tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post5320271118632991383..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Dissolving the Ultimate QuestionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-27931659241038882922010-06-18T16:00:52.600-04:002010-06-18T16:00:52.600-04:00Die Anyway: The purpose of life may well be reprod...Die Anyway: The purpose of life may well be reproduction from an evolutionary standpoint, but that does not moot the question of purpose for intelligent, self aware life. Even the mating dance for humans in this era involves the question of why should I mate with you? Or in a larger sense what is the purpose of adding your genes to the pool? Or memes for that matter as parenting involves memes much more than genes?<br /><br />These are not trivial questions. God has one answer. The rest of us better have one as well, and it should be much more compelling than God's.J'Carlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-7899429882799207362010-06-18T14:10:44.493-04:002010-06-18T14:10:44.493-04:00The purpose of life, as was recognized by Steve Ma...The purpose of life, as was recognized by Steve Martin in "The Jerk", is... sex. Procreative activity. The old in-out. And even that is pushing the issue. I'm somewhat equating "pupose" with "meaning" when in fact I'm completely in agreement with Julia that "the meaning of life" is incoherent. Purpose has a slight enough different connotation that I feel that I can legitimately say that the purpose of life is replication while the meaning of life is a category mistake.<br /><br />re: 42<br /><br />I live in St. Petersburg, FL where we have a baseball stadium called Tropicana Field. I'm not a baseball afficianado but I visited the stadium for my daughter's high school graduation. On the far wall out past center field was a prominent, baseball-shaped sign with a large number 42. I thought, "How cool. Someone is a big Douglas Adams fan and has put the answer to life, the universe and everything right up there for all to see and contemplate." I mentioned it to someone and they deflated my enthusiasm. It appears that there's some famous baseball player whose number is/was 42 and it's a memorial to him. But, I do see real HHGTTG references quite frequently (babelfish anyone?) and wonder how many around me get it.Die Anywayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10632857696534495049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89495222375397912162010-06-17T20:42:01.015-04:002010-06-17T20:42:01.015-04:00I have never wondered "What is the meaning of...I have never wondered "What is the meaning of life?" - I don't see the relevance, application or reason for the question. The question only has relevance in a transcendent context. The purpose of life however, is to be lived. Otherwise it wouldn't have happened. I do have a question though.. Why do humans make things so complicated?<br /><br />Some other living things/beings have a clearer purpose like bees..Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00263025801509139455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60599199684711694962010-06-15T00:28:29.019-04:002010-06-15T00:28:29.019-04:00As a thoughtful atheist I could not simply dismiss...As a thoughtful atheist I could not simply dismiss the question "What is the meaning (purpose) of life?" Essentially I reduced it to "Why do you get out of bed in the morning?" Obviously "God has plans for you" doesn't work, but one really must have an answer to the question or one simply would not get out of bed. The answer is certainly not 42, and it took a while to finally come up with a coherent answer. With thanks to John Dobbs the answer is to continue to work on my <a href="http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?pageID=90&discussionID=347103&messages_per_page=1" rel="nofollow">Legacy.</a> "I leave you this valuable and useful space."<br /><br />The space isn't going to be valuable and useful by happenstance, it will take a lifetime of concerted effort to make it so, and each day there are important things to do. So the legacy is the purpose for my life and its purpose is to provide meaning to those who might follow.J'Carlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-86300118151971514012010-06-13T00:37:36.774-04:002010-06-13T00:37:36.774-04:00Good post, Julia, but I wil ltake exception with o...Good post, Julia, but I wil ltake exception with one point. The Doctor Who episode "42" had nothign to do with Douglas Adams, although Adams had been script editor on the show back in the 1970s; the reason for the title is that, after the title credits, the adventure takes place in real time, which is 42 minutes long.<br />I am truly a Doctor Who geek.Kimpatsuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06156184889287692016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11422288655940396042010-06-12T21:30:12.746-04:002010-06-12T21:30:12.746-04:00Montag:
