I am interested enough to have replied for the first time in two years. What your response doesn't tell me is why it is meaningful. — angslan
Perhaps you don't care about this relationship, or possess an unshakable prejudice concerning this relationship which renders questioning it as meaningless. — Metaphysician Undercover
But there's evidently some underlying backstory regarding these concepts and formulations of them that gives rise to this question. It didn't come out of nowhere. — angslan
Second, what's "the source of existence"? It, too, has a backstory, a rationale for being in this particular question. — angslan
Third, why use the phrase "God" for the source of existence? This is a word, or name, loaded with a host of different meanings (that not everyone agrees on all of the time). Why not use "the source of existence", instead? There is some further backstory here that places this word into the question as meaningful. — angslan
I can't even tell if your description of the question matches Devans99's original understanding. — angslan
So I don't buy this "either you're interested and it is meaningful or you are not interested." The meaningful nature of this question stems from the presuppositions or previous work that it arose from - especially because it concerns such a specifically contested concept such as God. My question is really to what extent the backstory is grounded or to what extent it is circular, and based upon similarly 'floaty' questions. — angslan
Right, and isn't that "backstory" what makes the question meaningful? Aren't you inspired to uncover that backstory and determine its meaning? — Metaphysician Undercover
This is why you and Devan99 potentially having completely different understandings of the question is problematic to me. You speak of poetry and finding relevance for ourselves, and this is exactly my complaint - that this question might be so vacuous that the only meaning is what is projected onto it. This is quite different from being based on a meaningful backstory. — angslan
I feel as if your defence of this question being meaningful is to make the whole thing nebulous, personal, poetic and subjective. — angslan
I am surprised you accused me of potentially "possessing an unshakeable prejudice" when it seems that bringing our own perspectives to the question is all that it consists of - my response, as far as I can tell, is just as reasonable as yours, because your metric for reasonableness doesn't even require that two people understand if they are considering the same question at heart. — angslan
You seem to be turned off by some "backstory". — Metaphysician Undercover
I interpret this as a dislike for the significance which I apprehend as pertaining to the question — Metaphysician Undercover
If you had proper respect for the interest I have in the question, you would have simply agreed with me, that it is something which I have interest in, but you have no interest in, instead of trying to argue that the subject is meaningless. If you do have interest in it, as you have said, then you would only contradict yourself to argue that it is meaningless. — Metaphysician Undercover
I asked what I consider to be a relevant question regarding the significance of this question and I suggest that this is linked to the foundations of the question. Apparently exploring this is being disrespectful and arguing, as though being in philosophical discussion and disagreement is something reserved for other forums. — angslan
I think that this is one of those "the question is wrong" type of questions. There are just so many premises and conceptualisations of power, potential, time, intention and other things to be even able to frame this question.
This reminds me of the question: "What is the difference between a duck?"
How do we get to questions such as these?
...
I guess my point is - the question in the joke is nonsense, and the answer is nonsense.
...
So I guess where I'm going is - why do we think that this is a meaningful question? — angslan
So let me get this straight. You do not see the significance of the question concerning the relationship between existence and time, and so you are asking me to explain to you the significance. — Metaphysician Undercover"
Oh, it seems like you have forgotten the disrespect in your approach to the question. You didn't simply ask a relevant question, you made a comparison, making fun of the question. — Metaphysician Undercover
But I have asked you relevant questions, and, each time, your response isn't to try an engage me in how to answer the question, but to proclaim that you are interested, and that your interest is sufficient explanation of the question's meaningfulness. — angslan
Look at all the energy we've expended! I think I remember why I stopped posting here. — angslan
Now do you not agree with me? If I am interested, then the question is meaningful, and therefore significant. — Metaphysician Undercover
This whole time I've been trying to understand why it is meaningful. Is it interesting to you simply because it is interesting to you? Or is there something more... — angslan
Or is there something more... And is there likely some meaning that many people share, or are you just intent arguing that, "Well, angslan asked Devan99 and people in general how this question came about, and the answer is that it is meaningful to Metaphysican Undercover." I mean, that would be something pretty interesting if Devan99 wrote it out because it was meaningful just to you... — angslan
Because my initial criticism was about how grounded this question was in something non-abstract, but the answer appears to be, well, it is meaningful to Metaphysician Undercover for some vague reason... — angslan
I guess my point is - the question in the joke is nonsense, and the answer is nonsense. It would take quite some theorising to put together a group of concepts to suggest that there is a meaningful answer, and the answer is going to be wholly determined by the premises that you bring to it. We can certainly ask if God is timeless or eternal, but first we have to have determine what God is, what timelessness and eternity are, and so forth. And by the time we've done this we are so far away from wherever we started that the entire question and answer are just abstract, fictional constructs that don't tell us anything except how creative we can be.
It reminds me of the 'orange juice seat'. There is a linguistics discussion in which it is questioned whether the phrase 'orange juice seat' can be meaningful. Given context, it can: if there are three seats at which apple juice has been served and one at which orange juice has been served, we can identify this seat with the phrase 'orange juice seat'. So it can be meaningful, and so ca, probably, any phrase be meaningful. But the entire context that makes them meaningful has to be supplied and doesn't tell us anything much about the world or how it works. — angslan
I feel like we got closer - but not quite there. I don't think that someone finding something interesting makes it meaningful in a philosophical sense; the reason interest has come up is because you've linked the two together and I was trying to follow the chain to explain my position. However, you've certainly centred whether this question is meaningful around whether it is interesting which does nothing to counter my position that this question is completely un-grounded. — angslan
Before you were talking about whether the question is significant or meaningful, now you are stating that it is "un-grounded". — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.