3
   

Arbitrary Reality?

 
 
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2010 10:32 pm
I have come to see reality as meaningless and therefore a wonderful playground for all imaginable thought.

Have you come to this conclusion that there is no meaning in the universe?

Why or why not?
 
55hikky
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 12:57 am
@A Lyn Fei,
well, yeah... but...

so what are you doing now?

do you go around killing people, because nothing matters?
or realizing this, you still go about paying taxes, making payments, buying $3 coffee and watching $15 movies?

what sort of meaning did you come up with that allows you to keep living?
i mean, if you were smart enough to figure this out, there's no way you can just keep living this false lie, this fabricated "society" we are hypnotized to. So what keeps you from falling asleep, and not caring enough to wake up to reality the next morning?

or do you go about your day not eating, sleeping, or doing anything that relates to emotions, empirical phenomenons, environmental situations, etc. because it's arbitrary?
-55hikky

ps not trying to by cynical, just wondering what you came up with. since you just posted a conclusion without any body to this post
Arjuna
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 06:09 am
@55hikky,
Like with creating art, there are active and passive aspects. Too much of either screws the pooch.

Realizing that events don't have innate meaning frees us to examine the significance we're giving them.

So it's like I live in a movie that I wrote. There ends up being two me's. One me I recognize as the meaning giver... the other me receives this same meaning as if it comes from outside... that me doesn't realize the true source of meaning...

If the two me's suddenly became fused, it would be like waking up in a dream.... which I've done, so I can tell you: it makes the dream evaporate.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 07:56 pm
@A Lyn Fei,
A Lyn Fei wrote:

I have come to see reality as meaningless and therefore a wonderful playground for all imaginable thought.

Have you come to this conclusion that there is no meaning in the universe?

Why or why not?


How can we come to a conclusion when there is no argument? There can be conclusions only where there are arguments. What is your argument for the conclusion that reality is meaningless? Then the conclusion of that argument can be discussed. But, now, you do not have a conclusion. You have a bare assertion (if that).
0 Replies
 
A Lyn Fei
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 10:16 pm
@55hikky,
I posted only a conclusion because I want to know if other people came to it and I want to know why without providing that why.

I don't go around killing people. Saying that nothing matters is just as false as saying things have meaning, perhaps only for the connotation.

Having come to the conclusion that the universe holds no tangible meaning, I have become a much happier person. Sometimes I wonder if it is a faulty conclusion because it provided an answer to unanswerable questions- and therefore provided peace.

Of course I cannot live life in the way that everyone expects to live life. I try to maintain a level of what everyone knows as normalcy in my day to day life. I do pay my taxes and attend my classes, though I dislike coffee.

What I don't do is pretend that I believe these arbitrary things have meaning. I still love life. I have emotions. I like feeling them. Even more so now than I used to. Any meaning I feel is something that I create.

And your ideas on reality?
GoshisDead
 
  3  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 12:47 am
@A Lyn Fei,
Ultimate meaning? Why must there be one? I don't know that there is. However one thing resonates with me. When people extend a non-meaningness to the universe it seems as if that idea analogs a machine. I tend to think of machines as lifeless and not capable of having meaning unto themselves. Machines have only the meaning that beings capable of granting meaning and purpose grant it. However if we saw the universe were itself a being with life and anima, a mega-organism of a sort maybe there is meaning. Maybe as the universe's very existence like our very existence is meaning enough.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 07:31 am
@A Lyn Fei,
A Lyn Fei wrote:

I posted only a conclusion because I want to know if other people came to it and I want to know why without providing that why.

I don't go around killing people. Saying that nothing matters is just as false as saying things have meaning, perhaps only for the connotation.

Having come to the conclusion that the universe holds no tangible meaning, I have become a much happier person. Sometimes I wonder if it is a faulty conclusion because it provided an answer to unanswerable questions- and therefore provided peace.

Of course I cannot live life in the way that everyone expects to live life. I try to maintain a level of what everyone knows as normalcy in my day to day life. I do pay my taxes and attend my classes, though I dislike coffee.

What I don't do is pretend that I believe these arbitrary things have meaning. I still love life. I have emotions. I like feeling them. Even more so now than I used to. Any meaning I feel is something that I create.

And your ideas on reality?


From what I can understand from the earlier post, and from this post, you believe that it is both true and it is false that the universe is meaningless. Is that right? If not, you tell me what your position is?
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 07:37 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:

Ultimate meaning? Why must there be one? I don't know that there is. However one thing resonates with me. When people extend a non-meaningness to the universe it seems as if that idea analogs a machine. I tend to think of machines as lifeless and not capable of having meaning unto themselves. Machines have only the meaning that beings capable of granting meaning and purpose grant it. However if we saw the universe were itself a being with life and anima, a mega-organism of a sort maybe there is meaning. Maybe as the universe's very existence like our very existence is meaning enough.




