that it's true: the world could have an objective meaning, one that people debate, perhaps, but still has a right answer. I don't think you can find a way to rule that out.

But if it were true, then all it would mean is that every "meaning" is just a delusion: for reality would have absolutely nothing in it to warrant the assigning of one "meaning" to it, as opposed to another. "Meaning" would be merely a psychological quirk, one that had no link at all to reality. And hence, there would be no real "meaning." Just a bunch of delusions.

[Impenitent]

some delusions are more meaningful than others...

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

Confusion about random inputs versus random outcomes.

If we place a small rock on a level board and subject it to random disturbances the movement of the rock will be random.

If we place a small rock on a slanted board and subject it to random disturbances the movement of the rock will not be random. It will tend to move down the slope. Now in which direction the board is placed (which way does the slope point) might be random, but whatever is downward, that's the way the rock will end up moving.

Evolution is like the second case of the sloped board, except that there are multiple downwards (not a flat board). Again which of the downward directions the rock moves is random, but it will be down one of them. Of course no "board" involved, just the potential surface of ecological niches.

[Immanuel Can]

Confusion about random inputs versus random outcomes.

If we place a small rock on a level board and subject it to random disturbances the movement of the rock will be random.

If we place a small rock on a slanted board and subject it to random disturbances the movement of the rock will not be random. It will tend to move down the slope.

But put it on a randomly canted board, and it's as likely to go one way as the other. And that's the problem with your objection: you took out an element of randomness with the word "slope," and specified that the rock would have to move downhill in one direction, as a result.

To create a fair analogy, you have to leave ALL the variables as random. You can't "cook the books" by sliding in one or two pre-fixed factors. So you have to suppose the board cannot be known to be canted at all, or which way it is likely to be canted.

And randomness will return.

[popeye1945]

Why can't a human being assign meaning to random events? If I go to a casino and, through random processes, lose all my money, can I not say the meaning of that is that I'm broke, cannot pay my rent, and will therefore probably die on the street homeless?

Meaning is the evaluation of experience and never belongs to the world of objects; all meanings are the subjective properties of consciousness.

That's something you'd have to prove. It's not at all obvious that it's true: the world could have an objective meaning, one that people debate, perhaps, but still has a right answer. I don't think you can find a way to rule that out.

But if it were true, then all it would mean is that every "meaning" is just a delusion: for reality would have absolutely nothing in it to warrant the assigning of one "meaning" to it, as opposed to another. "Meaning" would be merely a psychological quirk, one that had no link at all to reality. And hence, there would be no real "meaning." Just a bunch of delusions.

Yes, meaning is particular to life forms; the physical world is utterly meaningless. You obviously need to spend some time pondering this.

[Immanuel Can]

Meaning is the evaluation of experience and never belongs to the world of objects; all meanings are the subjective properties of consciousness.

That's something you'd have to prove. It's not at all obvious that it's true: the world could have an objective meaning, one that people debate, perhaps, but still has a right answer. I don't think you can find a way to rule that out.

But if it were true, then all it would mean is that every "meaning" is just a delusion: for reality would have absolutely nothing in it to warrant the assigning of one "meaning" to it, as opposed to another. "Meaning" would be merely a psychological quirk, one that had no link at all to reality. And hence, there would be no real "meaning." Just a bunch of delusions.

Yes, meaning is particular to life forms;

No, it's certainly not. The only remaining question, really, is whether it even "is particular" to humans, since secularism would instruct us it is merely a delusion.

[popeye1945]

That's something you'd have to prove. It's not at all obvious that it's true: the world could have an objective meaning, one that people debate, perhaps, but still has a right answer. I don't think you can find a way to rule that out.

But if it were true, then all it would mean is that every "meaning" is just a delusion: for reality would have absolutely nothing in it to warrant the assigning of one "meaning" to it, as opposed to another. "Meaning" would be merely a psychological quirk, one that had no link at all to reality. And hence, there would be no real "meaning." Just a bunch of delusions.

Yes, meaning is particular to life forms;

No, it's certainly not. The only remaining question, really, is whether it even "is particular" to humans, since secularism would instruct us it is merely a delusion.

Yes, it's true; you need to think about it more.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, meaning is particular to life forms;

No, it's certainly not. The only remaining question, really, is whether it even "is particular" to humans, since secularism would instruct us it is merely a delusion.

Yes, it's true; you need to think about it more.

Too late. I'm miles ahead of you on this.

[popeye1945]

No, it's certainly not. The only remaining question, really, is whether it even "is particular" to humans, since secularism would instruct us it is merely a delusion.

Yes, it's true; you need to think about it more.

Too late. I'm miles ahead of you on this.

Nothing in the world has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to a conscious subject. In the absence of consciousness, the physical world is utterly meaningless.

[Gary Childress]

Yes, it's true; you need to think about it more.

Too late. I'm miles ahead of you on this.

Nothing in the world has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to a conscious subject. In the absence of consciousness, the physical world is utterly meaningless.

Yes. I tend to agree with this statement. Meaning is a mental property of one thought being connected to something else, including another thought. I'd like to hear IC tell me what his definition of "meaning" is, though.

@IC, what is your definition of the word "meaning"? What does the word "meaning" mean?