25 Jul 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloTo say that the absurd is incompatible with all meaning is patently false.
[b]Could you explain how meaning is compatible with the absurd -- two seemingly contradictory terms?
Absurdism is incompatible with ultimate meaning. It is incompatible with immortality, eternal significance, and permanence. That's all. To say that the absurd is incompatible with all meaning is patently false. To see that, all we have to do is ...[text shortened]... ...gasp...nothing at all. It works that way for you, as well as the absurdist.[/b]
Righto. So essentially you are arguing that “meaning” and “the absurd” are not mutually exclusive since neither of them is used as an absolute. Is that correct?
I was under the impression that you were a supporter of deontological maxims: I find it surprising that you would advance the notion that The Ends justify the mean(ing)s.
Yes, I do subscribe to deontological maxims, and no, I despise the view where the "end justifying the means".
That happiness arises from contentment is tautological.
I disagree - contentment is an ingredient, but hardly the final product.
So, no. Camus' prescription calls for happiness that arises in the midst of confrontation, where the confrontation is between the person and an unreasonable world.
Our differences of definition aside, how does confrontation cause contentment, unless confrontation is the end goal?
This is the same charge you level against atheism. It's the old "this spoon ain't a good spoon because it ain't a knife" criticism; and it is completely irrelevant. There's no "problem" here.
You're not getting away this easily; IMO, a worldview has to address four issues to be validly considered as such: Origins, Destiny, Eternity and Morality. Whether you like it or not, your absurdist weltanschauung does actually address all four. Unfortunately for you, it allows individual preference of action and/or ethical system. If you claim, as you seem to be doing here, that absurdism has nothing to say about morals, you shouldn't forget that this is a stance in and of itself. The problem lies in that your worldview does not allow for objective moral/ethical judgments, only subjective preference claims.
Eventually, at the foundations of our noetic structures, we all possess (properly) basic normative beliefs that are supported by...gasp...nothing at all. It works that way for you, as well as the absurdist.
At least my normative beliefs are ontologically undergirded by our "endowment" as moral agents -- something you have no way of explaining without committing the fallacy, since your origins are inherently naturalistic.
25 Jul 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloIIRC it was Tolstoy; but that aside:
That's just a silly sound bite resembling the one often attributed to Dostoevsky that serves no purpose but to fuel the irrational fears of the fundamentalists. It's easy to submit it. Now show us your support for it. What's Premise 1?
1) Our actions do influence our immediate destiny (just threw this one in for what it's worth).
2) Our actions don't influence our ultimate destiny.
3) Our actions are ultimately meaningless in defining our ultimate destiny.
4) No action is ultimately preferable to another.
5) All actions are ultimately permissible.
25 Jul 06
1 edit
Being aware;
being aware of being aware,
and always aware from “some-here”—
______________________________
How does any of this require the inference of a substantive “self,” like a homunculus in the head, so to speak? A hobgoblin in the body? A “ghost in the machine?”
When there is seeing, there is seeing. When there is feeling, there is feeling. When there is thinking, there is thinking. Experiencing is experiencing. “I” don’t “have” a body; my existing entails bodily form—that is why “I” can only aware from “some-here;” there is no view from nowhere. All alternatives are metaphysical speculations, no more (to what purpose? the enjoyment of thinking/imagining? okay).
“...one of the great sources of philosophical bewilderment: we try to find a substance for a substantive.” A “bewitchment of the intellect by language...” (Wittgenstein)
Well, can you find a substance-self, a non-constructed somebody-I? That is the question of LJ’s koan. Thinking about such a koan never gets anybody anywhere; it calls for a ruthless searching. Don’t think; don’t infer—look! Or not, as you choose... (If you choose, take your time, with a kind of relaxed diligence; no need to force it—the question is one of clarity, and undisturbed mind: ataraxia, mushin.)
Everything in this post can be viewed as a question.
______________________________
Being aware;
being aware of being aware,
and always aware from “some-here”—
Why hang a picture over a window?
Why “paint legs on a snake?”
______________________________
After four months, hello. Hope you are all well. Thank you all for the many kind comments I find on my “last post.”
25 Jul 06
Originally posted by vistesdDoth my eyes deceive me?
Being aware;
being aware of being aware,
and always aware from “some-here”—
______________________________
How does any of this require the inference of a substantive “self,” like a homunculus in the head, so to speak? A hobgoblin in the body? A “ghost in the machine?”
When there is seeing, there is seeing. When there is feeling, there is feeli ...[text shortened]... llo. Hope you are all well. Thank you all for the many kind comments I find on my “last post.”
25 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI just knew you would come back ....... 🙂
Being aware;
being aware of being aware,
and always aware from “some-here”—
______________________________
How does any of this require the inference of a substantive “self,” like a homunculus in the head, so to speak? A hobgoblin in the body? A “ghost in the machine?”
When there is seeing, there is seeing. When there is feeling, there is feeli ...[text shortened]... llo. Hope you are all well. Thank you all for the many kind comments I find on my “last post.”
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by HalitoseNo, it was Dostoevsky. It's an essential question, maybe the essential question, in "The Brothers Karamasov". What's interesting is that the person who discusses and advocates this idea most, Ivan, doesn't live by it. He has evil wishes (wishing the death of his father) and believes there's nothing wrong with having those thoughts, but he would never act on them. For him, it seems to be a logical construct which has little bearing on real life. I think it is incompatible with human nature.
IIRC it was Tolstoy
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by NordlysI stand corrected.
No, it was Dostoevsky. It's an essential question, maybe the essential question, in "The Brothers Karamasov". What's interesting is that the person who discusses and advocates this idea most, Ivan, doesn't live by it. He has evil wishes (wishing the death of his father) and believes there's nothing wrong with having those thoughts, but he would never ...[text shortened]... truct which has little bearing on real life. I think it is incompatible with human nature.
It's a little unclear from your post as to what you think is incompatible with human nature: evil wishes, the absence thereof, actions influencing our destiny??
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by vistesdAfter four months, hello. Hope you are all well. Thank you all for the many kind comments I find on my “last post.”
Being aware;
being aware of being aware,
and always aware from “some-here”—
______________________________
How does any of this require the inference of a substantive “self,” like a homunculus in the head, so to speak? A hobgoblin in the body? A “ghost in the machine?”
When there is seeing, there is seeing. When there is feeling, there is feeli ...[text shortened]... llo. Hope you are all well. Thank you all for the many kind comments I find on my “last post.”
The wonderer returns! Good to see you again.
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI beg to differ. "Doth" is the archaic third person singular present of "do" (according to the Oxford English Dictionary). Tel was perfectly correct in his use of the word.
It should be "do mine eyes deceive me". "Doth" is the third person of the verb, as in He doth drive me up the wall.
26 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Halitose"Eyes" is a plural subject, unless my eyes deceives me.
I beg to differ. "Doth" is the archaic third person singular present of "do" (according to the Oxford English Dictionary). Tel was perfectly correct in his use of the word.
"When most I wink then do mine eyes best see."
(Shakespeare, Sonnet 43)