Let's do something unexpected, and refer to a dictionary. From Merriam-Webster online regarding "meaning":

1
a : the thing one intends to convey especially by language : purport

b : the thing that is conveyed especially by language : import

2
: something meant or intended : aim <a mischievous meaning was apparent>

3
: significant quality; especially : implication of a hidden or special significance <a glance full of meaning>

4
a : the logical connotation of a word or phrase

b : the logical denotation or extension of a word or phrase

Mystery solved! Simply ask yourself, at your discretion, all or one or some of the following:

1. What do I intend to convey by the word "life"/my life/ the lives of any or all things living; or
2. What is conveyed by "life"/my life/the lives of any or all things living; or
3. What is meant or intended by "life"/my life/the lives of any or all things living; or
4. What is the hidden or special significance of "life"/my life/the lives of any or all things living; or
5. What is the logical connation of "life"; or
6. What is the logical denotation or extension of "life."

Now, in 5 and 6, whatever the hell they are, the "universal" meaning of "life" can probably be established. As to the others the "universal" meaning of 1, 2 or 3 can probably be established if the question is asked regarding the word "life" (as to 1, what I intend to convey by it can be established). Regarding 4, it would seem to ascribe a special or hidden significance to the word "life" would be to give it a meaning different from what is "universally" meant. When it comes to the act of life, the conduct of life, what I intend to convey by my life, if anything, can be established with some certainty, by asking me. What others intend to convey by their lives, if anything, can also be so established. That takes care of 1. What if anything is conveyed by my life can be established by asking those who observe it; what if anything is conveyed by others lives can be established by asking those who observe them. That's 1 and 2; what if anything is meant as far as 3 is concerned can be established in the same way.

Regarding 4, the special or hidden meaning of my life or those of others is obviously something different from what is intended or conveyed by my life or theirs. It is therefore something which can be neither intended by us nor conveyed to us. So, why speculate what it might be, as it can never be known?

That's a 90% reduction in posts then! ;) — Barry Etheridge

Not to mention the reduction which would result in our communications, generally.

But he is showing greatness of spirit in so doing. He's acting like Caesar in crossing the Rubicon (of course he lacks Caesar's intelligence, physical and political capabilities) - he's ignoring the consequences and going with his vision all the way. That's something of value - even if his vision is crooked, selfish, and so forth. And I might add that we're missing that in the last 60-70 years - greatness of spirit. — Agustino

I don't think so. I think he understands it's quite possible that he'll lose the election and seeks to convince people that if he loses it can only be due to fraud. That's not showing "greatness of spirit" in my book. It's shows meanness of spirit, a spiteful spirit, intent on undermining not only the authority and legitimacy of the victor but the election process itself if he's unsuccessful.

Just like I'm trying to be Christian :P — Agustino

Yes. What is an aspiring Stoic or Christian to do, though, in such a situation? Which megalomaniac is a more intelligent choice than the other? For my part, I can't choose Trump, who is now claiming that if he doesn't win it will be because of fraud and encouraging others to react accordingly--thereby undermining the process itself for purely selfish reasons. That seems to me to be the most irresponsible claim made by this serially irresponsible and seriously ignorant man, and for my part it in itself renders him the more objectionable, the greater evil.

Are you a true Stoic — Agustino

The only "true" Stoic is the Stoic Sage. But some of us are trying to be Stoics.

Well, those not awarded this prize include Wallace Stevens, Robert Frost, Scott Fitzgerald, Dylan Thomas, W.H. Auden, Robert Lowell, George Orwell, James Joyce, Joseph Conrad...to mention only those who wrote in English.

Why be surprised that Dylan received it when they did not?

But the fact that he has paid 850K to settle a rape accusation makes him 98% guilty in my mind already. For all practical purposes that is all the proof that I require. That's why I said I'd put Trump on the same footing if he had settled a rape case for such money. (the laughing face is regarding your "oh common" imitation btw :P ) — Agustino

I'm not a Clinton fan. However, as far as I'm aware, he's never been charged with rape. One doesn't pay to "settle" a criminal prosecution, unless a fine or forfeiture is the applicable penalty. Perhaps someone could be paid not to bring criminal charges or testify as a witness, which can create other problems. Payment may be made to settle a civil claim for damages, and that's what's being referred to here, I think.