That's an interesting comment. I shou...Montag:<br /><br />That's an interesting comment. I shouldn't veer too far off topic, but I do want to make quick mention that some theories of meaning do make context literally part of what is meant. Specifically, as far as I understand Paul Churchland and his theory of mind from a neurocomputational perspective, meaning would have to be, quite literally, contextual. The way he accounts for how humans understand each other is more or less directly through neuroscience.<br /><br />Anyway, I confess I'm a mathematician, not a philosopher, so I'm not fully immersed in these conversations. Nevertheless I did want to make that comment before getting back to the topic at hand.<br /><br />I hope it's safe to infer from the comments I've read so far that the complaint you and Julia would have is that people try to <i>prove</i> that science can't answer certain questions by asking a question like, "What is the meaning of life?" If that's the fundamental complaint being made here, then fine, I am happy to concede that this complaint is justified. <i>My</i> only complaint is that Julia's post appears to assert that any rational person must concede that the question, "What is the meaning of life?" is incoherent. I disagree with this assertion. But then again, you're free to define "rational" in such a way that discounts me.<br /><br />At the heart of the matter, for me, is this paragraph:<br /><br />"Likewise, I would argue that life simply isn't something to which the word "meaning" can be applied. The word "meaning" has a few different standard definitions, but one of the most common refers to the information conveyed by a symbol within a system of communication, as in the question "What does this word mean?" So it would be committing a category error to ask, for example, "What is the meaning of water?" since water is not part of any system of communication. And neither is the phenomenon of human life."<br /><br />I'm not sure whether Julia is totally aware of this or not, but to many people, particularly Christians, "What is the meaning of water?" is a perfectly coherent question--particularly within the context of a tradition that, for instance, uses water in the sign of baptism. It is highly common for physical things such as water to have meaning, and for believers in some traditions, these even have transcendent meanings. (Note that baptism would not exhaust the range of meanings water can have in the Christian tradition.)<br /><br />So if the question, "What is the meaning of water?" can be taken as perfectly coherent and even natural, <i>surely</i> the question, "What is the meaning of life?" can be equally coherent. It all depends on who you ask, I suppose. If you ask a secular philosopher, "What is the meaning of life?" you might get the response, "That question is incoherent." If you ask a priest, you'll probably be taken seriously, because the priest understands the world to be one in which that question makes sense.<br /><br />If the priest is for this reason considered irrational, then I humbly submit that "rational" is being defined quite narrowly.Jameson Graberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01295353443322403779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-22046470420201770772010-06-12T09:30:41.259-04:002010-06-12T09:30:41.259-04:00Jameson:
I recently went to the first of Stephen ...Jameson:<br /><br />I recently went to the first of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Neale" rel="nofollow">Stephen Neale's</a> <a href="http://www.philosophy.sas.ac.uk/Neale_reg.php" rel="nofollow">Chandaria Lectures </a> and one of the biggest take homes is his argument that talk of context when it comes to language is simply confusing the metaphysics of meaning with the epistemology of meaning; context isn't literally part of what is meant, it's what enables us to know what is meant. It is far better to say that meaning is underdetermined by language. <br /><br />This isn't just me nit picking. An important part of any theory of meaning which accepts underdetermination is that you need to give an account of why despite this problem, human beings are really good at understanding what each other means. One of the best comes from Donald Davidson and I read him as roughly saying that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gricean_maxims" rel="nofollow">Grice's maxims</a> of effective conversation are in fact fundamental aspects of how human beings determine meaning. In particular Davidson is concerned with charity, the assumption that the people you're dealing with are reasonable. What this means is that what the person can reasonably believe forms a part of the "context" that we use to understand what they mean and I suspect that this is exactly what goes wrong when we deal with people asking questions like "what is the ultimate meaning of human existence." <br /><br />The point I'm making is that you're right that it's possible to make the sentence meaningful; specifically I'm a humanist so I'd argue meaning is something which human beings put into life. That's not the issue Julia appears to be concerned with though. Instead the problem is that often people are not really asking the question they appear to be asking. In effect what they are actually doing is taking advantage of certain linguistic necessities to create the illusion of profundity and either ignoring the need to clarify the terms, or more viciously passing the buck for explanation over to the person interpreting their meaning. I'd also go on to say that this is particuarly true for the supposed "questions only religion can answer".That Guy Montaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387637105335886493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-9092631287666197122010-06-11T15:13:22.578-04:002010-06-11T15:13:22.578-04:00That Guy Montag:
