Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] certainty of meaning

Expand Messages
  • Tony Lea
    ... But wasn t that your statement? These humans have developed a religion. . .The entire planet dies. No one is left. the question is then: does the god die
    Message 1 of 58 , Aug 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      > Tony,
      >
      > You are adding a circular qualification. Of
      > course, if god is a construct, then when the
      > society goes then, so does the god. That is just
      > logical.

      But wasn't that your statement?

      "These humans have developed a religion. . .The entire planet dies. No one
      is left. the question is then: does the god die with the
      people?"

      That if a society creates a god and then disappears, then does the God
      disappear? If not, then I didn't understand the question.

      > Your second point in that if a literature source
      > is found, certainly it might revive. But then I
      > could easily argue that this revival in itself is
      > dependent upon the society and when it goes, so
      > does the god. So we are back to the original
      > premise.

      No, I meant that the god, if it's adopted by the successor society, gains a
      new lease on life. But of course, just because the next society believes
      there is a god, it does not mean that the previous society is enjoying any
      sort of afterlife. The god is just as illusory for the second society as it
      was for the second.

      > No. I cannot accept your counter arguement on
      > Taliban.

      I wasn't really making a point with Taliban. I was simply saying that once
      it's worshippers are gone (and if no others arrive), a religion is nothing
      more than an art movement (if anything physical of it survives).

      > My premise is that there is not a god which exists
      > outside of the human experience,

      Man is largely incapable of imagining, conceiving, or believing anything
      radically outside his own experience. (If triangles invented a god, it would
      have three sides). We tend to anthropomorphise our gods.

      > and indeed it is
      > this experience which cycles and creates the god
      > in the first place.

      The basic needs of any society are much the same as any other, so the system
      of worship, with some minor variations, is the same.

      And in this sense "meaning"
      > is only certain within the context of a belief
      > system which is successful [i.e. enables us to
      > survive with fulfillment of whatever needs we may
      > wish to have fulfilled].

      Yes, as I said, even without the existence of a genuine god, and even
      without the belief in one (a system that defines its own brand of
      "happiness"), life can, for an individual, still have meaning (the pursuit
      of earthly happiness).

      > There is no basis of
      > rational proof to say that there is a
      > transcendental god.

      Yes, we've already established that there is no real knowledge possible
      beyond this world.

      or even an immanent god.
      > Thus the existentialist has the ability to choose
      > and create whatever world he/she desires. And the
      > reality is whatever, he/she chooses to accept.
      >
      And when that life is over, the individual and his "meaning" disappears
      (unless he has had significant historical impact on his civilization - and
      even for him, in this case, everything is over).

      Tony
    • C. S. Wyatt
      No one knows anything beyond what he or she experiences. All else is faith and / or bias. As far as I can tell, everything is a matter of meaning and intent.
      Message 58 of 58 , Aug 2, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        No one "knows" anything beyond what he or she experiences. All else is faith
        and / or bias.

        As far as I can tell, everything is a matter of meaning and intent. I have a
        great deal of faith that there are things greater and more important than
        mankind, though I dare not try to name that which is above man. (My Judaic
        bias, with some pagan "universe" worship.)

        From my web site:

        Logic has too many definitions to use the term without referencing the
        logical model being utilized in analysis. I tend to favor phenomenological,
        mathematical, or scientific logic. These conflict with other models due to
        their reliance upon individual proofs -- the proofs human beings can
        understand. In other words, what I cannot prove to myself, I cannot accept
        on a logical basis -- but I can accept on faith.

        Faith is important to me and most other humans. Faith and logic are, at
        least using the definitions utilized in modern philosophy, at odds but not
        exclusive: eventually I might prove those concepts in which I have faith.
        Faith is "accepting as fact that which cannot be mathematically or
        scientifically proven beyond all doubt." Notice the phrase "all doubt" and
        its importance.

        Ethics: (1) The study and philosophy of human conduct with emphasis on the
        determination of right and wrong. (2) A system of morals.

        Moral: (1) Based on probability; generalized human behavior. (2) Conforming
        to group standards of conduct.

        Justice: (1) The rendering of what is due or merited. (2) Being impartial.
        (3) Honest or equitable.

        Truth: (1) Conformity to requirements. (2) Faith in a statement's logic. (3)
        Conforming to a system of rules.

        - C. S.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.