Death

[henry quirk]

"But there's a world of difference between how we feel subjectively and what we know to be true about the universe."

No shit. The trick is to let 'truth' (fact, what is real) inform one's living and value-ing.

#

"...but that "interest" will be short lived and --as the Bard put it -- "signifiy nothing" beyond that."

Manny, nuthin' and no one is significant (not in the way you pine for)...so what?

Because the universe is indifferent I should despair?

Fuck that noise.

I'm glad you have your version of the GIANT GREEN TREE FROG to invest yourself into and to draw meaning out of.

I consider myself fortunate to have 'me' for exactly the same reason(s).

#

"(A)re you just a faint spark briefly glimmering in the heart of a cold and indifferent universe?"

Yep...just like every-one and -thing (including the "cold and indifferent universe" itself).

Again: so what?

Why does (the possible) lack of objective meaning, or universal meaning, irk you so?

Better question: Why is your 'here' and 'now' only valid in a morally dimensioned Reality?

#

"Will all that you are, your sorrows and your joys alike, all your actions and hopes, all your relatives and friends, and all the hubub of this terrestrial globe since the dawn of time simply perish into the eternal blackness of an indifferent cosmos?"

Yep.

Again: so what?

#

"Will it all *mean* anything?"

My living means everything to me as I'm in the midst of it (my living is my on-going 'doing').

When I croak (cease) then that meaning, that value-ing, ceases as well.

#

"I'm asking those who proclaim the universe empty of meaning how they make subjective meaning anything more than delusional."

I've explained (in a couple of different ways) how I bring 'meaning' to the world (and avoid delusion).

You want I should do it again (or -- like some folks in this forum -- will you just ignore what I post?)?

[Bernard]

Of course, I don't believe that for a minute: but I'm not speaking for myself. I'm asking those who proclaim the universe empty of meaning how they make subjective meaning anything more than delusional.

Well they can't make anything without a subjectivity faculty, even a faculty that is delusional is not functional in any way.

Subjectivity is functional, and indeed provides a vastly more efficient and potent cognition than does objectivity in terms of the mileage we get from it evolutionary wise. But with the ballast of objectivity the ship soon scuttles itself.

[Immanuel Can]

I've explained (in a couple of different ways) how I bring 'meaning' to the world (and avoid delusion).

You want I should do it again (or -- like some folks in this forum -- will you just ignore what I post?)?

Not at all, Henry. You're a cantankerous fellow, to be sure, and not always a diplomat; but I quite like you. I find honest skeptics likeable, and I love the fact that you don't back off from the implications of a thought. Good for you, I say.

No, I've heard you, and I'm at peace with the fact that you're happy to live in the sort of world you describe. At the same time, this doesn't help me distinguish "subjective meaning" from delusion. You seem to be saying, "I don't need meaning beyond being happy." Fair enough -- for you. But of course, what you say doesn't help any person less pragmatic than you. And I'm equally concerned with them.

In particular, it doesn't help anyone who is hoping that though the universe is inherently meaningless, believing in the idea of "subjective meaning" will somehow magically return "meaning" to the ontological level of reality. What I'm suggesting is that to do that is simply to choose of delusion over reality. Atheism does that: it kills off "meaning," turning into either an empty sociological descriptor (as in, "We observe that people happen to enjoy believing in meaning, whether it exists or not."), or an artificial construction (as in, "I'm inventing some kind of strategy for creating an illusion of meaning for my life."), but not to an ontological reality (as in, "There is a meaning for life.)

For anyone who, like you, knows that Atheism kills the concept "meaning" and despite that is content to live in the void create thereby, I simply have no further objections. We all live with our choices.

So I'm not ignoring you, Henry: I just have no reason to object to what you're saying.

[James Markham]

I agree with Henry, real meaning is only found in the experience of living, and any one who believes in either reincarnation, or some preservation of their spirit after death, necessarily must feel the same. Even people who believe in god and heaven, believe they will carry in their existence, and that's what we call living, so all meaning is necessarily in life.