In the wonderful world of the practice of law here in God's favorite country, civil actions are routinely settled; no liability for the claim made is determined or admitted in that case. Various factors are involved in deciding whether settlement is appropriate, but the truth of the allegations made is not necessarily a significant factor in the decision in most cases. Factors which are significant in most cases are the costs which would have to be expended in defending against the claim (e.g. attorney's fees); the length of time which will be needed to defend against the claims (what time you'll spend with lawyers, in court, preparing for discovery, preparing for trial, all of which reduces your ability to do other things like be with your family, do your job, run your business); the character of the presiding judge and his record in similar cases; the manner in which the allegations made may influence a jury; the ever-present possibility that a litigant will lose regardless of the evidence submitted; the likely results of an adverse decision; adverse publicity in some cases....in other words, factors which are significant regardless of whether the allegations made are true or false but because litigation is a nasty, expensive, time-consuming process the results of which are never certain.

John "Asinus" Mill. The godfather of the Progressives... oh my days — Agustino

Oh, John Stuart Mill did well enough, I think. Especially given the upbringing he had to endure thanks to his horrible father, James, who apparently thought to make him into some kind of prodigy regardless of methods used, probably leading to his later breakdown. His utilitarianism was more sophisticated than his daddy's and that of Bentham, taking into consideration quality of benefits and goods, and he even accepted and espoused positions which would probably be considered conservative thanks to the influence of Coleridge and others, i.e. a system of voting giving the better educated and more sophisticated citizens votes counting for more than those of others. His views on the "emancipation" of women may have been considered "progressive" in a bad way by most in his time, but one hopes that's not the case now. I suppose conservatives haven't forgiven him for that speech he made when M.P. denying the claim he had said all conservatives were stupid people, explaining that what he had actually said was that all stupid people were conservatives.

Sure, but Cicero was a firm defender of Rome's traditions, including of its form of government. He was also firmly grounded (even though many think of him as a Skeptic) in Stoicism for all practical purposes, and always remained guided by Stoic principles, where virtue remained of prime importance. Cicero may have been pragmatic in his politics, but he was guided by perennial principles. This fact makes him similar to what is understood by a conservative. He sought to conserve what ought to have been conserved - however he did fail in the end. He didn't manage to salvage the Republic - which he may have been able to do had he been more unprincipled. Obviously Cicero wasn't a conservative in the sense of thinking that everything about Rome was perfect and had to be kept the same for eternity - or that all the Roman traditions were good. In fact, probably no one was such a "conservative". But clearly Cicero wasn't a revolutionary - he didn't want to overthrow the Republic, and replace currently existing values by an entirely different standard. He wanted to maintain and improve what already existed. He valued, by and large, traditions. There have been some accusations of him having sex with his daughter I was reading - but it seems this is all coming from his political enemies, so not very believable. The Stoics were quite principled with regards to sexual morality - Musonius Rufus is especially close to being a social conservative in such terms. — Agustino

Yes, he always seemed fond of the Stoics, though I've also seen the claim that he accepted Academic Skepticism. At the least, he certainly preferred the Stoic view to the Epicurean, also popular at the time. I hadn't heard the claim about him and his daughter. I know he was very fond of her and was devastated by her death, but don't think he would have countenanced incest. The Romans were as nasty as we can be when it comes to defamation.

Cato the Younger professed to be a Stoic, but I doubt someone so angry and condemning of others and so ostentatious in his conduct and pretensions to virtue could properly be called a Stoic.

It goes without saying, I suppose, that I admire Cicero greatly, and agree with much of what you say about him. He was a great lawyer, a master politician, and essential in bringing philosophy to Rome; he's a major source of our knowledge of ancient works of philosophy otherwise lost. A principled man, for certain. He even declined Caesar's invitation to join him, Pompey and Crassus in ruling the Roman world. I wonder sometimes what would have happened if he accepted.

