The Beatitudes

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your post above reminded me of a scene in Play It Again, Sam with Woody Allen talking to a women at an art gallery with a painting which consisted solely of a large black dot. It went something like this:

WA: What does it [the painting] say to you?

W: It's a representation of Man's bleak and pointless existence, wallowing in despair an ...[text shortened]... ou doing Saturday night?
Museum Girl: Committing suicide.
Allan: What about Friday night?

Funny. I'll give ya a rec for that one.

Originally posted by Halitose
Thanks, but I don't think I can hoodwink myself into a denial of individuality and "the self".

Not after all the effort you've spent hoodwinking yourself into believing in them, no.

Do you enjoy Ecclesiastes?

Originally posted by Mister Meaner
I don't see why contemplation of the human condition needs to be seen as such. A life can be given it's own meaning by the individual without necessarily subscribing to the ideas of Jesus of Nazareth in the sermon on the mount, or The Bhudda in the deerpark at Saranath.

What staring into the abyss should do, is to wake us up to the fact that unless ...[text shortened]... electricity, silicon chips, encoding, music and art and so on...cannot this be us in our time?

A life can be given it's own meaning by the individual without necessarily subscribing to the ideas of Jesus of Nazareth in the sermon on the mount, or The Bhudda in the deerpark at Saranath.

You are quite right in that meaning could be up to each individual in their journey of life, but this emphasis of "meaning" in all it's variations would differ from the humanitarian to the hedonistic egoist. If it is up to each individual to create his own then you have no right to claim that Albert Schweitzer had more meaning in his life than Ted Bundy, or Florence Nightingale than Hitler.

From the great humanitarian to the serial rapist/murderer, meaning is derived from individual action; it could be what you do for the good of humanity -- or how you improve your own enjoyment of this one shot you have at the "great ride" of life.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Not after all the effort you've spent hoodwinking yourself into believing in them, no.

Do you enjoy Ecclesiastes?

Not after all the effort you've spent hoodwinking yourself into believing in them, no.

What does the "you" in the above sentence imply? You cannot deny the self without confirming it (except if you wish to take a hammering from the Law on Non-contradiction).

Do you enjoy Ecclesiastes?

Enjoy? Not particularly.

Originally posted by Halitose
If it is up to each individual to create his own then you have no right to claim that Albert Schweitzer had more meaning in his life than Ted Bundy, or Florence Nightingale than Hitler.

What is the point of making such claims?

Originally posted by Halitose

What does the "you" in the above sentence imply? You cannot deny the self without confirming it (except if you wish to take a hammering from the Law on Non-contradiction).

It implies that I am talking to you, not somebody else. Pronouns are handy that way.

"You cannot deny the self without confirming it". Of course. Language does not describe reality.

I like to think that Lao Tzu would have approved of Ecclesiastes.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What is the point of making such claims?

It has ethical ramifications.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It implies that I am talking to you, not somebody else. Pronouns are handy that way.

"You cannot deny the self without confirming it". Of course. Language does not describe reality.

I like to think that Lao Tzu would have approved of Ecclesiastes.

What pray do you describe reality with, if not with language?

I like to think that Lao Tzu would have approved of Ecclesiastes.

If he even really existed.

Originally posted by Halitose
So you would rather impress upon their naïve minds the existentialist despair and absurdity of life? When you do, try to emphasize the ultimate meaninglessness of trying to pick yourself up by your own bootstraps: that all men, whether great or small, weak or powerful, rich or poor, share the same fate as the universe eventually collapses on itself -- crush ...[text shortened]... not, will be forgotten to endless ebbs of meaningless eternity.

I personally prefer option B.

So, you think it is best to lie to your children rather than let them face reality? What about when they grow up? At what point to you tell them the truth or is it better to let them live thier whole lives believing in father Christmas?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, you think it is best to lie to your children rather than let them face reality? What about when they grow up? At what point to you tell them the truth or is it better to let them live thier whole lives believing in father Christmas?

Aren't you assuming the invalidity of one system above the other?

Originally posted by Halitose
What pray do you describe reality with, if not with language?

[b]I like to think that Lao Tzu would have approved of Ecclesiastes.

If he even really existed.[/b]

You don't have to describe it in order to live, but mathematics is better suited to that task than ordinary language.

It doesn't really matter whether Lao Tzu existed...

Originally posted by Halitose
It has ethical ramifications.

Saying that Hitler's life was more or less meaningful than Francis of Assissi's has ethical ramifications? Don't be silly. All it does is beg the question of what "meaningfulness" consists of.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Saying that Hitler's life was more or less meaningful than Francis of Assissi's has ethical ramifications? Don't be silly. All it does is beg the question of what "meaningfulness" consists of.

To the contrary. It can lead to normative claims on increasing meaningfulness.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You don't have to describe it in order to live, but mathematics is better suited to that task than ordinary language.

It doesn't really matter whether Lao Tzu existed...

You don't have to describe it in order to live, but mathematics is better suited to that task than ordinary language.

Don't bump your head. Excuse me, my self-defeatometer is buzzing in my pocket. Isn't this language that you are using in refuting your very claim?

It doesn't really matter whether Lao Tzu existed...

Really, really?

Originally posted by Halitose
Don't bump your head. Excuse me, my self-defeatometer is buzzing in my pocket. Isn't this language that you are using in refuting your very claim?

Don't be an idiot all your life, Stan.