There is another that is bothering me about this major event which took place in the garden of Eden. In my mind I hear the conversation taking place between the woman and the "snake". On the one hand, the "snake": no junior in the land of evil, but the very King of Evil himself. On the other hand, the woman: a being in total "innocence" (and ignorance). This must have been one of the biggest power "imbalances" which ever occurred in history. All the odds were against the woman and in her desperate hour no-one appearing from the "positive side" to give at least some guidance. Can we really find it strange that she couldn't stand her ground against this overwhelming force? Therefore: was God fair / just to test her "like this" fully realising in his omniscience the importance of the outcome of the test? I find it impossible to accept this.

I agree with you: there are certainly problems with this explanation for the origin of "evil". Let's have a look at two of them: the Bible tell us that God is omniscient. If that is the case God must have known in advance, before he created anything, that the event of evil entering his creation was going to happen. He was therefore also aware of the immense suffering of all living creatures, lying ahead to take place in the centuries to come. In the light of his knowledge of these facts, I think we have a right to ask how He could justify his continuation with his creation project. Secondly, as a result of this claim, that God knew in advance of man's "free" choice in favour of evil, it can definitely be asked how "freedom of choice" can be a possibility if the outcome of the choice is known in advance. The specific outcome of a choice known in advance (for certain) implies that this outcome was determined - if it was not determined in advance, God could not have known what was going to happen implying that he cannot be omniscient. So two things about God is here at stake: (a) his justness (b) his omniscience.

Fine Doubter. Thank you for expressing your views on this. Although I don't agree, I respect them. Its just that in the final analysis everything returns to our mortality / immortality. And its at this point that I'm unable to side-step Heidegger: our being there (dasein) is so deeply characterised by our finiteness. And, this finiteness isn't something only to be faced at the stage of the end of a long life. Its an ever immediate presence: the moment we are born we are already old enough to die! Of all our possibilities death is our most radical possibility, because the realisation of this ultimate possibility implies the end of all other possibilities for us, This, indeed, points out so clearly how radically finite we truly are - without any exceptions!

Fresco. I cannot for one moment see how "neurophilosophy signal the end of philosophy as we know it". I think what we must bear in mind here right from the beginning is the basic difference between the two disciplines, science and philosophy. Where science, on the one hand, works "with" facts, i.e. finding new facts, attempting to proof them, connecting them to other facts. disproving old facts etc, philosophy, on the other hand, works "on" facts: this is what Wayfarer is saying, I think, when referring to "the field of meaning". So, yes, discovering new scientific facts indeed have implications for philosophy, but then on a different level: the level of "meaning". "Eliminative materialism" is an excellent example of this. In a broader sense it nothing else than the continuation of the old battle between mind and matter in philosophy. In this context it is an extreme materialistic theory. In philosophy of mind it is a form of "physicalism" and can be viewed as one of the latest attempts to reduce mind to physiological processes in human nervous system.

Perhaps, I hope, a better ability to distinguish between "trash" and "non-trash" in discussions. Also, although controversial, that a rational approach to things is in most cases the best approach if your aim is to arrive at the Truth (of a matter).

Fine Doubter. Thank you for all your contributions to this discussion - they are valuable and are appreciated - at least by me. Getting to your last text: I get the impression, and may be wrong, that you want to move into a more mystical and / or aesthetical direction in your attempt to make sense of a soul as a reality. I have a different proposal that I want to put on the table, attempting to maintain that it is possible talk about a "soul" while remaining in the realm of the purely rational. Based on Ryle's concept of a "category mistake" my claim is that Descartes caused all his trouble by placing "soul" in the same logical category as "body". A "body" is a physical entity, open to perception, with various attributes like mass, length, hair color, type of bone structure and others. But, it seems that the same cannot be said about a "soul". If we compare the soul concept with a concept such as "university" it becomes clearer: if I have to show someone around to give him an idea of what a university looks like, I will most probably show him the lecture halls, library, admin. building(s), hostels, cafeteria etc. If, afterwards, this person states, after having seen al these constituent elements of the university that he is still waiting to be shown the "actual university", it is clear that he doesn't understand the concept of a university: to him there needs to be something else, over and above the constituent elements of the university, which is the real / actual university which I failed to show to him. What is happening here is the failure of the person to grasp the difference between concepts belonging to different logical classes / categories. This is, most probably, what happened to Descartes with his mind / body dualism: the mind is not an entity separate from the body, but, together with the body, constitutes a living person(ality). Therefore Ryle calls the Cartesian mind / spirit the "ghost in the machine". Of course, the implication if this view is that it is impossible for an entity like a "soul" to exist which can survive the physical death of the body. I don't know if this make any sense to you?

