What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

davidm wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:28 am But of course this is where I think you always go awry. You simply define "meaning" as extrinsic to oneself and objective.
I think you'll find that rationally speaking, that is precisely how it HAS to be defined. If it's not objective and extrinsic, then some exceedingly unfortunate logical corollaries ensue, that render the whole idea incoherent.

For instance, then the "meaning" in question is just as variable as the number of people on earth -- and worse, on the moods they can have at a particular minute, or the beliefs they can choose at a particular time. It then is incapable of a key AE virtue, namely "authenticity": for being "authentic" to no locatable and stable point or state at all, it can never be said NOT to be "authentic" -- nor to be "authentic."

Moreover, since the "meaning" asserted by AE cannot be tied to any objective reality, it fails to be informative of anything but the immediate internal preferences of the individual. No one can owe it to another person to honour or admire their "meaning," or to agree that they have achieved that "meaning": for it cannot be located -- not even by the person imagining it, for he or she may change his or her mind in the next second.

So any such definition of meaning is beyond ephemeral. It's the ghost of a ghost. It's nothing.

And Nihilism then ensues. But solipsism first -- the belief that one one's own "meaning" counts -- then Nihilism, but not until after one discovers that that "meaning" one was treating as so important and "authentic" simply evaporates on its own inconsistencies.
I quoted and discussed Richard Rorty on this matter in another thread, but I don't think (I could be wrong) that you ever responded to that post.
I do not recall the quotation to which you refer. If you floated it, I think perhaps I never saw it. But I know Rorty. Are you a Pragmatist or an Existentialist, then?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can, Regarding the poem by Thomas Hardy, Hardy is saying that there is no justification for suffering. Not anywhere or anyhow. That there is no Author of justice or injustice.

Immanuel, you wrote:
Given its track record, it always amazes me that anybody today can still want to be a socialist. I mean, think about it: can you point to one country made happy, well-to-do and blessed by socialism?
My own country was better for socialist policies which added old age pensions, national health service, votes for women, freedom for homosexuals, freedom of religious expression, right to roam, and social housing. All those were not necessarily formed by Labour politicians as there are some good Conservatives and Liberals, but the socialist ethic was in those policies. They all ameliorated the evils of capitalism and the capitalists' corollary of rigid social class.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:11 am Immanuel Can, Regarding the poem by Thomas Hardy, Hardy is saying that there is no justification for suffering. Not anywhere or anyhow. That there is no Author of justice or injustice.
Yes, I know. Hardy was an agnostic, at the very least...sometimes an Atheist. He got some things wrong; but one thing he got right was how bleak life without God really is. He was honest about how pointless and meaningless suffering necessarily is from that perspective. Look at the last line, and you'll see he was not a happy man.

Immanuel, you wrote:
Given its track record, it always amazes me that anybody today can still want to be a socialist. I mean, think about it: can you point to one country made happy, well-to-do and blessed by socialism?
Belinda:
My own country was better for socialist policies which added old age pensions, national health service, votes for women, freedom for homosexuals, freedom of religious expression, right to roam, and social housing. All those were not necessarily formed by Labour politicians as there are some good Conservatives and Liberals, but the socialist ethic was in those policies.
I don't know which country you're hailing from, but I do know that freedom of religious expression, freedom of movement and the dignity of the human being owe nothing to socialism anywhere. Socialism is a latecomer on the scene, and I'll bet that's true even in your own country. The things you describe were well underway, and in some cases, probably fully achieved already, by the time any socialistic political entity appeared on scene. So to give socialism credit for them would be disingenuous.

Take Canada, for instance. Things that look "socialist," like universal health care and education were actually started by Christian conservatives (the CCF, for example). Or take the public school systems in England and North America -- started by evangelical conservatives, through the "Sunday School" programs of the industrial period, not by modern socialists. As for human rights in general, the Protestant John Locke is most responsible for our modern conception of those...not any socialist theorists. Much that socialists blithely assume is their own, they've actually borrowed wholesale from Christian values they've secularized.

The problem, though, is that when one secularizes a Christian value, one loses the basic rationale that made sense of the value in the first place. You may continue to believe in the value, but can no longer explain why it's the necessary value. Human rights are an excellent example of this.
They all ameliorated the evils of capitalism and the capitalists' corollary of rigid social class.
Interesting, though, that the capitalist countries are prosperous, and the socialist ones all have failing economies or have already failed. That fact needs explanation.

