Hello guys, new to this discussion. I don't know if you have already discussed this but I am having a hard time to understand what a symbol is. All I know is that it is the same thing as an expression, which is what characterizes a proposition's sense (3.31). So for example "x is y" taken altogether is an expression, I guess. But when Wittgenstein starts to discuss the relationship between signs and symbols, he says that , for example, "is" is a sign for the symbol of copula. But "is" itself does not characterize any sense in a proposition such as "x is y". I tend to identify symbols with names, and a sign is just a physical expression of a name, but names have no meaning without being a part of a proposition.

Also, since I brought up names, can anyone tell me what a simple word, such as "cat" is? Is it an atomic fact or a name, because on the one hand its definition seems to consist of other signs thus is not a primitive sign, and on the other hand "cat" alone doesn't seem to mean anything.

Thanks a lot.

I think for me, the problem with idealism is its extremely anthropocentric nature. It seems that this position supports the claim that the material world would cease to exist had human consciousness ended. If so, don't you think that we might have endowed to ourselves too much significance? Moreover, along with idealism follows the universal scepticism, which leads only to solipsism. Also, how do we define consciousness if we are to claim that the world is a mind-dependent entity. Does it depend on individual consciousness (without me, the world may cease to be) or on the collective consciousness of humanity (without humans, the world may cease to be).

So in short, your view is that we are to be content with dwelling within the subjective interpretation we as a species formulated, whilst simultaneously recognizing that the true/objective nature of the world is incomprehensible by not claiming neither the world has a meaning nor it’s devoid of meaning?

Sure, but everything humans do is natural by definition. From mass murder to painting pictures of Krishna. — Tom Storm

This actually is a quite ambiguous theme that I need further insights on. We often automatically draw a line between our own existence and Nature. However, it is also true that our consciousness, that is what enables us to produce our subjective reality, is begotten by nature through evolution. Maybe the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity arises only from the first person perspective we stand upon? Because if we imagine ourselves as beings external from this World, humans would seem to us as an integral part of this universe, encompassed within Nature. Thus, the entire cosmos would be analogical to our body, where the role of humans would be similar to that of the brain, carefully perceiving and examining the rest of the body, which are unconscious on their own. In other words, the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity converge into a unity, and thus the world does possess an intrinsic meaning in that we as meaning-making beings are a part of that world. On the other hand, does there exist a possibility such that consciousness has its own existence outside of nature, albeit the former has its root in the latter? Think about ChatGPT: it is an AI technology invented by humans. But if I command it to write a poem (which is similar to the mass murder example you gave), to what extend am I eligible to claim that this poem is mine.

Note that these concepts are not consolidated within my system of knowledge, thus further critiques are required. Thank you.

All we have is life, this is our reality. I don't think humans ever arrive at or know some external to self 'reality'. As you say, humans inhabit a world of their own making, a function of our experience, our cognitive apparatus and shared subjectivity. Do we need more than this? — Tom Storm

I guess you could say that it is precisely the humanity's inability to comprehend reality which makes it devoid of meaning (though I think reality is just the way the world is as it is, without any meaningful properties). However, I would regard seeking an objective meaning as a natural impulse. We as rational animals constantly ask ourselves, "who are we", "where did we come from" and "where are we going". And it is genuinely difficult for a person to fully renounce a sense of metaphysical egocentrism.

Terms like "exists," "is good," "is necessary," etc., when applied to God, are necessarily all forms of analogical predication, as opposed to the standard uniquivocal predication at work when we point to a real tree and say "this tree exists," or "this tree is green." We know of God's "goodness," or "necessity," through finite creatures' participation in an analogically similar, but lower instantiation of the property. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think the analogical view here does not necessarily stand. Sure, when we say "the sun is bright" and "this colour is bright", the predicate "bright" is not univocal; but terms you provided such as "exist/being", "good", and "necessary" transcend the boundaries of the ontological categories (say that of Aristotle), applying across all of them. As Duns Scotus insisted, a concept is univocal when:

"it possesses sufficient unity in itself so that to affirm and deny it of one and the same thing would be a contradiction. It also has sufficient unity to serve as the middle term of a syllogism, so that whenever two extremes are united by a middle term that is one in this way, we may conclude to the union of the two extremes among themselves. (Ord. 3. 18)"

For example, "being good" could be defined as a subject manifesting highly its quiddity or telos. Thus, a "good" man is a fully rational man; a "good" knife is a very sharp knife; and a "good" God is a God that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent (assuming these are God's essence). The predicate "being" is univocal in a more apparent way. When X is, X exists in reality. How can "being" thus be analogical, unless you say that the existence of God in reality is different from the existence of anything else by being either more or less real (what does "more" real even mean)? It's both unclear and unnecessary.

I mean, that's certainly a popular dogma, but I don't think it's by any means something that has been well demonstrated. Plenty of thinkers have thought they have discovered something quite the opposite, reason and purpose at work throughout the world. The "rock solid" foundations for the claim that the universe is essentially "meaningless and purposeless," seem to be to be grounded by the same epistemic methods that tend to ground religious beliefs — Count Timothy von Icarus

That is a very valid point worth reflecting. However, religions and other beliefs, in terms of logic, are deductive conclusions (e.g. the Ontological Argument presumes the existence of God) without any valid empirical evidence to support their propositions (many times these systems even lack logical validity). On the other hand, nihilism is an inductive conclusion, derived from the observation that so far no belief or religion can adequately prove the existence of an objective meaning independent of the mind. Nihilism is not a simple affirmation, it is a negation of other affirmations. This is the very reason I included also a weaker version of nihilism, claiming that "even if there exists a meaning or something sublime and superior such that a definition or a providence is indeed bestowed to the universe, it is, nonetheless, most certainly hidden away from the domain of pure reason."