The entire Law is fulfilled in a single decree: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

I'll let you guys figure out who said that. — Wosret

Somebody's neighbor, right?

Yes these folks certainly did have social conservative elements in their philosophies, as did, I might add, MOST of the Ancients. — Agustino

Elements, perhaps, but I question whether it's possible to categorize the ancients as either conservative or liberal, those being modern conceptions. If we judge the words by their etymology, of course, they aren't necessarily inconsistent or even opposed. "Liberal" of course is derived from the Latin liber (roughly,"free") as is "liberty", and "libertarian." "Conservative" from the Latin conservare(roughly, "to preserve").

I rather doubt Scipio Africanus can be considered a liberal in the modern sense, nor do I think Marcus Porcius Cato the Elder condemned him because Scipio was a liberal. He condemned him because he wasn't acting like a Roman should, according to Cato.

In the past, you wrote you thought Cicero to be a conservative, if I recall correctly. But Cicero is what Romans considered a "new man"; literally an outsider, born outside of Rome in Arpinum. He wasn't of the Roman elite. He came to be consul largely through his wits and was at times in conflict with "traditional Romans." Caesar was of the elite, however, being of the ancient noble family of the Julii, but was seeing hard times (Sulla was also of an ancient Roman family but impoverished as well when he set out on his career). Cicero, politically, was above all a pragmatist. He feared Caesar's desire to rule Rome as Dictator for life or some equivalent, and backed the optimates in their opposition, which led to civil war. He was a champion of the Republic. But he tried to avoid civil war through compromise, and probably would have preserved the Republic--for a time at least--if only such as Cato the Younger, Cato the Elder's grandson, had not blocked efforts to do so in the Senate.

I am actually curious - who do liberals view as key intellectual social conservative thinkers both past and present? — Agustino

I don't even know what social conservatism is, myself, let alone who might be social conservative thinkers. If there is such a thing as social conservatism, is there such a thing as social liberalism?

A check of the internet indicates somebody, at least, thinks the man called Confucius in the West was one; also Cato the Elder. Not the other Cato, Caesar's enemy, but the Cato who wrote a treatise on agriculture--Cato the Censor, who condemned Scipio Africanus, who defeated Hannibal, for having fancy-schmancy Greek philosopher friends. He was, I think, the chairman of the Senate's Committee on Un-Roman Activities.

The Lord says that vengeance is his, though. Remember? What is ours is apparently to watch his vengeance, from prime seats (thrones), provided we've been good.

Excellent! Seeing evil destroyed is a good thing! — Agustino

Yes, especially the dancers; very evil. Notice he didn't mention lawyers? He was one himself. He may not have been a very successful one, though. Roman magistrates had judicial authority, and he pictures them liquefying in flames.

Luther said that the greatest thing about heaven would be its view of hell. — Wosret

What a guy. But he wasn't alone, I'm afraid. Here's Thomas Aquinas from the Summa Theologica:

"In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned." Perfectly, forsooth.

As far as I know, Tertullian (one of the early Christian apologists) limited his delight in torment to what would take place on Judgment Day. Who knows what he thought (hoped?) would take place in hell. But he had great expectations about Judgment Day:

“At that greatest of all spectacles, that last and eternal judgment how shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sages philosophers blushing in red-hot fires with their deluded pupils; so many tragedians more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; so many dancers tripping more nimbly from anguish then ever before from applause."

The use of "spectacles" is interesting, it being a word often used in connection with the Roman ludi in the arena, including gladiatorial games. It seems the Last Judgment was to be a Christian spectacle. And in fact the Christian Roman Empire proved to be far better at persecution than the pagan Roman Empire.

'Vindictivness', 'jealousy', etc, are analogies. They depict 'the holy' in a kind of anthropomorphic way, so as to get through the thick skulls of tribal nomads. — Wayfarer

I don't think we should assume those who wrote scripture were merely using such analogies to impress the dullards among them, but themselves knew better or thought differently.