If Derrida is right about claiming that there is only "différance", then "love" is only possible in terms of its other which is "hatred". Should we therefore be thankful for the existence of the phenomenon "hatred"? After all, arguing in this vein, it makes the existence of "love" possible! Or ……….?

I want to consider for a moment the question of how just god is according to the bible. The picture of the "god" that I see is the following: one day, a very long time ago there came into being a being finding that he had more power than can ever be imagined. Wondering what to do with all this power he decided, without any consultation, to create everything that were created. Then, after thinking a bit, after he had created everything, he decided to create this creature called man. But then, almost immediately after he had done this, things started to go wrong. This made him very angry, because he could not understand how anything created by him could be the cause of things going wrong. How was it possible for this to happen to him, being almighty!?? But it seemed that nothing could be done about this "problem". Then, immediately he distanced himself from all this "wrong going" blaming everything else for this, he himself accepting no responsibility whatsoever for what went wrong. But a scapegoat had to be found. First he blamed one of his underlings and then man himself. As things "developed" he saw suffering, so much of it that it was not possible to ignore it. There really was no way getting around it. For that. the suffering was just too overwhelming. Maybe he tried some fixes, but nothing seemed to work. Getting more and more annoyed with this bad piece of work he called on his might / power and decided to start punishing. Then, to his astonishment, he saw that punishment did not stop any of the suffering - on the contrary, the suffering increased! What to do now? Start making promises like a good politician: if you can't fix it now, then try to convince the electorate that you and your party will definitely fix it some time in the future. But to enable him to fix it you had to believe in him: belief / faith was the sine qua non for any future fix. And, important, the "big fix" will be limited to only those who have this faith. And, to stay in control, he ordained that this "faith" must be viewed as a special gift from him to those who he elected to receive it. For the rest: eternal damnation. How is that for "JUSTICE"? You decide for yourself. I know for myself: I will rebel against this until the day that I die!

But, there is also something else that bothers me about psychosis and neurosis. To diagnose you for either one of them the "medical man" evaluates you. In other words, to state that someone is neurotic, is not a factual statement. It is a value statement - derived from evaluate. Therefore to be neurotic can be neither true nor false, because only factual statements can have the properties of being "true" or "false". If that is the case, how can we ever know if its "true" if anyone is diagnosed with some type of neurosis? The "logic of language usage" doesn't allow us to know. In fact, to ask such a question is ipso facto a senseless question. Where does that leave us?

Everything said about psychosis and neurosis is said against the background of normality. It has to be the criterion to determine what counts as psychotic and neurotic - as well as other so-called "psychopathological conditions". To me one of the biggest problems is to know what is "normal". One of the most basic aspects of this concept must be: according to / in line with the "norm". But, there are so many norms: and, they are really so "circumstantial". It seems to me to lead inevitably to the road of "many normals". But can that be the case? If not, then what will be the nature of the "one normal"? Taken as a concept, what will be its definition, denotation / connotation, its sense / reference etc? And, after having done an in depth conceptual analysis of the concept, will it be clear to anyone what "normal" really is, or will we end up knowing even less and only be able to point out how problematic the concept actually is?

Shamshir. Thank you for explaining yourself once again. Your tripartite conception of "what we trying to grasp" is interesting and definitely one to be born in mind as we go along. But, we must not forget that once you've entered the forest of "philosophy of mind" you don't get out easily. I want to put the following, very familiar view on the table: all manifestations of mind / soul / spirit are nothing more than "effects" of physiological processes occurring in the human brain. If that is the case, everything about mind / soul / spirit is reduced to matter - therefore a view we can call something like "reductive materialism." This implies that our (temporary?) "cognitive closure" regarding brain processes is the real difficulty here and science is our only hope of overcoming this issue. In the mean time I will remain a mysterian - definitely not accepting a "mystical" view of this issue. (Wayfarer, I'm aware of this view clashing with Nagel's views of the nature of mind.)