Finally, it's apparent also that in doing so, we need to distinguish between countries that have some modicum of socialism in them, such as Australia, Canada or Sweden, and those that are actually politically structured as socialist, such as Cuba, Venezuela and the late Soviet Bloc. When we do that, the trends are much clearer. It becomes quite evident that a country really cannot survive by being socialist.

So say what you will about capitalism (and it's not a system I'll defend for its own sake) however imperfectly it may operate, it seems that economically, it at least works far better than any socialist plan.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Philosophy Now wrote: Tue Apr 09, 2013 1:35 pm The following answers to this central philosophical question each win a random book. Sorry if your answer doesn’t appear: we received enough to fill twelve pages…

http://philosophynow.org/issues/59/What ... ng_Of_Life
There is no necessary meaning, as the only entity that could give it such would be that which created it. Sure that which came to be can assign any random meaning that suited it, but that would be as truthful as it could be. Care to flip a coin or roll the dice?

The universe seemingly can neither speak nor write.

Or...

Show me your god!
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:09 am
Hobbes' Choice wrote: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:27 pm Humans have invented meaning,
If so, then it's merely an "invention" unrelated to objective reality, thus a comforting delusion...what Camus called a form of "intellectual suicide."
No. ~Everything humans have invented can be shown to have objective aspects. Human laws are written and can be objectively read by anyone in the language community in which the law is written.
Businesses and other institutions can and do publish mission objective for anyone to read. The fact of these publications is a matter of objective reality.
I think your problem is that you maintain a delusion that objectivity means something beyond the perception of humanity. Such a delusion is wholly unwarranted.
As for intellectual suicide - you committed that the moment you committed to the idea that god was real.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:43 pm I think your problem is that you maintain a delusion that objectivity means something beyond the perception of humanity.
Actually, "delusion" is the perfect synonym for what you're describing...a perception that fails to correspond to anything objectively real, and is only perceived by some particular person.

Nice definition.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Nick_A »

Compare this basic description of the Fourth Noble Truth of Buddhism with Simone Weil’s description of Christianity. Can we reconcile the cessation of suffering with the supernatural use of suffering as they concern human purpose?
The Fourth Noble Truth
Path to the cessation of suffering (Magga)
The final Noble Truth is the Buddha's prescription for the end of suffering. This is a set of principles called the Eightfold Path.
The Eightfold Path is also called the Middle Way: it avoids both indulgence and severe asceticism, neither of which the Buddha had found helpful in his search for enlightenment.
“The supernatural greatness of Christianity lies in the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy for suffering but a supernatural use for it.” ~ Simone Weil
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Dubious »

Nick_A wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:16 am Compare this basic description of the Fourth Noble Truth of Buddhism with Simone Weil’s description of Christianity. Can we reconcile the cessation of suffering with the supernatural use of suffering as they concern human purpose?
The Fourth Noble Truth
Path to the cessation of suffering (Magga)
The final Noble Truth is the Buddha's prescription for the end of suffering. This is a set of principles called the Eightfold Path.
The Eightfold Path is also called the Middle Way: it avoids both indulgence and severe asceticism, neither of which the Buddha had found helpful in his search for enlightenment.
“The supernatural greatness of Christianity lies in the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy for suffering but a supernatural use for it.” ~ Simone Weil
..yet animals who suffer most aren't included in the great world of Christianity. Only OUR suffering has meaning because WE obviously are so much more fucking important.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dubious wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:25 am ..yet animals who suffer most aren't included in the great world of Christianity. Only OUR suffering has meaning because WE obviously are so much more fucking important.
It seems we are...at least, you seem to think so.

Because when you say this, you're not attempting to invoke guilt in the whales, the foxes, the dolphins or the amoebae; nor are you indicting them for their moral failure to take into account the suffering of others. But even though you would surely insist humans are just a kind of animal, you seem to feel some special responsibility devolves upon us to care.... :shock:

Interesting. You seem to imagine we're "so much more important" that you can expect us to have a sense of moral duty not to harm things. But you don't expect that from anything else.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote:
The problem, though, is that when one secularizes a Christian value, one loses the basic rationale that made sense of the value in the first place. You may continue to believe in the value, but can no longer explain why it's the necessary value. Human rights are an excellent example of this.
Your belittling of animals' suffering is unworthy. I can hardly believe that you are unaware of the suffering that is happening and has happened.I wrote this following you remarks to Dubious and your persistently asking me to provide examples of suffering.