Important to remember that the word 'Hell' is an artifact of translation. Hell is actually a pagan concept from the goddess Hel who rules the Norse 'underworld'. The word 'gehenna' does not imply a physical 'hell' and is not interpreted as such for many centuries. Augustine, for example, could never have believed in the existence of Hell since evil has no reality but is the absence or diminishment of good. It is more accurate to see the cursed as being in the same boat as Adam and Eve, simply banished from Eden. They are both literally and figuratively 'the leftovers' exactly what you'd expect to find in 'gehenna' the landfill site of Jerusalem. — Barry Etheridge

Well, I'm not sure to what extent the writers of the Gospels and Revelation were aware of Norse concepts of the underworld. Greco-Roman conceptions of the afterlife were grim in their way, but as far as I'm aware being burned eternally didn't figure much in them. Fire was generally considered divine or quasi-divine, in fact, by pagan philosophers, rather as it was to Zarathustra. I'm sure the apparently satisfying vision of nonbelievers roasting forever came from somewhere, but don't really know its origin. I say "satisfying" as the saints and those who make it to heaven are sometimes described as being able to witness from there the terrible plight of those in hell.

I was referring to your comment regarding the possibility those in hell may not be aware of their plight, and Lewis' comment about "terrible freedom" (freedom, necessitating choice in life, being something which always seemed terrible to him. Like life itself--the Pevensie children thus being better off dead and so he killed off most of them at the end of the Narnia series).

But we can't get away from the fact that scripture describes hell as a place of terrible, never-ending suffering, like unto being roasted in a fire or furnace. And yes, choice is involved. In the New Testament, at least, that choice includes the choice not to believe Jesus is God. Now, "believe in me or burn forever" seems to me indicative of a certain vindictiveness, and is somewhat surprising in an Almighty being, as is the idea of him being jealous.

Just who are these "Stoic slaves"? Epictetus was one, I know, but Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Zeno, Cleanthes and Chrysippus were not as far as I'm aware.

Speaking of Epictetus, the Enchiridion ends with these quotes:

"Conduct me, Jove, and you, O Destiny,
Wherever your decrees have fixed my station."
Cleanthes

"I follow cheerfully; and, did I not,
Wicked and wretched, I must follow still
Whoever yields properly to Fate, is deemed
Wise among men, and knows the laws of heaven."
Euripides, Frag. 965

Our fate is our fate, and will be our fate regardless of whether there is a God who determines it. A Stoic understands that it's outside the power of our will and so should not disturb us. But there's nothing I know of which would preclude a Stoic from believing in God.

Matthew 10:28: "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

Matthew 25:41: “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'"

Matthew 13:42: "They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Mark 9:43: "If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out."

2 Thessalonians 1:9: "They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might "

Matthew 25:46: "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Revelations 21:8: "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

But, apparently, they won't be aware of the fiery lake, everlasting destruction, eternal punishment, the fire which never goes out, the blazing furnace, the eternal fire. Scripture neglects to mention this, but no matter.

What you refer to are representative of efforts made to render Christianity "more reasonable." Those efforts have certainly been made, but they require disregard of scripture, or at least a self-serving interpretation of it, in this case. Both Revelation and Matthew refer to hell, the "lake of fire" and eternal punishment. It can be maintained, of course, that what is written in scripture "really" doesn't mean what it says, or cannot be taken literally, but there are problems with that approach. Some might say that those (few) parts of the Gospels which are taken to confirm Jesus' divine status don't really mean he was divine, for example.

Post hoc justifications, interpretations and rationalizations merely serve to establish the unreasonableness or incoherence of what they purport to address, and that presents a difficulty where religions, particularly revealed religions, are concerned. They constitute more a rejection of the religion than anything else, and the acceptance of something different.

I'm not certain what you're asking.