Shamshir. This will indeed be a great way to express yourself on this matter on a literature forum. But, this is a philosophical forum; therefore you will have to "translate" your poetic language into rational language for it to make sense philosophically. What do you think? (We are merely trying to be philosophers here, not poets.)

Elucid, my friend. Pause and consider: the question "if condemning someone to hell foreverover over somethings is a just punishment", must be based on the assumption that it is true that such punishments really exists, otherwise why ask the question? That this punishment really exists, is based on Biblical scripture with the precondition that this scripture is true. So if this scripture is not true the question is no longer valid. From my point of view the Bible contains many statement which are not true. Texts affirming this type of punishment belong to these false statements. Probably the main reason for this is the role of "human fallibility" in the Bible's composition. (This does not imply that no truth or value is to be found in this book - on the contrary!) But, on the other hand, if you consider the Bible to be a book containing only truth, the situation changes and the above-mentioned question becomes a fully valid question - you will thus be able to see why the question cannot be a valid one for me, but although this is the case for me, for many others it will not be. (In a different debate it will be possible to argue for or against the truth validity and value of the Bible.)
Gnostic Christian Bishop, I hope my motivation is clear to you now and that you also understand why I do not take your question to be a valid question. However, please accept that I respect your right to accept the Bible as a book of truth. I am in favour of religious freedom, find all the major religions of the world fascinating subjects in spite of the fact that I find myself in continuous disagreement with them on many matters. That being said, I remain in a process of being a lifelong student and always try to open myself in this learning process in an attempt to understand them better and gain more insight.

Also always bear in mind, even if its difficult and you rather feel to ignore it, because it may be so tough to have to live with it: The Bible, "God's word in human language": the text were written by fallible human beings. The same apply to its composition when the distinction between canon and apocrypha were made: again the human fallibility. (This despite their having been "inspired")

Can you see what is happening now? We have arrived at the point where our reason is driving us to exceed the boundaries of Biblical scripture to make sense of the concept, "soul". And it will, for sure, take us to the territory of "philosophy of mind" where, perhaps, the most serious issue is to try and understand the "connection" between "mind" and "body". If you are interested in this - from a western point of view - we will, I think, have to go back to Descartes, leading us into the modern period of philosophy, especially with his rationalism in epistemology. Where can we start with Descartes. Perhaps with his thinking subject (res cogitans) and extended thing (res extensa). For Descartes there runs a line of division between these two realities: the mind on the one hand and the physical body on the other hand. He argues that although the mind is connected to the body, it is capable of existing without the body. In other words, the mind is a substance, because it has self-existence, being able to exist on its own. Isn't this exactly what we've got in cases where people are defending the Christian notion of a "soul" which survives the death of the physical body? If "soul" and "mind" are identical, we will really have to think carefully if we want to defend the notion of a human mind being able to exist independently from a live physical body. I have heard claims of this nature where these "minds" "show" themselves to exist independently - at seances, but empirical scientific proof for this is very disappointing! (It seems that these "souls" only appear on condition that no scientists be present.)

Shamshir and Relativist. Your discussion has reached a turning point or perhaps a position of checkmate. The questions now are: what is the difference between a natural and spiritual body, and is a spiritual body the same thing as a soul? If these two are not the same, in which way(s) are they different from each other. If the doctrine of the RC church is true, the soul cannot be the total human being, because it seems, according to Paul in 1Corinthians 15, that a body, although spiritual, is needed to complete the person. If the soul by itself is the whole person, then why the need for a spiritual body. So, it seems to me, that the big problem here is to understand the nature of the relationship between the soul and the spiritual body. There is, of course, also the possibility to consider that Benedict xii made a mistake when he decided to officially declare that the soul as an immortal entity does exist. What do you think?

