Mortality and Pointlessness

With an end, ongoing meaning dissipates into meaninglessness.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

With an end, ongoing meaning dissipates into meaninglessness.

That's a subjective opinion.

0 Replies

Nope it's not subjective, show me meaning once at the heat death of the universe / once existence is negated.

0 Replies

Are you wearing your philosophical boots, chumly?

0 Replies

That or army boots!

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Shapeless and Miklos,

I'm not saying we should worry about death or that we should worry that it undermines our projects. I'm just suggesting that it does, in fact, undermine them. Of course, it undermines the project (if it can be called a project) of worrying about death undermining our projects. It undermines the discussion we are having.

I'm not saying that our awareness of death makes us feel like all of our projects are pointless. I agree that that isn't necessarily true. Instead, I'm saying that the fact that we will die renders all of our projects actually pointless. This would be the case even if we didn't know we were going to die, or even if we didn't know that our projects are pointless.

Hanno,

So what if we do get stronger for 21 years? (I'm not sure that we do, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument.) After a while we start getting weaker, and then we die. Right?
What makes you think immortality -
especially immortality with any quality of life - is an option?

www.IANDS.org

0 Replies

I could rejoin this discussion, but what's the point?

0 Replies

To sate the immediacy of your intent.

0 Replies

Some guys have risked their lives to achieve a goal of their liking
or
knowingly and intentionally sacrificed their mortal lives
( notably, soldiers in combat ) for that purpose.

Altho I have always considered myself to be a very selfish fellow,
my fierce hatred and loathing of socialism,
during the 3rd World War,
wud have moven me to do so to kill communism,
or merely to resist commie tanks rolling down my street,
if that had happened.

David

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Nope it's not subjective, show me meaning once at the heat death of the universe / once existence is negated.

The above, to me, seems like a poetic way of expression and makes me wonder if I really understand your thought?

Regardless, since we all have a finite life, I don't think that makes our respective existence meaningless; especially, if we are not totally caught up in our egos, and can find value in doing something we value for our life's efforts. (Yes, redundancy makes my point.)

The focus on meaninglessness is just a concept, or is it fraught with the meaninglessness of depression?

And, the whole god/religion aspect, I believe, can't just be ignored for those that subscribe to it.

I think the onus really falls on you to prove the meaninglessness, since that is your assertion. I don't have to prove meaning, since I subscribe to an existential meaning; meaning for me.

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

The above, to me, seems like a poetic way of expression and makes me wonder if I really understand your thought?

Nope. No poeticism implied or intended. I rely on the second law of thermodynamics as discussed prior.

Foofie wrote:

Regardless, since we all have a finite life, I don't think that makes our respective existence meaningless;

If you are, with this text, intending to counter a claim in which you gather I take an opposite tact, you'd best quote me, else you will be guilty of the Straw Man Logical Fallacy whereby you misrepresent my position.

Foofie wrote:

..especially, if we are not totally caught up in our egos, and can find value in doing something we value for our life's efforts. (Yes, redundancy makes my point.)

As to any assertion on your part that the ego (as I assume you mean it in this context) delineates the degree of presumed meaning, you have made no arguments whatsoever to support such a viewpoint and thus I consider it not only spurious but akin to the logical Fallacy called the Non Sequitur in that its conclusion does not follow from its premise.

Foofie wrote:

The focus on meaninglessness is just a concept, or is it fraught with the meaninglessness of depression?

Before I can respond in kind I would need to know if you are you asking me a question or posing it as rhetorical.

Foofie wrote:

I think the onus really falls on you to prove the meaninglessness, since that is your assertion.

As to where the onus lies and in what order, you need to learn Argumentation Theory. Suffice it to say that at this point I have made a claim as per meaning and used the second law of thermodynamics as merited substantiation; you however you have made a number of claims, none of which you have substantiated and thus none of which have any merit in this context.

Foofie wrote:

I don't have to prove meaning, since I subscribe to an existential meaning; meaning for me.

Total nonsense. Again you need to learn Argumentation Theory. Your assertion is false that you do not have to substantiate your claims if you expect them to have any merit in this context.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Total nonsense. Again you need to learn Argumentation Theory. Your assertion is false that you do not have to substantiate your claims if you expect them to have any merit in this context.

No. I don't have to learn Argumentation Theory, since I'm not in a high school, or college, debating team. I believe what you need to learn, if you choose to, is what journalism majors learn, write for your reader (since one is not "arguing" with one's reader; one is explaining to one's reader).

So, you are not really explaining your position to me, other than using canned debating techniques, with respective titles. You may not be talking down to me; however, you are not talking to me. You really are in another league; you may take that as a compliment.

0 Replies

Your affiliations or lack thereof are irrelevant to the fact that you provide no substantiation for your claim that you don't have to prove meaning.

Your apparent ignorance* of the second law of thermodynamics, argumentation theory and failure to substantiate a number of claims inclusive of your aforementioned claim is of your own making, and not of my presentation.

Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Ignorance is sometimes misinterpreted as a synonym of stupidity, and is often taken as an insult, but not in this context Foofie.