Christianity as a religion, I think, disappears if it's shorn of the Incarnation, the Eucharist, salvation due to the sacrifice of the crucifixion, the Resurrection, Original Sin, its insistence on a personal deity, and all the other doctrines and beliefs it assimilated so remarkably and successfully from the ancient pagan cults and Judaism to become the Great Hodgepodge it is. The fact it is such a hodgepodge is I believe the primary reason why the efforts made on its behalf to assimilate more philosophical (and I think more reasonable) views of a Divinity have been unsuccessful although that effort has been ongoing since at least the second century C.E. If you ignore or deny its core doctrines, I don't think you can legitimately claim to be a Christian.

It's the noumenon of the phenomenon we call architecture, which can only be known without the use of ordinary sense perception.

The contradiction is that we both exist and don't exist simultaneously because everything is apparently context dependent. The most common example I give of context dependence is that from the ground the earth can look flat, from orbit round, from far away its a dimensionless point, and from the other side of the universe its as if it had never existed. This reflects what is called the "Hubble Horizon" in physics which is fundamental to modern quantum field theory which is the basis of the accepted Standard Theory. — wuliheron

I'm probably too context dependent to understand what you're saying, but it seems to me that this is merely an example of the unsurprising fact that how an object appears to us will vary with our distance from the object and our location relative to the object. I don't see how this establishes we, or the object, both exist and don't exist, simultaneously.

Well, you're certainly ambitious.

But I don't know why our existence is a paradox. That fact we exist doesn't seem to me to lead to a self-contradictory, logically unacceptable or senseless conclusion, unless we make certain additional assumptions (and I don't). Similarly, we need not take everything "on faith" unless, again, we make certain assumptions or engage in faux doubt.

I am a child of the earth and the starry heavens.

By all means, explore. But why misread?

Christianity assimilated a good deal of Stoicism and other pagan philosophies and religions popular in the Roman Empire, and there are of course similarities between them as a result. But I think what you're attempting requires too radical a reinterpretation of Christian doctrine, if I understand you correctly.

Pantheism, Stoic or otherwise, is and has for centuries been heresy as least as far as Catholic Christianity is concerned. Christianity requires a transcendent personal God, and rejects pantheism as a result. It views pantheism as limiting God to the material, changing, and therefore imperfect universe, and as negating the need for Jesus' mission, his sacrifice and salvation.

Our Fall according to Catholic Christianity is the result of the Adam and Eve's disobedience of God's commands (after temptation by the Devil). It's by that act that sin was introduced into the world, and that sin taints all of us. So, the world became evil as a result of this original sin. We're responsible for the evil of the world. It isn't merely that evil is external to us; we caused the evil to begin with. It's fundamental to Christianity that we and the world are sinful, and we're responsible for that state of affairs.

Since the Christian God is clearly not nature, and nature is necessarily inferior to the Christian God and even sinful, living according to nature is definitely not something a Christian would or should do. I don't think there's much of a common thread there.

I think of it as The Fall from God (or the universe, in the ancient Greek sense as per the Stoics, a thought I'm sure you can appreciate). "Nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself" (Rust Cohle from True Detective, but pessimistic theory in general) and to get back to living in accordance with nature one has to lose their sense of self, thereby 'delimiting' it so that we become once again immanent with all creation - realising that The Real You is "something that the whole universe is doing in the same way a wave is something the whole ocean is doing". Otherwise you'll stay pretending that you're just a 'poor little me', as Watt's puts it. — WhiskeyWhiskers

I don't think the ancient Stoics thought there had been any kind of "Fall" in the sense Christianity, for example, conceives it. Humanity wasn't inherently defective by virtue of some failing. There simply were those who lived according to nature and those who did not. Those who did not were ignorant, fearful, irrational, discontented and often immoral. They were themselves responsible for that state, yes, because they concerned themselves with things not in their control. But they were not inherently defective in the sense we supposedly are according to Christianity (at least that Christianity with which I'm familiar) courtesy of Adam and Eve, until we're saved by God.

