If the universe has no meaning...

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, one has to ask: “What does one mean by this word ‘meaning’? “ How is it being used in this or that sentence, in this or that context?

In your post, “meaning” seems pretty much synonymous with “coherence”. The universe coheres, and all the working parts that you allude to necessarily cohere with that general coherence. Otherwise, there wou ...[text shortened]... I think Lewis’ argument in that brief quote is surprisingly bad for an intellect of his stature.

==================================
Well, one has to ask: “What does one mean by this word ‘meaning’? “ How is it being used in this or that sentence, in this or that context?
============================

Arrg! It is worse than that visted. Then we haave to ask:

what does the word "ask" mean?
what does "mean" mean ??
what does "does" mean ?
what does "what" mean ??

Is there an end ?

===============================
In your post, “meaning” seems pretty much synonymous with “coherence”. The universe coheres, and all the working parts that you allude to necessarily cohere with that general coherence. Otherwise, there would not be cosmos, but chaos—and we would not be here discussing it. Whatever does not cohere with the general coherence of the whole does not survive long.

But whether or not the brute fact of that coherence signifies—let alone necessarily signifies—something else is a whole other question. And a different use of the word “meaning”.

Nevertheless, as per my analogical whimsy above, I think Lewis’ argument in that brief quote is surprisingly bad for an intellect of his stature.
=======================================

I would simply be curious to see the surrounding discussion from which these comments were quoted.

Originally posted by jaywill
Arrg! It is worse than that visted. Then we haave to ask:

what does the word "ask" mean?
what does "mean" mean ??
what does "does" mean ?
what does "what" mean ??

Is there an end ?

We can, should and do ask the meaning of all those words, but find the answers relatively straight forward. I think vistesd's point is that you cannot make a point or argument using a word in one way then pass off the claim as substantiated for another meaning of the word.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==================================
Well, one has to ask: “What does one mean by this word ‘meaning’? “ How is it being used in this or that sentence, in this or that context?
============================

Arrg! It is worse than that visted. Then we haave to ask:

what does the word "ask" mean?
what does "mean" mean ??
what doe ...[text shortened]... mply be curious to see the surrounding discussion from which these comments were quoted.[/b]

Or we can just repeat a word, any word, 100 times and see if there is any 'meaning' left in the word or whether , after 100 or so repetitions, it just starts to sound like unintelligable animal noise🙂

This is why the hare krsnas chant the same mantra over and over- to stop their 'analytic minds' from chattering away in their skulls, to kill their egos.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We can, should and do ask the meaning of all those words, but find the answers relatively straight forward. I think vistesd's point is that you cannot make a point or argument using a word in one way then pass off the claim as substantiated for another meaning of the word.

Precisely. I am not saying that jaywill was doing that, especially not intentionally. But we have seen that error before, whether intentional or not.

I have not read a lot of Albert Camus.
ReplyReply & Quote

You haven't missed much. 😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
We can, should and do ask the meaning of all those words, but find the answers relatively straight forward. I think vistesd's point is that you cannot make a point or argument using a word in one way then pass off the claim as substantiated for another meaning of the word.

Don't distract me. I'm busy preaching.

Originally posted by amolv06
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out
it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and
therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark.
'Dark' would be a word without meaning.

-CS Lewis

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out
it has no meaning:

Meaning- Can't know there's no meaning to a universe with no meaning.


just as, if there were no light in the universe and
therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. 'Dark' would be a word without meaning.

Meaning-We wouldn't know it was dark if there was no light.


Lewis is a genius. The set up is that meaninglessness is non-existent. Quite simple logic.

Originally posted by jaywill
Don't distract me. I'm busy preaching.

I hope that was humour because I got tears of laughter in my eyes after that one.
Out of character for you that last comment was or do I just not know you well enough ,dear Mr.Jaywill?
😀😀😀😀😀

Originally posted by josephw
Lewis is a genius. The set up is that meaninglessness is non-existent. Quite simple logic.

It is possible for a sentence to be essentially meaningless, even though its individual words or even phrases have meaning. So it is presumably possible that the universe as a whole is meaningless even though its sub parts are meaningful.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is possible for a sentence to be essentially meaningless, even though its individual words or even phrases have meaning. So it is presumably possible that the universe as a whole is meaningless even though its sub parts are meaningful.

Yes, in our limited way of thinking we can only interpret parts of reality. However I believe we have the potential to "expand our minds"* to evolve into being able to comprehend the whole.
What we mean by "meaning" changes as the values of society changes. Meaning is invented by man to set up a carrot and stick approach to trying to understand life.
For example winning wars may not be so meaningful to the collective as it was 100 years ago.

*I use this term very loosely. It is subject to personal interpretation.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yes, in our limited way of thinking we can only interpret parts of reality. However I believe we have the potential to "expand our minds"* to evolve into being able to comprehend the whole.

It is not a matter of whether we can comprehend the whole or not. It is a matter of whether or not the whole will have meaning once comprehended. Further, we are not really discussing whether we believe the whole does have meaning but whether Lewis Carols argument proves that it must have meaning.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
What we mean by "meaning" changes as the values of society changes.

My understanding of one usage of the word is this:
An object in the universe contains information. If that information can be 'translated' or expanded on by our intellect, then that object also carried meaning for us ie we got more from it than was actually contained in its information content by adding our own information.
For example, the letter A on its own is just a shape or set of pixels, but when interpreted by our mind, can mean a whole host of things including a sound, a word, a shape, a letter, even a crossed out upside-down V.
It is not so much society that changes meaning but us as interpreters. If you had never been introduced to writing the letter A would probably have no meaning to you.
The meaning we get from words may be intended by the writer - or it may not.
'Meaning' can be deliberately used to transmit more information than would otherwise be possible.
Sometimes we use the word specifically to refer to the intended meaning of the writer, and sometimes we use it to mean any possible interpretation by the receiver.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is not a matter of whether we can comprehend the whole or not. It is a matter of whether or not the whole will have meaning once comprehended. Further, we are not really discussing whether we believe the whole does have meaning but whether Lewis Carols argument proves that it must have meaning.

Yes, you're right, I was deviating a bit there🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead
My understanding of one usage of the word is this:
An object in the universe contains information. If that information can be 'translated' or expanded on by our intellect, then that object also carried meaning for us ie we got more from it than was actually contained in its information content by adding our own information.
For example, the letter A on ...[text shortened]... of the writer, and sometimes we use it to mean any possible interpretation by the receiver.

Lewis Carrol says "the whole universe" so in this context we are only interested in the type of 'meaning' that would point to a gestalt, a whole interpretation of the word 'meaning'. So what do you think Carrol meant? (I have no context to be able to evaluate what he might mean by "universe",for starters)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Lewis Carrol says "the whole universe" so in this context we are only interested in the type of 'meaning' that would point to a gestalt, a whole interpretation of the word 'meaning'. So what do you think Carrol meant? (I have no context to be able to evaluate what he might mean by "universe",for starters)

I think Lewis Carrol was attempting to use bad logic to support beliefs that he held for totally different reasons.

An excellent example of this methodology can be found here:
http://xkcd.com/759/