Kevin's Watch

Avatar wrote:

The beauty of not believing a meaning exists is that you don't feel compelled to go out and find it. Maybe just living is the meaning of your life. *shrug* It can be anything you want. Because you decide.

I think an appropriate challenge to this idea is to ask "what is the meaning of your death?".

rusmeister wrote:I think an appropriate challenge to this idea is to ask "what is the meaning of your death?".

Wrong thread Rus, but the answer is easy. Death on it's own doesn't mean anything. It happens to everybody. That's not to say your death can't be meaningful in some broader sense, but if it is, it was up to you to make it so.

--A

Avatar wrote:

rusmeister wrote:I think an appropriate challenge to this idea is to ask "what is the meaning of your death?".

Wrong thread Rus, but the answer is easy. Death on it's own doesn't mean anything. It happens to everybody. That's not to say your death can't be meaningful in some broader sense, but if it is, it was up to you to make it so.

--A

The 'easy answer' is also the wrong answer...
It would be more useful to explain why we have this thirst for meaning. If we have an objective thirst for something, then the most logical explanation is that there is an objective (not subjective) thing, somewhere, whether we find it or not, that meets that need.

That's your opinion of what's most logical. I have a few problems with it.
(I can hear your gasp of surprise. hehe)

1) You assumed the answer - that is, you believed in God - before the question ever came up.

2) The thirst is not objective. Or, rather, what satisfies it for one does not satisfy it for all. For example, I do not feel satisfied with an answer that comes from outside of me. Your thirst is sated by the belief that you serve God's meaning. I am unsatisfied by meanings that I do not give myself. Those are the ones that answer my individual needs.

3) In a different, more literal sense than 2), the thirst is not objective. I don't think I have a need for as much meaning, or maybe as many meanings, as you do. I'm pretty comfortable with meaninglessness.


I believe our brains evolved in such a way that it allows us to understand certain concepts, just as our bodies evolved in such a way that it allows us to do certain physical things. We have two hands and ten fingers, which allows us to play the piano, build houses, etc. And we have the ability to see Cause & Effect, which allows us to wonder at previous, unseen causes. But some of us are seven feet tall, letting us play basketball better than others, whose eyesight may allow them to be better hunters. And some of us have psychological needs that demand certain kinds of answers, which others don't need.

Wrong by what measure exactly?

--A

We are given the answer to "what is death" every time we go to sleep.
If we die in our sleep and never wake up there is....**nothing**.
We're just gone.
Any emotion we attach to death contradicts our experience with sleep.
We as humans elevate ourselves due to our intelligence and our fear of death.

I'm mentioned this before and the quick retort is "we dream and there is mental activity during sleep" but the essence of sleep, the oblivion, is undeniable.
And that to me is the answer to what is death.

Fist and Faith wrote:That's your opinion of what's most logical. I have a few problems with it.
(I can hear your gasp of surprise. hehe)

1) You assumed the answer - that is, you believed in God - before the question ever came up.

2) The thirst is not objective. Or, rather, what satisfies it for one does not satisfy it for all. For example, I do not feel satisfied with an answer that comes from outside of me. Your thirst is sated by the belief that you serve God's meaning. I am unsatisfied by meanings that I do not give myself. Those are the ones that answer my individual needs.

3) In a different, more literal sense than 2), the thirst is not objective. I don't think I have a need for as much meaning, or maybe as many meanings, as you do. I'm pretty comfortable with meaninglessness.


I believe our brains evolved in such a way that it allows us to understand certain concepts, just as our bodies evolved in such a way that it allows us to do certain physical things. We have two hands and ten fingers, which allows us to play the piano, build houses, etc. And we have the ability to see Cause & Effect, which allows us to wonder at previous, unseen causes. But some of us are seven feet tall, letting us play basketball better than others, whose eyesight may allow them to be better hunters. And some of us have psychological needs that demand certain kinds of answers, which others don't need.

