Meaninglessness of science mathematics religion- EVERYTHING

[Eudaimonist]

I knows Poe's, but what's Bot's ?

Just an idle thought. Nevermind.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elspeth688]

his seems a pretty convoluted way to arrive at existentialism

did you not listen everthing is meaningless even existentialism
existentialism puts forward thesis ie existence preceds essence
all thesis entail meaninglessness as do all antithesis
you obviously not know what the meaninglessness of every thing is

 

[IzzyPop]

did you not listen everthing is meaningless even existentialism
existentialism puts forward thesis ie existence preceds essence
all thesis entail meaninglessness as do all antithesis
you obviously not know what the meaninglessness of every thing is

I get that you are saying that 'existentialism is based on philosophy which is meaningless'. My point is that if everything is meaningless, then existentialism would be the logical terminus of that line of thought.

 

[Elspeth688]

My point is that if everything is meaningless, then existentialism would be the logical terminus of that line of thought.

how can it be the logical terminus of meaninglessnes when it and every thesis antthesis is meaningless
any ism that puts fowrd a thesis will entail meaninglessness ie existentialism is just meaningless babble like all the rest

 

[IzzyPop]

how can it be the logical terminus of meaninglessnes when it and every thesis antthesis is meaningless
any ism that puts fowrd a thesis will entail meaninglessness ie existentialism is just meaningless babble like all the rest

Okay. Follow along.

1) Everything is objectively meaningless.
2) People search for and find meaning in the world.
3) For both statements 1 and 2 to be true 'meaning' is a personal and subjective value that is assigned to an object or idea.
4) I assign meaning to a meaningless universe.
5) I am responsible for whatever meaning I assign.

This explains existentialism pretty well. What you are positing (meaningless universe) has been posited before over 100 years aog by multiple people. Try reading Sartre, Camus, and/or Keirkegaard.

 

[Elspeth688]

This explains existentialism pretty well. What you are positing (meaningless universe) has been posited before over 100 years aog by multiple people. Try reading Sartre, Camus, and/or Keirkegaard.

sorry
the notion that the universe is meaningless itself collapes into meaninglessnes
as dean says nihlism is meaningless
cant u get it yet EVERYTHING IS MEANINGLESS ie ends in self contradictuion
the existentialist claim that the universe is meaningless will it self end in self contradiction ie meaninglesnes

 

[IzzyPop]

sorry
the notion that the universe is meaningless itself collapes into meaninglessnes
as dean says nihlism is meaningless
cant u get it yet EVERYTHING IS MEANINGLESS ie ends in self contradictuion
the existentialist claim that the universe is meaningless will it self end in self contradiction ie meaninglesnes

I do 'get it'. We are adrift and alone in a random and meaningless universe. As I said:

Try reading Sartre, Camus, and/or Keirkegaard.

You still have not demonstrated how this view is significantly different than existentialism.

 

[Elspeth688]

I do 'get it'. We are adrift and alone in a random and meaningless universe. As I said

sorry that claim will end in self contradiction as well and is thus meaningless
you r trying to derive meaning from meaningless but all views or meanings will end in self contradiction

 

[IzzyPop]

sorry that claim will end in self contradiction as well and is thus meaningless
you r trying to derive meaning from meaningless but all views or meanings will end in self contradiction

Consistently repeating a phrase (with or without punctuation) does not make it true. Prove to me that 'all views or meanings will end in self-contradiction'.

 

[QuickandSilver]

Why does all this remind me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry and George try to sell a TV network on the idea of a TV show about nothing?

If the OP is an attempt to make nothing out of everything and invalidate all other members' comments while subsuming deep wisdom upon him/her self, so what?

Where's the payoff? Where the envisioned victory?

 

[Elspeth688]

Prove to me that 'all views or meanings will end in self-contradiction'.

hey if there was a proof there would be one thing that was not meaningless ie the proof-so a proof cant be given

but here one for u
logic has the law of idenity ie a thing has an essence which makes it different from other things
but anti essentiaism prooves that there is no essence
they use logic which must have an essence ie law of identity
but they deny the very thing that is required for the demonstration of no essence
if logic itself end in self contradiction then all reason is meaninglessness as the logic we use to construct our arguments is by its own standard self-contradictory and thus meaningless

 

[IzzyPop]

hey if there was a proof there would be one thing that was not meaningless ie the proof-so a proof cant be given

How convenient for you.

but here one for u
logic has the law of idenity ie a thing has an essence which makes it different from other things

The Law of Identity says nothing about essence. It deals with existence. A tree is not essentially a tree, it is a tree.

but anti essentiaism prooves that there is no essence

Non sequiter given that we are discussing existence, not essence.

they use logic which must have an essence ie law of identity

See answer to step 1, plus I'm not sure that the Law of identity applies to metaphysical/non-physical objects.

but they deny the very thing that is required for the demonstration of no essence

A faulty premise has led to this faulty conclusion. GIGO

if logic itself end in self contradiction then all reason is meaninglessness as the logic we use to construct our arguments is by its own standard self-contradictory and thus meaningless

Still no proof, nor any remarkable difference from existentialism.

