End in itself

[quatona]

actually it was the story of the cross put in different words. the belief in this scenerio that ends with the man dying is central to christianity.

And?

here, i'm a christian and i'm saying that i'm going to serve God regardless if he saves me or not. not in order to appease my own non-existant fealings of worthlessness but because HE deserves me. not i him or anything i have, even enjoyment itself.

so i would say that my motivation is his pleasure....

So? I never claimed that atheists derive their ethical stances from the desire to please the god they believe in.

and i guess you would say i'm lying to you.

Listen, this discussion is pointless if you make up my responses. If you prefer to discuss with yourself, my participation is redundant.

but i guess it stops here, if you have no further questions...i'm afraid it's not something i can prove to you in mere words.

I don´t have any questions.

the wording might not have been good, but i meant two people from any combination of any conceivable people group.

I see. If, like me, you don´t put much value in thinking in terms of groups - as opposed to individuals - this is not an important aspect.

also, i am absolutely thrilled you didn't re-post my previous last comment. i was kind of expecting you to just re-post the statements and not comment....

You asked me not to respond and you thankfully signified your comment as small-talk. As long as you don´t explicitly tell me that you don´t want a response I am assuming that this is meant to be a two way conversation - although I am starting to see the possibility that this might actually not what you are out for at all.

must have torn you apart.

With the poor success rate of your mind reading attempts so far - better not quit your dayjob.
Anyways, I am well aware how effective those little dirty power games can be.
It´s simple:
If you respond to this post I you will prove you are a troll. If not, I will assume you agree with me in all points.
or
Do you have a formal training in using these disingenious rhethorical methods or do they come naturally?

It´s just that I don´t like this sort of games. I am sure, though, there are people around who would take pleasure in engaging in such verbal power competitions with you.

 

[JoeV]

What cause is worthy enough that it would be worthwhile to devote your life to it?

I don't think it's helping people, I don't think it's love (charitable or otherwise), I don't think it's free candy, so I'm looking for what other people think.

THE TRUTH!

 

[The Nihilist]

THE TRUTH!

What truth? Furthermore, what do you mean by truth?

 

[daniel777]

With the poor success rate of your mind reading attempts so far - better not quit your dayjob.
Anyways, I am well aware how effective those little dirty power games can be.
It´s simple:
If you respond to this post I you will prove you are a troll. If not, I will assume you agree with me in all points.
or
Do you have a formal training in using these disingenious rhethorical methods or do they come naturally?

It´s just that I don´t like this sort of games. I am sure, though, there are people around who would take pleasure in engaging in such verbal power competitions with you.

quatona, you've taken this whole thing to a new level of rediculousness.

I don´t have any questions.

then that's it then...unless you want to expose my "trollishness" now...

 

[ArchaicTruth]

What truth? Furthermore, what do you mean by truth?

Understanding of all things, with or without objective concepts

 

[The Nihilist]

Understanding of all things, with or without objective concepts

I can accept that as an explanation of what it means to live for the truth, but some leg work still has to be done before i'll be convinced

 

[Received]

Meaning. It isn't a category -- you can't will a category; try willing happiness and you'll be miserable. Meaning -- that is, the transcendent "do this" that hides itself in the corner of human consciousness. Ain't no use [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]in' as to whether this meaning is divine or not; and I don't think one can assert that one is aiming for happiness when a person aims for meaning in order that he might be happy. Living with meaning as a telos involves the paradox of selfless assertion towards this meaning. Selfless here means having no interest in sustaining the self -- wholehearted interest in meaning.

& blah & blah & blah...

 

[The Nihilist]

Meaning. It isn't a category -- you can't will a category; try willing happiness and you'll be miserable. Meaning -- that is, the transcendent "do this" that hides itself in the corner of human consciousness. Ain't no use [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]in' as to whether this meaning is divine or not; and I don't think one can assert that one is aiming for happiness when a person aims for meaning in order that he might be happy. Living with meaning as a telos involves the paradox of selfless assertion towards this meaning. Selfless here means having no interest in sustaining the self -- wholehearted interest in meaning.

& blah & blah & blah...

I have no idea what you're talking about. Transcendent "do this?" Can you flesh that out?

 

[ArchaicTruth]

I can accept that as an explanation of what it means to live for the truth, but some leg work still has to be done before i'll be convinced

What exactly are you looking for exactly?

 

[Received]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Transcendent "do this?" Can you flesh that out?

Sure. Transcendent -- well, not really necessary (easy to get into a useless ontological rabbit trail), but at least metaphorical for meaning "beyond the self", as in, "what the self can strive for", and it so happens that in striving for it (whatever it is), the self goes beyond itself, reaches out beyond itself, and so transcends itself. The idea is ascension -- as one climbs a mountain and so progresses, so one consummates one's own meaning, and so progresses, transcends oneself. Immanence is the mode of not-doing, of refusal to action; of having a meaning in mind and sitting on one's can instead.

