Death

[Bernard]

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.

Haven't actually got it up for sale anyway.

Philosophical discussions aren't for proving points. They are just discussions. Proving a point may be a part of the discussion. The process is more important. With that in mind can you answer me why in a galaxy of billions stars - a galaxy that is just one of billions of more galaxies, a human being would be the first - or at least second - in command of life and all that lives? Its plain nuts!

At least most atheists , who are mostly similar to Christians in making man the measure of all things - or just a cut under that status - are able to accommodate the notion that other creatures similar to us may well be at there... but no the average simpleton Christian, oh no no no.

In the video, the man sees a man in the light because that is what he was subconsciously looking for. He even says before the man appears that he was wondering if there was a man in the light - his subconscious did the rest.

[henry quirk]

"You're a cantankerous fellow, to be sure, and not always a diplomat..."

Yeah, I know.

A virtue and vice.

#

"...but I quite like you."

And I like you...so: if I get snippy, don't take it personally.

Sometimes: I get tired of dancing, is all.

#

"You seem to be saying, "I don't need meaning beyond being happy."

Not at all. If I'm happy it's because I assess the world as indifferent, meaningless, pointless and (knowing this) I act accordingly, taking charge of myself, being responsible for and to myself.

When I'm successful: good on me...when I fail: boo hoo for Henry.

#

"what you say doesn't help any person less pragmatic than you"

I get that...try as I may, try as I might: can't see how that's my problem.

#

"And I'm equally concerned with them."

Why?

Shouldn’t each of 'them' be self-concerned (and -responsible)?

No offense, but you're soundin' awfully paternalistic.

#

"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."

Of course it doesn't. If Joe thinks his value-ing, his meaning, is generalizable to the world at large, then Joe is indeed a loon.

#

"Atheism does that"

No, some atheists do that.

#

"Atheism kills the concept "meaning"

I disagree.

It may kill the concept of meaning that you cling to, but -- as I say -- I am real, the meaning 'I' bring to 'this' or 'that' is real.

What you seem to object to is the finiteness of idiosyncratic meaning (only exists as long as I do; is limited to me; etc.).

Make you a deal: when I hit the big, red, reset button for the universe, I'll be sure to incorporate some intrinsic meaning into the fabric of everything...a lil sumthin'-sumthin' so folks won't get all angsty.

#

"Then what will it all have "meant"?"

It means nuthin' (except as each brings meaning to 'this' or 'that').

#

"How is that not a (temporary) delusion?"

The delusion (and desperate hunger, it seems) is lookin' for an intrinsic meaning in Reality when there's not a jot of evidence that such a thing exists.

##

"Is there meaning to life and the universe?"

Sure! What I (and you and he and she) bring to the party...the party itself: meaningless.

#

"Are humans capable of discovering and understanding (objective) meaning, if it exists?

'Our' ability to discover such a thing depends on the nature of that thing.

If objective meaning issues from 'god', then the availability of evidence rests on how how stingy HE/SHE/IT is with the goods.

If objective meaning is just a function of things (without intelligent oversight) then all that stands between 'us' and 'it' is 'our' capacity to discern 'it' cleanly and clearly.

[Immanuel Can]

"Are humans capable of discovering and understanding (objective) meaning, if it exists?

'Our' ability to discover such a thing depends on the nature of that thing.

If objective meaning issues from 'god', then the availability of evidence rests on how how stingy HE/SHE/IT is with the goods.

If objective meaning is just a function of things (without intelligent oversight) then all that stands between 'us' and 'it' is 'our' capacity to discern 'it' cleanly and clearly.

Henry:

I'm entirely in agreement with you on 1, 2 and 3.

But to me, 4 makes no sense. To say that something "functions" is not equivalent to saying it has "meaning." (People sometimes use the word that way, it's true, but they're being foggy in their usage.) To say something has "meaning" is to posit that it fits into a pattern or plan of some kind. Not just that it *happens* (perhaps merely fortuitously) functions in some way.

