Two subjects that bother me in philosophy; truth and meaning

Lbeard

With meaning, it's if something has meaning; like life for instance. This meaning is validating in itself...but without meaning there is a crisis. But does it make a material difference either way. Is there anything offered by having a meaning, and is there any crisis without one.

And similarly with "truth". Typically with the religous it's something like "Jesus is the truth"...but the truth of what they never say. And then people working in philosophy occasionally grasp for a similarly vacuous and empty "truth" - as if it is valid in itself.

Black Swan

Lbeard wrote: »

And similarly with "truth". Typically with the religous it's something like "Jesus is the truth"...but the truth of what they never say. And then people working in philosophy occasionally grasp for a similarly vacuous and empty "truth" - as if it is valid in itself.

To add to the confusion, you may encounter a postmodern deconstructionist like Jacques Derrida, whereupon he suggests that True/False judgments are not always equally balanced, mutually exclusive nominal categorisations; rather, they often occur in a hierarchy, where truth is preferred over falsehood (i.e., suffering from the problematic nature of dichotomies).

Lbeard

Black Swan wrote: »

To add to the confusion, you may encounter a postmodern deconstructionist like Jacques Derrida, whereupon he suggests that True/False judgments are not always equally balanced, mutually exclusive nominal categorisations; rather, they often occur in a hierarchy, where truth is preferred over falsehood (i.e., suffering from the problematic nature of dichotomies).

Even worse. The truth I'm talking about is not the logical binary (true or untrue). But the Kierkegaard's truth (I don't want a discussion on Kierkegaard specifically - just to note Kierkegaard was religious.) and the Hypathia of Alexandria's truth - it was said, and sometimes the quote is attributed to her, that she never married as she was wedded to the truth.

It's the revealed truth. For the religious its' a holy revelation - the truth and meaning shall be revealed by a higher power. For Hypathia, the Greek Rationalist, and even enlightenment rationalists, the truth shall be revealed through "science", or the enlightenment of reason. Even with the atheist "rationalist", there is an assumption of a hierarchy, that all the little truths and meanings revealed through examination will coalesce into at superstructure that will reveal the ultimate truth and meaning.

For the rationalist*, once materialism is fully understood, it can be transcended. And for the religious, this transcendence is achieved through literally a deus ex machina.

*My rationalist here is the rationalist who makes assumptions. They see Pythagoras's theorem, and they believe there is a fundamental geometric explanation for the entire universe, though they have seen no proof.

Black Swan

Lbeard wrote: »

For Hypathia, the Greek Rationalist, and even enlightenment rationalists, the truth shall be revealed through "science", or the enlightenment of reason. Even with the atheist "rationalist", there is an assumption of a hierarchy, that all the little truths and meanings revealed through examination will coalesce into at superstructure that will reveal the ultimate truth and meaning.

Max Weber had suggested in Economy and Society that there was a continuous progression of rationalization, moving towards increasing efficiency and effectiveness. This instrumental means-ends rationality was said to be replacing the traditional beliefs and authority structures of past and present societies in a continuous march towards rationalization, along with replacing their prescribed truths; i.e., replacing what had been rehearsed over generations as repetitious affirmations of truth with something more efficient and effective towards mastering the natural world in a practical sense: an ethos of science and technology.

When suggesting this, Weber raised the problematic specter of what constituted truth, and how this relatively new version of truth was used to justify the progression towards a very instrumentally practical means-ends rationality. Do the ends justify the means, and to what extent were these means and ends subject to the shaping and constraints of values?

Weber cautioned that no one was value free, nor were the means or ends of this form of rationalization; i.e., advancing science and technology did not have a truth that was completely separate from human values, rather such advancements may be affected by those shared human values (and accepted truths) of the time. Instrumental rationality, and its emergent science and technology, was not purely objective, and was value rationalized and to some extent biased; e.g., a problem deliberated in the ethics of science.

Are historically old traditional truths being replaced by relatively new instrumentally rationalized truths emerging from the practice of science and technology, and to what extent do humans accept these new truths in the same way that they accepted the old ones, without question, as if they had a life of their own? Is that part of your question raised here in this thread?

Lbeard

Black Swan wrote: »

Are historically old traditional truths being replaced by relatively new instrumentally rationalized truths emerging from the practice of science and technology, and to what extent do humans accept these new truths in the same way that they accepted the old ones, without question, as if they had a life of their own? Is that part of your question raised here in this thread?