"Do this" means exactly what it says. But I don't know if I'd call it a commandment (I suppose that would be another essential difference between theistic and non-theistic forms: the theist would say this meaning is a commandment, straight from the dustjacket of divinity; the non-theist would say it isn't). Think of it in very general terms. What do people mean when they say their life has meaning, purpose? They mean that they have a particular telos, continually changing, while paradoxically staying approximately the same (but not always). A writer. His meaning is approximate to -- putting words on paper. That is the generality. He wakes up in the morning and is inclined to write. That is, his mind contains the very simple implicit invocation: well, write. However, each concrete telos he has in mind in the act of doing it may be different than other instances. At one instance it may be: write an outline; at another: handwrite notes; at another: contemplate this line scheme, this revision. And so on and on. These are instances of his particular meanings, each one acting as its own telos. Hence his meaning can be conceived both in general and particular terms.

 

[The Nihilist]

What exactly are you looking for exactly?

I would need convincing that the explanation you provided was a thing worth living for

 

[The Nihilist]

Sure. Transcendent -- well, not really necessary (easy to get into a useless ontological rabbit trail), but at least metaphorical for meaning "beyond the self", as in, "what the self can strive for", and it so happens that in striving for it (whatever it is), the self goes beyond itself, reaches out beyond itself, and so transcends itself. The idea is ascension -- as one climbs a mountain and so progresses, so one consummates one's own meaning, and so progresses, transcends oneself. Immanence is the mode of not-doing, of refusal to action; of having a meaning in mind and sitting on one's can instead.

"Do this" means exactly what it says. But I don't know if I'd call it a commandment (I suppose that would be another essential difference between theistic and non-theistic forms: the theist would say this meaning is a commandment, straight from the dustjacket of divinity; the non-theist would say it isn't). Think of it in very general terms. What do people mean when they say their life has meaning, purpose? They mean that they have a particular telos, continually changing, while paradoxically staying approximately the same (but not always). A writer. His meaning is approximate to -- putting words on paper. That is the generality. He wakes up in the morning and is inclined to write. That is, his mind contains the very simple implicit invocation: well, write. However, each concrete telos he has in mind in the act of doing it may be different than other instances. At one instance it may be: write an outline; at another: handwrite notes; at another: contemplate this line scheme, this revision. And so on and on. These are instances of his particular meanings, each one acting as its own telos. Hence his meaning can be conceived both in general and particular terms.

It sounds to me like you're telling a story about some metaphysical principle that orders our human lives. I completely don't buy it.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

I would need convincing that the explanation you provided was a thing worth living for

Well, understanding helps us to live better lives, and if everyone strove to understand the universe, themselves and others I'm confident the world would be a much better place.

If we all strive to understand, eventually we will all end up at one truth, and we will understand that everyone else trying to understand is on the same side.

I don't even need to talk about the great leaps humanity would make if everyone on this planet were like some of the wonderful people I've met here who strive to understand.

Personally, Understanding is what I want more than anything else. I will never stop trying, it's just in my nature.

 

[Received]

It sounds to me like you're telling a story about some metaphysical principle that orders our human lives. I completely don't buy it.

Well, if you're implying that I'm trying to sneak theism in, I'd say that atheist existentialism works quite fine with at least an approximation to what I'm attempting to get at.

 

[The Nihilist]

Well, if you're implying that I'm trying to sneak theism in, I'd say that atheist existentialism works quite fine with at least an approximation to what I'm attempting to get at.

Your response delights me, honestly, but I'm not quite convinced. I don't really think what you're saying is true of Heidegger, at least. Heidegger's opinion was that no act was in itself authentic or inauthentic, so I don't really think you can construe some kind of call to action in that.

 

[Received]

I think it is. Heidegger's concept of authenticity seems tied into an ideal relating to personal identity. An action is not itself authentic or inauthentic in the same way that an act is not in itself moral or immoral. For something to be moral or immoral it must be judged in relation to an ideal -- to moral values. Just so, in order for something to be authentic or inauthentic, because no act is such in itself, it must be capable of such a title only in relation to a higher ideal -- to a telos, which is terribly close to meaning; and if Heidegger did construe this as a meaning, he's joyfully stealing from Kierkegaard.

 

[The Nihilist]

I think it is. Heidegger's concept of authenticity seems tied into an ideal relating to personal identity. An action is not itself authentic or inauthentic in the same way that an act is not in itself moral or immoral. For something to be moral or immoral it must be judged in relation to an ideal -- to moral values. Just so, in order for something to be authentic or inauthentic, because no act is such in itself, it must be capable of such a title only in relation to a higher ideal -- to a telos, which is terribly close to meaning; and if Heidegger did construe this as a meaning, he's joyfully stealing from Kierkegaard.

Oh my goodness, you and I are friends.
Truthfully, it's been a painfully long time since I've read Being and Time. That being said, let me see if I can recall this properly.
It seems to me that authenticity for Heidegger involves having the correct relationship regarding one's own mortality, or Being-towards-death., and that inauthenticity has to do with an attempt to evade such a relationship. For example, we can easily get lost in our own everydayness, forgetting that every day is limited. What this relationship does not entail is any kind of additional imperative, which is what I think you're trying to sneak in, and which I tried to sneak in for a long time. I am fairly confident that this is where he makes a major break with Kierkegaard's philosophy.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What do people mean when they say their life has meaning, purpose? They mean that they have a particular telos, continually changing, while paradoxically staying approximately the same (but not always).

That's nicely put. I have a view virtually identical to this, though obviously I don't think of a telos as anything like a divine commandment or plan, but more like a natural principle of growth.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Oh my goodness, you and I are friends.

Awww, group hug! Ubermenches too!


eudaimonia,

Mark