1) Actually, I'm not coming into this discussion with the assumption of God. I am starting from the point of inquiry that we find ourselves in these fleshly bodies without our will, and are ejected from them also (in the ideal and in most cases) against our will. As Lewis said, "I am nowhere near the God of the Christians yet".

2) The fact that we all experience this thirst IS objective. The questions of what will satisfy it, and to what degree people experience it at different points come later. From a rational standpoint, the first thing is to establish that it is something that we commonly experience. And if it is an experience that the overwhelming majority (99.99%) of humanity experience, then it is a phenomenon that demands explanation. To ignore it or say it doesn't matter (not that you are saying this, F+F - but some do) is highly illogical.

High Lord Tolkien wrote:...the essence of sleep, the oblivion, is undeniable.
And that to me is the answer to what is death.

Nice description.

And that Oblivion is fine with me. Because I'll never know it. Maybe I'd prefer other things, maybe there are other things. But I suspect oblivion is the most likely. And I can live with that.

--A

I see what you did there, Av! Live with oblivion! Ba-DUM-bum!

Personally, I'm hoping for oblivion. That would be my preference. And it's what I'm expecting.

rus, I agree that there is a universal search for meaning. Some look longer and harder than others, but it looks like nearly everyone searches at some point.

However, the logical starting point is not:
There must be one objective thing that fulfills that need in all people.
A better one is:
I wonder if there is one objective thing that fulfills that need in all people.
I do not believe I'm being picky. I believe the different statements will lead to different approaches.

In the first, the question might be:
What characteristics will this thing have? What should we look for?
In the seccond, the question might be:
Let's examine those who seem to have had that need satisfied, and see if it was by the same thing.

And if we go the second route, we will see that we are most certainly not all satisfied by the same thing. I am satisfied, and it is not by the God that satisfies you. The only thing left is for one of us to say, "Well, I'm pretty sure you're not really satisfied. You're ignorant of true satisfaction, or only kidding yourself." You are, of course, free to say it about me, but I wouldn't presume to say it about you. I'm certain many, many people find fulfillment in their faith.

The search for meaning to life or death is the search for self-importance. It's hubris. Arrogance. Arising from the urge to self-preservation - which can be viewed as the belief that continued existence is a very important thing, if not the most.

Once again, I'm reminded of Neverness:

Why should man seek justice in a universe which is manifestly unjust? Are we so insignificant and vain that we cannot look upon the raw, naked face of randomness without praying it will smile upon us merely because we have been righteous and good?

Avatar wrote: But I suspect oblivion is the most likely. And I can live with that.

--A

Actually, no you can't.
(I understand that you mean you can live with the thought. Like I said, a loaded gun pointed at your head* when you least expect it - especially in a moment of joy - would probably do wonders for that kind of attitude, which is essentially nihilist.)

* www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/mana ... n_toc.html

Fist and Faith wrote:I see what you did there, Av! Live with oblivion! Ba-DUM-bum!

Personally, I'm hoping for oblivion. That would be my preference. And it's what I'm expecting.

rus, I agree that there is a universal search for meaning. Some look longer and harder than others, but it looks like nearly everyone searches at some point.

However, the logical starting point is not:
There must be one objective thing that fulfills that need in all people.
A better one is:
I wonder if there is one objective thing that fulfills that need in all people.
I do not believe I'm being picky. I believe the different statements will lead to different approaches.

In the first, the question might be:
What characteristics will this thing have? What should we look for?
In the seccond, the question might be:
Let's examine those who seem to have had that need satisfied, and see if it was by the same thing.

And if we go the second route, we will see that we are most certainly not all satisfied by the same thing. I am satisfied, and it is not by the God that satisfies you. The only thing left is for one of us to say, "Well, I'm pretty sure you're not really satisfied. You're ignorant of true satisfaction, or only kidding yourself." You are, of course, free to say it about me, but I wouldn't presume to say it about you. I'm certain many, many people find fulfillment in their faith.

