quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus I don't get this statement. Either you consider Karl Marx a philosopher or not. If yes (as some do), then he clearly changed the world, so your statement doesn't make sense to me. If not, then you clearly cannot be serious if you believe that philosphers have not changed the world, so your statement still doesnt make sense to me. Since you're such a fan of science and technology, read up a bit on Francis Bacon, a philosopher, and the father of the scientific method and one of the pioneers of the scientific revolution.

hey, he made the statement, dont grill me about it

of course philosophers have changed the world! ive already paid minor homage to them in this thread. but i still believe the time of the influential philosopher are largely over.

ok, francis bacon. heard of him, dont know anything about him though. let's see, 22 January 1561 – 9 April 1626. um, ok. kinda proves my point doesn't it? the philosopher is yesterday's influence, the computer chip, global markets, information technology etc is today's.

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus The whole point of the thought experiment was to demonstrate that hindsight is always 20/20. And since you're a fan of Karl Marx, let's look at his life. He died poor, decrepid, and without having effected any change whatsoever. His ideas only became influencial after his death. I'm sure many people in this lifetime considered him an unknown.

the difference between marx and other philosophers (in my opinion) is that marx's writings were designed with social change in mind. he didn't just write for the sake of it, or because he considered concepts of self, beauty, identity et al. to be of intrinsic value to be wondered about but largely useless to the human condition.

most of the philosophers that i have read (that didn't in some way pertain to politics) were (again, just my opinion) engaged in a serial wank-a-thon. interesting and thought-provoking no doubt! a major contribution to the human race's collection of knowledge- for sure. but significant contributors to improving the life of the average person on this planet? doubtful.

let's forget about marx for a second, can you name me contemporary philosophers that have had anywhere near that influence? in my opinion social and political forces must be in a (peculiar) particular relationship for philosophers to stand out from the crowd. a reasonably well-read person like myself can't name a single one, is this due to my own ignorance, or the less crucial role of the philosopher in modernity? (dont say post modernity or i may have to throttle you )

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus Perhaps, but again, has it always been that way and does it necessarily have to remain that way? The answer to the first question is clearly no, and the answer to the second part of the question is clearly not necessarily so.

does it necessarily have to remain that way? no. will it remain that way? almost certainly. the world has too much to worry about to delve into whether they think therefore they are

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN hey, he made the statement, dont grill me about it

But you quoted him, which means you agree with him presumably

quote:

of course philosophers have changed the world! ive already paid minor homage to them in this thread. but i still believe the time of the influential philosopher are largely over. ok, francis bacon. heard of him, dont know anything about him though. let's see, 22 January 1561 – 9 April 1626. um, ok. kinda proves my point doesn't it? the philosopher is yesterday's influence, the computer chip, global markets, information technology etc is today's.

I gave the example of Francis Bacon within the context of the claim that philosophers have only interpreted and not changed the world, not within the context of contemporary philosophers having done so since I was commenting on your quote.

quote:

the difference between marx and other philosophers (in my opinion) is that marx's writings were designed with social change in mind. he didn't just write for the sake of it, or because he considered concepts of self, beauty, identity et al. to be of intrinsic value to be wondered about but largely useless to the human condition. most of the philosophers that i have read (that didn't in some way pertain to politics) were (again, just my opinion) engaged in a serial wank-a-thon. interesting and thought-provoking no doubt! a major contribution to the human race's collection of knowledge- for sure. but significant contributors to improving the life of the average person on this planet? doubtful. let's forget about marx for a second, can you name me contemporary philosophers that have had anywhere near that influence? in my opinion social and political forces must be in a (peculiar) particular relationship for philosophers to stand out from the crowd. a reasonably well-read person like myself can't name a single one, is this due to my own ignorance, or the less crucial role of the philosopher in modernity? (dont say post modernity or i may have to throttle you )

Bertrand Russell, who revolutionized mathematics and logic, not to mention his continuing influence on computer science.

quote:

does it necessarily have to remain that way? no. will it remain that way? almost certainly. the world has too much to worry about to delve into whether they think therefore they are

We'll see

I'll try to be brief here, because I'm a bit short of time:

1. For there to be "meaning" there should be something to be "meant" (even though this is not always the case). When it is the case, you've got a signified object and a signifier word. When it is not, you've got an "empty" word. Empty words aren't of our interest here.


2. If the signifier is related to a concrete object, it's easy to point out what it means. Somehow, if you ignore the problem of universals, you know what "book" means (which is already of great interest), specially if I'm in front of you and say "this book", showing a book I'm holding. However, when you use words to refer to emotions, actions and such, the problem is a tad bit more complicated.


3. Neither "life" nor "meaning" are physical objects:
   
   
   
   1. The "meaning" of meaning is something problematic. There are several different theories of meaning, and it'd take a lot more than this post to cover all of them. "Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction (Routledge Contemporary Introductions to Philosophy)" has some interesting stuff about it. An over-simplified explanation about how I come to see meaning is that it is a representation of someone's interpretation of an idea in a discourse. For example, when I say "car", I refer to what I perceive to be a car, which is itself influenced to how cars are perceived in that culture. For example, an "apple" is a "red fruit" to me because I live in a culture where it is common to eat apples. Now, if we lived in a place where apples were mere paper-weights, the meaning of "apple" is changed radically, even though it's the same apple.
   
