Reply
Mon 13 Aug, 2007 10:34 am
What do you think of this view that all views entail meaninglessness ie self contradiction. Even nihilism and scepticism existentialism entail meaninglessness. All products of human thought entail meaninglessness -even meaninglessness entails meaninglessness
COLIN LESLIE DEAN argues an epistemological meaninglessness that claims all views all philosophies all philosophers entail meaninglessness All philosophers from the beginig such as Plato Aristotle to Nietzsche Kant Wittgenstein and all others all entail meaninglessness. All products of human thinking entail meaninglessness. Even meaninglessness entails meaninglessness Thesis and its antithesis entail meaninglessness ie the negation of the negation of the negation ad infinitum
Epistemological meaninglessness is different to and undermines skepticism and nihlism and claims these views entail meaninglessness. Epistemological meaninglessness has its greatest advocate in the philosopher Colin Leslie Dean. According to Dean's version epistemological meaninglessness entials logically via the rules of logic that all our concepts, all morals all religions, ideas of good , evil, notions of freedom, democracy all our categories, all our ideas, all theses, all antitheses all philosophies all epistemologies, all ethics, all ontologies, skepticism, nihlism, all metaphysics, even logic itself etc in other words all views, are meaningless, epistemologically- as they all logically entail meaninglessness ie self-contradiction and paradox.
EDIT: MODERATOR: DON'T POST YOUR LINKS HERE "Contentless Thought: Case Study in the Madhyamika demonstrations of the meaninglessness of all views".
The logic reduces all views to meaninglessness even mathematics and science
Dean claims that mathematics and science are meaningless in that they entail or collaspes into self-contradiction and paradox. It is claimed that there are paradoxes at the heart of mathematics and science that make them meaningless. The mystery become that even though work and creates a pc or rockets to the moon they are logically not true . So how can they create useful things when by the laws of logic they are false
"The absurdities or meaninglessness of mathematics and science: paradoxes and contradiction in mathematics and science which makes them meaningless, mathematics and science are examples of mythical thought, case study of the meaninglessness of all views" EDIT: MODERATOR: DON'T POST YOUR LINKS HERE
. What this meaninglessness means is a question that is dependent upon other views i.e. logic being an epistemic condition of truth or it not being an epistemic condition of truth.. In other words to draw a conclusion form the reduction to meaninglessness of a view/views one must assume some other epistemological ontological or metaphysical position or assumption. Now logic will also reduce these positions or assumptions to meaninglessness such that we in effect have nothing epistemologically to say at all in regard to what the reduction to meaninglessness of all views means ; since this meaning [stemming from a position or view about logic] will reduce to meaninglessness. Thus all we have is silence no more squabbling.]" Even meaninglessness entials meaninglessness logically. Logic when turned back on itself and investigates itself paradoxically entials meaninglessness or self-contradiction
EDIT: MODERATOR: DON'T POST YOUR LINKS HERE
"Aristotelian logic as an epistemic condition of truth, the grand narrative of western philosophy: logic-centrism, the limitations of Aristotelian logic, the end of Aristotelian logic, logic/essence and language lead to the meaningless of all views".
Epistemological meaninglessness goes beyound nihlism and skeptcism in claiming even these views ential meaninglessness. Epistemological meaninglessness paradoxically even claims that logically epistemological meaninglesness entials meaninglessness. Logic demonstrates that every thing including itself ential meaninglesssness or self-contradiction.
In Dean's version of epistemological meaninglessness Logic cannot prove or disprove anything all that it does is reduce all views to self-contradiction- including itself. What this meaninglessness means is a question that is dependent upon other views i.e. logic being an epistemic condition of truth or it not being an epistemic condition of truth.. In other words to draw a conclusion form the reduction to meaninglessness [ self-contradiction]of a view/views one must assume some other epistemological ontological or metaphysical position or assumption. Now logic will also reduce these positions or assumptions to meaninglessness such that we in effect have nothing epistemologically to say at all in regard to what the reduction to meaninglessness of all views means ; since this meaning [stemming from a position or view about logic] will reduce to meaninglessness. Thus all we have is silence no more squabbling
EDIT: MODERATOR: DON'T POST YOUR LINKS HERE "The dialectic reductio ad absurdum argument: a method of philosophical argumentation or analysis demonstrating the meaninglessness of all views"
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THESE CLAIMS
im thinksure that being a concious entity entitles you to define your own meanings.
I think thats pretty much think that you can say everything means nothing, love is a chemical release etc etc.. but then when you look at the big picture there is always that unknown, always a blank area.
science and religion both boil down life into this: we came from nothing.
You can say life means nothing, philosophers views mean nothing, but each person establishes their own meaning to things, im pretty sure thats what free will is all about.
If you are a depressed teenager, you might want to consider cutting yourself. Really makes a statement.
If your viewpoint is that all viewpoints are meaningless wouldn't that make your viewpoint meaningless and therefore incapable of having any substance?