Yes. But I would say the rationalised truths emerging from the practice of science and technology, are not emerging, that they are in fact being projected onto "science" - a new more credible home for all those religious dreads and hopes.

If the problems of religion were with irrational beliefs, then removing God from the equation, doesn't solve it. Instead of a solution, you have more of the same problem - or worse; the problem seems solved when it hasn't been. Weber never lived to see the mass euthanasia project of 1930s' Germany. But this is where rationalism led. The end result does look patently irrational and insane, but logic can lead you to some crazy places. And the logic of a religious believer can lead, in small rational steps at a time, to the locations of equal lunacy.

Caonima

[QUOTE=Lbeard;85941631If the problems of religion were with irrational beliefs, then removing God from the equation, doesn't solve it. [/QUOTE]

Forgive me, this is my first post in Philosophy.

I can't help but feel that as 'god' is a man-made structure then removing him will change nothing. He is merely the embodiment of an ideology, a construct to apply ultimatums to. The logic of god is what needs to be questioned, not whether he exists or not.

Again, sorry if this treads on toes - first time poster here

Lbeard

Caonima wrote: »

I can't help but feel that as 'god' is a man-made structure then removing him will change nothing.

On your first point I agree with you (a religious fundamentalist wouldn't). But on your second point - removing him/God not changing anything. It's not that simple. The structure is there because there are people with a deep need for it - remove their God, and instead of abandoning the structure completely, they make another one. They'll project the structure onto something else. So when they say they believe in "science" - it's some kind of strange pagan god they've constructed.

He is merely the embodiment of an ideology, a construct to apply ultimatums to. The logic of god is what needs to be questioned, not whether he exists or not.

But that kind of questioning goes on. A lot of the Jewish and Christian texts they're discourses on materialism - there isn't ultimatums or absolutes. The supernatural elements were never meant to be taken literally. Or maybe they were, literal interpretations for idiots, who needed literal interpretations, and for everyone else they're obviously not factual, but for the purpose of examining the world. Moral fables. Some is pure hocus pocus, nonsense, bathwater.

Ideology is impossible to escape from. I'm not advocating religion. But the moment you believe your actions and perspectives are ideology free. at the point you're in a danger zone of being unable to distinguish reality from ideology.

Again, sorry if this treads on toes - first time poster here

I have big toes, you can even stamp on them, if you like.

MaxWig

Caonima wrote: »

Forgive me, this is my first post in Philosophy.

I can't help but feel that as 'god' is a man-made structure then removing him will change nothing. He is merely the embodiment of an ideology, a construct to apply ultimatums to. The logic of god is what needs to be questioned, not whether he exists or not.

Again, sorry if this treads on toes - first time poster here

And if he is the embodiment of an ideology, then he cannot be removed.

He can be replaced, and replaced, and replaced - but a rose by any other name.......

We all have our God. And we all need its wisdom, real or not

Joe1919

Lbeard wrote: »

........ Is there anything offered by having a meaning, and is there any crisis without one.

There is a view and some empirical evidence that life's pain and sufferings are easier to bear when we have some kind of understanding of their meaning. e.g.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15082122

Viktor Frankl quotes Nietzsche when he states "He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how."

MaxWig

Joe1919 wrote: »

There is a view and some empirical evidence that life's pain and sufferings are easier to bear when we have some kind of understanding of their meaning. e.g.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15082122

Viktor Frankl quotes Nietzsche when he states "He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how."

Isn't that a fundamentally different 'meaning' than a philosophical one.

As in, I'm willing to put up with this pain as I know it 'means' I have a better chance of making the team

vs.

I'm willing to put up with the pain because I know it means my life is not a colossal waste of time

Lbeard

MaxWig wrote: »

Isn't that a fundamentally different 'meaning' than a philosophical one.

As in, I'm willing to put up with this pain as I know it 'means' I have a better chance of making the team

vs.

I'm willing to put up with the pain because I know it means my life is not a colossal waste of time

But both statements are equivalent. There isn't a philosophical distinction. To examine why making the team isn't a colossal waste of time, or how your life is a colossal waste of time or not, it's a philosophical examination. If it's of any value, is another question.

If you believe your life could be a colossal waste of time, if that gives you anxiety, places you in a crisis, you'd first have to ask whose time is being wasted?

Whose time are you wasting?

Joe1919

MaxWig wrote: »

Isn't that a fundamentally different 'meaning' than a philosophical one.

As in, I'm willing to put up with this pain as I know it 'means' I have a better chance of making the team

vs.

I'm willing to put up with the pain because I know it means my life is not a colossal waste of time

I think the word 'meaning' can be used in different senses. e.g. existential (purpose) versus epistemology.(knowledge)

I suppose, in this instance, I am referring to meaning in the sense of life's purpose or 'telos'. We are considered to be 'goal directed animals' (Aristotle) and we flourish at our best when we make some progress in pursuing these goals. (Maslow's idea of self actualization).

Some sociologists (e.g below) believe that we 'construct' meaning but I prefer Frankl's more objective idea that we have to find or discover this meaning for ourselves. (In order to do this, we must 'know thyself'and I suppose we must have some knowledge of ourselves and our existence)

http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v52/steve.htm

Lbeard

Joe1919 wrote: »

I think the word 'meaning' can be used in different senses. e.g. existential (purpose) versus epistemology.(knowledge)

Existence doesn't require a meaning. It doesn't require anything beyond itself. It requires no teleological under pinning. And what can be known of it, can be known, and what can't, can't.

I suppose, in this instance, I am referring to meaning in the sense of life's purpose or 'telos'. We are considered to be 'goal directed animals' (Aristotle) and we flourish at our best when we make some progress in pursuing these goals.

That's a naieve extrapolation. Examine any simple object or subject; like a fridge freezer, or a microwave oven. Through an epistemological enquiry, you will determine its' function - and from that its' telos. And the naive extrapolation is to determining after the examination of many objects, and finding their telos/purpose, that there is a universal hierarchy of purpose - that everything is ultimately serving a higher purpose and the universe and existence has some ultimate meaning. But follow this stairway to heaven, and where does it take you? At the higher echelons of your system you'll either have humans, or one higher; God - who just happens to have created himself in our image, or he created himself in ours.

(Maslow's idea of self actualization).

Yeah, well Maslow was a moron. His "self actualization" was some kind of spiritual attainment.

Trust me. There is no crock of gold at the end of the rainbow. There's nothing for your self to be actualised into. And what Maslow means by actualisation is realisation. As in your current existence is inauthentic and lacking in reality because your true self is occulted from you, due to some airy fairy, lack of self knowledge. That when you achieve this knowledge you will travel from unreality to reality. You shall be actualised.

You have no 'true' self. Nothing is hidden from you. This is as good as it gets, and there is no escape.

Happy

Happy, indeed.

Some sociologists (e.g below) believe that we 'construct' meaning but I prefer Frankl's more objective idea that we have to find or discover this meaning for ourselves. (In order to do this, we must 'know thyself'and I suppose we must have some knowledge of ourselves and our existence)

That's more or less the non-religious take on existentialism. The religious version is God is playing some trick on, and you have to find God's intended meaning through self realization. And this is as much rubbish as Maslow.


There is no meaning, purpose, or whatever to your life, the universe or anything...

<snip>

Driveby Dogboy

There is no meaning, there is no truth.

Joe1919

Lbeard wrote: »

...... Examine any simple object or subject; like a fridge freezer, or a microwave oven. Through an epistemological enquiry, you will determine its' function - and from that its' telos........

Think about the above. The microwave oven can have many functions. For example, I can use it to heat food. But, I can also use it to hide money in or I can put it against a door as a door stop or as a weapon by firing it down the stairs. ( I have seen sheep farmers use old fridges as shelters for new born lambs)

The point I am making is that 'purpose' is subjective. The microwave oven is an object that is used for a purpose by a subject. Its 'intended' ( as intended by the designer) purpose is to heat food. ( note the word 'intend' refers to subject. e.g 'I intend' or 'you intend)

My point then is that 'meaning' or 'purpose' is always subjective in that it is only a subject that can find a purpose or meaning in an object.

Please note that I am not referring or have made no references to any type of 'ultimate' meaning. I am referring to my own personal goals and purposes. The finding of some great ultimate purpose or scheme of things is something else.

Albert Camus wrote a classic called 'The Myth of Sisyphus' in which he argued that life seemed ultimately absurd and without ultimate meaning. He did nevertheless concede that meaning can be 'Ephemeral'.

MaxWig

Lbeard wrote: »

But both statements are equivalent. There isn't a philosophical distinction. To examine why making the team isn't a colossal waste of time, or how your life is a colossal waste of time or not, it's a philosophical examination. If it's of any value, is another question.

