Debates
27 Sep 13
28 Sep 13
Googled it, found this:
For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished.
Sounds about right.
28 Sep 13
Originally posted by Great King RatWhy do you assume that meaning and finitude are incompatible? Or put another way, why do you assume that meaning requires permanence? I see no reason why meaning cannot be temporal.
There is no point of life whatsoever. We will all die, our genetic offspring will die, all life on earth will die, earth itself will disappear, all life in the universe will die and the universe itself will cease to exist.
Everything you've ever done and ever will do will amount to exactly nothing, zilch, nada. Unless someone can find a secret door ...[text shortened]... er made in your life, it would't have made a heap of difference. You won't be remembered anyway.
28 Sep 13
1 edit
Yes, I agree with you. Meaning can be temporal. In fact, it is temporal. A 65 year old man looks at his grown-up son and thinks "I did well". Looks at his grandson being raised by his son and thinks "I did well". But the fact remains, the more time goes by, the more things change, the less impact the life and choices of the man will have on the world. Until it has been reduced to (near) zero. The life of his grand^14-son won't be impacted in any meaningful way by the choices the man made.
Sure we give meaning to our lives. I do it too. I don't kill myself and I don't go a rampage.
But I maintain that ultimately there is no meaning to my life whatsoever.
28 Sep 13
Originally posted by Great King RatSo if you made a diamond and sent if off into space and it lasted forever, would your life have more meaning? Why must permanence have anything whatsoever to do with meaning? Why must your impact on the earth be lasting for you to have meaning?
But I maintain that ultimately there is no meaning to my life whatsoever.
You start by agreeing with rwingett then more or less backtrack completely.
I say that 'meaning' is only meaningful to an entity and there is no such thing as 'ultimate meaning' as there is no entity being referred to. But that does not mean that something does not have meaning to a given entity. Ultimately my life has meaning to me. Whether it makes sense to say that in my absence is debatable.
28 Sep 13
Originally posted by Great King RatThank you for that insight. Now excuse me while I go suck on a hollowpoint.
There is no point of life whatsoever. We will all die, our genetic offspring will die, all life on earth will die, earth itself will disappear, all life in the universe will die and the universe itself will cease to exist.
Everything you've ever done and ever will do will amount to exactly nothing, zilch, nada. Unless someone can find a secret door ...[text shortened]... er made in your life, it would't have made a heap of difference. You won't be remembered anyway.
28 Sep 13
Originally posted by Great King RatWhat twhitehead it saying is that all questions of meaning, or value, originate in a valuer, who, by his nature, is finite. Therefore there can be no such thing as ultimate meaning. All questions of meaning are necessarily bound up in temporal beings, making all meaning necessarily temporal in nature. To say that there is no ultimate meaning is merely to say that there are no ultimate beings to do the evaluating (such as god).
I have to go away now, but will answer your post later today. Meanwhile, please tell me where I backtracked from agreeing with rwingett because I don't think I did - certainly didn't intend to - so perhaps I can clarify.
28 Sep 13
Originally posted by rwingettThat carbon footprint is hogwash sold by hucksters trying to get rich from guilt ridden liberals. We are carbon based lifeforms.
Well why don't you just pat yourself on the back, then? The fact is that the carbon footprint of the first world countries still far outweighs that of the third world, despite the population imbalance. The world might be able to support 11 billion people if they all had the carbon footprint of the average third world inhabitant. The fact that they're all aspiring to 1st world levels of affluence is what's going to sink us.
This side of an apocalypse, I don't see first worlders regressing, and I do think that second and third worlders will aspire to and reach 1st world life styles. Capitalism and innovation will take care of living space, and food production, and birth rates will come down.
The short of it remains that without reproduction the only alternative is extinction.