Once again, the only thing that matters is Catch-22.
yes meaninglessness ends in meaninglessness -just like every other product of human thought
thesis and its antithesis end in meaninglessness
nihlism existentialism scepticism-and there antithesis all end in meaninglessness
so what does that mean
Why do you look for meaning in meaninglessness?
this reminds me of diogenes.(think plato, if he was a bum)
He said nothing mattered in this universe.
People asked him why he didnt just kill himself.
He said because it doesnt matter.
or something to that effect, whatever...
Quote:this reminds me of diogenes.(think plato, if he was a bum)
He said nothing mattered in this universe.
People asked him why he didnt just kill himself.
He said because it doesnt matter.
or something to that effect, whatever...
but Diogenes views ended in meaninglessness as well
so where does that leave Diogones
nightrider, I'm not sure how old you are. If something is meaningless or meaningful it is valued (or not) by someone or something. So indeed, if you value nothing then everything is meaningless to you. But that doesn't mean that no-one values anything. You seem to be wrestling with the scope of meaning.
Quote:that leaves him dead
if nothing matters ends in self contradiction ie everything matters but that ends in self contradiction ie nothing matters ad infinitum then Diogenes just sits there and a bind unable to move -killing himself would mean that something matted -but that ends in self contradiction
so if he does not kill himself because nothing matters then that ends in self contradiction and he is back where he stated from
poor Diogenes is locked in a circle of meaningless -every thing he does ends in meaninglessness
unless he grants something meaning, which is how things derive meaning
I read the introduction to the paper you cite.
Colin Leslie Dean wrote:The purpose of this work is to destroy the category and classificatory structures of ones reality such that " ... the student's world begins to collapse and dissolve and static consciousness begins to be dislodged ... [With] the collapse of predictive structure, the world becomes an unintelligible flux: without categorical structure or form ... rationality and judgment becomes silenced and paralyzed. This is the level of unintelligibility and meaninglessness.
Incidentally, acid and psychedelic mushrooms can have the same effect.
Quote:Incidentally, acid and psychedelic mushrooms can have the same effect.
yes meaninglessness an acid can raise consciousness-and meaninglessness costs you nothing
yes but meaninglessness is a product of your thinking a consequence of thought
without the brain damage- and you can do it just by thinking and without any cost in money
what would you prefer brain damage and no money
or dean and meaninglessness-just by thinking
I agree with dean
he seems to be taking the Madhyamika prasanga and applying it in a western context
his Copernican revolution seems to be trying to give a western context to the Madhyamika two truths ie samvriti and paramatha
paramatha in deans context is a rejection of an essentialist ontology behind our logic and language -which is what the Madhyamika point out- and thus trying to give a western slant to Madhyamika
the west basically rejects eastern mysticism
so i see dean as contextualising it in a western form the west can understand
deans meaningless of all views is just applying the prasanga to western systems
deans new Copernican revolution is just abandoning an essentialist logic and language to find other ways of seeing the universes-thus adopting Madhyamika to a western audiance with out an essentialst ontology- Madhyamika call it prattisumutpada or dependent co-arising
so i see dean as contextualising Madhyamika to a western audience brought up on on the worship of logic/rationality materalism and science- as Madhyamika say you must adopt your teaching to the spiritual level of your pupil ie graded teaching
It looks likely we are responding to Dean himself who appears to have privately publshed his own material as "Gamahucher Press" Australia.
He seems to have contibuted his diatribe under the pseudonym Gamahucher to Wikipedia.
If you refute this nightrider here's your opportunity.
Gamahucher, derrived from gamahuch, is an English erotic underground term of the 19th century. (oral sex)
Meaning, meaningfulness and meaninglessness are not properties of the world; they are mental properties. And when carried to extremes they result in paradox (e.g., a central principle of Madhyamika Buddhist philosophy: Nagarjuna?)
We ascribe meaning to the "objects" of experience, i.e., existence precedes essence. The world cannot be meaningful in the sense that it comes to us with its meanings, as if given by a god (Plato's architect or Theism's Creator).
To think otherwise is to act like the dummy who asked the astronomer how astronmy discovered the names of the planets.
i thought we disccus philosophy here
so why are you becomming obsesed with dean
i mean you seem to hunt him down with a great passion-why does his views disturb you that much or is envy that he has something original to say in this world of toe the line parroting conformity
what has dean the man got to do with his philosophy?
To argue that all views are meaningless must refer to absolute meaning, knowledge, values, etc..
To argue for the existence of absolute meanings is to ignore the existentialist principle that "existence precedes essense", that we create our own meanings. We construct them; we do not discover them. The whole business of man being a cultural animal refers to our inherent need and ability to create our own world, at the level of meaning. We do discover meaningless phenomena (existence) and then assign meaning (essences) to them No God to do it for us.
I do agree with Nietzsche that all knowing is a matter of interpretation and perspective. We make meaning as an individual and cultural point of view.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace