Is there a reason to talk about the world being meaningless

Catch · 03-18-2010, 02:22 PM

There is a thread about the world being meaningless, but what is the point of having a thread that everyone agrees on?

JethroAranas · 03-18-2010, 05:33 PM

Agreeing about the world being meaningless is also like saying we too are meaningless.

ape descendant · 03-18-2010, 06:02 PM

I think that it depends... from a cosmic standpoint, the world doesn't really seem to have much purpose or meaning, unless life itself is its own meaning. If it turns out that Earth is the only planet, out of billions and billions out there in the dark, to carry life.. then we do have some sort of meaning.. we're alive. Perhaps being alive grants us the privilege of being the meaning givers, so that if anything eating and reproducing on the earth decides that there is meaning, perhaps there is.

I dunno... I need to lay off the coffee.

Entropic · 03-18-2010, 06:32 PM

I doubt that everyone agrees the world is meaningless.

Besides, even if you agree that the world is meaningless, you won't agree with everyone as to what the impact of a lack of meaning is.

annwn · 03-18-2010, 06:40 PM

The world is NOT meaningless, we're just too thick-skulled to see the meaning [humanity, i mean].

NO civilization can be built on the notion that existence has no meaning.

Entropic · 03-18-2010, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by annwn

The world is NOT meaningless, we're just too thick-skulled to see the meaning [humanity, i mean].

Ten bucks says you're an Objectivist/Randian/Libertarian/Freidmanite/Paeloconservative/Space Cadet/whateveryourecallingyourselvestoday.

What is your grand proof that the world is not meaningless?

Quote:

Originally Posted by annwn

NO civilization can be built on the notion that existence has no meaning.

No civilization has to be built on the notion that existence has no meaning, just like no civilization has to be built on the notion that the sun goes around the world. Ignorance of reality has nothing to do with politics.

annwn · 03-18-2010, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entropic

Ten bucks says you're an Objectivist/Randian/Libertarian/Freidmanite/Paeloconservative/Space Cadet/whateveryourecallingyourselvestoday.

What is your grand proof that the world is not meaningless?

No civilization has to be built on the notion that existence has no meaning, just like no civilization has to be built on the notion that the sun goes around the world. Ignorance of reality has nothing to do with politics.

Objectivisdt--no
Randian--no
Libertarian--mostly [with some reservations]
Friedmanite--did the 6 books by Milton Friedman on by bookshelves give me away?
Space cadet--not implausibly

Entropic · 03-18-2010, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entropic

What is your grand proof that the world is not meaningless?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entropic;608608No civilization [I

has[/i] to be built on the notion that existence has no meaning, just like no civilization has to be built on the notion that the sun goes around the world. Ignorance of reality has nothing to do with politics.

^^^^^^

Why do you answer half of my statements?

annwn · 03-18-2010, 07:17 PM

Civilization is far more than politics: it is more intangible than that, and conmtains all the artifacts of that civilization.

Proof? I'll have to refer you to the arguments of most of the major philosophers, theologians, mystics, poets, dreamers and doers since imhotep. my poor abilities cannot match theirs.

Entropic · 03-18-2010, 07:22 PM

I'm sorry, but arguing that "most of the major philosophers... since imhotep" are all against the notion that the world is meaningless, is rather naive.

Civilization is more than politics, sure. My point was that you can be ignorant of how reality is, and still function as a society.

annwn · 03-18-2010, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entropic

Civilization is more than politics, sure. My point was that you can be ignorant of how reality is, and still function as a society.

What do you mean by 'reality'?

Alan · 03-18-2010, 07:25 PM

Who is this Entropic and why do I like him so much?

annwn · 03-18-2010, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

Who is this Entropic and why do I like him so much?

He's a charmer!

Entropic · 03-18-2010, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by annwn

What do you mean by 'reality'?

The noumenon, the thing-in-itself, reality external of our senses, if such a reality even exists.

annwn · 03-18-2010, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entropic

The noumenon, the thing-in-itself, reality external of our senses, if such a reality even exists.

What is the nature of this 'ding-an-sich' and why would you automatically assume it is meaningless?

Entropic · 03-18-2010, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by annwn

What is the nature of this 'ding-an-sich' and why would you automatically assume it is meaningless?

I don't "automatically assume" that is meaningless. I came to the conclusion that it was meaningless through reason.

I also don't know the nature of the noumenon specifically because the noumenon is out of my perception. That's the entire point of it being, you know, the noumenon.