With regard to the above quotation from your post Jesus never claimed that to love God makes one feel smug. Truth is a hard taskmaster.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Socialism is a latecomer on the scene, and I'll bet that's true even in your own country.
I am Scottish and English.
'Socialism' : I am a little vague, I admit. I could look up which political party or individual was responsible for each of the advances in welfare which I listed. I am however certain that it was Labour under Clement Attlee that set up the National Health Service. I told you that there are and were some good Tories and Liberals.It is true what you say, the Labour party is a newer party than than the Conservatives and the Liberals.

If you want to claim that welfare politics are unchristian you will have to tighten up your argument.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:07 am Immanuel Can wrote:
The problem, though, is that when one secularizes a Christian value, one loses the basic rationale that made sense of the value in the first place. You may continue to believe in the value, but can no longer explain why it's the necessary value. Human rights are an excellent example of this.
Your belittling of animals' suffering is unworthy
False accusation. I did not do this. Rather, I asked Dube to justify his concern for suffering. As a Christian, I have concern for animal suffering -- but for logical reasons. I wanted to see if Dube could list any logical reason why he was concerned.

After all, if we're all just animals, then he shouldn't be. As I said, whales, foxes and amoebae have no moral obligations, and we put none on them. The fact that he treats humans differently (as do you!) shows you know very well that humans are not merely animals...they're something much more special as well.
If you want to claim that welfare politics are unchristian you will have to tighten up your argument.
You don't read very carefully, it seems.

I claimed the opposite...I claimed that socialist welfare concern is derivative of Christian values, and illegitimate borrowing, not a socialist invention. It's not by accident that those values appeared in the West, and not anywhere else. And that certainly includes England and Scotland.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote:
As a Christian, I have concern for animal suffering
Good

(IC wrote)
As I said, whales, foxes and amoebae have no moral obligations, and we put none on them. The fact that he treats humans differently (as do you!) shows you know very well that humans are not mere]ly animals...they're something much more special as well.
Belinda wrote)They cannot vote for their representative, Therefore we who have the power have also the duty and responsibility to vote on their behalf, and respect them.

Belinda wrote:If you want to claim that welfare politics are unchristian you will have to tighten up your argument.


(IC replied)
I claimed the opposite...I claimed that socialist welfare concern is derivative of Christian values, and illegitimate borrowing, not a socialist invention. It's not by accident that those values appeared in the West, and not anywhere else. And that certainly includes England and Scotland.

(Belinda )I agree, and have written to that effect on these pages. Except that it's not illegitimate to borrow. Why ever would it be? You are not the owner of the Christian heritage!
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

(IC wrote)
As I said, whales, foxes and amoebae have no moral obligations, and we put none on them. The fact that he treats humans differently (as do you!) shows you know very well that humans are not mere]ly animals...they're something much more special as well.
Belinda wrote)They cannot vote for their representative, Therefore we who have the power have also the duty and responsibility to vote on their behalf, and respect them. [/quote]
That's no good as an answer.

"Voting" is not some magical function that turns an irresponsible animal into a morally-accountable entity, is it? No doubt wolves and monkeys have opinions about which is the leader of their pack...a "vote" of sorts. But so what?

Look at it this way: IF we're nothing but animals, then nothing about us being more "sophisticated," or "complex," or "powerful" gives you a rational justification for placing a whole new dimension of expectations -- the "moral realm" -- on us. But IF we're not, then maybe what you affirm about our moral duties to the animal kingdom makes some sense...but then you can't complain that we're arrogant for thinking we humans are above the lower animals.

You have to pick a rational 'horse' and ride it: to change in midstream just means your logic ends up falling in the mud. :wink:
Belinda wrote:If you want to claim that welfare politics are unchristian you will have to tighten up your argument.