I'm not sure any question is...That Guy Montag:<br /><br />I'm not sure any question is good enough "on its own." Every question is contextual, as language is contextual.<br /><br />I disagree with this statement: "The entire point of asking "what is the meaning of life" is specifically to raise a question that science can't answer."<br /><br />That's not the only point in asking, "What is the meaning of life?" Here's a more natural point in asking such a question: life might just be something with a meaning, and if it does have a meaning, I'm really curious to know what it is. It's <i>possible</i> (though not proven, as far as I can see) that life can only have meaning if it was created by God. Well, if that possibility turns out to be right, then the question of life's meaning reduces to, "Is there a God, and if so, what was His purpose in creating us?" And that's a perfectly coherent question, even if you think the answer is "no."<br /><br />I'm hesitant to say that science is the sole or even primary source of "information that allows us to hone in on the relevant features of the world." But if you're convinced of that, then I can see why you'd think it's a waste of time to ask the kinds of questions I'm asking. And that's fine. I guess that brings up a question: what assumptions to I have to make in order to contribute to this conversation?Jameson Graberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01295353443322403779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-21443031998311727252010-06-11T07:34:39.084-04:002010-06-11T07:34:39.084-04:00Thanks for the response Jameson especially conside...Thanks for the response Jameson especially considering that looking back my original challenge looks rude. If I take you at face value though, you're missing the point. It's incredibly telling that the question on its own isn't good enough, that you need more information, because I suspect the very reason people ask questions like that is <i>because</i> it doesn't have enough information to be answered. The entire point of asking "what is the meaning of life" is specifically to raise a question that science can't answer. That's easy to do when you've taken out the information that allows us to hone in on the relevant features of the world; if you put the information back in however you've got the problem that it becomes the kind of problem religion doesn't give any good answers for and at that point you really should be looking to the relevant science such as Psychology or Ethics.That Guy Montaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387637105335886493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-77388376842619005932010-06-10T21:10:14.898-04:002010-06-10T21:10:14.898-04:00That Guy Montag:
As mufi said, the question of me...That Guy Montag:<br /><br />As mufi said, the question of meaning begs more information. That much I will grant. My only point was that the question is not <i>internally</i> inconsistent. By rejecting certain premises outright (e.g. the possibility that the universe was created by a transcendent being) one can make the question of meaning, well, meaningless. But if we leave certain premises as possibilities, then the question is still coherent.<br /><br />Again, I admit that to prove that the question is meaningful, more information has to be given. But I don't think it makes sense to attempt such a proof in this little comments section. Chances are you already know most of the world's religious suggestions that have been made toward such a proof(or if not, you really ought to have a look). There's no need to get into all of that here.<br /><br />I think it should be sufficiently clear that the question, "What is the meaning of life?" is not, <i>a priori</i>, an incoherent question. Yes, the question assumes certain things about life; but there's no reason to reject those assumptions a priori. That's all I'm trying to say.Jameson Graberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01295353443322403779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-88330655787390827082010-06-10T17:08:31.139-04:002010-06-10T17:08:31.139-04:00I'm often asked what is the point or purpose o...I'm often asked what is the point or purpose of mosquitoes? sometimes phrased as "why do mosquitoes exist?" and I explain that mosquitoes exist to make more mosquitoes. All their adaptations are present because they "work" to enable persistence. This is true of all life. The questioners often have the false premise that all non-human life was created by an intelligent designer for the benefit of humanity.<br /><br />It is also important to clarify whether one is asking "what enabled X to exist? {past}" from "given the existence of X, what will X do {future}"Derek (formerly 'me')https://www.blogger.com/profile/01993249375321760846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-69180020661147273502010-06-10T14:56:03.709-04:002010-06-10T14:56:03.709-04:00Jameson: I would agree with you that the question ...Jameson: I would agree with you that the question "what is the meaning of life?" can be made meaningful, but I think it begs for some more information. <br /><br />For example, is the inquirer looking for a definition of "life"? If so, then s/he may be satisfied with an answer from the sciences. If, however, s/he is looking for a theological answer (e.g. do what God expects of you, as revealed in the following verses of the Hebrew Bible or New Testament...), then s/he is unlikely to be satisfied with a more secular answer (i.e. lead a virtuous life, as defined by Aristotle in the following lines of Nicomachean Ethics...). In my case (as a non-theist), the theological answer is a virtual non sequitor (and even my secular example seems a bit out-dated), which suggests that I had better elaborate on the question.