- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
01 Feb 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI like that. Hard to say it any simpler.
A conscious entity.
Any comment on my questions about ultimate meaning?
Does life have an "ultimate" meaning? How do we know this?
I suppose life has whatever ultimate meaning a conscious entity gives it.
Does this imply meaning (including ultimate meaning) is something life has for or to a particular conscious entity? I would think so. It would then, be subjective in the philosophical, not the popular, and not the derogatory sense of that term.
01 Feb 14
The post that was quoted here has been removedOriginally posted by Duchess64
Evidently, GrampyBobby has no comprehension of what academic philosophers
usually discuss or what's usually written in academic philosophy journals.
The normal level of discussion in this forum falls well beneath that of an
average discussion by undergraduates studying philosophy.
Perhaps Duchess64 will allow for the presence of a freshman student
without portfolio among the "undergraduates studying philosophy."
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
01 Feb 14
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedIt's Bobby (in this thread anyway) who took note of a comment about philosophical discussion, and within the framework of his vocabulary, suggested having a go at a non-secular analysis of the question of meaning and purpose. Granted it's hard for him to leave The Book closed, but that's life. We each carry our toolbox with us.
01 Feb 14
The post that was quoted here has been removedWould the current speaker extemporaneous, i.e., Duchess64, consider the possibility of synergistic
discussion benefit from the presence of a speaking monkey with minimal frame of reference and mediocre
capacity for conceptual thought in the "Closest thing to a philosophy forum..." classroom?
01 Feb 14
Originally posted by JS357.... sans "toolbox"; it was abandoned in this thread's parental home.
It's Bobby (in this thread anyway) who took note of a comment about philosophical discussion, and within the framework of his vocabulary, suggested having a go at a non-secular analysis of the question of meaning and purpose. Granted it's hard for him to leave The Book closed, but that's life. We each carry our toolbox with us.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
02 Feb 14
The post that was quoted here has been removedI did a malapro by saying "non-secular" because I thing Bobby suggested a secular analysis of the questions.
You are right about the routine mode of analysis here.
One of the problems of secular analysis of philosophical questions is that they lack a reference book where answers are to be found.
I got A's in my two phi classes.
Bobby, whether he knows it or not, has hinted at Berkeley's argument for God as the sustaining perceiver (my terminology) in one of his replies. Who sustains our meaning and purpose when we are not awake/aware? I know it's holding on to The Book, but it's not without philosophical pedigree.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
02 Feb 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySo we won't expect that from you.
Nobody I know of in this forum classroom would have the temerity or lack of intellectual breeding or genetic
online predisposition to even think of mouthing, 'I believe this because of (Biblical quotation of choice)'.
02 Feb 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyOh? Really? Nobody? Are we visiting the same Spirituality Forum?
Nobody I know of in this forum classroom would have the temerity or lack of intellectual breeding or genetic
online predisposition to even think of mouthing, 'I believe this because of (Biblical quotation of choice)'.