Meaning and purpose only obtain teleologically; otherwise it's just a nihilistic sham. — Noble Dust

This is familiar territory. I get the feeling I'm never going to understand this. "Meaning and purpose only obtain teleologicallly" - what does that mean for what we actually think?

I have certain desires - this is something I take to be self-evident brute fact.

Those desires are not always clear and are often contradictory, but the fact that I want to understand them, and achieve fully as many of them as possible again seems to be undeniable brute fact.

My meaning and purpose in life therefore seems to be unavoidably the clarification and fulfilment of these desires.

One of those desires might well be for an eternity in bliss, but I have no idea what this might be like, nor how to go about ensuring it happens, so it is irrelevant to my meaning and purpose in life.

I've (erroneously) attributed religious claims to your argument because it seems to me that only by making religious claims can the persuit of anything outside of our sensory experience become meaningful. Unless we just guess?

what does that mean for what we actually think? — Pseudonym

This is familiar territory; I get the feeling I'm never going to understand this. It means that meaning relates to something outside of time. For starters.

One of those desires might well be for an eternity in bliss, but I have no idea what this might be like, nor how to go about ensuring it happens, so it is irrelevant to my meaning and purpose in life. — Pseudonym

Of course; no one knows what an eternity in bliss would be; why would this lack of knowledge mean that the concept is irrelevant to your meaning or purpose in life? Lack of knowledge, apophatic concepts, are key. Regardless of your worldview.

I've (erroneously) attributed religious claims to your argument because it seems to me that only by making religious claims can the persuit of anything outside of our sensory experience become meaningful. Unless we just guess? — Pseudonym

With all due respect, this just seems insane to me. Even something so simple as the distinction between religion and spirituality, with all of it's stigmas, would, at the very least, clarify your confusion here.

It means that meaning relates to something outside of time. — Noble Dust

OK, so what is this 'something' outside of time to which it relates, and how do you know that meaning relates to something outside of time, is this a guess, intuition or rationally derived?

All the while it seems we're no closer to the idea of 'purpose' which is much more clearly defined. Purpose is the reason why we do something, the goal (either ultimate or proximate). I'm suggesting that goal is unavoidably the satisfaction of those desires which are self-evidently present. No further 'purpose' seems to be justified.

why would this lack of knowledge mean that the concept is irrelevant to your meaning or purpose in life? — Noble Dust

Because if we do not (and cannot) know anything at all about how to achieve this objective, how could it possibly be our 'purpose', the reason for our actions? We cannot act in such a way as to bring about an objective we have no knowledge of.

Even something so simple as the distinction between religion and spirituality, with all of it's stigmas, would, at the very least, clarify your confusion here. — Noble Dust

I don't see any distinction between religion and spirituality apart from how many people believe you. They are both essentially descriptions of the world, and prescriptions for behaviour based on those descriptions, neither of which can be measured in any way (otherwise they would be science). So religion/spirituality are both ways of satisfying a set of desires using guesswork rather than observed successes perceived with our senses.

OK, so what is this 'something' outside of time to which it relates, and how do you know that meaning relates to something outside of time, is this a guess, intuition or rationally derived?

All the while it seems we're no closer to the idea of 'purpose' which is much more clearly defined. Purpose is the reason why we do something, the goal (either ultimate or proximate). I'm suggesting that goal is unavoidably the satisfaction of those desires which are self-evidently present. No further 'purpose' seems to be justified. — Pseudonym

And I'm suggesting that your "purpose" is meaningless because it dies once you die.

A purpose that actually is purposeful is a purpose that exists outside of time; outside of one's lifetime.

And I'm suggesting that your "purpose" is meaningless because it dies once you die.

A purpose that actually is purposeful is a purpose that exists outside of time; outside of one's lifetime. — Noble Dust

Why though? Why does a purpose cease to have meaning simply because it is achieved at some point. My purpose is to live 70 happy years. At some point in time I will have achieved that objective. I'm not seeing how the fact that I will achieve it removes meaning.

How will you preserve that meaning in posterity, for yourself, personally, after your own death?

How will you preserve that meaning in posterity, for yourself, personally, after your own death? — Noble Dust

I don't think I will, I'm not at all concerned about meaning after I die. If, after I die, it turns out that I have some kind of conscious awareness, then that will no doubt present its own set of challenges. Maybe I will still have desires, maybe there will be some form of 'action' I can take to bring about those desires, in which case there will be a whole new set of meanings and purposes after I die, but I can't possibly know any of this, so any action taken now to affect my existence in this theoretical state would be purposeless.