My prime objection to this line of reasoning begins from the idea of accepting that those who seem to have had that need filled have actually had it filled by something objective, universal. It assumes that the individual, on his own, is competent to decipher exactly what that meaning is, and I disagree. Any number of cases of disillusionment, for instance, in either atheism or theism or any belief (including Christianity), could be proffered. The question here is whether what seems to the person actually is. Now if your inquiry would start from "I wonder if there is one objective thing that could fulfill that need in all people", it would be along lines that I could find more acceptable. We know that people do not agree on truth and it is no revelation to discover that they do not. The question is whether anyone can be objectively right or wrong. At this point the word "proof" must become necessarily subjective. We can only talk as far as reason goes, and past that point choose which dogma we accept as a matter of faith, even if it is a faith in an inability to know.

Now I am not proposing to logically prove Christianity - because it IS a matter of faith. (In my own case my reason recognizes its own limitations and accepts that at some point a mystical dogma must be chosen. As to satisfaction - my faith finds itself frequently under attack from physical and emotional causes - and my reason tells me that these are poor bases to reject what reason has once accepted.) My dogma accepts special revelation from an Authority that IS competent to know what that meaning is - and having accepted it, I find that the Authority is telling the Truth. (I believe there's a Donaldsonian moment here, where Linden or somebody grabs Covenant (or somebody) in the middle of some illusion or interference and shouts something to the effect of "can't you see? He's telling the truth!")

And as a linguistic afterthought - isn't the language standard in choice of articles interesting? I mean, we say "tell a lie" ('a' meaning 'one of many") but "tell the truth" (definite article - only one) in most language situations.

wayfriend wrote:The search for meaning to life or death is the search for self-importance. It's hubris. Arrogance. Arising from the urge to self-preservation - which can be viewed as the belief that continued existence is a very important thing, if not the most.

The first sentence is absolutely true, but only if "self-important' is correctly understood. if it means "What import (ie, what meaning) do I have?", then it is quite right. If you mean (as I suspect) aggrandizement of self beyond proper place in the universe, then I must respectfully disagree. It is absolutely not hubris or arrogance. If we extend this logic to scientific enquiry, it would condemn discovery and learning.
The belief that continued existence is valuable is a logical extension of the idea that existence, aka life, is valuable; therefore, it is a commendable, not contemptible thing.

Fist and Faith wrote:Once again, I'm reminded of Neverness:

Why should man seek justice in a universe which is manifestly unjust? Are we so insignificant and vain that we cannot look upon the raw, naked face of randomness without praying it will smile upon us merely because we have been righteous and good?

I love that quote.

Rus wrote:Like I said, a loaded gun pointed at your head when you least expect it - especially in a moment of joy - would probably do wonders for that kind of attitude, which is essentially nihilist.

The attitude is independant of the circumstances. I'm not saying I'd like to be killed at some random moment. I'm saying that the thought of oblivion when I'm dead is not troubling. Hardly anybody want to die, but it happens to everybody.

(And lest you forget, I live in a country where every day I could find a gun pointed at my head, or be shot for my cell phone. Maybe that possibility breeds nihilism.)

My point is merely that some sort of afterlife is not necessary for me to believe my life was worthwhile.

--A

No kidding, rus, how happy would you be if that gun was pointed at you? Just because we don't happily run off looking for death doesn't mean we aren't perfectly comfortable with our beliefs. Who the heck wants a bullet ripping their brain apart??

And to take it beyond the dying, to the death... You may be looking forward to the afterlife you expect will come. You may be thrilled at the thought. That's great. Seriously, without any sarcasm, I'm happy for you. And I may be merely perfectly comfortable and satisfied with the thought of the oblivion I expect will come. Looking at it that way, we could say you are better off, or however it might be worded. But just because you're looking forward to it, and I'm only perfectly fine with it, doesn't mean I'm not perfectly fine with it.

rusmeister wrote:My prime objection to this line of reasoning begins from the idea of accepting that those who seem to have had that need filled have actually had it filled by something objective, universal. It assumes that the individual, on his own, is competent to decipher exactly what that meaning is, and I disagree. Any number of cases of disillusionment, for instance, in either atheism or theism or any belief (including Christianity), could be proffered. The question here is whether what seems to the person actually is.