If you believe your life could be a colossal waste of time, if that gives you anxiety, places you in a crisis, you'd first have to ask whose time is being wasted?

Whose time are you wasting?

There is a very clear distinction in the meaning we attempt to create in order to better comprehend our existence, and the 'meaning' our senses create as a result of 'filling in the blanks' in our sensory blind-spots. The example given is an experiment that clearly illustrates that the brain creates information in the absence of a full picture. Where a threat to structural elements in the body are perceived, the brain sends a more intense pain signal.

The rest of your post is slightly obscure, so I'm afraid I don't quite follow. I always believe its best to fully embrace the potential of the English language. It has such a rich explanatory tradition, that it seems a waste to talk in riddle.

MaxWig

Lbeard wrote: »

.

Yeah, well Maslow was a moron. His "self actualization" was some kind of spiritual attainment.

Trust me. There is no crock of gold at the end of the rainbow. There's nothing for your self to be actualised into. And what Maslow means by actualisation is realisation. As in your current existence is inauthentic and lacking in reality because your true self is occulted from you, due to some airy fairy, lack of self knowledge. That when you achieve this knowledge you will travel from unreality to reality. You shall be actualised.

You have no 'true' self. Nothing is hidden from you. This is as good as it gets, and there is no escape.

Happy, indeed.



<snip>

I'd certainly disagree that Maslow was a moron.
Whether you disagree with the idea of spiritual attainment or not, we are all engaged in some form of search for meaning. We cannot but be.

There is no objective truth perhaps, but there are an infinite amount of truths to be had. Actualisation is not about finding some hidden knowledge 'out there', quite the opposite. It is about acceptance and change. Change is deceptively simple, or impossibly hard depending on your relationship with meaning, with yourself and with your existence. Likewise acceptance. Accepting the 'truth' is not easy, especially as you rightly suggest, there is no 'true self'. But there is a self that will facilitate optimum growth.

You portray existence as stagnant, unchanging, and predictable, when it is anything but.

And I would also disagree that nothing is hidden from you. I think very much is hidden, either through necessity or design.

mariaalice

Life does not have to have some objective meaning in order for your life to be meaningful it just has to be meaningful to you alone, you can make up the meaning yourself you do not need some knowledge or truth, ultimately we are not important in the great scheme of thing we live for a brief time and pass on. I think for most ( not all people ) people suffering has no meaning.

Joe1919

mariaalice wrote: »

..... I think for most ( not all people ) people suffering has no meaning.

You may be right ( in that for many people, suffering is perhaps meaningless at a higher abstract level). In my view, there is a reason and purpose for all pains and sufferings. For example, pains warn us that something is not OK in our body (and to some extent control our behavior by punishing us when we dont look after ourselves).
We suffer boredom and loneliness when we have nothing meaningful to do or no meaningful social relationships.
We suffer grief after a great loss or after an injustice etc.

Studies were carried out on patients with cancer pain ( McGuire, Yarbro, Ferrell, Cancer pain management,) and it was observed that the pain had meaning on three levels. 1 On the immediate level, the pain meant that the patient had a disease that could result in death. 2 On the more abstract level, the pain meant challenge, suffering and grief, fear, helplessness and powerlessness. 3. On the even more abstract level, patients tended to discuss pain in terms of some ultimate cause, (such as whether the pain was God will or just random and whether the pain was serving a positive purpose). The same authors report that the meaning we give to pain often affects our attitude and treatment and reports cases of people refusing pain medication because they feel guilty and believe that their pain is punishment for their own wrongdoing.

There is a danger that in trying to discover the reason/meaning for our suffering, we construct the wrong meaning. For example, a child who suffers much abuse/bullying may suffer low self esteem and guilt by wrongly interpreting the suffering and blaming himself rather than the abuser/bully.

PS. Its almost exactly 50 years (28 Aug 1963) since Martin Luther King made his famous speech (I had a dream) in which he controversially states that 'unearned suffering is redemptive'.

mariaalice

I am talking of people who try and ascribe meaning to why something has happened to them instead of truly understanding it is very random, people make up all sorts of reason why things happen to them I happen to think understanding that there really is no meaning to what happened to you is much better that constant why why. I have always though it is very egotistical to think I matter in the great vastness of time. That does not mean I am not important to or that I don't care about myself.