Didymos Thomas wrote:
Why does a monist perspective reduce everything "we think of as meaningful" to meaninglessness?
I would agree with you if you say that the monist perspective changes the way we look at what we call meaningful, but I do not understand why the meaningful becomes meaninglessness.
I think that part of why my position isn't clear, is that my previous post is in part in reaction to myself. Or rather a years old, ongoing dialog with myself. I apologize. Public masturbation is rude, and the intellectual variety is confusing. I'll try to be more direct, and expansive below.
The scientific method, is essential an attempt to derive truths (little t, plural) of a specific kind. To me an essential aspect that these truths share is that they are "consequential" in nature. Science, because of it's methodology, is only capable of revealing the results of consequence. That is it examines the "outcomes" of "interactions" between "objects", "forces", and "environments." (There is another set of activities that is referred to as science, that is cataloging. I'm ignoring this as the specifics of how this knowledge is categorized derive from the scientific method. These science related catalogs are not in and of themselves science per say.)
All this chattering is an attempt to invoke a specific line of thinking that I've experienced. I'm not particularly good at that though, so I'll just get to my result.
The limits of a method of thought are directly related to it's methodology. What the method of science precludes are those truths that have no consequences. I assert, though I do not know how to logically "prove", that the scope of science (that is which knowledge it can in principle reach) are all things, and processes that have observable consequences.
So what is left beyond science are only those things that are non consequential, in other words things that do not matter, because they have no effects. (I don't think that this is a language game but it may be.)
Now of course there are many areas of knowledge that science has no "good" answers for at the moment. I assert however that all things that affect the universe are within the reach of scientific understanding.
This truth though is constructed, in the sense that none of it is meaningful to the universe
. All of science is a "convenience" for us; as you put it. We, as humans create meanings in our heads that reflect how the universe effects us! It is impure, though not untrue, that the resulting ideas reflect reality.
That's pretty much the relevant part of what I was getting at.
My comments about what The Truth looks like are personal opinion. I believe that the universe is a collection of "stuff" that is "happening" and that's all there is. The the fun stuff is in the consequential truths that lurk about us, from which we create the texture of our world.
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Only if existence demands that whatever exists, exists in of itself - that is, without the rest of reality. At least, this is the only danger I see, and to be honest, I'm not sure what the trouble is.
It very much depends on what kind of monism you're going for. Much of modern physics is monistic philosophically. The pursuit of so called grand unified theories are certainly monistic pursuits.
The thing is that even if this sort of monism is real, we still need to have multiple realms of rules in order to gain truths of consequence which we can actually act upon.
My question would be, what is/are an/some example(s) of areas where science is unsatisfactory?
That is what is the specific weakness that you'd like to correct?