Preserving meaning in this world, after I've left it, is not really something that concerns me, that would be up to those still here.

I get the feeling I'm never going to understand this. "Meaning and purpose only obtain teleologicallly" - what does that mean for what we actually think? — Pseudonym

Hi. I agree that our purpose is just clarifying and satisfying a host of desires. But I think Noble Dust has a point too. One of those desires is the desire to build something permanent, to escape time.

If we are along down here without a god (and I live as though we are), then apparently all we can do is build sandcastles between tides. If I compose some great piece of music, write a great novel, or invent some useful device, then I build a relatively more durable sandcastle. But this doesn't compare to building an endless afterlife through faith and/or works and/or innocence.

The itch to build or melt into something deathless intensifies perhaps with aging. But I for one felt it as an adolescent. I wanted to write a poem that humanity wouldn't willingly let die. This would be a permanent proof of my status. It makes sense that we would want to invest our effort in pursuit of long-lasting rewards. We are future oriented beings.

Finally, I don't think we overcome the itch too easily. I think we settle for semi-permanent. And we mostly just scratch other itches. It's a particular mood that obsesses escaping time. It may be that we would like to be alive and dead and the same time that way. Our representative (our permanent status token) can do our living for us while we sleep. The fear of death might have a strange relationship with the desire for death. Deathless tokens may be attempts to navigate our ambivalence towards the hassle/opportunity of life.

The itch to build or melt into something deathless intensifies perhaps with aging. — foo

I find that I have less and less itch to melt into something deathless as I age.

Back to Peterson and white privilege...

I thought some of you might be interested with those two recent pieces about Peterson, the first one by Žižek:

Why do people find Jordan Peterson so convincing? Because the left doesn't have its own house in order

And the second one (a little bit older), by Gyrus, packs an amazing number of insights, especially towards the end, not just about Peterson but also about the ways in which both the right and the left often tend to problematize humankind's relation to nature:

The Black Truths of Jordan Peterson

I agree that such a desire exists, but I don't think it's as mysterious as some branches of metaphysics make out. It's simply the expression of our evolutionarily derived desire to rear children and leave then an environment in which they will thrive.

I can agree that the desire to create/be the deathless object is plausibly an evolved trait that succesfully reproduces itself. Future orientation is impressive if not mysterious. (From a certain perspective, everything is mysterious, but we are too busy/immersed most of the time for the wonder-terror of finding ourselves alive. We can't easily turn such wonder-terror to profit, so it's written off as an indulgence.) We humans work and suffer now for rewards in a distant future. The same calculating mind that supports this also shows the futility of all human endeavor, relative to this desire at its most absolute.

Hi. I can relate to that. But what of our presence on this philosophy forum? Why do we get pleasure from studying science or history? I understand that the 'small self' is something that we let go of as we age. But don't we find consolation in objectivity itself? What I have in mind is the subjective or idiosyncratic self dying into the objective or universal self. We can leave our little stories behind as mere permutations of the one shared story.

An overstatement of this idea might be that all good men and women are essentially alike, having evolved a consciousness of this essential similarity. The 'bad' man or woman still insist on their identity as an irreducible novelty. 'I am like no one else ever.' But there are new things under the sun, and both the 'good' and 'evil' perspectives have their truth. 'Evil' is necessary for novelty, even if most novelty is either trivial or illusory. This is closely related to economic specialization, I think.

The same calculating mind that supports this also shows the futility of all human endeavor, relative to this desire at its most absolute. — foo

Why futile? In orienteering we will almost always find our way by compass direction "head North" is our objective. Does it matter that we will never get to "North", is it not sufficient that we are further North than we were yesterday?

Why futile? — Pseudonym

Don't forget that I wrote "relative to this desire at its most absolute." At its most absolute, the desire wants something that lasts forever, something indestructible, something outside of the cruelty and bounty of time.

Some religious people have this. But others (often with critical/scientific minds) determine that no individual human and seemingly not even the species at large can escape the hand of time. If you tell me that most of life involves other non-futile desires, then I agree. My purpose was to clarify what I see as the essence of nihilism. The 'nothing' involved is that which escapes time.