I can make a rock "function" as a hammer: that does not mean that rocks "mean" anything...and certainly not that they "mean" hammers.

Therefore, in the world in which you are describing yourself living, there is no way to "discern" meaning except by imagining it or by mentally trying to impose it where (premised on your #2) it doesn't inherently exist there at all...in other words, all you could get then is a mere *feeling* of meaning, one produced by occupying yourself with a pleasing delusion.

Or so it would seem...Is that your position on #4?

[henry quirk]

"But to me, 4 makes no sense."

I agree, but then: the notion of an inherent or objective or universal meaning makes no sense either...

[Immanuel Can]

I agree, but then: the notion of an inherent or objective or universal meaning makes no sense either...

I'm not quite sure why that would be, Henry. It looks quite coherent to me, at least as a concept.

Yet I suppose that by "no sense" you could mean two different things. You could mean...

1) It is "not sense" to posit the existence of enties which do not exist in actuality.

...or that...

2) It is "not sense" to posit that an objective or universal meaning could exist as a coherent concept.

If you intend to say 1) then it's right in a common-sensical way, of course. But it doesn't tell us whether "meaning" is one of these "entities that does not exist in reality." Your statement certainly does not *prove* it is, or even *attempt* to do so, of course. Yet as a statement of pure opinion, there's no reason for us to resist it.

If it's 2), then I see no reason to believe it. If, for example, we posit that the universe came into being by way of a conscious act, a deliberate creation aimed at a particular plan, then it would seem totally reasonable to suppose something was "meant" by creation, and hence that there is an objective "meaning" in our being here.

Now, of course, you might argue that such an account is "contrary to the facts" or "ultimately untrue," (or, if I know you, you might say something more like "It's a load of horse apples." ) but there is no reason to think that *if* it were true there would be no possibility of objective meaning. In fact, it looks highly plausible that there would be.

So "objective meaning" is not an intrinsically incoherent idea: it's rational in that sense; but it would only be *possible* under certain conditions, most notably, if there were a deliberate, purposive act of Creation.

[QMan]

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.

Haven't actually got it up for sale anyway.

Philosophical discussions aren't for proving points. They are just discussions. Proving a point may be a part of the discussion. The process is more important. With that in mind can you answer me why in a galaxy of billions stars - a galaxy that is just one of billions of more galaxies, a human being would be the first - or at least second - in command of life and all that lives? Its plain nuts!

At least most atheists , who are mostly similar to Christians in making man the measure of all things - or just a cut under that status - are able to accommodate the notion that other creatures similar to us may well be at there... but no the average simpleton Christian, oh no no no.

In the video, the man sees a man in the light because that is what he was subconsciously looking for. He even says before the man appears that he was wondering if there was a man in the light - his subconscious did the rest.

Bernard:
Haven't actually got it up for sale anyway.

Qman:
Might have considered buying it if you had offered it at a discount.

Bernard:
Philosophical discussions aren't for proving points. They are just discussions.

Qman:
Depends on your definition of philosophy, this being me, I prefer this overarching one: "The pursuit of wisdom". You don't get there by simply opinionating.

Bernard:
Proving a point may be a part of the discussion. The process is more important.

Qman:
You got that in reverse. Having worked with many different types of processes I can tell you that a process is only the means to an end (a product). In this case, proving the point is the end product. Opinions don't prove anything, they definitely don't constitute a process.

Bernard:
With that in mind can you answer me why in a galaxy of billions stars - a galaxy that is just one of billions of more galaxies, a human being would be the first - or at least second - in command of life and all that lives? Its plain nuts!

Qman:
Not sure what you mean. Are you referring to any human or Christ? Please clarify.

Bernard:
At least most atheists , who are mostly similar to Christians in making man the measure of all things - or just a cut under that status - are able to accommodate the notion that other creatures similar to us may well be at there... but no the average simpleton Christian, oh no no no.