Alan · 03-18-2010, 08:06 PM

I can't read Kant.

annwn · 03-18-2010, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entropic

I don't "automatically assume" that is meaningless. I came to the conclusion that it was meaningless through reason.

I also don't know the nature of the noumenon specifically because the noumenon is out of my perception. That's the entire point of it being, you know, the noumenon.

How can you reason sensibly on something beyond your perceptions? If reality is beyond your perception as you claim, it might be made of green cheese for all you know.

As radical a solipsist as you can't offer an opinion on meaning or unmeaning.

Entropic · 03-18-2010, 08:20 PM

You can't. That's the entire point.

You can still build a civilization though, because you still function on practical grounds.

annwn · 03-18-2010, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entropic

You can't. That's the entire point.

You can still build a civilization though, because you still function on practical grounds.

Well, the Borg represents a 'practical' a 'civilization' of a sort, but that's not what i meant.

Answer my question on how by reasoning about something whose nature is beyond your perceptions you can declare it to be meaningless.

Entropic · 03-18-2010, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by annwn

Well, the Borg represents a 'practical' a 'civilization' of a sort, but that's not what i meant.

Answer my question on how by reasoning about something whose nature is beyond your perceptions you can declare it to be meaningless.

I think you're misunderstanding me. Part of that may be my fault, so I apologize.

First, I'm not a Kantian, and I don't necessarily believe in a noumenon. I simply used it as a term to illustrate what I mean, and then added what Kant said about the limitations of the noumenon on perception. Society can function even when they are ignorant of their environment. In this case, society is ignorant of the world being meaningless (the thing-in-itself), so even if a society couldn't function while thinking that the world is meaningless, it would still function in ignorance.

Second, I'm not entirely sure what is and isn't beyond my perception. I don't know if it is even possible to be entirely sure as to what is actually perceivable, and I don't think anyone can be. However, I can perceive the world. Therefore, I can use reason upon what I do know, and what I do know leads me to believe the world is meaningless.

So, to return to the original point of this whole tangent, unless you can show why a society can't function without meaning and unless you show why life has meaning, I still stand by my original point.

annwn · 03-19-2010, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entropic

I think you're misunderstanding me. Part of that may be my fault, so I apologize.

First, I'm not a Kantian, and I don't necessarily believe in a noumenon. I simply used it as a term to illustrate what I mean, and then added what Kant said about the limitations of the noumenon on perception. Society can function even when they are ignorant of their environment. In this case, society is ignorant of the world being meaningless (the thing-in-itself), so even if a society couldn't function while thinking that the world is meaningless, it would still function in ignorance.

Second, I'm not entirely sure what is and isn't beyond my perception. I don't know if it is even possible to be entirely sure as to what is actually perceivable, and I don't think anyone can be. However, I can perceive the world. Therefore, I can use reason upon what I do know, and what I do know leads me to believe the world is meaningless.

So, to return to the original point of this whole tangent, unless you can show why a society can't function without meaning and unless you show why life has meaning, I still stand by my original point.

I think i see where you went so wrong:

You are confusing a civilization that is based on innaccurate perceptions of reality [a very complex problem in itself] but in which those perceptions contribute to an order of values that constitutes their sense of the meaning of existence, and a civilization whose perceptions and the values based upon them view the world as meaningless.

I know of not a single civlilization that views existence as 'meaningless'. Even rabidly materialist and atheist regimes like those based on marxism and racism, the most sterile and stillborn abortions of 'civilization' man has ever created, must latch on some ersatz mysticism based on 'the inevitable progress of history' or 'destiny' or 'blood'.

vindicatedxjin · 03-19-2010, 08:14 AM

It's all chupacabras.

Alan · 03-19-2010, 08:20 AM

Let's pretend we're in the 6th century now:

I know not of a single civilization that dared question the power of reason and the realm of ideas. Even the most rabid skeptic understands that experience cannot teach us anything as the world is imperfect and therefore trivial.
Therefore, I cannot see how you could be so wrong that you like Bacon and his scientific method as a means to understand the world.

annwn · 03-19-2010, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

Let's pretend we're in the 6th century now:

I know not of a single civilization that dared question the power of reason and the realm of ideas. Even the most rabid skeptic understands that experience cannot teach us anything as the world is imperfect and therefore trivial.
Therefore, I cannot see how you could be so wrong that you like Bacon and his scientific method as a means to understand the world.

There is no logical connection whatsoever among the three propositions you rashly conflated:

'Experience cannot teach us anything' [is this really true?]

'The world is imperfect' [this is most likely true]

'The world is trivial because it is imperfect'.[How does this work? How is 'imperfection' related to'triviality'?]