In my view, we are usually sufficiently satisfied with medium-range objectivity. If I have a community now with standards that more or less mirror my higher ideas/values, then I can find my effort non-futile. I can imagine an unrecognized artist, too, thinking only a generation or two ahead, which will recognize him posthumously. One function of God has arguably been satisfy the unruly itch to transcend time and chance, or attain permanent status and security for one's essence if not one's body.

One function of God has arguably been satisfy the unruly itch to transcend time and chance, or attain permanent status and security for one's essence if not one's body. — foo

I disagree. I think that religious people are no more satisfied by the idea of an afterlife than someone who has raised children that they are proud of and has left a positive legacy in their community.

I think religious people mistake an increased longevity of their legacy (stretching out to infinity) for an increased quality of their legacy (albeit forshortened). I don't honestly think people can actually get their heads round 'infinity', and most people when they talk about it are really just imagining 'a very long time'. I think when it comes to the practicality of satisfying this desire, doing something really positive that will last a very long time is far more satisfying than doing something incredibly selfish (such as religious practice) even with the conviction that it will last for eternity.

Religion may play into the desire to strive for something that goes on beyond death, but I'm highly doubtful that it actually satisfies.

I don't honestly think people can actually get their heads round 'infinity', and most people when they talk about it are really just imagining 'a very long time'. — Pseudonym

I think of it simply as the negation of the finite. No end. No death. So instead of thinking in terms of duration, we can think in terms of the absence of a threat that is otherwise present.

Religion may play into the desire to strive for something that goes on beyond death, but I'm highly doubtful that it actually satisfies. — Pseudonym

I personally don't believe in God and/or afterlife, but I think the idea itself offers satisfaction to some people. In any case, I think that's what the nihilistic longs for --the eternity that he was possibly taught to expect by a childhood exposure to religion. Or the nihilist is just experiencing the same itch that helped inspire religion in the first place.

Of course I see that raising children and working for the benefit of the community is a medium-range satisfaction of this itch for objectivity or durable value. I understand this to be educated, liberal common sense. Heaven is now just participation in Social /Moral Progress, including Parenthood. That's fine. I'm not in the business of complaining about the world. I'm in the business of understanding how I can effectively live in the world I actually have --the only one I believe in.

There is a hierarchy, hierarchies cannot be eliminated, and that hierarchy is based on competency.
— Agustino

Circular and laughably naive, no wonder you readily subscribe to Peterson's vapid "self-help" philosophy. — Maw

Dear Mr Maw,

For the past 6000 years of human history the societies of every successful civilization have been structured as pyramidal, patriarchal hierarchies of dominance - oi polloi have always occupied the broad base level of the structure, while the most intelligent and competent members of the polis have always naturally ascended to occupy the highest "executive" levels of the hierarchy as the rulers and leading authorities, etc. of their empires'/civilizations' affairs.

Why do you find this "laughable", and what exactly do you mean by saying that Augustino is being "circular" and "naive" in stating the scientific fact that human and animal societies have - for millions of years in the case of certain animal species - organized themselves socially in the form of patriarchal hierarchies of dominance, competence and authority?

Please explain.

Regards


Dachshund

Please, call me Maw. Mr. Maw is my father.

Agustino's comment pertained to hierarchy tout court. "Patriarchy" wasn't a qualifier, so I'll ignore it in order to better point out why I find it "laughable" and "naive".

I'm not excluding the fact that citizens in a democratic republic, market-based economy can rise above previous levels of social class, successfully enter politics, etc. But given the ebb and flow of social mobility across developed countries, most particularly, America, the notion that only the competent rise is "naive". Or are younger generations simply more "incompetent" than older ones? Agustino, and yourself, naively ignore or discount corruption, nepotism, favoritism, racism, sexism or any other form of corruption or discrimination within politics or capitalism that enables incompetent people to succeed or stay on top, or competent members of society to stagnate.

White people are largely invisible to themselves in a way that different toned ethenticities can never be. — Cavacava

Nope, this is more propaganda because it's not qualified. White people may be largely invisible to themselves in SOME parts of the Western world, but you try going to the Middle East and see how "invisible" to yourself you are there. If you think that what is going on between whites and other races in the West is racism, just have a look at some places in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia and you'll be horrified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia_and_racism_in_the_Middle_East#Saudi_Arabia

And you don't even have to go to the Middle East - just head over to mostly black neighbourhoods as a white man, and you'll see how fast you become aware of your skin color.