Qman:
Are you referring to space aliens? If so, perhaps you are not familiar with the fact that the Catholic church, e.g., has no problem with other Life existing in outer space (and neither do I).
You are also perhaps totally misreading the theist (at least my) position on this, namely, whatever we are awakening to in our existence and universe by definition is the handiwork of God. There is never a conflict there.

Bernard:
In the video, the man sees a man in the light because that is what he was subconsciously looking for. He even says before the man appears that he was wondering if there was a man in the light - his subconscious did the rest.

Qman:
Same mistake. Just your opinion, you have not talked to the man nor his doctors. The probabilities are on his side that he knows what he is talking about and you don't. This is a typical example why the back and forth in these fora will always be pointless (unless you are just interested in shooting the breeze). Only a few people are able and interested in pursuing a consistent logical argument that produces results.

[Bernard]

Now you seem to equate philosophy with logic. This is a mistake. The persuit of wisdom isn't the persuit of reason. Wisdom is quite different territory. Wit is closer to wisdom than reason, etymologically and otherwise. It's a Modern mistake. Philosophers of today would find those of old quite surprisingly different company than they might imagine them to be

Look, conclusions are just points of reference along the way that often soon become redundant. It's the journeying that counts.. Journey without end.

The Christ is just the spirit in all of us. It's the same as the Buddha. I see where you are coming from - am aware of Catholic stuff. I've Two uncles still in priesthood. Let me rephrase the question: do you see the Christ as having achieved its most powerful potential in Jesus the man? Do you regard that there can be much more powerful manifestations of the spirit in way vaster creatures than humans? One thinks of angels and yet the Christ rules them too. You've got this thing where the Christ can't be separated from Jesus because Jesus is now living forever as Christ next to God. You see, humanity is the highest possible consciousness beside God in this way of looking at things. Catholic eschatology doesn't bear scrutiny. How anyone is supposed to make head or tail out of it is beyond me... Though plenty of money has been made out of it.

I've seen a few times that white light the man in the video saw. It turns into different things depending on who you are and what culture your from. When I first saw it it became a bunch of wrought iron type sculptural figurines that were animate. That light is just a function of energy. Its a huge field of energy that has every human characteristic imaginable and unimaginable within it. It cuts across the entire cosmos. It's function is simply to form humans, just like a mechanical mold does. It does this energetically, not physically

[henry quirk]

"I'm not quite sure why that would be, Henry. It looks quite coherent to me, at least as a concept."

For 'meaning' (as you would have it: intrinsic, objective, absolute, universal) to 'be' implies a 'meaning giver', a prime mover, 'god' (if no prime mover is needed for objective meaning, then from where does this absolute, this moral dimension, issue?)

Nuthin' coherent about 'god' (the concept).

So: if the source of objective meaning is hooey, then objective meaning is hooey.


On the subject of 'god'...

*If 'god' exists then I can only (off the top of my head) conclude...

(1) It's 'all powerful' but (for some reason) chooses not to involve itself in the world (I see no evidence of divine intervention in the world...do you?).

Since 'god' is not involved: I'm on my own. Can't see a good reason to spend a lot of time thinking about, or seeking the attention of, a 'god' who sits back and does nothing but play voyeur (or, maybe, is off doing something else entirely).


(2) It's not 'all powerful' and -- for that reason -- can't do anything in the world.

Since 'god' is limited: I'm on my own. Can't see a good reason to spend a lot of time thinking about, or seeking the attention of, a 'god' who may want to intervene but is incapable.


(3) It's so alien in the way it thinks (in agenda, goal, purpose, etc.) its action in the world is incomprehensible and indistinguishable from natural occurrence.

Since 'god' is an alien: I'm on my own. Can't see a good reason to spend a lot of time thinking about, or seeking the attention of, a 'god' who is so far removed from me I can't hope to frame an entreaty it could even understand.


(4) It's a tricksy, manipulative, p**** playing with the world like my nephew does a June bug.

Since 'god' is a fucker: I'm on my own. Only good reason to spend time thinking about 'god' (in this case) is to figure out how to fly under its radar.


