Toward a Spiritual Philosophy

Originally posted by vistesd
Thanks for your response and helpful questions.

Yes, self-evident is too strong a term. (This was also before I read Scrib’s essay on the nature of axioms.) For the moment I’ll drop back top something like “intuitively clear to me.” If one wants to take them as simply premises, that’s fine.

[b]Re meaning:

I tend to ask people what they mean b ...[text shortened]... ld not argue a moral theory strictly from the, possibly pathological, tails of the distribution.[/b]

I'm having some trouble with the interchangeability of 'understanding' and 'meaning'. I undertand your view of meaning as an interpretive process of weaving particulars into a larger integrated context, and that seems largely fair enough -- and that also seems consistent with understanding. But some hold that meaning is an intrinsically normative notion in that statements of meaning imply normative statements related to conditions of "correct" application (how things may/may not or ought/ought not be applied). If that's true, then I think we can draw some important distinctions between 'meaning' and 'understanding'. At least, at any rate, I think meaning in this context will have to be largely normative and based on what one values. I'm not really sure how to formulate 'meaning'; I have been looking at some ways others have tried to do it, but I haven't found any that really grabbed me.

Consider P.W. Zapffe, as one example: "That an action or some other fragment of life has meaning means that it gives us a quite specific feeling that is not easy to translate into thought. It would have to be something like the action having good enough intention, so that when the intention is fulfilled, the action is 'justified', settled, confirmed -- and the subject calms down."

I have seen other formulations that involve the idea of self-realization; others that involve the idea of life's having discernable content.

All of these seem normative to me and grounded on one's values since they inform our intentions; our ideas of what sort of self is to be realized; our evaluations of the content of our existence; etc.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I'm having some trouble with the interchangeability of 'understanding' and 'meaning'. I undertand your view of meaning as an interpretive process of weaving particulars into a larger integrated context, and that seems largely fair enough -- and that also seems consistent with understanding. But some hold that meaning is an intrinsically normative notion ...[text shortened]... f is to be realized; our evaluations of the content of our existence; etc.

Language is normative: we cannot communicate if we are following different norms for our use of language—playing different language games. If I ask, in a particular context of discourse, “What does the word ‘meaning’ mean? Can you explain to me how you are using it, what it ‘means’ to you in this context?”—you can either give me a definition or explanation that we can agree on to continue the discourse, or not.

Now, “meaning as understanding” is (according to the dictionary, which need not be the final arbiter—especially in specific areas of discourse; e.g., religion, philosophy) a normative use of the word. I also, of course, accept “meaning” as meaning “definition.”

In another context of discourse, I might use the word meaning in the sense of value (though given the confusion seen on here, I am likely to insist on using the word value, if that’s what I mean).

The problem is, whenever we start to talk about such things as “the meaning of life”—what do we mean? A rich and flourishing way of living? A purpose? An extrinsic value (e.g., to some super being)?

In some contexts, I might be able to accept something like Zapffe’s attempt—if I can understand what he means. The “meaning of life” certainly seems to have something to do with self-realization for me, too—but than are we talking about telos, or the feeling of having fulfilled some telos? It seems to me in all these cases, that we are attempting to give the word meaning some intensive definition in order to understand what we’re talking about.

In the context of Absurdism, I chose to mean meaning as understanding; and I think it is there a justifiable choice. It seems clear to me that when many people talk about “meaning” in life, they are looking for a clear, objective and true understanding of what “life is about”—an understanding disclosed by either the cosmos itself or some kind of divine revelation; and that is what I say does not happen.

To what extent the cosmos discloses value, I am not sure. As for purpose, I might speculate about “natural imperatives to survive and to thrive”; I might speak of eudaimonia. But, in such cases, have I really escaped from the hermeneutic requirement to engage the syntax of the cosmos with the grammar of my consciousness? Or am I being self-deceptive? Does the existential content disclose meaning—or just itself as content—facts, relationships, patterns?

In the absurd situation, hermeneutics seems pretty foundational to me... I think Camus would dislike all attempts to “leap” beyond that hermeneutical tension... (I recently read a book called Radical Hermeneutics by Frank D. Caputo, who made similar arguments, though not from Camus.)