(IC replied)
I claimed the opposite...I claimed that socialist welfare concern is derivative of Christian values, and illegitimate borrowing, not a socialist invention. It's not by accident that those values appeared in the West, and not anywhere else. And that certainly includes England and Scotland.

(Belinda )I agree, and have written to that effect on these pages. Except that it's not illegitimate to borrow. Why ever would it be? You are not the owner of the Christian heritage!
Yes, it is illegitimate to borrow. By "illegitimate," we mean "without sponsoring logic," or "gratuitously affirmed" -- like when people tell us we're just animals, but then want to tell us we have moral duties, or when people say we ought to alleviate poverty but can't explain why that duty devolves on us either.

A Christian knows why we must alleviate poverty or animal suffering: but what causes any obligation to do so to fall upon an Atheist Materialist?

The AM's themselves will tell you that they do not believe in objective moral duties -- to the poor, or to anything else. Their own preferences are their guides, their chosen morals are good enough for them, they'll tell you, or the preferences of their particular society are all the guides they ever need, they'll say...and who are you to go imposing some arbitrary and uncredentialed universal moral duty on them?

"Nonsense on stilts!" they will declare.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote:
it is illegitimate to borrow. By "illegitimate," we mean "without sponsoring logic," or "gratuitously affirmed" -- like when people tell us we're just animals, but then want to tell us we have moral duties, or when people say we ought to alleviate poverty but can't explain why that duty devolves on us either.

A Christian knows why we must alleviate poverty or animal suffering: but what causes any obligation to do so to fall upon an Atheist Materialist?

The AM's themselves will tell you that they do not believe in objective moral duties -- to the poor, or to anything else. Their own preferences are their guides, their chosen morals are good enough for them, they'll tell you, or the preferences of their particular society are all the guides they ever need, they'll say...and who are you to go imposing some arbitrary and uncredentialed universal moral duty on them?
It is not illegitimate to borrow from the ideas or the literary artefacts of the past . In many cases it is ethically and legally legitimate to borrow ideas from living people although if an idea is quoted verbatim the author should be acknowledged. Do you seriously believe that you yourself invented all your ideas ?

Atheists, besides materialists also include idealists, Cartesian dualists, neutral monists, and others. I understand your point of view about the merits of revealed religion. You must I think know that that there are varieties of revealed religions. I myself do try to point out the great ethic that all of those revealed religions have in common. The Golden Rule. We inherit the Golden Rule ethic from our religious past. It's simply a matter of history that revealed religion is the medium of the Golden Rule's arriving at the present day. Now that people are so much less believers in the supernatural the time has come for revealed religion to give way to reasonable faith and belief.

You don't like to abandon revealed ethics. Ethics and morality don't disappear when supernatural beliefs disappear. All societies need ethics and morality in order to exist as societies. Reasoned ethics are better for present day needs than revealed ethics .
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:37 pm It is not illegitimate to borrow from the ideas or the literary artefacts of the past .
No; but it is illegitimate to borrow moral precepts from the past. For moral precepts must be rationalized -- proved correct or obligatory to the satisfaction of the rational questioner.

If there is no line of explanation that goes coherently from your ideological suppositions to the moral commandments (like, "you should care about animal suffering") that you hope to impose on others, then you are being irrational or an autocrat. But the moral commandment you are asserting has no moral obligation attached to it.

In other worlds, Atheist Materialsts can tell AM environmentalists to get lost...there's no line of reasoning from AM to environmental duties, or any other kind of moral obligation.
I myself do try to point out the great ethic that all of those revealed religions have in common. The Golden Rule.

Prove that an Atheist has an obligation to follow the GR, and you may have a case. But you can't, because they don't, according to the lights of their Atheism. Nobody's in charge of this place, and nobody gets to say what we do, they think. We make it up on the personal or social level, not on the basis of some universal duty, they insist.
revealed religion
You don't believe in revealed religion, do you? If you did, you'd be a Theist of some kind.
revealed ethics
Same problem. If you're not a Theist, ethics aren't "revealed." They're "made up" and arbitrary...and dispensable altogether, if opportunity allows. There's no pre-existing code to be "revealed."
Ethics and morality don't disappear when supernatural beliefs disappear.
No, but they lose their rationale, and become arbitrary. Nobody can say where they have to come from, what they must stipulate, or why we should obey them.
Post Reply