 

[Elspeth688]

The Law of Identity says nothing about essence. It deals with existence. A tree is not essentially a tree, it is a tree.

sorrry einstein
the law of idenity deals withis essence
go read aristoles metapghysics

[FONT=&quot]Namely the logic Aristotle uses to investigate ‘being’ must assume an ontological object a ‘being’ in order to investigate ‘being’; but this ontological object ‘being’ is itself in need of investigation or justification itself. The most certain of all principles is the law of non-contradiction with its corollary the law of identity. As he states “… the principle which the student of any form of Being must grasp is … it is impossible for the same attribute at once to belong and not belong to the same thing …”[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] Aristotle, 1947, 1V.111. 8-9.

[FONT=&quot] Gibson claims that of the three laws the law of identity is the more fundamental as it is implied in any proposition and presupposed by the law of non-contradiction. As Gibson notes “… the principle of identity is logically the more fundamental. It is implied in the stating of a proposition and is therefore presupposed in the very enunciation of the principle of non-contradiction.” [FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] In this regard the law of identity is the ultimate foundation upon which logic rests, without an ‘identity’ (for the symbols of logic) logic is overthrown and collapses[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] W. R. B, Gibson, 1908, p,95.

[FONT=&quot]Thus as O’ Hear notes, logic is not ontologically neutral it implies an ontology. Again as he notes “[l]ogic, indeed is not metaphysically neutral but may well reveal the types of things various forms of thought and argument commit us to.”[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] Putnam similarly claims that logic derives from metaphysics the belief in substances. As he notes, “[w]e get at the very beginning of logic, a metaphysics accompanying it and conditioning it.”[FONT=&quot][2][/FONT] Heidegger argued that “logic [is to ] be investigated on the ontological level. Symbolic logic also requires such a “founding” or ontological interpretation.”[FONT=&quot][3][/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] ibid., p.154.

[FONT=&quot][2][/FONT] C. Hookway, op. cit., p.272

[FONT=&quot][3][/FONT] T. Flay 1977., p.8.

 

[quatona]

sorry
the notion that the universe is meaningless itself collapes into meaninglessnes
as dean says nihlism is meaningless
cant u get it yet EVERYTHING IS MEANINGLESS ie ends in self contradictuion
the existentialist claim that the universe is meaningless will it self end in self contradiction ie meaninglesnes

So what?

 

[Elspeth688]

So what?

that is for you to work out or find
just like a zen koan which forces one to arrive at their own truth

 

[quatona]

that is for you to work out or find
just like a zen koan which forces one to arrive at their own truth

Ok, but that´s a pretty old hat, you know. Been there, done that.

 

[Elspeth688]

Ok, but that´s a pretty old hat, you know. Been there, done that.

sorry u have not
u thought meaninglessness =existentialism
untill i showed you that for dean even existentialism = meaninglesness
so dean has taken u to a completly new place -a place one step beyound existentialism
where everything is meaningless or self-contradictory

so you have a complelty new thing to think about and end up some thoughts that will be meaniglessnes

you have not been hear before
as you thinking meaningless of the universe was what dean was on about
but the view" the universe is meaningless" it self ends in self contradiction or meaninglessnes SO YOU R AT A COMPLELTY NEWWWWWWWWWW PLACE

 

[quatona]

sorry u have not
u thought meaninglessness =existentialism
untill i showed you that for dean even existentialism = meaninglesness

I have no idea how you know what I think or thought. Fact is that I have never said anything to this effect (and haven´t even used the term "existentialism" only once), and since I am world´s leading expert when it comes to the question what I think, I can tell you with great authority that this is not what I thought.

where everything is meaningless or self-contradictory

Yes, I have understood it. It is an old hat. A sort of meta-nihilism, which I can easily refute by applying it to itself: It is meaningless and self-contradictory. What´s the problem?

so you have a complelty new thing to think about and end up some thoughts that will be meaniglessnes

No, actually I am a step ahead of you.

you have not been hear before
as you thinking meaningless of the universe was what dean was on about

I´d really prefer you not to attempt to read my thoughts. Just go by what I write. I didn´t think this was what Dean was getting at.

but the view" the universe is meaningless" it self ends in self contradiction or meaninglessnes SO YOU R AT A COMPLELTY NEWWWWWWWWWW PLACE

You can capitalize it all you want. I assure you, that I have been there long ago.
The next step for you: Acknowledging that Dean´s statement is - by virtue of itself - meaningless and/or self-contradictory.

 

[Elspeth688]

Yes, I have understood it. It is an old hat. A sort of meta-nihilism, which I can easily refute by applying it to itself: It is meaningless and self-contradictory. What´s the problem?

yes but so is everything else
it is no use trying to refute dean by saying he is self-conytradictory becasuse every view including his is is self contradictory

even if u proved him to be self contradictory
yiou are stil left with every other view being self contradictory

he is not saying every view is self contradictory except his
he is saying ALLLLLLL VIEWS ARE SELF CONTRADICTORY

do you understand the word ALLLL

 

[Eudaimonist]

yes but so is everything else
it is no use trying to refute dean by saying he is self-conytradictory becasuse every view including his is is self contradictory

even if u proved him to be self contradictory
yiou are stil left with every other view being self contradictory

he is not saying every view is self contradictory except his
he is saying ALLLLLLL VIEWS ARE SELF CONTRADICTORY

do you understand the word ALLLL

If his view is self-contradictory, then we cannot know that all views are self-contradictory. Some may not be.

You, however, are self-contradictory since you think that self-contradictory thought can actually prove that all thought is self-contradictory.

You may be safely ignored, as your have proven absolutely nothing.


eudaimonia,

Mark