Ok, sorry for misquoting you. I do not see the significant difference between the two wordings, though, in regards to my point.I didn't say that I can't have knowledge of that world, I said I don't have knowledge of that world, at least not in any significant quantity.
So which person do you have in mind when saying "the meaning behind existence"?I see purpose of any particular thing as defined by its creator. I see meaning of the same thing defined by any individual interpreter. The creator of a car has his own purposes for creating the car (profits, aesthetics, etc.). The purchaser can apply his own meaning to his car (freedom, travel, utility, etc.)
"Meant" by whom?I see all natural "laws" as transcendent, meant to somehow point us to the highest realities in their own ways.
Sorry, but you have introduced a new wording that makes me wonder: "Perceiving a meaning" - which seems to imply that there is an inherent meaning that you perceive.I would perceive that the meaning of watching a movie may be to enjoy and learn from the movie, and then to leave the movie to apply the lessons learned in some way to the outside world.
Or in other words: What´s the difference between "X means Y to me." and "I perceive that the meaning of X is Y."? If there is no difference, why do you introduce such an inflated terminology?
Upvote
0