Originally posted by FreakyKBHCome on, Nemesio. Are you giving your position up so readily?
[b]I detect entrapment.
The force within you is strong.
By knowns, are we referring specifically to those knowns that can be shown to be true rather than the 'presumes' that we take on faith?
Yes.
What do you mean by mechanistic?
Relating to the philosophy of mechanism, especially tending to explain phenomena only by reference to physical or biological causes.
Automatic and impersonal; mechanical.
Fair enough?[/b]
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOkay. I am on board. Play ball.
Relating to the philosophy of mechanism, especially tending to explain phenomena only by reference to physical or biological causes.
Automatic and impersonal; mechanical.
This definition works for me; we'll see if it needs to be clarified, but I
think it substantively seems sound.
Scott, are you in on this?
Nemesio
“Absurdism is a philosophy stating that the efforts of humanity to find meaning in the universe will ultimately fail because no such meaning exists (at least in relation to humanity).” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism; my bold]
If this is the understanding of the absurd that you all are accepting, then I’ll play the Camusian absurdist (would be nice to get LemonJello in, too).
For Camus, the absurd is defined by the fact that humans have a conscsiousness that seeks meaning (especially a meaning for its own existence) in a world that discloses no such meaning, but only facts or phenomena: “...the Absurd is not in man (if such a metaphor could have meaning) nor in the world, but in their presence together.” And: “It [the absurd situation] lies in neither of the elements compared; it is born of their confrontation.” [All quotes from The Myth of Sisyphus.]
In the face of a world that does not disclose meaning but only facts or phenomena, meaning can only come from our interpretations of the same (and the phenomenal experience of our own existence). Accepting that does not mean the relinquishing of meaning per se, as the result of our own creative efforts, but it does mean the relinquishing of hope for any “absolute meaning” or for any given meaning. As the wiki article put it—
“People may create meaning in their own lives, which may not be the objective meaning of life, but still provides something for which to strive. However, he [Camus] insisted that one must always maintain an ironic distance between this invented meaning and the knowledge of the absurd lest the fictitious meaning takes the place of the absurd.”
Any attempt to escape from this—through speculative metaphysics or appeal to the supernatural—is just that: an attempt to escape. And the history of religion, mythology and metaphysics traces the history of human attempt to escape, to find a way out. Of this kind of effort, Camus writes: “Eluding is the invariable game. The typical act of eluding, the fatal evasion that constitutes the third theme of this essay, is hope. Hope of another life one must ‘deserve,’ or trickery of those who live not for life itself but for some great idea that will transcend it, refine it, give it a meaning, and betray it.”
This suggests to me a possibility for understanding why theists keep trying to “prove” the existence of God (and other religionists and metaphysicians try to prove other things), rather than simply declaring a decision for God (the “leap of faith” ): because they realize that such a decision cannot itself be grounded in the “absolute meaning” they are seeking to ground their lives on. Thus, they implicitly recognize the reality of the absurd situation, and assert (perhaps rightly) that the only “real” resolution must come from admitting the supernatural category and some kind of divine revelation.
However, I have yet to see such a “proof” that does not fail, either by (a) begging the question, or (b) devolving back to a “leap” wherein one is still essentially making a decision that cannot itself be grounded in the “absolute meaning” that it seeks.
To close with two additional quotes by Camus:
“The principle can be established that for a man who does not cheat, what he believes to be true must determine his action.”
“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” [I have to say that, despite my general agreement with Camus, I do not feel “an alien, a stranger,” but quite at home in the world; also, I still retain “the memory of a lost home,” I simply cannot with integrity return there...]
EDIT: I should qualify that “at home in the world” in the interests of complete honesty: I feel at home when I simply accept the absurdity (and its challenge); but sometimes Camus’ “nostalgia” for the idea of an absolute, given meaning still kicks in, and I walk into the trap for awhile...
Originally posted by vistesdTwo big 😛 😛s for a certain DoctorScribbles who says that this forum is an 'Intellectual Wasteland.'
“Absurdism is a philosophy stating that the efforts of humanity to [b]find meaning in the universe will ultimately fail because no such meaning exists (at least in relation to humanity).” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism; my bold]
If this is the understanding of the absurd that you all are accepting, then I’ll play the Camusian absurdist (wo ...[text shortened]... idea of an absolute, given meaning still kicks in, and I walk into the trap for awhile...[/b]
I maintain there is an oasis or two that salvage the walk through the desert, this being an example.
Nemesio
Originally posted by amannionEvolution made the biblical chronology (of 6 thousand years) dissapear and replaced it with a evolutionary chronolgy of 10's and 100's of thousands of years. Now there is nothing wrong with evolution per se but there is a major problem with the political appropriation of evoultionism which justified colonialism and created a allochronic discourse which still exists today...
Why does evolution have to be antagonistic to religion?
There are many scientists, including evolutionary biologists who are religious - and yet a small and very vocal minority seems to believe that to accept evolution means rejecting their religious beliefs, and so reject evolution.
Why is this?
Does it have to be the case?
I can't myself see any confl ...[text shortened]... s, other than when the Bible is read literally which is clearly a ridiculous viewpoint to take.
As for the Christians, well...they're against anything that's not mentioned in the bible.
