I agree with the thesis of Fight Club. The test is whether the subject ever really gave up... abandoned all hope. — Mongrel
Either one can discuss this question sensibly, or one cannot. If the question is meaningful, one can specify the kind of answers which would be appropriate for it, and if it is not, this can't be done. — StreetlightX
↪Mongrel
the notion of an "author of life who intended it to have meaning" just is the traditional notion of God — John
If the idea of a "meaning of life" makes sense; it is only in the context of theological notions. — John — Michael
Everything in life, in the world, derives its meanings in the larger context of life or the world, itself. If life is the overarching context, then as such life cannot have a meaning in terms of any larger context, because there isn't one.
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
Well that larger context is the inanimate thing we call the universe. Don't you agree? It isn't living, and there doesn't have to be an author of it, even though it is meaningful to us. I'm glad you've come to terms with this. What makes you think that there must be a "transcendent bestower of meaning" for this inanimate thing? As I explained already, the meaning we see in these inanimate things exists relative to us, and our intentions, not relative to some author, creator, or bestower. Nevertheless, that inanimate thing gives us a context larger than life. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is sounding very 'Vienna School'. If by 'sensibly' you mean something like 'in terms of the senses' then there's your category error right there; theologists, mystics and religionists purport to be talking about something suprasensible. What kinds of "answers' to questions concerning the suprasensible would you expect. — John
The first refers to the original language game, the other to the philosopher's thesis. No contradiction. — Πετροκότσυφας
Now you want to argue that there's no original lagnuage-game and that W. is more or less wrong. Well, he might as well be. But that was not what we were discussing. — Πετροκότσυφας
I'm pretty sure LW thought all he had to do was show us how foolish we were being and we would quit it of our own accord. There would be no need for him to tell us what to do (prescribing) so long as he could show us what we were doing (describing). — Srap Tasmaner
4. Descriptive rule: Human beings stop their cars at red lights. — Metaphysician Undercover
don't think what you are calling a "descriptive rule" is actually a rule. — Luke
Sure it's a rule, inductive conclusions create rules. All human beings are animals. Objects fall when dropped. These are rules produced by inductive conclusions. The laws of physics are "rules" aren't they? Ever hear the expression "exception to the rule"? — Metaphysician Undercover
Your "descriptive rules" are not prescriptive then? Or are you conflating the two? — Luke
Is an inductive conclusion the same as a "descriptive rule", or does an inductive conclusion produce a "descriptive rule"? — Luke
Suppose that everyone says "2+2=4", such that this forms the descriptive rule, "human beings say 2+2=4". There is nothing here to imply the prescriptive rule, "human beings ought to say 2+2=4". To produce that prescriptive rule we must refer to something further, and this something further, might be found in the meaning of "2+2=4". — Metaphysician Undercover
But the problem is precisely here: the people who all say "2+2=4" have access to its meaning, if you like, and they all do say it because they all ought to. And they all ought to because they all do -- that's what it means to be part of speech community. You're in a loop flipping between prescription and description. — Srap Tasmaner
The approach that makes the most sense to me at the moment is Lewis's: we each prefer to conform on the condition that everyone conforms, and it's easy to get from there to normative conventions. — Srap Tasmaner
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.