|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The meaning of "meaning" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
I don't think you can claim either one to be "superior": I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. You were clear. I just tried to lean more the other way to see if something interesting could develop. But, alas, we simply agree
The point I want to make is that Theists and Atheists are giving the same badge to different things. Hmmm... again, agreed. Seems like nothing but boring agreement today. The way I see it, in a rambling sort of way: Theists are awe-inspired by the Greatness of the Lord.To have someone so revered, someone understood to be the best of everything there is and the creator of everything there is... bestow any sort of gift or knowledge, let alone a great acknowledgement such as a "purpose for life" seems to be the highest honour possible. Hence... an amazing, be-all-and-end-all sense of significance from such a blessing. Atheists are awe-inspired by their own ignorance.To know that we don't know everything, coupled with the fact that we are (somehow) capable of knowing some things... inspires a certain level of "awe". To understand that we are able to discover/create "knoweldge" and build upon such a fantastic feature seems to be the highest honour possible. Hence... an amazing, be-all-and-end-all sense of signficance from the ability to create knowledge (even if only in the form of "purpose") for ourselves. For the Theist looking at the Atheist...It seems rude and arrogant to the level of abusive to even politely decline such a gift as Purpose from such a being as God. To come up with something from your own brain (regardless of what it is), and attempt to compare it to something from God's "brain" (regardless of what it is) is on the level of mutiny... or "blasphemy". For the Atheist looking at the Theist...It seems wasteful and lazy to refuse to use our own brains to produce something such as Purpose for our own lives. To simply accept another's label (regardless of who it comes from) is on the level of robotic existance where one may as well lose their humanity as they slip into "autopilot". Personally, I think it's just "different strokes for different folks". Is it possible to have an objective, external meaning?-Sure it is, a hammer's objective, external meaning is to drive nails. Is it possible to have an alternative, subjective meaning?-Sure it is, a hammer also makes a nice ice-pick. Is it possible for the hammer's objective meaning to be "the superior" meaning?-Sure it is, if you have lots of nails to drive. Is it possible for the alternative, subjective meaning to be "the superior" meaning?-Sure it is, if you slip on some ice and would like to stop yourself Is either of these "greater" on some Purpose-scale?-Who knows? -How can you possibly measure such a thing? Is driving nails "important"? Is saving yourself from slipping on ice? How may driven nails equals being safe on ice? 100? 1/8? -It doesn't really seem to be quantifiable or comparable
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Straggler.
Straggler writes: Does that make sense (even if you disagree)? Yes, it makes perfect sense. My only possible point of contention would be this part:
Straggler writes: I would say that the "cause" is the same as it is for the atheists. Where the religious beliefs are part of that social/cultural package. I'm not very clear right now on why this isn't resonating with me, though. I think I'm stuck on "beliefs" vs "reality." If we consider both sides' viewpoints on "meaning" to be "real," then I'm not sure we can put the Theistic "cause" in a "social/cultural package." Let me stew on it for a bit (but, feel free to offer further input before I get back to it: it might help). -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Stile.
Stile writes: Theists are awe-inspired by the Greatness of the Lord.To have someone so revered, someone understood to be the best of everything there is and the creator of everything there is... bestow any sort of gift or knowledge, let alone a great acknowledgement such as a "purpose for life" seems to be the highest honour possible. Hence... an amazing, be-all-and-end-all sense of significance from such a blessing Yeah, maybe Theists view God like physicists view the speed of light: He represents the boundary condition, the thing that everything else can never actually approach, except maybe asymptotically. Maybe that's somehow the answer I need to give to Modulous. Now I'm just being a little goofy. That's my cue to get back to studying now. Thanks. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Blue Jay writes:
We don't have a widely accepted scientific explanation of purpose, so purpose must come from God - that seems to be a common argument. It's much like the arguments in times past that explained thunder, volcanoes, etc in terms of gods.