<br /><br />But, then, lots of questions are like this. If I did not know the political background (or subtext) behind the question "are you pro-choice or pro-life?", I might be baffled by it. (And, even knowing it, I still have a hard time not qualifying my answer.)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05381138707884092921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39527410713815483092010-06-10T14:46:17.080-04:002010-06-10T14:46:17.080-04:00Assuming you've read Eliezer Yudkowsky's a...Assuming you've read Eliezer Yudkowsky's article on this topic?<br />http://lesswrong.com/lw/og/wrong_questions/Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03278535699466229371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-91572047284755610672010-06-10T14:27:04.875-04:002010-06-10T14:27:04.875-04:00Jameson:
Then your entire comment was a giant non...Jameson:<br /><br />Then your entire comment was a giant non-sequitur. <br /><br />More broadly, it's this precise point that's inclining me to say that the Verificationism of the Logical Positivists wasn't the big bad bogie it seems to be have been made into. Am I missing something?That Guy Montaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387637105335886493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-54969415721703957202010-06-10T14:12:34.052-04:002010-06-10T14:12:34.052-04:00Thanks for that bit of clarification Nick, and you...Thanks for that bit of clarification Nick, and you too Mufi, it's nice to know where we're all standing on this and I agree with both of you that purpose is a meaningful term. Just in case it's useful for either of you I'm far more comfortable using Dan Dennett's idea of the various stances and using his terminology purpose is a way of describing a situation using the intentional stance. <br /><br />Now while you're both right, I think that point side-steps Julia's original point which is that the question itself doesn't make sense. The question "what is the purpose of life" doesn't make sense not because any of the terms are intrinsically meaningless, but because purpose as a term needs more information. In this regard it's very similar to the word good when we say things like a good cricketer (guess who isn't American) or a good knife. It's interesting to note that a question like "Is Kevin Pietersen a good cricketer?" is relatively easy to answer while the very similar question "what is good" is not. You could argue that it's simply because one is more abstract than the other but I think the reason is simpler; good is an adjective that needs a qualifier to completely make sense. I think that something similar is the problem with purpose. It's a perfectly meaningful term, and very useful when it's attached to things like a persons actions. The problem comes when we remove that extra information because what we end up with is a sentence that to all intents and purposes looks right and feels like it really is saying something meaningful, but is in fact missing a really key piece of information.That Guy Montaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387637105335886493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38684942729070005322010-06-10T13:36:59.536-04:002010-06-10T13:36:59.536-04:00BubbaRich:
You wrote, "The very posing of th...BubbaRich:<br /><br />You wrote, "The very posing of this question assumes (or implies or entails, this might be easier if I wrote it in another language...) facts that, not only have not been demonstrated, but are of fairly low probability."<br /><br />From what you say, at least you would have to concede that it is a matter of facts (and explanations of those facts) about the external world, not about some internal logical coherence. If you give me that much, I'll be satisfied.<br /><br />If you see a bunch of dots on a screen, it might or might not mean something. We might ask whether someone left it there for a reason. That same question can be applied to our lives. I don't see what's <i>internally incoherent</i> about that question. Just because you think the answer is "no" does not make it a nonsense question.<br /><br />That Guy Montag:<br /><br />No, I've not shown that the original question is meaningful, and that seems to me too big a project to accomplish in this comments section. So, I will refrain from attempting it.Jameson Graberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01295353443322403779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-14240029762326165062010-06-10T13:08:02.051-04:002010-06-10T13:08:02.051-04:00That Guy Montag: The entire point of evolution is ...That Guy Montag: <i>The entire point of evolution is that it provides an account of the appearance of teleology.