Mortality and Pointlessness

I've missed the point of this statement, then:



which sounded to me like a statement that the heat death of the universe, or the negation of existence, will or would render all meanings moot. Did I misinterpret?

Yes sire you did misinterpret. That's the super-short-absurd-absolutist version to make a point not express my views in their entirety.

In that case, I will leave it to others to debate the merits of your argument, since I personally have much trouble making sense of rendering the concept of "meaning" into a matter of energy transference, or lack thereof. If others find that track illuminating, forge ahead!

See Post: 3006506 & Post: 3006537

I did, several times, and the utility of casting "meaning" in terms of energy transference is still not obvious to me, except as a way of removing the term from a sense that anyone can relate to. But as I mentioned, your conception of meaning does not involve human agents, so nothing has been lost that hasn't already been sacrificed.

If I am going to break it down and argue the points individually and in more detail, I would need to know that:

a) you will abide by argumentation theory
b) you will review the topics I ask
c) you will stick around

I would naturally show you equal courtesy. And under those conditions it would at worst be an amusing holiday diversion, and at best a discovery of the unknown.

Sure. The only thing I would request in turn is that we not bother to go through the rigmarole if the concept of "pointlessness" that you are going to address is one that results from an inevitable state of affairs and/or one which, when it obtains, will apply equally to everything (i.e. any one particular thing will be as pointless as any other particular thing). I've already stated my views about conceptions of pointlessness that are universal rather than circumstantial in posts #2993470 and #2998315, so I don't want to waste your time or mine if you are planning to explicate your argument in support of a conception of pointlessness whose criteria attempt to transcend the specificity of any one particular instance. That kind of pointlessness, while worthy of debate among those who are interested in it, is not the kind that I am referring to.

Till tomorrow then, it's time for a pre-Christmas fridge raid as the wife has gone to bed......

I know the above was not written to me; however having gone to the link you gave on argumentation theory, I found the following excerpt interesting:

"Although including debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions, argumentation theory also encompasses the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal."

So, I don't know if your intent is to claim victory over those discussing the merits of the thread's initial post? Plus, your need to work within the confines of argumentation theory is making rules that need not apply to any attempt to prove or disprove the merit of the thread's initial post. If anything, it just seems to me, that this argumention theory paradigm allows you to not explain your rebuttals in depth, but just refer to an argumentation theory rule/definition. It seems to me that you're managing this thread like some religions might conduct a service, in that you are saying "this is how I conduct my discussion."

You are not officiating over a class. So, your "rules" reflects, in my opinion, a degree of control that really isn't consistent with sharing your knowledge, but winning over an opponent. This seems more like what the political forum does, but philosophy, I thought, attempts to reach a truth that others understand.

Anyway, like I believe the other poster mentioned (if I understood correctly), "meaning" that I understand comes from sentient beings, not from a static or energy transferring universe.

I believe, "meaning" can only be something sentient beings ascribe to anything. So, at the point that the universe is static, that staticness would make the concept of meaning a non-sequitor, based on the false premise that we thinking beings "now" can give "no meaning" to a point in the future when there would be a static universe, with no sentient beings. Meaning exists or doesn't exist only when there is a sentient being to make the determination (like the observation in quantum physics makes either a particle or a wave).

Foofie,

1) They are not my rules.

2) Without a similar agreed upon structure between myself and Shapeless congruency is at risk. Note that there has not even been the defining of terms as per meaning.

3) The branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal would be more in the realm of political debate but is certainly has its place in "Philosophy & Debate". For example I have brought to your attention a number of your prior dubious claims however you have entirely failed to substantiate them thus leaving me with no alternative but to consider your claims in question spurious.

4) I have no obligation to share your unsubstantiated notions.

5) I will as I'm inclined bring such unsubstantiated notions to task.

6) I would expect nothing less than substantiated rational logicality from an intelligent poster presenting a given viewpoint.

7) All opinions are not equal.

Let's see if we can reach consensus on "meaning" firstly and as such I ask that you consider the following:

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.

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

"To task"? What are you saying? But, don't answer; its just that I thought you should be aware that to me your style of posting, to me, is too pedantic and/or didactic, for my level of comfort, in my opinion. Perhaps, you don't post this way to others, I don't know, and it's none of my business.

It being Christmas Eve, and to all a good night!

I'm not entirely sure what the difference between "importance" and "meaning" is in this context, so it is strange to me see the latter being described as a function of the former. But that is a relatively small and mostly semantic detail that needn't deter us, so on that score I'm happy to forge ahead.

More generally, however, I would ask you to clarify where people would fit in if we were to apply this model to any individual case, since, as I mentioned earlier, one of my primary concerns is the role of agency in any discussion of "meaning," "influence," or "importance." I don't see how those terms can be coherently used without reference to the agents for whom things are meaningful, influential, or important. I'm not suggesting that you name specific people, of course; I'm suggesting that you reformulate your concept of meaning, however slightly, such that its agents are in the foreground, and that we make it clear at all times where they come into play.

If I were to offer my own model of meaning, for example, I would propose that _____ is meaningful to someone if he or she believes he or she is better off for having known, experienced, or been familiar with _____. I think this model has the advantage of allowing us to talk about meaning without requiring it to be a function of specific parameters (let alone just two of them), and indeed it does not even require meaning to be articulatable. It simply requires that the thing being judged as meaningful elicit a reaction in someone (thus reinforcing the role of agency), which I suspect is closer to the way people actually experience meaning in the real world anyway, though of course that is my opinion.

This model does not seem to me to be contradictory or incompatible to yours, but it is best to check.

Happy Holidays to both Shapeless & Foofie and all others who might drift by! Shapeless, I'll review your post in detail and respond in kind.

Happy Holidays to you as well, Chumly, and anyone else who may be "listening in." Cheers.

Seriously, what's the point of asking what is the point of life?

Generally speaking I'm inclined to say there isn't one, JLN, except maybe the amusement and/or mental exercise, and I've been known to indulge in both from time to time. I'm on vacation, after all.

I essentially agree, Shapeless, except that I would like to add "interest" (and then there are spiritual possibilities that need no mentioning here).

I essentially agree, Shapeless, except that I would like to add "interest" (and then there are spiritual possibilities--that are this-worldly rather than other-worldly--that need no mentioning here).

we are gona die anyway so why not have a little fun and do something worthwhile, it be boring if we didnt.