Since we're not clear on what "purpose" means, creationists try to say that the "purpose" must be God? Blue Jay writes:
There really isn't any more to say than that.When a Theist or creationist says Atheism is meaningless, Atheists usually say that meaning is defined individually. They don't ever mention anything more than that, so it sounds like they chalk it up to subjective, personal whims. Words such as "meaning" and "purpose" are considered part of our intentional vocabulary. Philosophers use the term "intentionality" to refer the underlying concepts. As usually described, there are two kinds of intentionality - derived intentionality and intrinsic intentionality. The latter is sometimes called "original intentionality." And of these, intrinsic intentionality is considered the gold standard. And intrinsic intentionality, which comes from within, is what atheists can claim to have. Suppose that I design a robot to vacuum my carpets. I could say that the robot has a purpose of vacuuming the carpets. That would be a case of derived intentionality. I am ascribing a purpose to the robot, but it is derived from my own purposes. If I could somehow come up with a robot that just wanted to vacuum the carpet, without being programmed to do so, then it might have the beginnings of intrinsic intentionality. AI (artificial intelligence) people haven't a clue as to how to provide a robot with intrinsic intentionality, so they tend to argue that there is no such thing and that derived intentionality is the only kind. Dennett has a book The Intentional Stance where he stakes out that position. Many people disagree with Dennett on that. So now we seem to have marc9000 arguing that intrinsic intentionality does not count, and what matters is derived intentionality provided that it is derived from God. It seems to me that this is a very weak position. A more common theistic position would seem to be that intrinsic intentionality comes from the spiritual soul, and is placed there by God. But it seems to me that such a soul based view would still have to credit atheists with intentionality (or with being able to have a meaningful life).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I see Theistic "meaning" like a puzzle: an individual piece fits where it fits, and is defined by its fitting there. But, what's the meaning of the puzzle? I have no idea: but it's where the piece fits. (Maybe this is a cyclical relationship, too, then?) Atheistic "meaning," on the other hand, is not like a puzzle, because people are not formed specifically to fit in a certain place. Maybe it's more like LEGOs or something: they go where they think is a good place for them, and the resulting construction is whatever it is.
Again - we have a scope issue. Sure - theists believe their sense of meaning derives from the fact that they have some specific preconceived role to play in some great design. But that doesn't tell us anything about what that role is or whether there is any meaning or purpose behind the great design. We find ourselves with our social function, our familial role and so on and so forth. We have some control over some of these things - but we are essentially born into them. So there is our meaning. Where did that come from? Historical contingency or supernatural third party? It doesn't matter. At this level of scope, we all agree we have meaning, purposes, roles etc etc. Theists want to say that there is no great purpose behind 'It's just the way things turned out, circumstance we were born into, genetics, chance events that nobody has any preconceived control and plan over. ' With no ultimate 'plan' there is no real 'meaning'. But I'll just counter: If there is no great purpose to the plan that God has laid out - it's just as meaningless. Ultimately there is a cutoff point of 'meaning' - pushing things back one level of scope doesn't get out of the point that ultimately there is no more meaning than we ourselves (including gods etc) decide to assign to things. When confronted with this the Theist says "I don't know what the great purpose behind the ultimate plan is." - in which case there philosophy is just as without meaning as an Atheist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Ultimately there is a cutoff point of 'meaning' When confronted with this the Theist says "I don't know what the great purpose behind the ultimate plan is." - in which case there philosophy is just as without meaning as an Atheist. Why would you assume we dont know what the purpose behind the great plan, is not, when we have it explained in specific revelation How would a guy that not sure about anything, be certain about everything. EAM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Ultimately there is a cutoff point of 'meaning' If as you claim there is no meaning to things and purpose, how would you know there is a cut off? Kinda self-contradictory eh
When confronted with this the Theist says "I don't know what the great purpose behind the ultimate plan is." - in which case there philosophy is just as without meaning as an Atheist. Why would you assume we dont know what the purpose behind the great plan, is not, when we have it explained in specific revelation How would a guy that not sure about anything, be certain about everything. EAM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
For a religious person, like myself (sometimes), meaning implies an actual purpose or significance in the grand scheme of things. This is a purpose or significance that is defined externally (by some outside agent) ... So the sum total of everything that exists is, by definition, meaningless. Such nihilism.