[Immanuel Can]

Subjectivity is functional, and indeed provides a vastly more efficient and potent cognition than does objectivity in terms of the mileage we get from it evolutionary wise.

Oh, I can't see that that's true, Bernard: for in this case, we're discussing the specific "subjective" experience of deluding oneself that there's a "meaning" in the universe when we know deep down there is none. In other words, we're discussing lying to ourselves.

So we must ask you, how could a "delusion" i.e. a refusal to see reality as it is, prove "evolutionarily" adaptive in any way? In general, refusal to face reality is maladaptive, as when a person believes she can flap her arms and fly off a cliff -- and if she believes such things, she won't be contributing much genetic material to the perpetuation of the species thereby.

No, at best we might think that delusions could be neutral with regard to evolutionary development. But even that won't save the idea; for if it's neutral, then Darwin insists it cannot be "selected for" by evolution, as evolution only selects for positive survival advantages. Therefore, contrary to your claim, we get no "evolutionary mileage" off delusions.

Besides, perpetuating delusion is presumably not the business we philosophers should be in.

But with the ballast of objectivity the ship soon scuttles itself.

Actually, it's the opposite: we defy objective truth at our peril. Subjectivity is the risky one. "What I think is true" is less powerful than "what is true." Reality always wins in the end.

[Immanuel Can]

I agree with Henry, real meaning is only found in the experience of living, and any one who believes in either reincarnation, or some preservation of their spirit after death, necessarily must feel the same. Even people who believe in god and heaven, believe they will carry in their existence, and that's what we call living, so all meaning is necessarily in life.

This can't be right. "Life" is a contingent thing: it comes and goes -- and, science assures us, all things being equal, the Law of Entropy will inevitably destroy all life. Then what will it all have "meant"? How is that not a (temporary) delusion?

[jackles]

its all about your consciousness imanuel. all will pass away but your consciouness cant pass away cos it always was.the core meaning of consciouness is indistinguishable and it has no individuality and no size.but its you.

[Bernard]

Quote:
But with the ballast of objectivity the ship soon scuttles itself.

Actually, it's the opposite: we defy objective truth at our peril. Subjectivity is the risky one. "What I think is true" is less powerful than "what is true." Reality always wins in the end.

Was a typo, meant without the ballast of objectivity

[thedoc]

Subjectivity is functional, and indeed provides a vastly more efficient and potent cognition than does objectivity in terms of the mileage we get from it evolutionary wise.

Oh, I can't see that that's true, Bernard: for in this case, we're discussing the specific "subjective" experience of deluding oneself that there's a "meaning" in the universe when we know deep down there is none. In other words, we're discussing lying to ourselves.

Not quite true. It may be true that humans do not have the means to discover and understand meaning in the universe, but that does not prove that there is no meaning. Absence of proof, is not proof of absence. Just as humans have not been able to provide objective proof of the Existence of God, Humans have not been able to provide objective proof of the subjective concept of meaning to the universe, but all that does not prove that meaning does not exist. One way to guarantee that we will not find meaning in the existence of the universe, is to not look for it, you will not find what you do not look for.

[thedoc]

There are two questions,

Is there meaning to life and the universe?

Are humans capable of discovering and understanding that meaning, if it exists?

[Bernard]

I agree with Henry, real meaning is only found in the experience of living, and any one who believes in either reincarnation, or some preservation of their spirit after death, necessarily must feel the same. Even people who believe in god and heaven, believe they will carry in their existence, and that's what we call living, so all meaning is necessarily in life.

But no one beside simpleton religious types and the like believes that an individual's spirit survives death. What most of us optimistic toward death types here are saying is that something survives death (and birth) that is not in any way the individual.

When we see a new born bub - or better yet, an embryo, we know we aren't looking at much of an individual. They are highly dependent and psychologically undeveloped, yet an aged person has wonderful individual marks and developments usually, so its really quite obvious a matter to associate individuation with the process of living, and death as the undoing of all that, and further it really isn't that much of an implausible consideration that something is at work here that simply refreshes a product once it has fulfilled its potential; recycling, rebadging and giving it a new go at becoming an individual. I wouldn't regard that something as in any way a personal or anthropomorphic force. Consciousness or being seem enough as descriptions.

