The Search for Meaning

[iambiguous]

Meaning

“The ruinous abdication by philosophy of its rightful domain is the consequence of the oblivion of philosophers to a great insight first beheld clearly by Socrates and re-affirmed by Kant as by no other philosopher. Science, concerned solely and exclusively with objective existents, cannot give answers to questions about meanings and values. Only ideas engendered by the mind and to be found nowhere but in the mind (Socrates), only the pure transcendental forms supplied by reason (Kant), can secure the ideals and values and put us in touch with the realities that constitute our moral and spiritual life. Twenty-four centuries after Socrates, two centuries after Kant, we badly need to re-learn the lesson." D. R. Khashaba

Of course, this is where "I" come in, isn't it?

“Seduced by the spectacular theoretical and practical successes of the objective sciences into thinking that the methods and criteria of those sciences were the only means to truth, philosophers sought to apply those same methods and criteria to questions relating to the meaning of life and the values that give meaning to life. Philosophy, especially the Analytical species prevalent in the English-speaking world, was broken up into specialized disciplines and fragmented into particular problems, all swayed and impregnated by scientism, reductionism, and relativism. All questions of meaning and value were consigned to the rubbish heap of 'metaphysical nonsense'.” D. R. Khashaba

Of course, this is where "I" come in, isn't it?

“Religion is great at providing comfort as it attempts to describe the universe we live in, why we die, and why certain things happen. But like everything in life, we can only see and judge through our own eyes.” Rebecca Ryder

Comfort and consolation. Don't leave home without them.

“Literature is always good. Stories are particularly powerful because they support the illusion that life has direction and purpose. Where God fails to show his hand, the writer shows his. When so much around us seems meaningless, stories give meaning. Stories don’t judge, yet they teach us, nurture us and while life goes on, they do us the favour of ending.” Rebecca Ryder

So, how am I doing here?

“Reading is still both fundamental and essential. And what, above all, a teacher can communicate to you is what to read and how to read. How to read! For the art of reading is in danger of being lost.” Ludwig Lewisohn

Not counting the Bible?

“And indeed, why should we think words 'allow us to see,' when they were invented precisely to speak of what is not before our eyes and what cannot be pointed at with a finger? The most words can do (since they produce emotional effects) is to lead us to imagine.” Umberto Eco

Yeah, what about that?

[attofishpi]

The Problem of Evil can be answered only by divesting God of omnipotence. God as Pancreator is not the God we worship when we mean to be good.

Incorrect.

It never ceases to amaze me how daft 'philosophers' especially the atheist ones are on matters concerning GOD. Although, perhaps one needs to have actually experienced GOD empirically as I have.

My site 4 anyone interested in my claim:- www.androcies.com

So.

NO - the thing you've got wrong there Belinda is that GOD IS omnipotent to our REAL IT Y. The thing that all the silly people have got wrong about GOD is the omnibenevolent aspect.

GOD is NOT omnibenevolent. I have been subjected to GOD's wrath, the evil side of GOD. And considering 'philosophers' have access to the Bible, there is plenty of material in there to confirm GOD IS NOT OMNIBENEVOLENT!!

What idiocy of "PHILOSOPHY" this continuance of this "The Problem of Evil" ...is.

I just wiped out the ridiculous "problem of evil" in how many lines?

Yet "philosophers" have probably written entire books on it and the PHN mag to this day has these wankers blabbing on as if there is some extreme paradox to deal with; SURE, if you have NEVER bothered to read the Bible or actually experience the evil side of GOD.

There is NOTHING in the Bible that states GOD is ALL good. An entity that has suggested you will burn in hell forever (just by the suggestion alone) has zero omnibenevolence.

[Dubious]

The search for meaning ends in advertising...whether for a god or the best pair of sneakers Adidas or Nike and everything in between. It's the American way! Even the old warlord spoke in his first commandment, you shall have no other gods before me. Advertising in those days clearly amounted to a command.

[iambiguous]

Metaphysical Skepticism
Jacob Bell argues that we can’t determine the ultimate nature of reality.

Metaphysics can be thought of as an investigation into the ultimate or fundamental nature of reality. In other words, it is the attempt to reveal and describe how and what things really are at some foundational level.

Then the part where a distinction is made between the metaphysical and the ontological. Also, the part where many objectivists among us insist there is a teleological component as well. And five will get you ten it's their own.

The most popular kind of metaphysics seems focused on determining whether the world is best described as fundamentally physical, mental, neutral, or some combination of these.

Or, as Ayn Rand interpreted it...

"For Rand, metaphysics tells us that entities have definite natures, epistemology tells us how to investigate those natures, and the special sciences then do the actual investigating." SEP

And this all revolves around her own rooted existentially in dasein assumption that to the extent mere mortals are rational, they are...metaphysically moral? Just as my own uniquely personal set of subjective assumptions has led me "here and now" to believe that moral nihilism is a reasonable frame of mind.

I have no quarrel with many of the questions that metaphysics seeks to investigate. Here I am concerned with the metaphysical doctrines which make grand claims, such as ‘everything is physical’ or ‘everything is mental’. Popular examples of these doctrines include physicalism and idealism.

Call it any Ism you want...as long as you are willing to note how, given your own day to day interactions with others, you can defend it pertaining to, among other things, conflicting goods.

Physicalism refers to the thesis that everything which exists is physical, including thoughts, numbers, minds, and consciousness (if these things exist, of course).

And if they don't?

Cue the epistemological nihilists? Or, perhaps, the metaphysical nihilists? Click, of course.

Idealism, in contrast, is the thesis that everything which exists is in some sense mental or a product of consciousness, including seemingly non-mental physical objects such as rocks, chairs, and planets.