But, from the Theist’s perspective, this amounts to a denial that Theistic meaning exists, accompanied by a redefinition of the word meaning to reflect that denial. And I guess by the same token if theists said that ducks were whatever God thinks are ducks, then atheism would amount to a denial that (theistic) ducks exist, accompanied by a redefinition of the word "duck" to reflect that denial.
--- Though who exactly would be more guilty of "redefinition" here is not so clear as you seem to think. After all, we get our concepts of the words "meaning" and "purpose" from their use in everyday life, do we not? --- "The purpose of a chair is to be sat on" --- "The meaning of Veterans' Day is to honor those who served their country" --- and so forth. Now philosophers wish to abstract from these concepts some sort of super-duper-hyper-meaning of "meaning" and "purpose", just as (for example) they conceptualize the omniscience of God based on instances of knowledge which we can actually observe. But they could not do so meaningfully unless these concepts have meaning in the sense that they are used to refer to familiar concepts --- just as the idea "God is our Heavenly Father" would have no meaning if their was no such thing as a father in the mundane material world. In that case, the claim "God is our Heavenly Father" would have no more meaning than the claim "God is our Heavenly Glugmuckle"; and similarly the claim that "The (real, proper, true, objective) meaning of life is whatever God thinks it is" would have no more meaning than the claim that "The snufflepuff of life is whatever God thinks it is" unless I could relate the word "meaning" to instances with which I am already familiar through experience; and likewise with knowledge, power, and other attributes that people like to attribute to God. Now it seems to me that you can't kick away the ladder you stand on. If someone tells me that the real meaning of "meaning" is something in the mind of God, they are relying on us both already having a concept of "meaning" which neither of us in fact derived from telepathic communion with supernatural entities. Otherwise what he wanted to say could not be said. In the same way, I (sort of) know what is meant by "God is our Heavenly Father" --- but if you were then to add that Mr Adequate Sr is not my father, that only God is my father, that in fact atheists are denying that anyone has a father but that they are redefining "father" to conceal this ... ... then I should reply: first, that it was you and not I who was having a strange way with the definition of the word "father"; and second, that under your definition of "father" I have no idea any more of what relationship you are trying to convey between me and God by calling him my father --- since my basic concepts of what "father" means are derived from the way people use the word "father" to talk about non-supernatural entities. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If as you claim there is no meaning to things and purpose ... He did not claim that.