Some people here know the technical term. This is some sort of pitfall of logic. Just because some people have been wrong about having satisfied that need in ways that do not seem valid to you does not mean those ways are not valid, or that other people have not truly satisfied that need in ways you do not like. I don't recognise your insight into me that allows you to determine that I have not achieved what I am saying.

rusmeister wrote:Now if your inquiry would start from "I wonder if there is one objective thing that could fulfill that need in all people", it would be along lines that I could find more acceptable.

An excellent wording. I like it much better than your "there must be," which is not a beginning point, but a conclusion that requires a whole lot of evidence. (And anyway, what fulfills you is not the same thing that fulfills me.) And I like it better than my "I wonder if there is," which, although I like better than yours, still seems more constricting than "could there be." (And anyway, what fulfills you is not the same thing that fulfills me.) "Could there be," however, is not ruled out by the fact that what fulfills you is not the same thing that fulfills me. It's still possible that we can be fulfilled by the same thing. Although I doubt it. I don't like your requirements of what is needed (something outside of me), and you do not like my requirements (answering the questions myself). Still, there's the possibility of finding something we can both embrace.

rusmeister wrote:We know that people do not agree on truth and it is no revelation to discover that they do not. The question is whether anyone can be objectively right or wrong. At this point the word "proof" must become necessarily subjective. We can only talk as far as reason goes, and past that point choose which dogma we accept as a matter of faith, even if it is a faith in an inability to know.

I do not believe there is an objective right or wrong in this. I believe you and I have different psychological and/or philosophical needs, and that we have both found answers that satisfy those needs, giving us both the fulfillment we're talking about. Alas, you believe there is an objective right, which you have found, and I have not.

rusmeister wrote:Now I am not proposing to logically prove Christianity - because it IS a matter of faith. (In my own case my reason recognizes its own limitations and accepts that at some point a mystical dogma must be chosen. As to satisfaction - my faith finds itself frequently under attack from physical and emotional causes - and my reason tells me that these are poor bases to reject what reason has once accepted.)

Good for you. Again, no sarcasm. Do you believe something, or not? Is your faith so weak that it actually changes with your state of health? Be the same in pleasure as in pain. (I think that's from Conversations With God, but I'll have to look it up.) In a thread I can't find at the moment, Skyweir mentioned Jews who thought it was wrong to harm another human being. That belief did not change when they were being held in Nazi camps. If it's wrong, it's wrong, no matter what. If you have faith in God, you have faith in God, and you don't run away when things get tough.

rusmeister wrote:And as a linguistic afterthought - isn't the language standard in choice of articles interesting? I mean, we say "tell a lie" ('a' meaning 'one of many") but "tell the truth" (definite article - only one) in most language situations.

Sure, there are many situations where many lies can be told, but there is only one truth.

Fist and Faith wrote:No kidding, rus, how happy would you be if that gun was pointed at you? Just because we don't happily run off looking for death doesn't mean we aren't perfectly comfortable with our beliefs. Who the heck wants a bullet ripping their brain apart??

And to take it beyond the dying, to the death... You may be looking forward to the afterlife you expect will come. You may be thrilled at the thought. That's great. Seriously, without any sarcasm, I'm happy for you. And I may be merely perfectly comfortable and satisfied with the thought of the oblivion I expect will come. Looking at it that way, we could say you are better off, or however it might be worded. But just because you're looking forward to it, and I'm only perfectly fine with it, doesn't mean I'm not perfectly fine with it.

rusmeister wrote:My prime objection to this line of reasoning begins from the idea of accepting that those who seem to have had that need filled have actually had it filled by something objective, universal. It assumes that the individual, on his own, is competent to decipher exactly what that meaning is, and I disagree. Any number of cases of disillusionment, for instance, in either atheism or theism or any belief (including Christianity), could be proffered. The question here is whether what seems to the person actually is.

