The meaning of life made simple

@KellyJay

I’m aware that there is a school of thought that seems to claim a statement like, “She knew that A [was certain that A], but she was wrong” makes sense, while pretending that “knew” (or “was certain” ) still have some objective meaning.

But I disagree. If I was wrong, I did not know; I was not, in fact, certain. Unless things like “knowing” and “being certain” are reduced to subjective feelings, rather than objective facts. (Or some entitlement to claim that one “knows” [“is certain”] based on some objective probability less than 1.0. Well what is that probabilistic threshold?)

The simple fact that there is a binary choice – A or not-A – does not render whatever choice I make certain.

@vistesd2 said
@KellyJay

I’m aware that there is a school of thought that seems to claim a statement like, “She knew that A [was certain that A], but she was wrong” makes sense, while pretending that “knew” (or “was certain” ) still have some objective meaning.

But I disagree. If I was wrong, I did not know; I was not, in fact, certain. Unless things like ...[text shortened]... le fact that there is a binary choice – A or not-A – does not render whatever choice I make certain.

@KellyJay

Then, if I understand you correctly, if you say something like “I know what the truth is” – you are really saying “It is my opinion what the truth is.” Nothing more.

Whatever is actually true may or may not match your opinion (or mine). And we may or may not be able to absolutely, infallibly know. [I suspect not.]

That would not, it seems to me, mean that the truth is “foreign” to us – or that we ignore inference from external evidence – only that we are not omniscient/infallible. But that lack of omniscience/infallibility does not prevent us from making decisions and acting on the basis of what we think (based on the evidence we have thus far) is most likely – even acknowledging that we might be wrong.

With that said, I think we should, insofar as possible, test our opinions continually against the available empirical evidence.

@vistesd2 said
@KellyJay

Then, if I understand you correctly, if you say something like “I know what the truth is” – you are really saying “It is my opinion what the truth is.” Nothing more.

Whatever is actually true may or may not match your opinion (or mine). And we may or may not be able to absolutely, infallibly know. [I suspect not.]

That would not, it seems to me, ...[text shortened]... (based on the evidence we have thus far) is most likely – even acknowledging that we might be wrong.

@KellyJay

I do not understand the question. To me, “the truth” can mean two things:

1. The way things actually are (facticity);

2. An accurate statement about the way things actually are.

I do not know what a reified, personified existent called “truth” could mean? Some being whose name happens to be “Truth” – like Sojourner Truth?

@vistesd2 said
@KellyJay

I do not understand the question. To me, “the truth” can mean two things:

1. The way things actually are (facticity);

2. An accurate statement about the way things actually are.

I do not know what a reified, personified existent called “truth” could mean? Some being whose name happens to be “Truth” – like Sojourner Truth?

@KellyJay

I’d say that’s very poetic language that may have some metaphorical signification, at least for you. And that it is your opinion (as you already said that knowing = just opinion) that it somehow captures what might be true (in fact). I don’t see it.

But, because it doesn’t mean anything to me, I can’t argue it.

@kevin-eleven said
@divegeester

You lost me at "meaning".

@kellyjay said
I'd use the name of Jesus, who said He was the Way, Truth, and Life.

@vistesd2 said
@KellyJay

I’d say that’s very poetic language that may have some metaphorical signification, at least for you. And that it is your opinion (as you already said that knowing = just opinion) that it somehow captures what might be true (in fact). I don’t see it.

But, because it doesn’t mean anything to me, I can’t argue it.

@kellyjay said
If all truth is outside of us and all we
can do is ponder it, are we not just feeling around in the dark, not knowing what is
up or down?

@kellyjay said
In a universe where are needs can be met when we are hungry, we
can eat; when we are thirsty, we can drink, don't you think knowing the truth would
be right up there as well? The living Word became flesh, poetic true, but that isn't
just poetic; it gives meaning to it all as every word does.

@fmf said
The "human condition" is such that each of us finds our own "meaning of life" and navigates our way through the three-score-and-ten accordingly.

For most people in the world, this "meaning of life" is inextricably interwoven with their spiritual/religious beliefs.

These beliefs, in short, and for billions of people, provide an answer to the widespread and quintessentially human assertion: there must be more to life than this.

@moonbus said
“There must! There must!” And that is the source of all religious strife and all religious wars.

@kellyjay said
Being certain, being sure, and knowing are all internal to us, which are just opinions.
The truth is either something completely foreign and beyond us, or it isn't.