28 Sep 13
Originally posted by normbenignObviously extinction would result without ANY reproduction. What is needed, though, is to find a sustainable rate of reproduction, given the rate of consumption society intends to engage in. If you had a world of people who consumed very little, you could fit more of them on the planet. If you have a world of people who consume at the rates of western societies, then the earth will accommodate much fewer people. To have unlimited population coupled with unlimited consumption is a recipe for disaster. Neither your capitalism nor your "innovation" will save you.
That carbon footprint is hogwash sold by hucksters trying to get rich from guilt ridden liberals. We are carbon based lifeforms.
This side of an apocalypse, I don't see first worlders regressing, and I do think that second and third worlders will aspire to and reach 1st world life styles. Capitalism and innovation will take care of living space, and ...[text shortened]... e down.
The short of it remains that without reproduction the only alternative is extinction.
28 Sep 13
Originally posted by Great King RatThat is all true, but life is temporal, and indeterminately continuous. Species come and go, but life seems in our realm to go on. Reproduction is the means of it continuing. No species stops reproducing and doesn't go extinct.
There is no point of life whatsoever. We will all die, our genetic offspring will die, all life on earth will die, earth itself will disappear, all life in the universe will die and the universe itself will cease to exist.
Everything you've ever done and ever will do will amount to exactly nothing, zilch, nada. Unless someone can find a secret door ...[text shortened]... er made in your life, it would't have made a heap of difference. You won't be remembered anyway.
Our individual lives are but a moment, but life itself for most species is quite long.
28 Sep 13
Originally posted by rwingettAs little as two centuries ago, it was inconceivable that the earth could support its present population. A growing population has always been a sign of a successful culture.
Obviously extinction would result without ANY reproduction. What is needed, though, is to find a sustainable rate of reproduction, given the rate of consumption society intends to engage in. If you had a world of people who consumed very little, you could fit more of them on the planet. If you have a world of people who consume at the rates of western socie ...[text shortened]... nsumption is a recipe for disaster. Neither your capitalism nor your "innovation" will save you.
Sure, there are limits, but I don't think we are even close to physical limitations on population. I think that future generations will determine viability of continued growth, or of limiting consumption. I cringe at the thought of some hypocrite in government telling me not to consume while they go happily creating carbon big feet. Al Gore stands as my symbol of this type. In my lifetime I've seen too many chicken littles, to go running when the next sky is falling warning comes, as well as to many well meaning types wanting to help protect us from ourselves.
28 Sep 13
Originally posted by rwingettMost societies already have birth rates at or near replacement level, and the world's population is expected to stabilize at around 10 billion. Although environmental and sustainability challenges remain, the notion that the Earth cannot sustain current population growth or consumer trends is hysterical nonsense.
Obviously extinction would result without ANY reproduction. What is needed, though, is to find a sustainable rate of reproduction, given the rate of consumption society intends to engage in. If you had a world of people who consumed very little, you could fit more of them on the planet. If you have a world of people who consume at the rates of western socie ...[text shortened]... nsumption is a recipe for disaster. Neither your capitalism nor your "innovation" will save you.
28 Sep 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI see reason why I must transcend this forum spiritually in order to give my life meaning.
this forum? If you were truly spiritual you would be able to transcend this forum! 😵
God help me, the atheistic thought process must be contagious!! 😲
28 Sep 13
Originally posted by normbenignBut life is not everlasting in this world - even on the species level - as Tennyson showed:
That is all true, but life is temporal, and indeterminately continuous. Species come and go, but life seems in our realm to go on.
Our individual lives are but a moment, but life itself for most species is quite long.
Are God and Nature then at strife,
That Nature lends such evil dreams?
So careful of the type she seems,
So careless of the single life;
"So careful of the type?" but no.
From scarped cliff and quarried stone
She cries, "A thousand types are gone:
I care for nothing, all shall go."
Life "for most species" may seem "quite long" from an individual human perspective but really, it is just the blink of an eye in the vastness of geological time. Beyond that, we know that eventually even the earth itself and the sun it revolves around will perish.