Some people here know the technical term. This is some sort of pitfall of logic. Just because some people have been wrong about having satisfied that need in ways that do not seem valid to you does not mean those ways are not valid, or that other people have not truly satisfied that need in ways you do not like. I don't recognise your insight into me that allows you to determine that I have not achieved what I am saying.

rusmeister wrote:Now if your inquiry would start from "I wonder if there is one objective thing that could fulfill that need in all people", it would be along lines that I could find more acceptable.

An excellent wording. I like it much better than your "there must be," which is not a beginning point, but a conclusion that requires a whole lot of evidence. (And anyway, what fulfills you is not the same thing that fulfills me.) And I like it better than my "I wonder if there is," which, although I like better than yours, still seems more constricting than "could there be." (And anyway, what fulfills you is not the same thing that fulfills me.) "Could there be," however, is not ruled out by the fact that what fulfills you is not the same thing that fulfills me. It's still possible that we can be fulfilled by the same thing. Although I doubt it. I don't like your requirements of what is needed (something outside of me), and you do not like my requirements (answering the questions myself). Still, there's the possibility of finding something we can both embrace.

rusmeister wrote:We know that people do not agree on truth and it is no revelation to discover that they do not. The question is whether anyone can be objectively right or wrong. At this point the word "proof" must become necessarily subjective. We can only talk as far as reason goes, and past that point choose which dogma we accept as a matter of faith, even if it is a faith in an inability to know.

I do not believe there is an objective right or wrong in this. I believe you and I have different psychological and/or philosophical needs, and that we have both found answers that satisfy those needs, giving us both the fulfillment we're talking about. Alas, you believe there is an objective right, which you have found, and I have not.

rusmeister wrote:Now I am not proposing to logically prove Christianity - because it IS a matter of faith. (In my own case my reason recognizes its own limitations and accepts that at some point a mystical dogma must be chosen. As to satisfaction - my faith finds itself frequently under attack from physical and emotional causes - and my reason tells me that these are poor bases to reject what reason has once accepted.)

Good for you. Again, no sarcasm. Do you believe something, or not? Is your faith so weak that it actually changes with your state of health? Be the same in pleasure as in pain. (I think that's from Conversations With God, but I'll have to look it up.) In a thread I can't find at the moment, Skyweir mentioned Jews who thought it was wrong to harm another human being. That belief did not change when they were being held in Nazi camps. If it's wrong, it's wrong, no matter what. If you have faith in God, you have faith in God, and you don't run away when things get tough.

rusmeister wrote:And as a linguistic afterthought - isn't the language standard in choice of articles interesting? I mean, we say "tell a lie" ('a' meaning 'one of many") but "tell the truth" (definite article - only one) in most language situations.

Sure, there are many situations where many lies can be told, but there is only one truth.

I think you're moving away from understanding me.

I was not saying that any of you are uncomfortable with your beliefs. I am saying that circumstances certainly can challenge them, something that Avatar is quite mistaken in denying (if you are indeed denying that, Avatar).

I am not "thrilled" by the thought of what comes after death. I find it quite intimidating and fearful. "It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this, the Judgement." The hope is through and beyond that.

Any answer to meaning that depends on ourselves can be subject to change in the winds of life. If there is a true proposition, it must be external to us. So all that seems to satisfy that meaning now may be tested, and very often found wanting - and cease to fill that need. At that point, your propositions can only lead to despair (the catastrophic failure of having that need fulfilled), unless there is an answer that is external to you.

None of that proves the Christian faith. But I do charge that the end run of the philosophies I have seen here in the case described above is despair, and the Christian faith offers something more than that. I sincerely doubt that we can get through a life of 60-70 years without undergoing that test.

rusmeister wrote:I am not "thrilled" by the thought of what comes after death. I find it quite intimidating and fearful. "It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this, the Judgement." The hope is through and beyond that.