As for death, the Stoics thought our individual selves would ultimately be dissolved, as it were, in union with the Divine Reason. Some claim that Seneca and the Roman Stoics came to believe an individual's personality survived after death; I'm not sure that's the case, though.

While the Stoics felt we all partake in the Divine, and, I think, that the Stoic Sage (the ideal Stoic) could become "like the gods" as I believe Epictetus put it, I question whether they would maintain that we can be said to survive in others because we're really everyone and everything. So I don't know if they accepted any concept like the "Real You." The fact that all is interconnected and the universe is matter directed by a Divine Intelligence which is itself immanent in nature and internal to it ,as a unique kind of material (sometimes called a fire or breath), doesn't mean that we're all one.

I think this little statement is supposed to be like one of them thar Zen koans, which need not (or perhaps are not supposed to) make sense but which somehow bring about enlightenment, or something like that. Like asking about the sound of one hand clapping. So, perhaps Mr. Watts is saying something like: "Death is just not being alive, man; you can't sleep or wake up. Shanti."

“Try to imagine what it will be like to go to sleep and never wake up... now try to imagine what it was like to wake up having never gone to sleep.” - Alan Watts — saw038

Very well, I've tried. Now what?

I read the Echiridion. There were some useful ideas in it but overall I was struck by how many "do's" and "do not's" there were, as if we had to jump through so many hoops just to maintain some element of virtue. The resolutions only seemed to illuminate the problems more. — darthbarracuda

The Enchiridion is a summary statement of Epictetus' teachings prepared by his student Flavius Arrianus (Arrian). The Discourses are far more detailed, but again are made up of notes taken by Arrian. If Epictetus wrote anything (it's doubtful he did) it didn't survive. So what we read is in any case what Arrian thought significant. The Enchiridion is I think is best viewed as a short statement of thoughts and recommendations for use in Stoic practice; it's a "handbook" (that's its translation). It's a guide on how to live a Stoic life, and isn't meant to be an argument in favor of Stoicism or discussion of the theoretical foundation of Stoicism.

I agree but I lean more towards thinking that the thread is about a particular state of consciousness which experiences the world in a certain way. This is ultimately a self-contradictory state of consciousness as it undermines itself - it is unhappy with its own way of being, and seeks for a sort of escape. There is no question of rationality here - the pessimist / instrumentalist or however else he is to be called understands that there is no point in complaining about the world. And yet he still does it, the way a bird would still sing its song even if there were no purpose to it. So making one understand that it is not rational will not change their act - they understand that, and their song is a protest - a self-consciously absurd one. It's their attitude and reaction to something that has to be changed, and yes, stoicism does potentially have the tools to do this. But it's not about rationality. It's about showing that the fulfilment of this state of consciousness lies outside of itself, and then of course in actually inducing the switch. Because it is like a switch - change the glasses, and then the world looks and feels entirely differently. — Agustino

Perhaps you're right. In that case this is in the nature of a problem, I think. If a resolution is sought, there are ways of addressing problems rationally. In the case of psychological problems, cognitive behavioral therapy, which owes much to Stoicism, has been employed successfully to combat depression.

If a resolution isn't being sought, what can be said?

The ancient Stoics had their forays into logic and "physics" and so were probably as much philosophers as others of their time, but I quite agree Stoicism is a way of life, and it was treated as such by the Stoics of the Roman era in particular. As you say, Stoic practice serves to foster that way of life.

That's why I think Epictetus is pertinent, though. It's life (I think!) that's being addressed in this thread, and rather shabbily. It seems to me this is due to an excessive concern over things which aren't in our control (to use Stoic phraseology). And for my part, I think that concern is unreasonable, if not irrational, and in that sense Stoicism can "rationally enlighten" us.

Our options are to live or not live. If we live, we live; we must do what is necessary to live and will feel what humans feel. It's futile to be concerned that this is the case; that's simply the way of it. There are things beyond our control if we live. For those who live, Epictetus' recommendation is sensible--do the best with what you have and take the rest as it happens.

