Originally posted by whodey
Bu this if free will is merely an "illusion" then why do we get so up in arms when we feel as though it is being violated?
I'm not sure I've seen anyone, including myself, get up in arms about the illusion of free will being violated.
I find your embrace of an illusion in terms of meaning to life somewhat ironic. You see I am charged with embracing the notion of an illusionary God to cope with my existence and my demise as where you are saying you embrace the illusion of free will that helps give your life meaning even though you seem to be saying that you do not really believe you have free will.
Firstly, I do not embrace the illusion to give my life meaning, I do not think there is such a thing as meaning, not least because I've yet to hear an encompassing definition of it. Secondly, as I mentioned to KM in some other thread, a subjective choice to accept an illusion and a propositional claim about an objective being are not the same thing. I'm saying that my view of the universe lacks something, you're saying something exists for all people at the heart of their universe.
I think that you should pursue the integration of our consciousness into the mix in terms of meaning to the universe. You see I reject the notion that anything can have meaning without it. How can something have meaning/value unless one places value upon it?
Do you mean an absolute value which can be said to be of a thing? Or a relative aesthetic consideration of a thing which changes?
It either exists or it does not exist whether it be living or dead. Where is the value of it other than its mere existence? What is the value of the "process" other than existing? Is the "process" not meaningless unless there is a higher consciousness such as ourselves who give it meaning?
I'm not sure I understand what you are referring to with 'it'. Are you saying a higher consciousness 'gives' something meaning, or 'percieves the meaning' in things?
I do take issue with your notion that we do not require meaning in our lives. Whether it exists or does not exist it is vital to our hapiness if not our sanity. For example, why did you get out of bed this morning? For what purpose?
None, of course, mere cause and event. Curious how I find myself typing at the computer with a desire to do so in my mind; how incredibly complex the machinations of energy are.
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomAh, okay, I didn't realise it was directed at me.
no you didnt. i quoted myself, but it was meant to answer you; my last post on page 6.
I would point out that the thread title is whether we have "meaning", rathter than "purpose". I would say we have internally generated meaning, but as for purpose, well, yes, I suppose the 'purpose' of individuals is to reproduce.
Originally posted by StarrmanI am saying that either absolute value or relative aesthetic considerations are both equally invalid without conscious thought. Why is something of value? For me it is somewhat of a personal question or at best it is a question that demands intelligent thought to quantify the value or qualify the value and then relate that value back to how you percieve it to relate to the rest of the universe.
I think that you should pursue the integration of our consciousness into the mix in terms of meaning to the universe. You see I reject the notion that anything can have meaning without it. How can something have meaning/value unless one places value upon it?
Do you mean an absolute value which can be said to be of a thing? Or a relative aesthetic consideration of a thing which changes?
Originally posted by scottishinnzwow i never thought you'd agree with me ever but isn't meaning a synonym of purpose?
Ah, okay, I didn't realise it was directed at me.
I would point out that the thread title is whether we have "meaning", rathter than "purpose". I would say we have internally generated meaning, but as for purpose, well, yes, I suppose the 'purpose' of individuals is to reproduce.
Originally posted by whodeyI'm sorry, but your stance is inconsistent. On one hand you claim that for an agent to form a notion of meaning, there must exist these "points of reference" that are constitutively independent of the agent's own perspective; on the other hand, you yourself violate this by positing the existence of a particular agent -- God -- for whom this does not hold.
When I say that meaning demands a point of reference I am saying that one cannot simply conjure up the notion that life has meaning out of thin air. Even the unicorn needs a point of reference such as being familiar with horses and animals with horns. Granted, the unicorn has no actual referent but the notion was not conjured up from things that do not exi ...[text shortened]... on even though we may not have some direct referent as you would say.
Does this make sense?
Regardless, you habitually fail to appreciate a certain distinction upon which your argument falls apart. That people form notions of meaning just demonstrates that there are things they take as meaningful, things they value, things they find morally relevant, etc. These are all just descriptive facts, and they just don't imply what you claim they do. Based on your own form of subjectivism, look at how silly your claim is: basically, you claim the fact that I (or you, or any other human being) place value on certain things implies that God places value on certain things (where you allow for the possibility that the things God values may be different from those things we value). How is that not just obviously false?
Originally posted by LemonJelloCome on - get with the plan.
I'm sorry, but your stance is inconsistent. On one hand you claim that for an agent to form a notion of meaning, there must exist these "points of reference" that are constitutively independent of the agent's own perspective; on the other hand, you yourself violate this by positing the existence of a particular agent -- God -- for whom this does not hold ...[text shortened]... values may be different from those things we value). How is that not just obviously false?
Magic!
Originally posted by whodeychess gives my life meaning
Just a question for everyone else out there. Does your life have meaning? Well of coarse it does, you say. You have loved ones you care about, you have a career that is going some place etc. However, does this meaning extend beyond yourself? In other words, does your life really have meaning in and of itself or is this meaning merely an illusion based upon what you or others only percieve it to be?
Originally posted by LemonJelloBut if God is real then he is a point of reference.
I'm sorry, but your stance is inconsistent. On one hand you claim that for an agent to form a notion of meaning, there must exist these "points of reference" that are constitutively independent of the agent's own perspective; on the other hand, you yourself violate this by positing the existence of a particular agent -- God -- for whom this does not hold values may be different from those things we value). How is that not just obviously false?
As far as us placing value on things God places little to no value or vice versa I would say that this may vary somewhat, however, some variances would be only natural due to the fact that we are our own person and not God himself. Then again, I think both human beings and God value human live comparitivly......that is, some humans. In fact, in order to not value a human life we are faced with devaluing such life in order to justify treating such life wrongly. For example, the Nazis called the Jews vermon. The slave owners in the 1800's referred to the black slave as monkeys. The Islamic radicalists refer to those not of the faith of Islam as infidels. After one then devalues humanity in such a say one is then free to act like a monster of sorts.
Originally posted by whodeyOf course, christians have never been guilty of treating someone as an inferior, now have they? It's always someone else who is guilty of that crime, isn't it? Yeah, right.
But if God is real then he is a point of reference.
As far as us placing value on things God places little to no value or vice versa I would say that this may vary somewhat, however, some variances would be only natural due to the fact that we are our own person and not God himself. Then again, I think both human beings and God value human live compariti ...[text shortened]... After one then devalues humanity in such a say one is then free to act like a monster of sorts.
Originally posted by rwingettWho said that all who have claimed to be Christian have acted in a Christian like fashion? I suppose you could say that the early Chrisitians seemed to act in a Christ like fashion. They were persecuted and killed for their beliefs but did not strike back by rendering evil for evil. Then as the religion progressed others took it in a different direction via inquisitions and burnings at the stake etc. Any message, no matter how pure, can be defiled. However, this does not make the message any less pure.
Of course, christians have never been guilty of treating someone as an inferior, now have they? It's always someone else who is guilty of that crime, isn't it? Yeah, right.