Of course: there may be no 'god'...in which case: I'm on my own.

*shrug*

#

"if there were a deliberate, purposive act of Creation"

Let's say for the moment Reality is an artifact, built from the quark up by some prime mover, some designer/creator/sustainer.

Why is it a given that such a being incorporated 'meaning' into the mix (*or, that such a being give a rat's ass about you or me?).

Reality (as we know it) may be the equivalent of a bar napkin doodle for this prime mover (the only meaning being what the prime mover brings to the mix and -- in the case of Reality as doodle -- that meaning may be nuthin' more than time-wasting while the celestial barmaid brings the next round).









*when I construct a sentence, my only interest in punctuation marks is that I place them properly so as to convey...not at all interested in the period (for example) for itself, but only in what it does for me.

The prime mover may have a keen interest in the Creation but absolutely no interest 'me', so any meaning such a being would install into Reality would be for its benefit, not mine...my attempts to discern that meaning may be frustrating and ultimately harmful (Drano does wonders for copper pipes and does shit-all to a human's throat and stomach).

[henry quirk]

"A house of cards is built not for the moment that it stands, but the moment it falls."

Find me some intrinsic meaning in 'that'.

*shrug*

[thedoc]

"A house of cards is built not for the moment that it stands, but the moment it falls."

Find me some intrinsic meaning in 'that'.

*shrug*

Cautionary tales usually have some meaning in them. Negative meaning is still meaning.

[henry quirk]

"Negative meaning is still meaning"

Sure, but I'm talkin' about Manny's intrinsic meaning, not the idiosyncratic version 'I' bring to the table.

And: in the case of the house of cards, I'm referring specifically to a potential motivation for a creator/prime mover to create.

With the house of cards (a universe) that motivation may be nuthin' more than waitin' for the whole thing to fall apart.

If so: intrinsic meaning is rendered null 'cause the creation was never 'for' the occupants but solely for the creator.

[Immanuel Can]

May I intrude? Given my chosen pseudonym, I can hardly be expected to forebear.

The Christ is just the spirit in all of us. It's the same as the Buddha.

Well, Bernard, this certainly isn't what He has said He is. So you must not be thinking of the "Christ" of the Bible, but rather of some other "christ." You will also need some basis on which to co-opt the concept (removing it from everything revealed in the Bible, reinterpreting it and making of it another thing) other than the productions of your personal imagination -- some basis in fact, in revelation or in reality itself -- and what would that be?

Do you see the Christ as having achieved its most powerful potential in Jesus the man?

No. I seem Him as *being* the Christ, exclusively and finally. Yet, of course, even if I personally did not "see" him so, He would still Be what He is -- the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God. Reality is what it is, regardless of how I wish to "see" it.

Do you regard that there can be much more powerful manifestations of the spirit in way vaster creatures than humans?

I see no reason to think not. It seems a plausible thing to think.

You see, humanity is the highest possible consciousness beside God in this way of looking at things.

How would one know? And even if it were true, it would be a trivial comparison. If there were only two creatures on the Earth -- say amoebae and humans -- then it would be true to say that "amoebae are the highest possible consciousness beside humans": but nobody would think the comparison was close.

That being said, the Bible does insist that humankind is "made in the image of God." This certainly suggests some "god-like" capacity, though what this capacity is and how far it goes is the subject of theological discussion. Personally, I am inclined to think it is the capacity for genuine free will; but other Christians might disagree with me on that.

Catholic eschatology doesn't bear scrutiny. How anyone is supposed to make head or tail out of it is beyond me... Though plenty of money has been made out of it.

Well, I'll let the Catholics speak for the Catholics on that. There's no reason for me to advance an opinion there.

[Immanuel Can]

Why is it a given that such a being incorporated 'meaning' into the mix (*or, that such a being give a rat's ass about you or me?).

In the case of a Supreme Being, Henry, it seems highly unlikely he would need to "doodle." After all, doodling is what we do when we can't think of something in particular, when we're bored, etc. I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that being "supreme" would probably obviate the need for distraction.