Neither is there an ad hominem argument on my part. I am not attacking a characteristic of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument so as to change the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

I rely on the second law of thermodynamics as discussed prior.

Could you perhaps clarify how and why the second law of thermodynamics is applicable to the concept of "meaning"?

0 Replies

I am not laying claim to having substantiated the concept of meaning via the second law of thermodynamics. That would be a straw man logical fallacy on your part as it's a misrepresentation of my position if that is your position, if it is not all well and good.

Further I have not defined my terms as per meaning, at least in the context of this thread, nor have you defined your terms as per meaning in the context of this tread (that I am aware of - correct me if I am wrong).

Nor have we come to mutual agreement as to a definition of meaning in this context. All three particulars need to be met before we can lurch ahead with some semblance of respect for argumentation theory.

Having said that, I will propose that in this context: "meaning would be a relative function of importance as measured by influence". Example 1: the greater influence / the greater the importance / the greater meaning. Example 2: the lesser the influence / the lesser the importance / the lesser the meaning.

I now put the ball in your court for the second of the three particulars.

Understandably once we have a working agreed upon definition of meaning with the context of our duologue I will further expand upon the claim you bring to question.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

I am not laying claim to having substantiated the concept of meaning via the second law of thermodynamics. That would be a straw man logical fallacy on your part as it's a misrepresentation of my position.

It would indeed be a straw man argument, had I actually been making an argument. But I was just asking a question for purposes of clarification. Perhaps I've missed the thread of your argument--could you clarify in what capacity you cited the second law of thermodynamics vis-à-vis this discussion of "meaning?" I'm also trying to get a handle on the role of the heat death of the universe to the discussion of "meaning" (I'll continue to put the term in quotes until I've provided my own definition of the term, though you may of course continue to use your own). Any clarifications you can provide are greatly appreciated.

0 Replies

I'll jump ahead dangerously past argumentation theory, given we have not defined our terms, on the condition that we do follow argumentation theory.

By prematurely expanding on the claim you bring to question without a firstly agreed upon definition of meaning leaves me in the unenviable position of having to defend a definition of meaning of which there is yet congruence on.

Scrunches up face and takes big breath:

1) Given that the heat death of the universe means no energy transference is possible, there can be no influence* when that point is reached.

2) If there will at some point be no influence*, then by my aforementioned definition* there will at some point be no meaning.

3) If at some point there will be no meaning, then meaning is relative prior to the heat death of the universe, and absurd once at the heat death of the universe.

4) If one accepts that meaning is relative prior to the heat death of the universe, then as soon as a given circumstance that is purported to have meaning ceases to have influence, it becomes meaningless.

5) I argue that there are innumerable given circumstances purported to have meaning, of which at some point prior to the heat death of the universe cease to have influence.

An individual human life for example, a raindrop for example; rather the reverse of the Butterfly Effect alas!

*As discussed: I will propose that in this context: "meaning would be a relative function of importance as measured by influence". Example 1: the greater influence / the greater the importance / the greater meaning. Example 2: the lesser the influence / the lesser the importance / the lesser the meaning.

0 Replies

The Wiki references should clear up the why the second law of thermodynamics relates to the heat death of the universe, as well as put us on good footing for the other concepts:

Second law of thermodynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

Heat death of the universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death

Argumentation theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory

Meaning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning

Butterfly Effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

0 Replies

Dangerous waters though we may find ourselves wading in, I think I have a better grasp on your argument, which is all I was really looking for anyway, so I think the risk was worth it. Thanks.

My response to your explanation is similar to my response to Agrote's initial one: if the inevitability of "pointlessness" rests on things like the eventual heat death of the universe and/or the negation of existence, as you put it, then it doesn't strike me as something whose ramifications I need to confront or are of any serious moral urgency to me. (Not that you were arguing that they should be.)

For me, "meaningfulness" and "pointlessness" are not useful terms except in relation to human agents (the people who assign such terms) with motives that they act upon. Your model operates largely without agents, since the kind of pointlessness you are discussing (in this thread) is an inevitable and ultimate consequence of physical laws; according to this conception, "pointlessness" is not a judgment but a state of affairs that, when it obtains, will include everyone indiscriminately within its purview. The kind of pointlessness whose implications I do feel obliged to confront, by contrast, is the circumstantial kind, the kind issued by a human agent for reasons that are unique to the thing being judged as pointless, for motives that are unique to that agent.

All this is just to say that I don't quite disagree with your assessment of the inevitability of pointlessness, just as I didn't with Agrote's. Rather, it is to say that an ultimate pointlessness imposed by the heat death of the universe is one I can accept without losing much sleep, and whose implications I'm happy to leave to the far more abler hands of philosophers.

0 Replies

No that's not it.

I am not arguing that the so-called "inevitability of pointlessness" rests on the heat death of the universe. I use that only as a reference in the absurd / absolute sense as discussed.

Your response to my explanation is a non sequitur.

0 Replies

Mortality and Pointlessness

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know