Theology is always the theory of a specific religion and in that also always apologetic, i.e. defending the religion concerned. It also comprises more than just the philosophy of that specific religion. Well-known sub-disciplines of theology are the following: scripture studies of the religion concerned; dogmatics (doctrine); ethics; history of the religion and the church concerned; possible others. It is not easy to give a concise definition of the philosophy of religion. A first prerequisite is an attempt to find conceptual clarity on the concepts "religion" and "philosophy". It should be clear that finding consensus on this is almost impossible. But pointing out certain problems in this field on which consensus has been reached as far as their belonging to this field of study has been reached, can be helpful. Well-known examples are: (1) the existence of God: proving / disproving it (2) nature of the concept of "God" bearing in mind theistic as well as non-theistic conceptions of such a being, if conceived as a "being". (2) justification for "faith" which is required in some religions. (3) how the moral goodness of such a being can be reconciled with the moral evil of the world we live in. Hopefully this can help to give you some idea of the differences between these two disciplines.

After having had a look at the RC dogma on this topic it has become clearer to me how this concept of an "immortal soul" came into existence and hoe its existence is justified. There are a number of verses in the NT where the author (usually Paul) makes it clear that physical human death implies an immediate continued existence with Christ. Let me quote one example: Philippians 1: 23: "My yearning desire is to depart and be with Christ....." Verses like these implies that although the physical body is no longer alive, the deceased is in some way existing with Christ - with the exception of those who have to through "purgatory" before they can be with them. In other words, there is continued existence for the dead, although they have to die physically. This continued existence is not dependant on the resurrection of the body of the person which will occur some time in future with Christ's second coming. The only way for the RC church to make sense of this "continued existence" after physical death is to view it as something "spiritual". It was for this special purpose that created the concept of a "soul" as a philosophical tool for explaining the continued existence of the dead after death, either with Christ or in purgatory. Therefore, according to RC reasoning, although the existence of an "immortal soul" is nowhere mentioned explicitly in the Bible it is indicated implicitly by arguing in the way I've attempted to argue to make this issue clearer. Does this make sense to you as a theological argument based on the Bible?

Wayfarer. Thank you for thorough analysis. It just shows that there are some real philosophical minds on this forum! To me one thing is very clear from your analysis: if you don't understand the historical context of this problem it not possible to grasp anything about it - especially the fact that it can be a theological problem. You have taken us far back into the history of western thought. To the ancient Greeks where, in my view, the origin of contemporary philosophy and science is to be found. That "thing not subject to decay" goes right back to Thales who thought this thing was ordinary water. Then the further developments with Democritus / Leucippus and their theory of (physical) atomism. But somewhere along this line of the development of thought the tough problem of "mind versus matter" set in - most probably with Plato. This problem is still with us and I have strong doubts if there exists a philosophical solution for it. The "immortality of the soul" is just one facet of it.

tim wood. Yes, I agree with you - that type of confusion must be avoided. Let me make another attempt to make it clear what this is all about: how certain groups of Christians can justify their belief in the existence of an immortal soul/spirit on Biblical grounds. If they can present such a justification, the evaluation of the belief also has to occur by using the Bible as the criterium for the evaluation - no other criterium can be applicable, because this discussion is a Christion theological one. I think that you can already, at this stage see where the problem with this approach will have its origin, because this conception of a "soul" is not acceptable to all Christians, but I would first like to hear what others think about this / what their views are. We must not forget: this is not a minor issue is Christianity: more than 1,2 billion Roman Catholics accept this conception of the human soul/spirit - they even pray for the soul of the deceased at a funeral, so this is matter of "life or death" for those who accept this conception of the soul/spirit. (Shamshir thinks that he has succeeded in finding scriptural justification for this notion with his reference to the "opening line of John?)

But of course! Why didn't you point it out earlier?

My question to you is: based on the New Testament, how can it be dogmatically justified that it is true that there is an entity known as the "soul / spirit" of a human being which is immortal?

