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

Re: Difference

Expand Messages
  • Jim
    Hi biggie, I agree that from a point of view at the end of the universe, or even outside the universe, human life on earth is but a meaningless spec. However,
    Message 1 of 21 , Apr 5, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi biggie,

      I agree that from a point of view at the end of the universe, or even outside the universe, human life on earth is but a meaningless spec.

      However, the outside-of-the-universe point of view is not the only point of view. Each of us has our own subjective point of view, and these points of view clash on an internet forum like this one.

      There is also a third point of view. This is a point of view from within human life, but not tied to any one person. Perhaps one could call it the point of view of humanity.

      It is from this human perspective that the ethical comes into view. Anyone who is capable of abstracting away from their own personal perspective, and has a sensitivity to what makes for flourishing human lives, and what makes for damaged, painful human lives, can take up this point of view.

      From this point of view ethical truths can come into view, such truths as "it is better to be kind than it is to be cruel" or "it is better if adults do not have sex with children".

      The point of view from outside the universe, which you presuppose, is a fully objective point of view. The point of view of the single individual is a fully subjective point of view. The point of view of humanity has both objective and subjective elements, sharing characteristics of the other two points of view.

      This point of view is rejected by Bill and Mary because, in my view, they are scientistic, that is, they believe that the only truths there are are those of the sciences. Perhaps you also believe that if science cannot measure it, it doesn't exist.

      Jim
    • Mary
      Jim, I conclude that you have understood nothing of my latest attempt at dialog. How is my interest in thought as a system remotely scientistic. If anything,
      Message 2 of 21 , Apr 5, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Jim, I conclude that you have understood nothing of my latest attempt at dialog. How is my interest in thought as a system remotely scientistic. If anything, it is holistic. But never you mind, I'm comfortable absurdly drifting between the shores of hope and acceptance.
      • Jim
        Hi Mary, I am sorry I have shown my lack of understanding of your recent posts. I had thought that you were looking to science to help come up with the new
        Message 3 of 21 , Apr 5, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Mary,

          I am sorry I have shown my lack of understanding of your recent posts.

          I had thought that you were looking to science to help come up with the new model for thought that you are looking/hoping for.

          As a matter of interest one can be both scientistic and holistic. In fact Quine held such a position.

          Anyway, I am pleased to hear that you reject scientism, I am only sorry I did not gather that from your recent posts.

          Jim
        • Mary
          No worries, Jim. You ve been patient and engaged in a difficult dialog. What has me presently interested in Bohm s unpopular tilting at assumptions about
          Message 4 of 21 , Apr 5, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            No worries, Jim. You've been patient and engaged in a difficult dialog. What has me presently interested in Bohm's unpopular tilting at assumptions about thought is that although he takes his cue from quantum non-locality, he fully expects that creativity and imagination of the artistic kind will begin transforming our system of thought. In Quine's appropriation of Neurath's boat, he reinforces how daunting a task is epistemology. I realize that I change attitude or position as inexplicably as an electron.As much as I'd hate to conclude this, it is perhaps merely indulgence and distraction from the horrors in this world.

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hi Mary,
            >
            > I am sorry I have shown my lack of understanding of your recent posts.
            >
            > I had thought that you were looking to science to help come up with the new model for thought that you are looking/hoping for.
            >
            > As a matter of interest one can be both scientistic and holistic. In fact Quine held such a position.
            >
            > Anyway, I am pleased to hear that you reject scientism, I am only sorry I did not gather that from your recent posts.
            >
            > Jim
            >
          • Jim
            Thanks, Mary. Yes, I also feel sometimes that doing philosophy and contributing to Existlist can be a comforting retreat from the difficulties of everyday life
            Message 5 of 21 , Apr 5, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks, Mary.

              Yes, I also feel sometimes that doing philosophy and contributing to Existlist can be a comforting retreat from the difficulties of everyday life and the disharmony in the world.

              Jim



              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
              >
              > No worries, Jim. You've been patient and engaged in a difficult dialog. What has me presently interested in Bohm's unpopular tilting at assumptions about thought is that although he takes his cue from quantum non-locality, he fully expects that creativity and imagination of the artistic kind will begin transforming our system of thought. In Quine's appropriation of Neurath's boat, he reinforces how daunting a task is epistemology. I realize that I change attitude or position as inexplicably as an electron.As much as I'd hate to conclude this, it is perhaps merely indulgence and distraction from the horrors in this world.
              >
            • George
              Thanks. I pop into existlist from time to time. I enjoy the discussions. Not many really intelligent ones are left in this increasingly barren, ersatz world of
              Message 6 of 21 , Apr 6, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks.

                I pop into existlist from time to time. I enjoy the discussions. Not many really intelligent ones are left in this increasingly barren, ersatz world of pop culture, mindless consumption and celebrity worship.

                Mostly though I do my philosophizing these days over at ephilosopher.com. My handle there is "neither/nor". Lots of Kantians in that place.