But there's serious question behind your quip, of course, so I'll take it seriously. The Supreme Being would also be supremely in control of His intentions. He would not have "accidental" creations, byproducts of some other thing He was trying to do: He would succeed perfectly, always, in what He was intending, and would do nothing without intending to do it.

So it seems perfectly reasonable to suppose He "meant" something when He created the world. And given that we are very limited little creatures (as you have rightly pointed out earlier) the fact that we do not always fathom the full nature of His intention in doing a thing would hardly be surprising. We might expect some perplexity on our part; yet that would go no distance to suggesting there was no meaning to be understood.

[henry quirk]

"A Supreme Being" with no need for distractions, with perfect intent, who never fails.

You've described the perfect computer (which is what some suggest the universe 'is').

Can't see reason to bend knee to 'that'.

Also can't see reason to pay much mind to what that perfect machine 'wants' since -- as a perfect thing -- it should have no wants, no desires, no likes or dislikes, no passions.

Your god, then, is the perfect calculator doing what all calculators do: grinding out numbers (processing 0 and 1) without a care or interest in the results.

And Reality is left without intrinsic meaning ('cept for 1 + 1 = 2 [which is an elegant but utterly amoral construct]).

Certainly: the "Supreme Being" you describe is nuthin' like the one found in the Old Testament (or the New) or any other religious document ('cept mebbe the I-phone owner's manual)

[Bernard]

May I intrude? Given my chosen pseudonym, I can hardly be expected to forebear.

Be my guest

The Christ is just the spirit in all of us. It's the same as the Buddha.

Well, Bernard, this certainly isn't what He has said He is. So you must not be thinking of the "Christ" of the Bible, but rather of some other "christ." You will also need some basis on which to co-opt the concept (removing it from everything revealed in the Bible, reinterpreting it and making of it another thing) other than the productions of your personal imagination -- some basis in fact, in revelation or in reality itself -- and what would that be?

Since when is the bible the be end and all end of knowledge of this kind? This is a very basic principle in most spiritual traditions. You wouldn't know Jesus if you tripped over him in the street, let alone what the Christ really is.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=f72 ... =html_text

Do you see the Christ as having achieved its most powerful potential in Jesus the man?

No. I seem Him as *being* the Christ, exclusively and finally. Yet, of course, even if I personally did not "see" him so, He would still Be what He is -- the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God. Reality is what it is, regardless of how I wish to "see" it.

Well we are all the messiah and all the children of God and all the Christ, but you'll will probably never get that.

Do you regard that there can be much more powerful manifestations of the spirit in way vaster creatures than humans?

I see no reason to think not. It seems a plausible thing to think.

Do you see how out of kilter that reply is to the one you just made above?


You see, humanity is the highest possible consciousness beside God in this way of looking at things.
How would one know? And even if it were true, it would be a trivial comparison. If there were only two creatures on the Earth -- say amoebae and humans -- then it would be true to say that "amoebae are the highest possible consciousness beside humans": but nobody would think the comparison was close.

Clearly, humans are way up there with God in your belief system and there is next to nothing between them and God, except angels - which are humans with wings anyway - every other creature is there for the dinner plate basically.

That being said, the Bible does insist that humankind is "made in the image of God." This certainly suggests some "god-like" capacity, though what this capacity is and how far it goes is the subject of theological discussion. Personally, I am inclined to think it is the capacity for genuine free will; but other Christians might disagree with me on that.

"made in the image of God."

All this means is that humans have the power to reflect on their own experiences and images

Catholic eschatology doesn't bear scrutiny. How anyone is supposed to make head or tail out of it is beyond me... Though plenty of money has been made out of it.

Well, I'll let the Catholics speak for the Catholics on that. There's no reason for me to advance an opinion there.

Catholics won't do it either. The holy see basically forbids it, and even non-Catholic Christians still obey the tacit decree set by the holy see not to scrutinize their belief system