MichaelJYoo. If I am correct, it seems that you are interested in philosophical text books which can be used on an introductory level of the subject. I can mention a few titles which might be useful to you. These are books that I used myself and found very useful. I still refer to them quite often when reading anything philosophical. Of course this list is based on personal preferences.
1) Copi, I - Introduction to Logic
2) Wilson, J - Thinking with Concepts
3) Van Peursen, CA - The Strategy of Culture
4) Flew, A (Ed) - Body, Mind and Death
5) Kaufmann, W - Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre
6) Ryle, G - Dilemmas
And then you require a good reference work. There are quite a few you can use, but the one I still use after many years and is always useful when I struggle with a problem is: The Oxford Companion to Philosophy - Ted Honderich (Ed)

TheMadFool. If so, why is it that I don't find any contribution on this forum written by an animal? If you are right, there must be at least one or even a few, written say by chimpanzees. Or, is it perhaps a matter that these animals are simply not interested in these human discussions and have decided not to participate? Can't help to wonder, or is there something else that I am missing?

We are rational and so are other animals. But, there is something special about human rationality which make us distinct from all other living creatures. Our consciousness is structured in such a way that we are in a position where we are "present to ourselves": this "presence to ourselves" enables us to be conscious of ourselves as selves, creating in this process an "Id / ego / I. The very fact of this discussion taking place, is proof of this: without being conscious of my consciousness "I" will not be present to write this comment resulting in no comment from me or from anybody else. To reflect, is to be on a specific cognitive level, but to reflect on reflection is to be on a completely different level, much more advanced than the previous one.Only humans are capable of doing this! (My dog will not be able to participate in this discussion despite his "high intelligence".) My Latin is weak, but an attempt to name us in our distinctiveness will be something like: "homo sapiens ego".

Perhaps, if there is one important point to remember about Nietzsche, it is that he is a figure playing a vital transitional role in the history of philosophy: the transition from modernism to post-modernism. To really understand this transition from the one cultural phase to the next one it is imperative to make a study of Nietzsche. And bear in mind: his use of symbolic language can be very confusing and make you feel desperate at times!

Thank you Christopher - yes the Judeo-Christian Bible. But isn't this view another example of how bad Christian theology can be? The whole idea of a "soul" in western thought can be traced back to Plato. Origen (of Alexandria) brought this idea into the early Christian church and although it was pointed out by many others afterwards what a heretic he was (especially Augustine of Hippo) in many ways, this one idea of an "immortal soul" became embedded in the theology of many Christian churches - up to this very day. Of course this played a big role in later years in the development of the philosophical sub-discipline, "Philosophy of Mind". If you talk to many people today about the mind/body problem in philosophy, you will perhaps be surprised to find that for them the main issue is whether a person has something called a "soul/spirit" which exists as a substance, although somehow connected to the physical body, which survives the death of the physical body of a person. They say that old habits die hard, but, perhaps, old views even harder!

Schopenhauer1. I like your references to Sartre with regards to the fundamental human situation and more specifically life in respect of purposefulness versus purposelessness. At present I am busy with a similar discussion in the Ethics Section of this forum under the heading "Life and Meaning". I want to invite you to have a look at what has been discussed so far and to consider joining the discussion. I am of the opinion that you will be able to make valuable contributions - if you are interested. Thank you for considering this invitation. Daniel C

Judaka. I agree with you as far as "authoritarian" positions are concerned: I refuse to accept a point of view which implies that any "authority figure / institution", natural or supernatural, can tell me what the meaning of my life is / ought to be. As I see it each one of us is thrown back at ourselves (geworfenheit) to find / not to find meaning in our lives. Neither of us had any choice to be or not to be born: all that we know when we come to our senses is that we are already here. And then "pure luck" (arbitrariness) plays its role: you could have been born in a royal family or in an Indian back street where the struggle is big to put a bread on the table every day - which is the case for millions of people. If I take a look around me, I see that I find myself (befindlichkeit) in a universe that is impersonal and totally indifferent to my needs to live and survive. I do see some natural resources in nature, but they are hard to come by and sometimes they are the cause of wars erupting between different nations. The universe gives us a very tough environment in which it is hard to survive: some environmental factors humans can control, but there are threats that we can't control: if the sun starts to disintegrate or a massive asteroid hits the earth blowing it to pieces...………...Therefore we are confronted by absurdity: on the one hand there are our many, unlimited needs to be fulfilled, while, on the other hand, the resources needed to do so are primarily characterised by scarcity, yes "scarcity" in a very literal sense!. These two opposing states of affairs constitutes our absurd situation. It is at this point that things really get tough because we have to answer to how it is possible to find meaningfulness in this absurd state of affairs. And if you answer, you answer for humanity as whole, because we are all in this together. (You will see that I have restricted my focus to the physical, concrete aspects of existence to arrive at "absurdity". Of course this is only a starting point and on this can be expanded now by moving away from the purely physical components of our existence.)