However if we saw the universe were itself a being with life and anima, a mega-organism of a sort maybe there is meaning. Maybe as the universe's very existence like our very existence is meaning enough.

Why would anyone see the universe that way? And that the universe exists is "enough" means what? "Enough" for what?

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must keep silent" (Wittgenstein).
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 08:30 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

And that the universe exists is "enough" means what? "Enough" for what?

Good question ka.... I appreciate your posts.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 10:36 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

Ultimate meaning? Why must there be one? I don't know that there is. However one thing resonates with me. When people extend a non-meaningness to the universe it seems as if that idea analogs a machine. I tend to think of machines as lifeless and not capable of having meaning unto themselves. Machines have only the meaning that beings capable of granting meaning and purpose grant it. However if we saw the universe were itself a being with life and anima, a mega-organism of a sort maybe there is meaning. Maybe as the universe's very existence like our very existence is meaning enough.




However if we saw the universe were itself a being with life and anima, a mega-organism of a sort maybe there is meaning. Maybe as the universe's very existence like our very existence is meaning enough.

Why would anyone see the universe that way? And that the universe exists is "enough" means what? "Enough" for what?

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must keep silent" (Wittgenstein).


Really you have to whine about what was clearly pure speculation?

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must keep silent" (Wittgenstein).
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 10:39 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

Ultimate meaning? Why must there be one? I don't know that there is. However one thing resonates with me. When people extend a non-meaningness to the universe it seems as if that idea analogs a machine. I tend to think of machines as lifeless and not capable of having meaning unto themselves. Machines have only the meaning that beings capable of granting meaning and purpose grant it. However if we saw the universe were itself a being with life and anima, a mega-organism of a sort maybe there is meaning. Maybe as the universe's very existence like our very existence is meaning enough.




However if we saw the universe were itself a being with life and anima, a mega-organism of a sort maybe there is meaning. Maybe as the universe's very existence like our very existence is meaning enough.

Why would anyone see the universe that way? And that the universe exists is "enough" means what? "Enough" for what?

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must keep silent" (Wittgenstein).


Really you have to whine about what was clearly pure speculation?

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must keep silent" (Wittgenstein).


Why would you think that asking a question is "whining"? Well, come to think of it, you very well might do so.
0 Replies
 
GoshisDead
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 10:42 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

And that the universe exists is "enough" means what? "Enough" for what?

Good question ka.... I appreciate your posts.


What was intended from the speculative post was a metaphorical extension of the difference between how we as humans often view machines versus how we view living beings. If the universe were a living being, existence might be anough to give it meaning. Another thing I was attempting to express is that people may be discounting existence as mechanical as well. Our existence and ability to make meaning, percieve meaning ect... This could be meaning in itself. Possibly the pupose of existence is to make meaning. Possibly our need to have meaning is the meaning. Who cares how we got this way. Do we need an ultimate cause to have meaning? Does the universe need a creator or ultimate cause to have meaning?
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 01:52 pm
@A Lyn Fei,
There are no greater meaning or cause for humans, our purpose of life is what we make it to be. Imo too many are too naive and think ther MUST be a meaning with life, a reason to exist and bla bla ..yawn!
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Sep, 2010 08:23 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:

Arjuna wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

And that the universe exists is "enough" means what? "Enough" for what?

Good question ka.... I appreciate your posts.


What was intended from the speculative post was a metaphorical extension of the difference between how we as humans often view machines versus how we view living beings. If the universe were a living being, existence might be anough to give it meaning. Another thing I was attempting to express is that people may be discounting existence as mechanical as well. Our existence and ability to make meaning, percieve meaning ect... This could be meaning in itself. Possibly the pupose of existence is to make meaning. Possibly our need to have meaning is the meaning. Who cares how we got this way. Do we need an ultimate cause to have meaning? Does the universe need a creator or ultimate cause to have meaning?


"If the universe were a living being, existence might be enough to give it meaning."

Whose existence? Do you mean the predicate "exists"? Is not the universe already existing? Why do we need to add more existence to a thing to give it meaning? Is that not simply redundant?

Also how is "existence" itself mechanical? To exist=to be mechanical? That makes no sense because existence is already presupposed in "to be mechanical" by the the expression "to be".

Is not meaning given with it's use?

"Whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent" -Wittgenstein (I'll hop on the quoting-major-philosophers-bandwagon as well teehee).
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Sep, 2010 10:17 am
@Ding an Sich,
Ding an Sich wrote:

"If the universe were a living being, existence might be enough to give it meaning."

Whose existence? Do you mean the predicate "exists"? Is not the universe already existing? Why do we need to add more existence to a thing to give it meaning? Is that not simply redundant?

If you read my original post, you will notice that the speculation is from our projections of metaphor onto the universe. The universe's existence is not in question. How we percieve the universe is.
Ding an Sich wrote:

Also how is "existence" itself mechanical? To exist=to be mechanical? That makes no sense because existence is already presupposed in "to be mechanical" by the the expression "to be".