</i><br /><br />Yes, as an explanatory framework, I think that's right (viz. no mindful designer or engineer is required in order to explain the origin of new species - natural processes are sufficient). <br /><br />But, insofar as organisms themselves pursue goals, or serve functions within a larger ecosystem, is it fair to say that telos is an emergent property of nature? Even if not, then it at least seems fair to say that, once we find a symbolic species like ours (in which <b>the concept</b> of "telos" is real, such that individuals can construct and pursue goals for themselves or for the societies in which they are active members), we have something very much like it.<br /><br />This may be a trivial observation or premise, and it restates what others here have said. Nonetheless, I prefer to put it this way: purpose is real - if not in nature generally - in organisms specifically - or (if that seems an overstatement) at least in our own species, symbolized in our minds and realized in our actions. This does not make purpose radically different than other lower-order, organismic processes (e.g. metabolism), but no less deserving of acknowledgment in dialogues or debates re: the philosophical implications of evolution.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05381138707884092921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-51391266863820053932010-06-10T12:19:08.572-04:002010-06-10T12:19:08.572-04:00@Thatguy: I did not say that evolution is teleolog...@Thatguy: I did not say that evolution <i>is</i> teleological. I am aware that the apparently inevitable teleological language in evolutionary descriptions does not imply an actual teleological story. My point was rather about what kind of language we are allowed to use without implying (in Julia's terms) "a creating entity".<br /><br />@Bubba: it may be that two senses of "purpose" are sometimes illegitimately combined by those who ask the question. This is irrelevant to the larger issue of whether the question itself is senseless. If there is, as I think, a valid kind of answer to the question, then it is not meaningless. Rather, the answers themselves help to clarify what we meant all along by the question... not an uncommon result in most areas of inquiry.Vanitashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03190524739107446297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-35444948509592971462010-06-10T07:58:26.512-04:002010-06-10T07:58:26.512-04:00Nick:
I'd suggest you be very careful about a...Nick:<br /><br />I'd suggest you be very careful about arguing that evolution by natural selection is teleological. The entire point of evolution is that it provides an account of the <i>appearance</i> of teleology. I can understand why you might make the mistake, thinking about organisms in terms teleology is a really useful tool in helping us get to grips with the idea, just be careful about not carrying the analogy too far. <br /><br />Jameson:<br /><br />When you say "Is life something to which the word meaning can be applied?" what you've done is changed the question so that now it can be answered; what you've not done is shown that the original question is meaningful.<br /><br />Julia:<br /><br />On the question of why people feel it is an issue worth following, the cynic in me tells me that rational people struggling to find a niche to hide their emotional attachments will naturally gravitate towards these kinds of questions. Philosophically I'll say that this kind of problem gives a strong hint that modern theories of language that focus on interpretation are right and that these kinds of problems take advantage of the assumption of rationality.That Guy Montaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387637105335886493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-34495268174166998522010-06-10T03:25:25.928-04:002010-06-10T03:25:25.928-04:00Julia, I think it's a little unfair to dismiss...Julia, I think it's a little unfair to dismiss the question as incoherent because it makes no sense when taken literally. One should ask what people mean by it. People who ask this question usually seem to mean "What is the <i>purpose</i> of (our) life?".<br /><br />But they tend to conflate two different senses of "purpose". When an object is created for a purpose, the word "purpose" can be attached to both the object and the creator:<br /> - The hammer's purpose is to drive in nails.<br /> - The creator's purpose (i.e. goal) in creating the hammer was to drive in nails.<br />When the created object is itself a person, the word "purpose" can be applied to it in both senses. So, when people ask what is the purpose of our life, they can mean both:<br /> - For what purpose are we here?<br /> - What are our purposes (i.e. our goals) in life?<br /><br />Possible answers to the first question include:<br /> - Whatever God put us here for.<br /> - Whatever goal our parents had in choosing to have children (if it was a choice).<br /> - For propagating our genes.<br /><br />Some people tend to conflate the two questions, and assume that we can't have any goals in life unless we were put here for a purpose. Or, if you say the only purpose for which we are here is to propagate our genes, they think you are saying that our goal in life must be to propagate our genes.Richard Weinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095903892283146064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-63238298618133742862010-06-10T03:21:50.849-04:002010-06-10T03:21:50.849-04:00Great post.