Gregory. On the book that you read that states: "we are God". Perhaps the concept may sound strange to us who are used to western ways of thought. But, in Hinduism, in the Vedantic philosophical school of thought of Sankara his non-dualism claims that this "atman" ( = any human being) is none other than that "Brahman" ( = God).

Yes, it all seems to be becoming something like a thrilling human adventure: the many aspects of life (and death) getting involved; the fact that the issue of "meaning in life" can never be side-lined or marginalised - its just to close to each of us for that to happen - life is, after all, the very precondition for anything else for you and me to be; religion in the form of Islam and Christian existentialism; direct and indirect references to philosophers: Kierkegaard, Brouwer, Hilbert, Nietzsche and the psychologist, Maslow. The more you get involved, the more you find out just how deeply involved you are already!
Perhaps, to guide us (or make us more confused), the following lines of Elliot's "Little Gidding" won't be fully inappropriate: "We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time" (Four Quartets)

Alcontali. Thank you for your contribution, a very interesting one, because religion has now been introduced, more specifically a theistic one, viz. Islam. Islam like he other two Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Judaism has holy scriptures as its source of knowledge and truth. The major problem which arises immediately with this type of approach is that it is a prerequisite to accept the truth of these scriptures, in the case of Islam, the Holy Quran. However, the issue of the truth of these scriptures is never open for reasonable discussion. No need is seen by its followers for it to justify its "truth" in a reasonable way. Its truth has to be accepted "blindly" - an act of faith is required. My question is why I have to accept scriptures written by fallible human beings as being true? All of these authors are just as fallible as you and I or any other human being. Usually the counter-argument is that these authors were people "inspired" by a transcendental reality when they wrote their scriptures. This is, of course, only a way of moving the problem one step backwards, because, again, there are no rational proofs which indicate that this is the case, and so "blind faith" is once again required. Specifically as far as these three religions are concerned, philosophy is of no value, unless a philosopher comes forward in defence of these religions or philosophises within the strict framework of the basic prerequisites.

In the Middle East and most other Muslim countries people are not yet in in the post-modern phase of culture and are still able to live with a personal Islamic worldview untouched by the secularism of the western world. The western world being to a large extend in a post-Christian phase has to struggle with the issue of "meaning in life" in a secular way having abandoned the easy options offered by a religious worldview. That is why I have introduced this issue on a philosophical forum. The worldview and its accompanying values may change, but the issue is still as relevant for people today as it has been for many centuries.

3017amen. Before I start with my attempt to explain and to criticize I want to make one point - please bear the following in mind all the time in this discussion: in everything I say which is "negative" about your position its always aimed at your arguments and never ever against you as a person. Many people getting involved in a philosophical discussion find this hard to do although they know that this is the case. This, of course, is not applicable to "ad hominem" arguments where it is clear to see that someone is attacking the person verbally instead of his arguments. If this is the case, an informal logical fallacy is being committed and cannot be excused and has no place in a real philosophical discussion!

1) Maslow as a philosopher: perhaps you can refer me to an acknowledged philosophical reference work where Maslow is named as a philosopher. I had a look in my "Oxford Companion to Philosophy" (editor: Ted Honderich), but Maslow's name is absent - no reference to him. Then I read the Wikipedia article on him on the internet and all I could find were references to his important contributions to psychology. My deduction: Maslow may have made important scientific contributions in the field of psychology, but he is not acknowledged as a philosopher. Therefore, in so far as the problem of "meaning and life" is philosophical, Maslow cannot really help us. Therefore your claim that Maslow is an "experienced philosopher" is not true. That being said, I am still open to be convinced that Maslow made philosophical contributions to the problem of "meaning and life" if you can provide examples of his contributions.