Very well - I fail to see how this can account for the vast variety of content of the world, which escapes the physical. For me, the transcendent is clearly part of our experience. We experience the transcendent. Meaning is transcendent for example - nowhere in the purely physical will you find any meaning. — Agustino

Perhaps we mean different things by "transcendent." For me, what is in and takes place in the universe is not transcendent. That would necessarily include meaning, as meaning like thinking is something we do (find, assign), right here and now as a result of being living organisms of the human kind existing as part of the universe. We can have no idea of the truly transcendent because we can have no idea which doesn't arise from living in the world, as part of the world.

For this reason, I find the idea of an immanent God (like that of the Stoics) more appealing than a transcendent God. I don't think the experiences you refer to are transcendent because if we weren't alive and part of the world we couldn't have them. This view doesn't mean that there's no such thing as that which has been called mystical or spiritual experience, it means rather that they are a part of our life in the world.

I'm one of those who think we're in the world along with everything else. So, I think all we do, think, experience, etc. is in the world with us, not somewhere else. What we feel on experiencing a great work of art isn't in the work of art, of course, but is our interaction with the work of art, which also takes place in the world.

I'm afraid I don't find Plato's works as enchanting as it seems you do. But I don't like dialogues in general, though it seems the ancients were fond of them. Plato's dialogues are kind of a lawyer's dream--this lawyer's dream, anyway. Your witness says exactly what you want and expect them to say. Ah, that would indeed be sublime.

I think that the transcendent has its basis in the experience of the transcendent, which isn't altogether uncommon. A beautiful piece of art, falling and being in love, prayer/meditation, values, meaning, etc. - there's lots of possibilities out there for encountering the transcendent. As for why we are attracted to the transcendent - I think Plato was right, and we are a sort of a metaxy - an in-between the world and the transcendent - we have one foot in this world, and another in the world of spirit. So you are right - we can never know the transcendent. But we are still attracted to it, we want to experience it, and be around it. It's part of our nature. Hence we desire to know it, even though we can't ever know it - we are always attached to the Earth. "Significance" that you are talking about, that is merely a feeling, I don't think it's such a thing as a fact. So I'm not sure about the quest for profound significance underlying an intellectual movement - maybe it is the opposite in fact - in front of the transcendent, man is indeed like nothing. — Agustino

The examples you use all describe what takes place in the world (the universe) so I'm not sure we're using "transcendent" in the same way. There's no reason to believe that such experiences suggest or establish the existence of something outside the universe. They may enable us to transcend ourselves or indicate we can do so, but no more.

I don't doubt the existence of such experiences, and think, personally, that there's much about the universe we don't know and that such experiences may be a way to learn more about it and ourselves. But I don't think such experiences can be described by words, though they may be evoked by them. That's done well by certain artists and their works, but not by philosophers or their work, or so I think. Philosophers aren't good artists as a rule. I wonder if this accounts for Plato's dislike of artists.

Unfortunately, it seems the belief in a transcendent God is often associated with the belief we humans are his favored creatures and particular concern, so it isn't clear to me that it's been productive of a feeling of insignificance.

Sounds like a rehash of Pragmatism :D — Agustino

I'm not sure. The Pragmatists as far as I know didn't inquire much into why, for example, we ponder or debate why we exist, or do so regarding whether we're brains in a vat, or why we do the same regarding the existence of God. It's true, though, that Dewey felt that many philosophical problems and prejudices resulted from a misguided "quest for certainty" and that certain philosophers' proclivity to believe what is true or good has its basis in something transcendent was caused at least in part by a sort of aristocratic disdain towards or contempt for the world which encompasses such things as trade, manual labor, unwashed bodies and ugly, ignorant, inferior people, change and death.

I think something different is involved, though. Maybe it's a kind of self-serving "quest for profound significance."

Mine is: Why do we concern ourselves so much with (1) what cannot be known and (2) what makes no difference to how we or others live our lives?

So, I'm obsessed with our obsession with the inconsequential--that which has no consequence.