Some here seem to be missing the poin...Great post.<br /><br />Some here seem to be missing the point. Once you personally redefine the question to mean what we should do with our lives, it makes sense, and she seems to agree with that; but Julia's issue was that the question as typically understood by most people already implies a transcendental purpose that can only come from a superhuman agency (that likely does not exist in the first place).<br /><br />Kostas: <i>What makes life so special?</i><br /><br />Human delusions of grandeur and self-importance, nove?Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26030652726656843012010-06-10T01:00:56.257-04:002010-06-10T01:00:56.257-04:00Julia,
What purposes are served by the established...Julia,<br />What purposes are served by the established laws of physics, for example, referred to as "first principals." Are not those principles meant to serve a purpose - the question then being, if not for some first "regulator," then for what? <br />Acquired over time perhaps - which would be my guess, since what came "first" would have to be some form of nothing. <br />But are such universal purposes then acquired over time? And could not earthly life be just one form of such an acquisition? A mechanism found to then acquire purpose on its own? And who are we to say that's not the answer - and thus know not to even ask the question?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1097099521396507222010-06-10T00:02:33.501-04:002010-06-10T00:02:33.501-04:00"What is the sound of one hand clapping?"...<i> "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" The act of clapping by definition involves two hands, so the question is unanswerable.</i><br /><br />Where did you get that definition from? I have a friend who can clap with one hand. It sounds like a flapping kind of clap, like with very loose hands.<br /><br />Also, I read that Adams said he just looked up from his typewriter and said "42" and that that would do.Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-63894407040719774902010-06-09T23:49:08.099-04:002010-06-09T23:49:08.099-04:00Julia, great post. Please don't be offended t...Julia, great post. Please don't be offended that, possibly because I read it quickly, I assumed it was Massimo until I got to your byline. :)<br /><br />Jameson: You still aren't unpacking your question enough. There are plenty of implications by the passive voice in "Have we been created with a purpose?" that make the question, in my mind, nonsense. Or at least as silly as "Did a gas-cloud alien from Jupiter use its power to replace my house with one EXACTLY LIKE IT last night?" The very posing of this question assumes (or implies or entails, this might be easier if I wrote it in another language...) facts that, not only have not been demonstrated, but are of fairly low probability.<br /><br />Nick: aren't those two uses of "purpose" completely different? The first, which I regard as the more teleological, implies that the purpose is a property of the object. The second, which is how I use the term, means that the purpose is a property of the person assigning it, or, if you like, of the larger physical/social system to which the object belongs or with which it is interacting.BubbaRichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10334093723773620510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-9156055746854648042010-06-09T23:08:14.414-04:002010-06-09T23:08:14.414-04:00I think whether or not the question makes sense de...I think whether or not the question makes sense depends on your assumptions. If you start out assuming that life has meaning, it is perfectly appropriate to ask what that meaning is. You, and I would wager most here, myself included, start with the assumption that life doesn't have an intrinsic meaning. In that case, the question doesn't make sense. Even so, I think JP has it right when he hypothesizes the question ultimately emerges from our tendency to narrative thinking. Indeed, I would guess that most everyone, regardless of their assumptions about whether or not life in general has meaning, still ask as to the meaning or purpose of their own lives, and this then goes to the tendency toward narrative thinking, as well as aspects of how people conceptualize their identities and feel the need to have those identities be relational to something larger (maybe this is an aspect of our being social creatures embedded in structured groups). The answer to this lesser question is always going to be personal and subjective, with the consequence that there is no reason to expect that one's own answer necessarily make logical sense to others.<br />In any case, regardless as to ultimate answer of why we ask the question, it has clearly been, and continues to be, a very important line of inquiry in human culture (no matter whether or not it makes analytical sense), with myriad suggested answers with their own myriad attendant ramifications, and is thus interesting and worthy of study for that reason (and it is also always interesting and fun to conceptualize how the universe and life look to those who hit upon and internalize a particular answer).<br />And Julia, if I might ask, if you don't understand what people mean when they ask what the meaning of life is, have you thought of asking what they mean? I don't mean to be hectoring, but it seems to be a logical next step.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16038143823260179846noreply@blogger.com