I just meant that, even if you don't look forward to the process of dying, you are likely thrilled at the prospect of eternal life with God. Whereas I'm only comfortable with the thought of oblivion.

rusmeister wrote:Any answer to meaning that depends on ourselves can be subject to change in the winds of life. If there is a true proposition, it must be external to us. So all that seems to satisfy that meaning now may be tested, and very often found wanting - and cease to fill that need. At that point, your propositions can only lead to despair (the catastrophic failure of having that need fulfilled), unless there is an answer that is external to you.

None of that proves the Christian faith. But I do charge that the end run of the philosophies I have seen here in the case described above is despair, and the Christian faith offers something more than that. I sincerely doubt that we can get through a life of 60-70 years without undergoing that test.

The thing is, belief and faith of this external thing come from within. Just as my answers do. You may as easily lose your belief in that true proposition as I may in my answers. You've even been saying this yourself. You may be tested. I may be tested. That which is within you that gives you your faith may change.

As for me... When I'm tested, yeah, I may well be less accepting of the random unfairness, even horror, of things than I am right now. I may be livid, depressed, and any number of other negative things.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:I am not "thrilled" by the thought of what comes after death. I find it quite intimidating and fearful. "It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this, the Judgement." The hope is through and beyond that.

I just meant that, even if you don't look forward to the process of dying, you are likely thrilled at the prospect of eternal life with God. Whereas I'm only comfortable with the thought of oblivion.

rusmeister wrote:Any answer to meaning that depends on ourselves can be subject to change in the winds of life. If there is a true proposition, it must be external to us. So all that seems to satisfy that meaning now may be tested, and very often found wanting - and cease to fill that need. At that point, your propositions can only lead to despair (the catastrophic failure of having that need fulfilled), unless there is an answer that is external to you.

None of that proves the Christian faith. But I do charge that the end run of the philosophies I have seen here in the case described above is despair, and the Christian faith offers something more than that. I sincerely doubt that we can get through a life of 60-70 years without undergoing that test.

The thing is, belief and faith of this external thing come from within. Just as my answers do. You may as easily lose your belief in that true proposition as I may in my answers. You've even been saying this yourself. You may be tested. I may be tested. That which is within you that gives you your faith may change.

As for me... When I'm tested, yeah, I may well be less accepting of the random unfairness, even horror, of things than I am right now. I may be livid, depressed, and any number of other negative things.

On the first, I wouldn't say "thrilled" - but...maybe. I think the best description is in realizing that fairy tales really ARE true - that they speak ultimate truths about us. Good and evil really can't co-exist and must fight, evil will lose in the end, and an ultimate gratification of our deepest desires IS possible. (The very fact that we have such desires points to their possibility, however improbable they may seem.) When I watch fairy tales now, (just thinking of elements from the Disney film "Beauty and the Beast" - the death and transformation, Narnia - the crowning of the children and "Enchanted" - esp. the 'divorce scene' with the black couple) I see the expression of these deep truths that you don't sense.

On the second, looks like we have an understanding. Again, I strongly recommend Lewis's diary on the death of his wife, "A Grief Observed", because it IS about the testing.

Before you can get to any "happily ever after" you have to go through the darkness of death, dragons, lose/give up everything you ever loved. No, I don't see a simplistic "thrill" in that. If anything, it is frightening. I think the simplistic thing is to see ONLY the now ("The 'now' of wolf thought", to borrow from Elfquest). I was in my mid-30's before I began to seriously think about the reality of my own death, as more than just an intellectual fact.

You're truly afraid of death, Rus? Because I'm not. Not that I'm going out looking for death or anything, but I'm satisfied that if I died tomorrow it would be okay. I've done most of what I set out to do; I've seen to it that my kids are provided for financially if I go; and I've lived my life in as morally correct a manner as I believe I could have. That's pretty much all any of us can do to prepare, isn't it?

OTOH, my religion doesn't feature a big scary Judgment Day on the other side. But even if I'm wrong and there is one, I feel like I'm in pretty good shape to meet it. Other than the fact that my religion is the wrong flavor, if you will.

One other thing, Rus: you keep talking about despair, how everything but faith leads to despair. And yet neither Av nor Fist nor I are despairing. I think your logic there needs a little work....