Originally posted by vistesdOriginally posted by vistesd
“Absurdism is a philosophy stating that the efforts of humanity to [b]find meaning in the universe will ultimately fail because no such meaning exists (at least in relation to humanity).” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism; my bold]
If this is the understanding of the absurd that you all are accepting, then I’ll play the Camusian absurdist (wo ...[text shortened]... idea of an absolute, given meaning still kicks in, and I walk into the trap for awhile...[/b]
“Absurdism is a philosophy stating that the efforts of humanity to [b]find meaning in the universe will ultimately fail because no such meaning exists (at least in relation to humanity).”
[/b]What is it called where there is meaning, and it is rejected, because...?
I guess I'm not doing well sticking to only one thread before my last
game is done.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI guess I'm not doing well sticking to only one thread before my last game is done.
Originally posted by vistesd
[b]“Absurdism is a philosophy stating that the efforts of humanity to [b]find meaning in the universe will ultimately fail because no such meaning exists (at least in relation to humanity).”
[/b]What is it called where there is meaning, and it is rejected, because...?
I guess I'm not doing well sticking to only one thread before my last
game is done.
Kelly[/b]
Nor have I been doing well at limiting my participation as severely as I intended upon my return... 😳
What is it called where there is meaning, and it is rejected, because...?
I’m not sure I understand the question. I would dispute that part about “where there is meaning,” since I think that the world (cosmos) does not disclose meaning, there is no meaning given in it, only facts or phenomena. I argue that we compose meaning based on our interpretations of those facts and phenomena; we may find patterns in them—and the architecture of our consciousness may a priori impose patterns where we think we have found them externally—but meaning is an act of our own composition.
The only way I can speak of “finding” meaning is that in our compositional activity, we may have the sense of insight when some pattern seems to appear—the “aha!” experience. But we do not “find” meaning per se.
I should also add that, for us, we also look to the results of the ancients doing the same thing—their interpretations and compositions (both mythological and philosophical); we learn from them, sometimes we reinterpret them.
I don’t want to run too far ahead of Freaky here; I’m just trying to lay some more expansive groundwork regarding the understanding of the absurd perspective that everyone seemed to agree upon, as the counter-foil for the argument Freaky wants to make. But—
I think that the only way the theist can overcome this argument is by claiming an “extra-natural” category (God for the theist*) for which the only “real” evidence must also come from that category—in the form of some kind of extra-natural revelation. Since the cosmos does not disclose meaning, such revelation is the only possible source for the kind of “absolute meaning” the theist is seeking.
But the theist has no more absolute ground for deciding for God and divine revelation (or the interpretation of mystical experiences, for that matter) than does anyone else, at bottom. Nor, in my opinion (though some obviously disagree) is the theist relieved of the interpretive—and hence compositional—endeavor in deciphering that divine revelation (witness your in-depth debate with xpoferens...).
Now, my present position—which I hope to see tested in this discussion—is that the justification for the theists “decision for God” is fundamentally aesthetic—that is, it is a way of living life, informing decisions, attitudes and behaviors: as Ivanhoe put it, “a lamp to guide my feet” (a statement against which I have no argument, though I do not intend to imply that Ivanhoe would agree with my analysis).
For both the theist and the nontheist, I think that comment about "an ironic distance" is critical...
* Other possible metaphysical categories I suppose for the non-theists who also seek some “absolute meaning.”
Originally posted by vistesdWhat he said.
“Absurdism is a philosophy stating that the efforts of humanity to [b]find meaning in the universe will ultimately fail because no such meaning exists (at least in relation to humanity).” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism; my bold]
If this is the understanding of the absurd that you all are accepting, then I’ll play the Camusian absurdist (wo ...[text shortened]... idea of an absolute, given meaning still kicks in, and I walk into the trap for awhile...[/b]
Camus is essentially being honest about the plight of man (and while using the words and concepts of resolution), yet fails to offer a truly viable solution, other than diverting ones gaze from the abyss. He may be the original author of 'it is what it is.' What 'it' is, however, remains a world without hope.
Originally posted by SerendipityWhat the?
Evolution made the biblical chronology (of 6 thousand years) dissapear and replaced it with a evolutionary chronolgy of 10's and 100's of thousands of years. Now there is nothing wrong with evolution per se but there is a major problem with the political appropriation of evoultionism which justified colonialism and created a allochronic discourse which ...[text shortened]...
As for the Christians, well...they're against anything that's not mentioned in the bible.
Originally posted by vistesdThat is the point isn't it, you think the 'cosmos' does not disclose
[b]I guess I'm not doing well sticking to only one thread before my last game is done.
Nor have I been doing well at limiting my participation as severely as I intended upon my return... 😳
What is it called where there is meaning, and it is rejected, because...?
I’m not sure I understand the question. I would dispute that part about ...[text shortened]... metaphysical categories I suppose for the non-theists who also seek some “absolute meaning.”[/b]
meaning, so that turns this into simply a matter of being able to prove
what you believe? So this than turns into a discussion of blue among
the blind, you really need to see to believe it, but if seen faith would
no longer matter, as we have what we were looking for.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay"but if seen faith would
That is the point isn't it, you think the 'cosmos' does not disclose
meaning, so that turns this into simply a matter of being able to prove
what you believe? So this than turns into a discussion of blue among
the blind, you really need to see to believe it, but if seen faith would
no longer matter, as we have what we were looking for.
Kelly
no longer matter, as we have what we were looking for."
This is true, because faith simply is "Blind acceptance without evidence".
This is nothing to be proud of. You are a dolt for thinking faith has any value beyond that of being a sheep.