Existence itself may or may not be mechanical. Again to project metaphor on the function and form of the universe, mechanical versus organic. The former is normally seen as having no anima the latter often seen as having anima. It is a lot easier to anthropomorphize the latter thereby also giving it the need to have meaning for itself.

Ding an Sich wrote:

Is not meaning given with it's use?

The meaning and function of meaning is sort of a tautology. One must give meaning to have meaning. It cannot exist inherently as far as we know. Yet a sentient being that needs meaning will give meaning so meaning may inherently exist in the need to give meaning, or if it is inherent in the existence of a sentient being to need meaning then existing may infact be meaning in itself.


"Neener Neener Neener you don't got a wiener" -Wittgenstein (when he was 6 teehee I figured since we are taunting people with petty quotes...).



Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Sep, 2010 10:35 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:


if it is inherent in the existence of a sentient being to need meaning then existing may infact be meaning in itself.

Woe. That makes sense. Meaninglessness is the shadow that makes it possible to be conscious of meaning? Ergo meaninglessness is necessary part of knowing that you exist and that you're conscious?

GoshisDead wrote:

"Neener Neener Neener you don't got a wiener" -Wittgenstein.

The debate continues regarding what exactly he meant by that.




[/quote]
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Sep, 2010 11:01 am
@A Lyn Fei,
Hi A Lyn

Everything is meaningless outside of the subjective.
Even that has no purpose, other than to provide an action with a reaction.

Take care.

Mark...
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  2  
Reply Wed 8 Sep, 2010 05:53 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:

Ding an Sich wrote:

"If the universe were a living being, existence might be enough to give it meaning."

Whose existence? Do you mean the predicate "exists"? Is not the universe already existing? Why do we need to add more existence to a thing to give it meaning? Is that not simply redundant?

If you read my original post, you will notice that the speculation is from our projections of metaphor onto the universe. The universe's existence is not in question. How we percieve the universe is.
Ding an Sich wrote:

Also how is "existence" itself mechanical? To exist=to be mechanical? That makes no sense because existence is already presupposed in "to be mechanical" by the the expression "to be".

Existence itself may or may not be mechanical. Again to project metaphor on the function and form of the universe, mechanical versus organic. The former is normally seen as having no anima the latter often seen as having anima. It is a lot easier to anthropomorphize the latter thereby also giving it the need to have meaning for itself.

Ding an Sich wrote:

Is not meaning given with it's use?

The meaning and function of meaning is sort of a tautology. One must give meaning to have meaning. It cannot exist inherently as far as we know. Yet a sentient being that needs meaning will give meaning so meaning may inherently exist in the need to give meaning, or if it is inherent in the existence of a sentient being to need meaning then existing may infact be meaning in itself.


Well are we being serious about this metaphor, or is this wasted speculation? Simply put, are you trying to prove something? If so can you please tell me what it is, from premises to conclusion. Then we can move on.

GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Sep, 2010 06:10 pm
@Ding an Sich,
It is speculation, speculation is a serious argument it doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny. I cannot prove anything. My first post states as much. It is, however, something to seriously think about. So I would say that it is not wasted speculation, at least for me, because I enjoy thinking about such things. I would also say it is not wasted speculation because it has the potential to ring significant, which is all one can expect in cases such as these where any real truth is impossible to fathom.
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Sep, 2010 06:27 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:

It is speculation, speculation is a serious argument it doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny. I cannot prove anything. My first post states as much. It is, however, something to seriously think about. So I would say that it is not wasted speculation, at least for me, because I enjoy thinking about such things. I would also say it is not wasted speculation because it has the potential to ring significant, which is all one can expect in cases such as these where any real truth is impossible to fathom.


Then why are you even speaking? I can speculate all day on what the world might be; but this does not change what the world is. In fact, I can spout all day on what the world might be and assert what it is from this based on zero proof. I can say that the "World is organic" and that it's entity is constantly moving (a dynamical process. Much like Hegel). But I need to prove this. In fact, the proof actually falls on me, based upon my assertion of the conclusion.

Dialogue: Say I am sitting with my friend and he tells me that "God exists." I would find this rather queer and ask him, "on what grounds?" and he simply tells me, "I just feel it." - Well that is not very good proof at all on anything huh?

But let us, if you are willing, make this thread worthwhile and take your metaphor seriously. If you want we can do this good old fashion Plato style (dialogue that is.). Perhaps we can salvage something from this. In fact, I am sure that by the end of this we can come to a better understanding of the world. Or maybe not.

Do you wish to engage?
 

Related Topics

Nature of gun laws - Discussion by gungasnake
Reality - thing or phenomenon? - Question by Cyracuz
Atheism - Discussion by littlek
Is Reality a Social Construction ? - Discussion by fresco
Reality and the mind - Question by NoemaNovel
The 10 Most Destructive Americans - Discussion by coldjoint
Deportation Bus - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Arbitrary Reality?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/21/2020 at 12:37:15