All I wanted to do was correct the error that consists in saying that the idea of a meaning of life is a category error, by pointing out that it makes logical sense in the context of traditional theological ideas of a transcendent creator and bestower of meaning. — John
It's a huge subject (and is, arguably, ultimately a matter of taste) as to whether theological notions are "conceptually vacuous"; that is whether theological notions themselves make sense. Atheists predictably will say "They don't" and theists will predictably say "they do". The two camps have very different founding assumptions; and mostly end up just taking past one another — John
If there is no "outside" to life (which would mean that there is nothing intentional which is not contingent upon being a part of life), then life cannot be coherently said to have an overarching meaning. — John
Except if leaving everything as it is specifically refers to discoveries, theory building etc; which is where it refers. Philosophy does not invent, it does not discover, it does not make novel contributions to the content of what it describes, it is just describing it. It is in this sense that it leaves everything as it is. — Πετροκότσυφας
Moreover, the onus here lies with you, not me - it's you who advanced the positive claim that they do so make sense, without so much as providing one iota of argument apart from a grossly fallacious argument from authority. — StreetlightX
And atheists might be right, in which case meaning-of-life questions are category errors. That theists have different founding assumptions isn't that those assumptions are correct. So the above really misses SX's point, which is less about arguing that meaning-of-life questions are category errors, and more about arguing that they could be. — Michael
It's that until demonstrated otherwise, they ought to be taken as such. — StreetlightX
I mean, your whole 'argument' is as if, having asked you about the square root of -1, you were to assure me that, somewhere, out there, there is a textbook - which you will neither name nor cite - demonstrating that such a notion does in fact, make sense and can be answered (and of course, for the longest time, the very question did not make sense - at least, not until the invention of imaginary numbers). — StreetlightX
Agree. I like the light-handed moderation on this forum, but at the same time, there are a lot of crap posters around who ask meaningless questions with no real philosophical interests or skills. Trolls, basically. They should be shown the door.Look at this crap. — StreetlightX
Sure, but you continue to ignore that little word: "overarching". — John
So, confusions (i.e. philosophical theses, theories) are dissolved once we show their meaninglessness by describing the original language-game from which the philosopher borrowed the words (about which he constructs theories). The original language-game remains intact, the thesis advanced by the philosopher is shown as non-sense, a pseudo-thesis. — Πετροκότσυφας
No, I'm not ignoring "overarching" you are simply misusing the word "overarching", and that's what I'm trying to demonstrate. The "overarching meaning" would be the broadest, most general sense of the word. And the overarching meaning of "meaning" allows that we can speak about meaning without an author. It is only a restricted, more limited sense of "meaning" which requires an author, the type of meaning found in language, and this is clearly not the "overarching meaning". — Metaphysician Undercover
So your favoured principle is "Guilty until proven innocent"? — John
If there is a larger context than the life and world that we know, then the life and world that we know could have an overarching meaning in terms of that larger context.That larger context doesn't have to be the "author", or in other words, the creator, I suppose; but it must nevertheless be a transcendent bestower of meaning; an overarching meaning that goes beyond the meanings that are contingent upon the context of immanent life and world. — John
I've been wondering if maybe instead of talking as if you choose from preexisting domains, the domain is something you construct with the question. Theoretical entities are in an obvious sense constructed, and maybe these are the members of the domain you construct. Asking a question would be the first step in building, rather than finding, an answer. — Srap Tasmaner
Overarching meaning that is understood to be given by a transcendent reality. Surely you knew this already? Are you that unfamiliar with religions and theologies?
It's true that the idea might be wrong. There might be no such reality. How are you going to demonstrate that, though? I think the problem is that you simply have no feel for and thus do not understand the experiences, presumptions and mindsets of people who affirm such things. — John
Nope, I think I got the point, which was what W. means when he says that he leaves everything as it is. I've shown you what he means (or at least what I think he means) and now you just changed the subject. — Πετροκότσυφας
Are you trying to suggest that the question has meaning in a way that, er, no mortal can understand or some such thing — StreetlightX
Neither of you have articulated why life can (in your case), or can't (in John's case) be attributed meaning in the absence of an author. — StreetlightX
The question about the meaning of life ('meaning', that is, taken in an overarching sense) is coherent if your premise is that life has an "author" who intended it to have such a meaning, and the question is incoherent otherwise. — John
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.