   
   2. Life, to me, is the property of having some rather unnatural attitudes. For example, you'd expect any given body to stand still unless an external cause made it move. If something moves on its own (i.e. if I raise my hand without any external force causing it to rise), then it's a sign of life. Obviously, vegetables aren't moving creatures, but they still grow in a very exotic manner when they're alive. There are all sorts of chemical reactions that you wouldn't expect from something "dead".
   
   


4. Get (i) and (ii) together and that's a summary of what I believe the meaning of life is (and (i) is my meaning of meaning).

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus I am thus interested in how people interpret the word 'meaning' in this question, and how they arrive at that interpretation. If people can give examples that illustrate their interpretation of the word 'meaning' in this question within other contexts, that would be much appreciated.

"Meaning" is a subjective internal state, which is going to make forming a precise, universal definition for the word as difficult as forming a universal definition for any other emotion. We think semiotically ("cognitive decoupling" in psycho-babble: the capacity to bring into our conscious experience that which is not directly in our immediate sensory experience) and "meaning", I would suggest, consitutes our visceral emotional reaction to the conscious experience of a given symbol (in this case, I suppose, words). The meaning of "meaning" to the individual, then, depends on that emotional attachement (s)he has to that word, which is - in turn - developed gradually throughout one's life in the course of conscious experience.

And the answer is to eat cake.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Live and let live would be nice.

Love, baby. Love.

quote:

Originally posted by AlphaStarred Love, baby. Love.

Gorgeous.

And that's what it is; the energy of creation, that certain universal harmony. We attempt to classify it, like a butterfly in stasis pinned to the scrapbooks with needles, or dried rose petals pressed between pages, but the entity, love, lies within every subjectivity and every objectivity we can fathom up... or that can fathom us up.

Meaning of life? Make as much money as you can, fuck as many women as you can, kill and steal from as many people as you succeed without getting caught, destroy and damage as much of environment as you succeed, close your eyes to the world's problems and issues, plug yourself into the mainstream television style living, grow up and be like the Hollywood and TV stars and everything everything else that they tell you to do by the higher-ups.

Meaning of life ... well, human spirit has been strongly squashed and suppressed over the generations. We are becoming more like fucking machines and lacking the things more and more that make us human. We dont even treat each other like humans anymore, in some part. Meaning of life ... well, its to do whatever the fuck THEY tell you to do and think, thats what I say. Its a war against human spirit, aspirations and way of life that was originally intended for us. We act less and less human with more generations to come. And thats the best way to control humans. Love, spirituality ... well, those things have been suppressed and controlled by our leaders since organized church came to power. They herded us, make us fight each other, divided us to control us better. If you think that getting a car, a house, a high-paying job is meaning of life ... well, I doubt that. You will never be fullfilled. Those are not the things that human mind, human spirit desires. We will never be free ...

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Meaning of life? Make as much money as you can, fuck as many women as you can, kill and steal from as many people as you succeed without getting caught, destroy and damage as much of environment as you succeed, close your eyes to the world's problems and issues, plug yourself into the mainstream television style living, grow up and be like the Hollywood and TV stars and everything everything else that they tell you to do by the higher-ups. Meaning of life ... well, human spirit has been strongly squashed and suppressed over the generations. We are becoming more like fucking machines and lacking the things more and more that make us human. We dont even treat each other like humans anymore, in some part. Meaning of life ... well, its to do whatever the fuck THEY tell you to do and think, thats what I say. Its a war against human spirit, aspirations and way of life that was originally intended for us. We act less and less human with more generations to come. And thats the best way to control humans. Love, spirituality ... well, those things have been suppressed and controlled by our leaders since organized church came to power. They herded us, make us fight each other, divided us to control us better. If you think that getting a car, a house, a high-paying job is meaning of life ... well, I doubt that. You will never be fullfilled. Those are not the things that human mind, human spirit desires. We will never be free ...

The majority of us have always been machines, mate.

The beautiful thing about love and spirituality and similar natures is that they aren't something the collective finds to be exact, they are only available on demand from the Self.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby The majority of us have always been machines, mate. The beautiful thing about love and spirituality and similar natures is that they aren't something the collective finds to be exact, they are only available on demand from the Self.

Current lifestyles are not natural. Even food today is not the way nature was intended it to be, so much of it is poisonous for our bodies. So many things are anti-human. Its killing us ... its an attack on humankind, not just nature. People get drunk, people intentionally poisoining and killing themselves slowly ... doing whatever they are told. We cant choose for ourselves. We are only forced to choose from the options given to us by those in control. Humans for thousands of years have enjoyed lives in healthy lifestyles ...until organized religion came around, and fucked everything up. And they created their own concepts for the meaning of life. Which goes against the natural order.

Ever spend a month in nature, away from the torments stresses and manipulations of organized society? You feel more human, more fullfilled, more free. Thats the way humans lived for many thousands of years. You actually realize your true thoughts, feelings and aspirations. You detach yourself from the propaganda of everyday lives and realize the things that are missing from your life. Yes, love and spirituality are the most important ones ...

Aaaaaaa, fuck ... now I sound like a hippy. Here comes the backlash!!! Dam, you guys will not understand what I am trying to say, I cant find the right thoughts at the moment anyway (I have never been drunk or stoned/high in my life, I am not a hippy)