                I, uh, feast on them. ; o )

                biggie


                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Welcome back!
                > >
                > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "George" <iambiguously@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Amen, brother.
                > > >
                > > > In an essentially absurd and meaningless world...a world of infinitesimally insignificant specks like you and I and Jim...a world bracketted by oblivion before and after our infinitesimally insignificant births and deaths...morality is merely an existential contraption invented by mortal daseins.
                > > >
                > > > That's why we invented God and Humanism, in turn. They are but psychological defense mechanisms that allow us to believe our lives, our behaviors, our value judgments are necessary when they are anything but necessary at all.
                > > >
                > > > biggie
                > > > All right! Biggie. It will be good to have an existential voice back. The group has drifted toward preexistential simplicity and nonexistential moralisms. You could be the laxitive this stuffed gut needs. WRH
                > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > > Sorry Jim, your christianity is showing again.
                > > > > If as you say you are an athiest who is all this mewing responsibility directed to? It is correctness you worship and that arises from your lingering attachment to gawd.
                > > > > Now I know the crap you will give me,responsibility to others,responsibility to society, responsibility to country, humanistic responsibility. Bunk!
                > > > > Are you not as important as the other slobs running loose on this rock? Do you not know you are in direct competition with them ,with me, for food water ,oxygen? You are no eternal being, you will be gone in a few short years. No one will long remember you or what stupid altruisms you shat out in your monastic life. You have just replaced your grand responsibility for your apriori gawd. Grow up! WRH
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                >
              • fictiveparrot
                ... How does one know for certain that there is meaningless in existence? Now don t go telling me that I am thinking the opposite and that I am arguing for
                Message 7 of 21 , Apr 13, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  > In an essentially absurd and meaningless world...a world
                  > of infinitesimally insignificant specks like you and I and
                  > Jim...a world bracketted by oblivion before and after our
                  > infinitesimally insignificant births and deaths...morality
                  > is merely an existential contraption invented by mortal
                  > daseins.

                  How does one know for certain that there is 'meaningless' in existence? Now don't go telling me that I am thinking the opposite and that I am arguing for meaning. I am merely wondering -- as I have been these past oh 9 years on the list -- how one states anything with absolute certainty.

                  But one step beyond wondering about knowing is wondering still about the stigma placed on lacking meaning. Meaning, say, is missing -- as an assumption no less profound than other assumptions people like to make -- and instead of remorse, quietly accept without certainty and with the possibility of revising in the future that meaning may not be part of the soup.

                  What have you lost? I think it is merely loss of a distraction -- or of some other gawd you have grown to worship.

                  > That's why we invented God and Humanism, in turn.

                  Boredom would be more likely for me to invent a gawd than morality. Gawd would be an interest. Interests are interesting. Whether or not I can prove that I am, or that you are, I can define interests -- regardless of what they are attributed to. Interest is not good, it is not bad. It is vaguely and inexplicably 'interesting' until it is not anymore. This could be a biography. It could be a fictional character Andy who calculated the movement of ants. He used hard-dried kernels of corn and glass cups in a format not terribly unlike an abacus. Occasionally he spat. The spitting had less to do with the ants than the tobacco or that which he assumed was tobacco from what he was told that he hung to dry as his uncle had in the barn by the fleece which he thought was to keep off the mold. Yet Andy one morning looking at the ants and the cups and the kernels saw piles and not a calculation. He spat. the ants continued to crawl. his cups continued to hold kernels. but he stopped counting and wondered why. He saw piles and cups and kernels, and whatever was there before that was interesting was not. He could not remember what it was. He dashed the ants under a large rock, and burned the tree where he observed them to the ground. he left out the kernels for the birds, and the cups, simply abandoned amidst the ash. Children found the cups some time later, they filled them with dirt. They wondered why they were there, but never wondered about kernels or ants or Andy. They never saw the tree, and perhaps that would have been a hint. But it is a wonder that they may not even have cared. Andy didn't. But they had fun with the cups just the same. It wasn't nearly ant calculations by any stretch of the imagination. Strangely they did not want to kill Andy; strangely they did not want to be his dog; strangely they played with and abandoned the cups and never once spit. But for whatever time they played, they were interested...and then they were not.

                  Knott
                • Mary
                  ... I really like this...and the story of Andy and his artifacts. It points to the difficulty of achieving an open mind when there is a continuum of given
                  Message 8 of 21 , Apr 14, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "fictiveparrot" <knott12@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > But one step beyond wondering about knowing is wondering still about the stigma placed on lacking meaning. Meaning, say, is missing -- as an assumption no less profound than other assumptions people like to make -- and instead of remorse, quietly accept without certainty and with the possibility of revising in the future that meaning may not be part of the soup.

                    I really like this...and the story of Andy and his artifacts. It points to the difficulty of achieving an open mind when there is a continuum of given meaning. The children who came across Andy's abandoned experiment had a luxury few are afforded.

                    Mary
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.