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-leimert-park-joggers-discussion-20170315-htmlstory.html

Racism seems to be a knee-jerk response that occurs across cultures in groups that are mostly of one skin color against others of a different skin color. If you want to deal with racism, then you must be aware of this, and not consider racism as a "white-only" problem.

White people are largely invisible to themselves in a way that different toned ethenticities can never be. — Cavacava

White people may be largely invisible to themselves in SOME parts of the Western world, but you try going to the Middle East and see how "invisible" to yourself you are there. — Agustino

I think this exemplifies a flaw in the English language. I read Cava's statement as meaning 'invisible to each other' - ie their skin colour is invisible to other whites, not as each person being invisible to themself. When you think about it, the way the language works, it can be read either way. But I think in this case, from the context, it meant the former, in which case the response is not applicable, as one's colour being invisible to other whites does not entail its being invisible to non-whites.

English is not the only language with ambiguities like this. I had a strange moment reading Harry Potter in French, in which it said of the students at Smeltings Academy, to which Dudley Dursley goes:

'Les élèves de Smelting avaient également une canne dont ils se servaient pour se taper dessus quand les professeurs ne les voyaient pas.'

That reads as 'the Smeltings students also have a cane which they use to hit themselves when the teachers are not watching', which would be an odd thing to do if one is not an Opus Dei. The original, English version says 'They also carried knobbly sticks, used for hitting each other while the teachers weren't looking.' But in French it is said in the same way as 'hit themselves'. More here.

:up:

What a mess...
First of all, what Marx has to do with this, I have no idea. I dislike conspiratorial thinking, whether it is from the left (Noam Chomsky) or right (Alex Jones).

As the Buddhists say, life is suffering — Agustino

No. One could argue that one of Buddhist tenets is that desire is the main source of suffering and the strategy of life ought to eliminate desire, which will eliminate suffering.

But Buddhism also preaches the importance of being grateful, something underrated among young progressives.

Now, I haven't watched the video in full, but I have heard Peterson. He is a good psychologist, but his philosophy is mediocre at best. His love your Jung is something I don't get. His beef with post modernism is something most agree, even Chomsky.

I admit I did not bother to watch the video. The title was enough to convince me it would be a waste of time. Labeling claims about white privilege a Marxist claim seems like such ideological nonsense that I can't take this guy seriously.

I doubt he even addressed such issues as regulatory capture, which helps to explain sluggish growth and rising inequality. The left typically overlook this issue, which involves the government intervening in free-markets to help the wealthy, because the left looks to the government as a solution, and the right also overlooks this problem, because they think whatever a so-called free-market produces, must be optimal, despite no such realistic proof ever having been established. I have a hard time believing that a guy who does not even know what Marxism is would get this right.

Within 2 years, as Peterson's target audience graduates college and enters the work force, he'll become passé and fad into obscurity, and some other epigone takes his place.

The only solution to that is socialism which is not possible without proper education.

Within 2 years, as Peterson's target audience graduates college and enters the work force, he'll become passé and fad into obscurity, and some other epigone takes his place. — Maw

LOL - most of Peterson's fans have already graduated college and are men who are struggling to find a job or fit in the workplace, or know what to do with their lives.

Still waiting for Dr Peterson to come out with a written statement of his claims. It's hard to take claims seriously enough to bother spending the time listening to them if the claimant is not prepared to put them in writing. Especially when their day job is centred around putting ideas in writing in clear, cogent form.

The bourgeois are at the top because they have shown themselves to be the most competent at taking care of their society. In a way, excluding at the moment corruption, the way to get rich is by selling a lot of goods to a lot of people - which means adding value to the world, giving people what they want. — Agustino

Are you for real????
The bourgeois is at the top because they pull all the strings to make sure no one else gets a fair share of the pie. Hierarchy is inherited to a great extent thanks to nepotism and corruption. Patrimonial capitalism makes sure that inheritance remains the main source of wealth, and it has nothing to do with competence, productivity or creativity.

Within 2 years, as Peterson's target audience graduates college and enters the work force, he'll become passé and fad into obscurity, and some other epigone takes his place. — Maw

<faults a university professor for resonating with young people>

:ok:

Still waiting for Dr Peterson to come out with a written statement of his claims. It's hard to take claims seriously enough to bother spending the time listening to them if the claimant is not prepared to put them in writing. Especially when their day job is centred around putting ideas in writing in clear, cogent form. — andrewk

A written statement? Shit, when's his sentencing?