2)Lets now turn to the concept of "facts" in which you are interested. What type of things are "facts"?
What I'm going to say about "facts" are controversial and I realise that there are philosophers who will not agree with my views, but I accept that and am also prepared to argue with them if they bring their arguments to the table of reason. "Facts" are statements about a state of affairs which can be verified empirically. Example: I have a cage with rats inside and tell you that here are ten rats inside. Now, you don't have to believe me that there are ten of them inside: you can go and have look, count them and then decide if my total of 10 is correct. If you agree we can say that it is a fact that there are ten rats in the cage. And for more confirmation we can ask other people to also count the rats and if they also agree, the chances that the statement: "there are ten rats in the cage" are true increase in probability and that this statement is a "fact". In other words, "facts" are always true. An "untrue fact" will be a contradiction in terms. So, as you can see, the key terms related to "facts" are "truth", "verifiability", "empirically" and "probability". I hope that I have succeeded - even if only slightly - in providing you with more clarity on the nature of "facts". Please take note that much more can be said about "facts", but I think what I've provided is at least a point of departure.

Your last question is also very important: why I ask about the "meaning of life" and what do I care. I ask, because, after many centuries of being alive on this planet, people are still struggling with this question on a day to day basis. I believe that a philosophical analysis of the problem may, perhaps, in some way help some people to cope better with their search for finding meaning in life. You can see clearly that I am not of the opinion that philosophy has all the answers for all the people who are struggling with this problem. And this problem can become an immense one on a personal level: just take a look around you and see how many people are suffering from depression and how many suicides are committed. This is the reason why ask about the "meaning of life" and why I care - it is such a serious issue!

Thank you 3017amen for your response. With this response you brought out something very important: the fact / value distinction. Psychology is a social science and primarily interested in facts. But, is finding meaning in life a factual matter? In other words, if I could only know the facts of life, meaning will miraculously appear and things will be meaningful to me. But, unfortunately, a fact is not a value. There are many practical examples of this.

Lets look at only one: a group of people may all have the same facts at their disposal, but the respective values they are going to attach to these facts will differ. In no scientific way can it be proven that it is more correct / true to attach more value to one fact than to another one. Clearly, "values" do not have the characteristic of being either true or false. So, Maslow with eg his "pyramid of human needs", were merely stating a factual case: what the most important human needs are and the hierarchy of the fulfillment of these needs.

Values must be rather viewed as occurring as systems; therefore differences between two people can very often be attributed to differences in their personal "value systems". So it seems to me that the question that I posed can not be answered by any of the famous psychologists, eg Maslow, Freud, Jung, Piaget - yes not even by Frankl in his "Man's Search for Meaning"! So what is required, is a deeper understanding of the nature of values and especially a solution for the problem of "evaluating values" - if that is possible at all.

Terrapin Station, my friend. You have made a clear choice - meaning is an extrinsical issue, but alas, you have not argued for this position; therefore no-one will take it seriously within a philosophical discussion. Remember: philosophical points of view must always, yes always, be based on rational arguments. If they cannot be justified rationally they are not worthy of the name "philosophical argument". Please, never abandon the "basics" of philosophy. They are today just as valid as they were in the days of Plato and Aristotle - there are really no short-cuts. Even the contemporary "Tyranny of Immediacy" cannot change this, no matter how hard it tries!

One important reason, I think, to keep this distinction lies hidden in the paradox of the "distance" between these two "entities". You can never be any nearer to yourself than you are in an ontical way, because this refers to your very "essence" - metaphorically of course. By subtracting this from a human being, his being as such is terminated, because its impossible for someone to be able to be while he / she is not (there) - more or less a contradiction in terms. With "ontic" then near to the subject in a superlative sense, this is not the case with "ontological". Ontologically most people a very far removed from themselves, because ontological involvement with yourself implies that there must be a theoretical reflection on the nature of being as being, usually of being as human being (Heidegger) - an activity very few people ever engage in. I hope that this explanation can make a contribution to convince "Terrapin Station" that there is some justification in keeping the "ontic / ontological" distinction.