There is no way there is ever going to be evidence of anything because evidence belongs to the realm of individuals and our ways.

[QMan]

As I see it, all this back and forth about the meaning of life and death and the universe can be dispensed with if one is willing to deal with facts. Now facts are what makes up your experience but, much more importantly, what you do consider factual of what you have been told by others and what you learned from them. Now, if you only admit to those things being factual that suit your current proclivities and outlook on life then very few factual things can be taught you and you are prone to judge other's experience as irrelevant and even fraudulent. All it simply means is that people are comfortable on their little island even if you tell them it's on fire and they should be getting off. That's the message I am taking away concerning life and death as told by Ian McCormack.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4lgvZ5MCZ4

A short synopsis is, Ian is a dedicated (to himself) full blown atheist, has a diving accident, makes it to land and hospital, dies, meets you know who (the good version) has a profound conversion and is sent back to live some more. Now he is a dedicated theist telling you about his experience.

[Bernard]

There are two questions,

Is there meaning to life and the universe?

Are humans capable of discovering and understanding that meaning, if it exists?

There are untold of examples of instances of meaning just in one's own daily life that only a dead man would deny. These meanings accumulate and the accumulation generates more the need for more meaning, or more generalized meaning, which makes the development of individuality smoother. I'm sure the universe - whatever that is - does that in its own way, but even though its most likely alive in some way, the universe is not life.

Living things give life meaning, but death doesn't take it away from life. It only takes away living things, whilst life brings forth living things. So living things are the meaning of life and life the meaning of living things... or: life is consciousness forever evolving and living things are the means through which that is accomplished.

If you think life is an accident of the physical world,,, well,,, good luck with that!

[Bernard]

As I see it, all this back and forth about the meaning of life and death and the universe can be dispensed with if one is willing to deal with facts. Now facts are what makes up your experience but, much more importantly, what you do consider factual of what you have been told by others and what you learned from them. Now, if you only admit to those things being factual that suit your current proclivities and outlook on life then very few factual things can be taught you and you are prone to judge other's experience as irrelevant and even fraudulent. All it simply means is that people are comfortable on their little island even if you tell them it's on fire and they should be getting off. That's the message I am taking away concerning life and death as told by Ian McCormack.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4lgvZ5MCZ4

The trouble with Christianity is it makes Jesus God, which anthropomorphises and makes a mockery of a wonderful term. Jesus was just the pinnacle of human evolution. There are far more conscious and aware creatures out there than a billion Jesus' put together.

Thanks for the video - gets interesting about halfway

[QMan]

As I see it, all this back and forth about the meaning of life and death and the universe can be dispensed with if one is willing to deal with facts. Now facts are what makes up your experience but, much more importantly, what you do consider factual of what you have been told by others and what you learned from them. Now, if you only admit to those things being factual that suit your current proclivities and outlook on life then very few factual things can be taught you and you are prone to judge other's experience as irrelevant and even fraudulent. All it simply means is that people are comfortable on their little island even if you tell them it's on fire and they should be getting off. That's the message I am taking away concerning life and death as told by Ian McCormack.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4lgvZ5MCZ4

The trouble with Christianity is it makes Jesus God, which anthropomorphises and makes a mockery of a wonderful term. Jesus was just the pinnacle of human evolution. There are far more conscious and aware creatures out there than a billion Jesus' put together.

Hi Bernard, I am not a philosopher, come more from the techie area. However, of what I learned about philosophy so far there is one precept, rule, whatever, that caught my eye and that I can understand and relate to and that is, in a philosophical discussion, you cannot prove your point by using a statement that itself is not proven or is simply unprovable. If we all lived by that and applied it, discussions in these fora would progress better and more along philosophical lines. So, naturally, I am unable to buy into your argument.