Thus, demanding a religious person to prove the existence of God is not the same with demanding, say, an atheist to prove that God does not exist. It's like demanding a physicist to prove that a fifth fundamental force does not exist. In fact, if we observe the history of physics, we find that scientists always faithfully followed the so called Occam's razor:" entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." Whilst I understand that physicists are able to utilize empirical measures to obtain their results, both physics and nihilism share the same notion that if X is not a logical necessity and cannot be proved empirically, then X can be eliminated from the system of knowledge. Therefore, if an objective meaning or purpose is not a hard necessity for the existence of us and of the world, and such meaning cannot be proved empirically, it follows that this world does not require any intrinsic meaning.

Fundementally irrational how? The world seems to operate in law-like ways that can be described rationally quite well. Indeed, this is often a key empirical fact cited as evidence for universal rationality or even purpose (e.g. the concept of Logos Spermatikos). — Count Timothy von Icarus

The fact that this world functions in a seemingly law-like manner does not necessitate a creator or an intrinsic meaning, since the universe may exist in other unimaginable forms had it started slightly different. It's all merely probabilities. Furthermore, the predicate "law-like" we apply onto the function of the universe is a concept begotten by rationality; it's a conclusion yielded only by beings capable of recognizing patterns, which are merely different arrangements and configurations of information. For me, all things, objectively speaking, merely exist. Any other description one might add is just a subjective interpretation of the world. One might argue that even without our existence, this universe would function in the exact same law-like manner; but in reality, it would merely continue to function, and not in a "law-like", "chaotic", "beautiful" or any other way.

I also don't know how this would make the universe somehow lack quiddity. It still is what it is. Is this a claim about our epistemic ability to understand the essence of the universe, or a claim about a lack of essence simpliciter? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Quiddity is merely a nominalistic existence, a product of cognitive abilities. The essence of a rock for humans may be its hardness, but if we were stronger, say being able to smash rocks easily, its essence would consequently change too.

But the idea that religion is some sort of "cope," a flight from the terror of the "meaninglessness and purposelessness," of the universe seems to be somewhat an existentialist dogma. Why would this be the case for people who simply don't believe the existentialist claim the the meaninglessness of existence? If they have never believed that claim, then they will have had no motivation to generate such illusions in the first place. It seems to assume something like: "deep down, everyone knows our claim is true." However, I don't think this is the case at all, and empirically it seems hard to support in light of phenomena like suicide bombers. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Whilst I agree that the origin of religion is better explained by other more scientific theories, it is an undeniable fact that one of the main reason a substantial proportion of the contemporary population still finds refuge in religion is to cope against the fear of death, either consciously or unconsciously. As for the suicide bombers, or even self-immolators, they are those who had already conquered the fear of death through having faith in the continuity of their spirit posterior to death. And it's an excellent example of how people are often misguided by their own creations—religion in this case, as I had pointed out in my essay.

Second, isn't science as good of a candidate of an objective description of the world as we have. But if scientific explanations are rational, often framed in mathematical terms, then why would we say objective reality is "irrational?" It seems to submit to rational explanations quite readily.

Objectivity only makes sense in the context of subjectivity in any case. It's the view of things with relevant biases removed. The claim then would be that removing all biases would also remove all rationality? But why should we accept that? — Count Timothy von Icarus

The universe is irrational in the sense that there exists no meaning. I don't see how the rational discoveries/descriptions of science has any connection with an intrinsic meaning.

Could you explain to me which part is antithetical please, thank you.

Thus God is irrational? — tim wood

Only when God actually exists. And even then, yes, I would regard Him irrational in the sense that His essence is beyond the realm of human understanding, and thus "irrational" here does not bear any diminishing implications, but signifies only the incapability of rationality to grasp God.

What do you mean? Don't we have, in various forms, "nothing is without reason." Does not the world and the universe appear soon enough to yield to reason where reason chooses to look? — tim wood

It depends on the exact definition of "reason". If by "reason" you refer to causality, then sure, but that is irrelevant to my propositions. However, if "reason" signifies providence and intention, e.g. God created humans to love Him, then no, I don't think anything has a "reason".

English words: but what do they mean? What are you trying to say? — tim wood

Human intellect is unable to grasp the meaning the world, because either the world has no meaning to start with, or the cosmos is described by something intangible through rationality.

Facts and values entirely unrelated? That seems extravagant. And so forth. I suggest, fwiw, you ask yourself what you are trying to say, and try to say it in four or six or seven well-crafted sentences, if even it takes that many. Else people like me (and the others of TPF) will be asking you for clarity, definitions, and meaning, and if you're lucky, explicitly. — tim wood

Facts are members of the objective world, and values are our subjective interpretation of facts we perceive. I would say that the relation between these two concepts is not bidirectional. Namely, values judgements depend on facts, but not the other way around. And since in this part of the essay the focus is on the factual aspect of the world, "[...]this categorisation is entirely unrelated to value judgments but only to factual properties."

+ You mean I write overly complex sentences which are ambiguous?

And this all encompassed and included in the opening words of the Creed, "We believe." And once you're clear on that, you can believe what you like, and what follows much like a game, of course with rules. Is it a game you wish to play? — tim wood

Could you please elaborate on your question, I don't quite get it, sorry...