02 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357"I did a malapro by saying "non-secular" because I thing Bobby suggested a secular analysis of the questions."
I did a malapro by saying "non-secular" because I thing Bobby suggested a secular analysis of the questions.
You are right about the routine mode of analysis here.
One of the problems of secular analysis of philosophical questions is that they lack a reference book where answers are to be found.
I got A's in my two phi classes.
Bobby, whether he k ...[text shortened]... ot awake/aware? I know it's holding on to The Book, but it's not without philosophical pedigree.
... secular or non-secular mindset: which is generally philosophically appropriate? I would have thought secular.
Also, which specific "routine mode of analysis" do you reference?
02 Feb 14
Originally posted by HandyAndyHey, an open mind examines the width and height and depth of the concept being scrutinized at the moment by conscious entities without premise or prescription or predilection for its outcome. Who knows, Red Hot Pawn may be a dream within a dream which our subconscious minds populate with players on a brief stage before Russ says, "Out, out, brief candle..."
Is the concept of "being there" too difficult for you to grasp?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
02 Feb 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI thought yu offered to embark on a secular philosophical analysis of the question of the meaning and purpose of life, which included their "absolute" sense.
"I did a malapro by saying "non-secular" because I thing Bobby suggested a secular analysis of the questions."
... secular or non-secular mindset: which is generally philosophically appropriate? I would have thought secular.
Also, which specific "routine mode of analysis" do you reference?
One suggestion so far is, the m and p of life is pretty much what you make of it.
We haven't quite gotten to the issue of absoluteness of this m/p.
Do you agree that we are trying to stay on the secular side of this?
02 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357Of course "secular" or I'm going to take my OP and go home. lol
I thought yu offered to embark on a secular philosophical analysis of the question of the meaning and purpose of life, which included their "absolute" sense.
One suggestion so far is, the m and p of life is pretty much what you make of it.
We haven't quite gotten to the issue of absoluteness of this m/p.
Do you agree that we are trying to stay on the secular side of this?
The initial question was simply intended to get things moving.
Postscript: What would philosophy do if there were no hypothetical questions?
02 Feb 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWhen the entity is conscious. I think life, or anything else may have meaning/purpose in my dreams. But if I am totally unconscious and not dreaming, then for that period, no meaning/purpose exists for me.
... states of bodily awareness when the entity is awake and alert?
And the meaning/purpose may change over time.
02 Feb 14
Originally posted by twhitehead"But if I am totally unconscious and not dreaming, then for that period, no meaning/purpose exists for me." -twhitehead
When the entity is conscious. I think life, or anything else may have meaning/purpose in my dreams. But if I am totally unconscious and not dreaming, then for that period, no meaning/purpose exists for me.
And the meaning/purpose may change over time.
Is the "meaning/purpose" relegated to an unexplained state of suspension or involuntary abeyance during those intervals of being "totally unconscious and not dreaming"? And are there gradations of dreaming with or without recall?
02 Feb 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI am not particularly interested in going into the details. Suffice it to say that 'meaning/purpose' is simply a reference to the importance/use of something to a conscious entity. How the exact thought process of the conscious entity work are not really relevant.
Is the "meaning/purpose" relegated to an unexplained state of suspension or involuntary abeyance during those intervals of being "totally unconscious and not dreaming"? And are there gradations of dreaming with or without recall?
02 Feb 14
Originally posted by twhitehead"Suffice it to say that 'meaning/purpose' is simply a reference to the importance/use of something to a conscious entity." -twhitehead
I am not particularly interested in going into the details. Suffice it to say that 'meaning/purpose' is simply a reference to the importance/use of something to a conscious entity. How the exact thought process of the conscious entity work are not really relevant.
That's it? Hmm... perhaps minimal is the coin of the philosophical realm. Thanks for the reduction.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
02 Feb 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadOK. I don't have the notion that everyone's life has an "ultimate" meaning or purpose, but some people seem to, for example a guy just died who dedicated his life to sidewalk stargazing. He found a way to make telescopes from inexpensive materials, didn't patent it, lived on the kindness of friends, taught and conducted sidewalk astronomy classes and excursions, etc. So it is possible to have such a m/p, but it's not something we necessarily "should" have or "should" seek to find. it just happens to some people and not others, and a decent life can be had either way.
See my first post in the thread.
02 Feb 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadListening to Harris speak on the illusion of free will makes one wonder how he ever graduated high school, let alone UCLA.
I find morality to be a very interesting topic. Also free will is interesting. But I recently discovered Sam Harris and believe that it would be hard to add to what he has to say on the two subjects.
What he uses as logic is a hot mess.