Why would you assume we dont know what the purpose behind the great plan, is not, when we have it explained in specific revelation Because Bluejay said so:
"I see Theistic "meaning" like a puzzle: an individual piece fits where it fits, and is defined by its fitting there. But, what's the meaning of the puzzle? I have no idea: but it's where the piece fits." How would a guy that not sure about anything, be certain about everything. What gave you the impression that Modulous was "certain about everything"? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
So the sum total of everything that exists is, by definition, meaningless. Here again is self-contradictory nonsense. If the sum total is meaningless, you have no method to determine by DEFINITION that your conclusion is even remotley valid concerning purpose or meaning. you would need to explain by what standard you ascribed to reality, meaningleness. What is your standard of objectivity to pronounce meaninglessness as pointlessness by definition Interesting your entire post is dedicated to the proposition that we cannot understand the meaning of meaning or that we cannot understand anything outside of our existence without reference within and you determined this objective categorical truth using your own reasoning abilites based on your subjective limited, uncertain conclusions. Yet you want me me to believe your "truth" (your conclusions) is an objective reality So which one do I believe, what you are telling me is reality about meaning and purpose or the fact that I should understand you yourself do not understand the meaning of meaning? Which of these is true? If both are true, you could very well be wrong about the meaning of purpose and meaning and the fact that I may not be able to understand anything outside my present existence, correct Both logically and verbally, you are speaking out yo arse. you have to watch the double talk, sometimes it flies in the face of logic and reason EAM Edited by EMA, : No reason given. Edited by EMA, : No reason given. Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Here again is self-contradictory nonsense. If the sum total is meaningless, you have no method to determine by DEFINITION that your conclusion is even remotley valid concerning purpose or meaning. you would need to explain by what standard you ascribed to reality, meaningleness. What is your standard of objectivity to pronounce meaninglessness as pointlessness by definition Interesting your entire post is dedicated to the proposition that we cannot understand the meaning of meaning or that we cannot understand anything outside of our existence without reference within and you determined this objective categorical truth using your own reasoning abilites based on your subjective limited, uncertain conclusions. Yet you want me me to believe your "truth" (your conclusions) is an objective reality So which one do I believe, what you are telling me is reality about meaning and purpose or the fact that I should understand you yourself do not understand the meaning of meaning? Which of these is true? If both are true, you could very well be wrong about the meaning of purpose and meaning and the fact that I may not be able to understand anything outside my present existence, correct Both logically and verbally, you are speaking out yo arse. you have to watch the double talk, sometimes it flies in the face of logic and reason Could you translate that into English?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Why would you assume we dont know what the purpose behind the great plan, is not, when we have it explained in specific revelation I didn't assume anything. I was expressing my own experiences having discussed this line with several reasonable and intelligent theists and a few irrational ones too. I have no idea how a theist would explain something in specific revelation. Since it is on topic - perhaps you could shake things up a bit and say what it is.
How would a guy that not sure about anything, be certain about everything. How would a question that is inherently contradictory be non-contradictory?
If as you claim there is no meaning to things and purpose, how would you know there is a cut off? Kinda self-contradictory eh But, as Dr A points out...I don't claim there is no meaning etc. So no contradiction there I'm afraid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4973 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
Hi Bluejay
Interesting topic. I'd just like to ask what this "meaning" is for theists. Because I hear the argument a lot that "atheism is meaningless" whereas "theism gives meaning and significance" but I've never heard what that actual "meaning" is for theists. It's often cited that the "meaning" is all about preparing for the next life, heaven, etc, but it's never made clear what the significance of that is. So you behave yourself, you go to Heaven, then what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, NWR.
You were right: I opened up a can of worms. What a weird bit of philosophy "intentionality" is: I don't even want to touch it. I'm going to stick with the word "meaning," and pretend it's the same thing. If this causes me to make an error, please help me resolve it, but I don't foresee that happening.
nwr writes: A more common theistic position would seem to be that intrinsic intentionality comes from the spiritual soul, and is placed there by God. But it seems to me that such a soul based view would still have to credit atheists with intentionality (or with being able to have a meaningful life). The Theistic position is not that only Theists have meaning in their lives, but that only Theists correctly recognize or identify the meaning of their lives. Do you agree that it's possible for a being that has an intrinsic meaning for its existence to misidentify what that meaning is? -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I should be clear that I am not a real philosopher. I'm a mathematician and computer science. I have found a need to dabble in philosophy, because of my interest in cognitive science (another can of worms).
Blue Jay writes:
Some would say that intrinsic meaning is foundational, with the implication that you cannot be wrong about it. Others would say that it is metaphysical, and in that case presumably you could be wrong.
Do you agree that it's possible for a being that has an intrinsic meaning for its existence to misidentify what that meaning is? Blue Jay writes:
Presumably they are going with the metaphysical viewpoint.
The Theistic position is not that only Theists have meaning in their lives, but that only Theists correctly recognize or identify the meaning of their lives.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024