Stathis, maybe I shoot too high, but I was expecting something better from you, at least referring to what I said. John
On 2/6/07, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > John, > > You shouldn't have one criterion for your own beliefs and a different > criterion for everyone else's. If Christians said, "those old Greeks sang > songs about their gods' miraculous exploits, really seemed to believe in > them, and on top of that were pretty smart, so I guess everything in the > Iliad and Odyssey must be true", then they would be consistently applying > the standards they apply to the Bible. Of course, they don't: other peoples' > religious beliefs are subjected to rational scrutiny and (rightly) found > wanting, but their own beliefs are special. > > Stathis Papaioannou > > ------------------------------ > Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:17:57 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life > > Stathis: > > is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one set of belief system ONLY > with a person > who carries two (or even more)? I had a brother-in-law, a devout catholic > and an excellent > biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two in one mind, he > answered: > "I never mix the two together". Tom is an excellent natural scientist and > has brilliant > arguments in it, as long as it comes to his 'other' belief system - what > he, quite > inderstandably - does not want to give up. > We all have 'second belief bases' in our multiple schizophrenia of > intelligence. > Some have 'Platonia', some 'primitive matter view' - it is your > profession. > Do you really think you can penetrate one by arguments from another? > > John M > > > On 2/5/07, *Stathis Papaioannou* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > Tom Caylor writes: > > > On Jan 31, 10:33 am, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > OK. But in that case your question is just half of the question, "Why > do people have values?" If you have values then that mean some things will > be good and some will be bad - a weed is just a flower in a place you don't > want it. You must already know the obvious answer to this given by Darwin. > And it doesn't even take a person; even amoebas have values. I suspect you > have a set answer in mind and you're looking for the question to elicit it. > > > > > > Brent Meeker > > > > > Also Stathis wrote: > > > Sure, logic and science are silent on the question of the value of > weeds or anything else. You need a person to come along and say "let > x=good", and then you can reason logically given this. Evolutionary theory > etc. may predict what x a person may deem to be good or beautiful, but this > is not binding on an individual in the way laws governing the chemistry of > respiration, for example, are binding. Unlike some scientific types, I am > quite comfortable with ethics being in this sense outside the scope of > science. Unlike some religious types, I am quite comfortable without looking > for an ultimate source of ethics in the form of a deity. Even if this > conclusion made me very unhappy, that might be reason to try self-deception, > but it has no bearing on the truth. > > > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > > > > > > Brent and Stathis exemplify two possible answers to meaning. Brent > > reduces meaning to something based on mere existence or survival. Thus > > amoebas can have such meaning. > > Stathis says that meaning is an unanswered (unanswerable?) mystery. > > We just somehow self-generate meaning. > > > > My introduction of the "Meaning Of Life" thread asked if the > > Everything perspective could provide any answers to this question. > > Looking at the contributions since then, it looks like the answer is > > apparently not. This is what I expected. Thus, meaning is either > > limited to trivial (non-normative) values or is without basis (the > > Noble Lie). If you really read the modern philosophers seriously this > > is their conclusion. Of course there is a third possible answer to > > this question: Meaning is based on a source outside of ourselves, by > > "making connections with others based on such ideals as honour and > > obligation" (a quote I read from Dr. Laura Schlesinger off of a > > Starbucks coffee cup this morning!) Of course people can poo-poo such > > ideals as simply "sentiments", debunking them on a surface level > > (which is the only level there is without them), just as C.S. Lewis > > pointed out in his lectures on "The Abolition of Man". And indeed, > > without such ideals, man will be discretized into a trivial skeleton > > of his true self. > > > > Tom > > You seem to keep arguing that it wouldn't be very nice if there were no > ultimate meaning. Is there any actual evidence that this alleged meaning > exists? For example, suppose a society believes that the Sky God provides > ultimate meaning and live their lives happily, whereas it could be shown > that they would all be miserable and kill each other if they believed it > were not true. On this basis there may be reason to think that belief in the > Sky God is useful, but is there any reason to think that belief in the Sky > God is true? > > Stathis Papaioannou > > ------------------------------ > Live Search: New search found Try it!<http://get.live.com/search/overview+> > > > > > > ------------------------------ > Stay up-to-date with your friends through the Windows LiveT Spaces friends > list. Check it > out!<http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