On the other hand, how is demonstrating the validity of the above working out for you?

[Belinda]

The Problem of Evil can be answered only by divesting God of omnipotence. God as Pancreator is not the God we worship when we mean to be good.

Incorrect.

It never ceases to amaze me how daft 'philosophers' especially the atheist ones are on matters concerning GOD. Although, perhaps one needs to have actually experienced GOD empirically as I have.

My site 4 anyone interested in my claim:- www.androcies.com

So.

NO - the thing you've got wrong there Belinda is that GOD IS omnipotent to our REAL IT Y. The thing that all the silly people have got wrong about GOD is the omnibenevolent aspect.

GOD is NOT omnibenevolent. I have been subjected to GOD's wrath, the evil side of GOD. And considering 'philosophers' have access to the Bible, there is plenty of material in there to confirm GOD IS NOT OMNIBENEVOLENT!!

What idiocy of "PHILOSOPHY" this continuance of this "The Problem of Evil" ...is.

I just wiped out the ridiculous "problem of evil" in how many lines?

Yet "philosophers" have probably written entire books on it and the PHN mag to this day has these wankers blabbing on as if there is some extreme paradox to deal with; SURE, if you have NEVER bothered to read the Bible or actually experience the evil side of GOD.

There is NOTHING in the Bible that states GOD is ALL good. An entity that has suggested you will burn in hell forever (just by the suggestion alone) has zero omnibenevolence.

Yes there is! Jesus who interpreted God (and ,for Christian Trinitarians, is God)is reported in New Testament as the prophet and embodiment of love, justice, mercy, and benevolence.

"I have been subjected to GOD's wrath, the evil side of GOD."
I don't doubt the troubles and pains you had, but what you were subjected to was caused not by God 's so-called "wrath" , but by absence of God.

[iambiguous]

Finding Meaning in Suffering
Patrick Testa on the extraordinary hope offered by Viktor Frankl.

People may also seek refuge in belief systems for a sense of belonging that’s absent. Frankl argued that the loss of traditional (that is, religious) values contributed to an ‘existential vacuum’ that fuelled the twentieth century’s totalitarian political movements.

And now the 21st century's totalitarian political movements. Although, admittedly, for many, it's far less totalitarian and far more just plain old "show me the money". And, for those such as myself, a cynicism that now knows no bounds.

In the interim, however, those ghastly "acts of God" continue to pummel us, making life a virtual hell on Earth for men and women around the globe. California today but natural disasters can pop up any where at anytime. Think the Yellowstone super-volcano or the next extinction event coming down out of the clouds.

Communism and Fascism promised people both meaning and identity, as a worker or party member, in just the sort of way theology had done for the previous two millennia.

Still, aside from existing theocratic states, much of the pain and suffering these days revolves around the trials and the tribulations embedded in the autocratic state capitalist policies of those like Putin and Xi and Trump.

Totalitarian regimes can indeed in some ways resemble religions, replete as they are with their own clergy (the party), the exaltation of leaders, and the excommunication (and execution) of apostates.

More like authoritarian regimes. It's not ideology or philosophy that prevails these days so much as the quest for cheap labor, natural resources and markets. This and the "strong man" mentality of those who want to turn the govenment into their very own piggy banks.

Generally speaking, ideology readily fills man’s drive to make sense of our world and be a part of a collective. However, Frankl thought instead that it’s only by committing to intrinsically meaningful values and goals that we’re able to find authentic fulfillment, since he believed the search for meaning was the underlying motivator of life.

Right, right, "intrinsically meaningful values". In the form of, say, one or another "industrial complex"? And what about the Nazis' and the Communists' search for meaning? They don't count?

As a result, to cope with the experience of suffering, we must engage with existential realities directly and identify meaning. So where can we find meaning?

How about in sustaining the "will to power"? How about in "making American great again"? How about in one or another One True path?

Or else, say.

[iambiguous]

Finding Meaning in Suffering
Patrick Testa on the extraordinary hope offered by Viktor Frankl.

Two Images of the World

There’s no simple answer to this question. For Plato and others, the universe is imbued with inherent purpose: there’s an order to things in the world and an end (telos) to human life.

Of course, for Plato and many other "serious philosophers" down through the ages, this "inherent purpose" is embedded almost entirely in a world of words. It is basically a philosophical contraption such that if you accept the definition and the meaning of the words used to convey this purpose -- and meaning and morality -- that's what "makes" it true.

In other words, the answers tend to become simpler and simpler when the objectivists among us make it quite clear that they and only they have invented -- discovered? -- the one true purpose -- and meaning and morality -- said to be applicable to all that they insist are rational and virtuous human beings.

And this is established [for those of my ilk] by the fact that historically philosophers have never come close to concurring on the One True Path this purpose -- and meaning and morality -- actually encompasses.

Cultivating a set of virtues that are in harmony with this order of nature is necessary to achieve a meaningful and happy life.

And the good news is that there are lots and lots of disparate paths to choose from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

Also, once you embrace one all that is necessary to establish it as the One True Path is that you believe it is.

Or, perhaps, is that the bad news as long as particular philosophers themselves are willing to accept the "my way or the highway" objectivist mentality?

Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nazi_ideologues

In particular for Plato, human purpose is closely intertwined with moving towards an understanding of the Form of the Good – the eternal standard of goodness which is the unchanging and ultimate source of justice, truth, beauty and other values.

Now, in regard to that, let's just say "the rest is history". Frankl just happened to encounter a Purpose -- and Meaning and Morality -- that rationalized the extermination of an entire "ethnic group, religion, and culture."