Curiouser and curiouser. Examining my own history, I can only find one history source where such an idea is propogated. I find a whole a bookshelf containg all kinds of books from science to reference to fiction of every variety, poetry, all speaking to the contrary.Originally Posted by Gary Wassner
You don't think that we have been taught that selfishness is bad? That to only think of value as something that pertains to our personal lives is the right way to think of value? To be totally egocentric is what we should aspire to? Maybe we are not understanding one another here, but As far as I am concerned, I have always been reminded that deeds leave marks upon history and those marks are more important than the pleasure one might derive from the moment.
Most famous people in history are remembered for their DEEDS not their possessions.
This is what you wrote:How can finding meaning in our life be selfish and petty? If we discover that meaning can only be found in the context of the life we live, how has history taught us that such a meaning is selfish and petty?We can only find meaning in context, the context of our own lives, and to look elsewhere is folly. So why has history and wisdom taught us that such thinking is selfish and petty?
Now, you writeand I must insist that you have changed the basis of the conversation. What we do can, of course, be selfish. If we find meaning in it, that isn't.You don't think that we have been taught that selfishness is bad?
I remain confident in my earlier assertion that there is only one source of history that determines the meaning of one's life should be found external to that life. Everything else emphasizes your first quote: "We can only find meaning in context, the context of our own lives, and to look elsewhere is folly."
I was actually referring to personal pleasures, things that are meaningful only to us: our children's victories on the playing field, how much money we make, cars, clothing, things of that sort. I was thinking in terms of material pleasures and the gratification that success in that fashion brings to people, superficial successes and gratifications.
Could you rephrase your final sentence? I don't think I am fully understanding what you are saying.
I am having some trouble following the conversation in general.
HE could you explain this:
I'm not sure if I get your meaning, but it seems to me that the nearly universal religious drive in human beings seems to suggest that for most of our existence, most of us have needed something outside of ourselves to give life meaning.I remain confident in my earlier assertion that there is only one source of history that determines the meaning of one's life should be found external to that life. Everything else emphasizes your first quote: "We can only find meaning in context, the context of our own lives, and to look elsewhere is folly."
Any attempt to find meaning in life is going at the same time to be an attempt to find meaning in and for MY life, but that doesn't mean that MY situation is the source of the meaning.
That's an interesting turn of phrase: "nearly universal religious drive." I know Time magazine did a story on the God gene but this is the first time I've seen it stated thusly. The assertion having been made, I suppose we must accept its validity.
Assumptions that seem to me to be included in the statement and the present discussion:
We seek meaning in our lives. or as Socrates might have said "the unexamined life is not worth living.'
When we seek meaning, we are engaged in a religious activity. I'm not so certain Gary's favorite philosopher, Nietzche, would buy into that but the assumption seems worth examing.
Let's assume that religious investigation is inherent in we human beings. What I can accept as "nearly universal" is people's willingness to let others do their thinking for them. It is easier, requires less energy, and works fine. People join a religion that works for them and that pretty much resolves all the questions they ever had. They have a context for discovering meaning in their lives, the context of their religion.
Suppose, though, a person did not wish to accept someone else's interpretation of "right" and "wrong," or of the possibility of universal truths. The only historical sources which claims this is a false step are the religious histories. No where else have I found writings discouraging self-discovery and independent thinking. On the contrary, sff in particular, promotes the examination of right and wrong, the meaning of it all, and sometimes presents it so powerfully, a new religion takes form.
That addresses only one aspect of the problem, how to find meaning while you are alive. I think Mitch Albom got it right in his book, "The Five People You Meet in Heaven." We can't really know what we did right and wrong, only other people can supply that judgement and it's invariably after the fact. All we can do is live the best way we know how.
It may be after the fact, but we still need to try within the context of our lives to live an ethical life. I say we need to. Not all people agree that statement, and many think it is so vague a comment that it makes no sense anyway. What does it mean to live an ethical life? Well, we get back to premises once again. We need to establish some givens, some set of premises that we accept at the starting point, in order to make any progress at all. Language and conceptualization are both a problem, as usual. But as we all search in our own way for meaning in our lives, and if we can recognize that whatever we look to to supply that meaning, whether it is God, drugs, music, sex, food, family etc. that resolves those issues for us, fills those empty spaces and helps us to go on, then maybe we can codify a starting point. It may be that in the end meaning requires a leap of faith, as Kierkegaard so aptly put it, regardless of how solid our premises are. But that is a self-examined leap, one that is only taken after the other stages of personal development have fallen short of supplying that sense of meaning.
HE I was trying to get clear on the discussion and specifically the claim that “one source of history that determines the meaning of one's life should be found external to that life.”
If the claim is that this one source is religion, well then maybe, but it seems misleading to characterize this as “one source” first, because it encompasses many different religions and second because the claim verges on a tautology - any attempt to find an external source of meaning is a religion, isn't it?
"All we can do is live the best way we know how"
I don't think anyone can deny that. But it can be a more or less reflective process, and we can come to the conclusion that we were wrong about something after the fact.
GW
“It may be after the fact, but we still need to try within the context of our lives to live an ethical life. I say we need to.”
It seems to me that people do desire to see themselves as good in some way or another, which is why we are always making excuses or trying to justify ourselves.
“What does it mean to live an ethical life? Well, we get back to premises once again. We need to establish some givens, some set of premises that we accept at the starting point, in order to make any progress at all.”
I think that is true, but we need to be careful. That does not mean that the starting point will be the same for everyone, or that the starting point will have very much moral content. The need for a starting point won’t tell us. I think I agree with the rest of what you have said. I think it is hard to make generalizations though. Many people won’t need to make a leap of faith simply because they don’t perceive any gaps requiring a leap.
You don't think that people realize or perceive the gap between reason and belief? I suppose that many don't even question it. So i suppose you may be correct. For me, it is always paramount in my mind. I want to believe in something greater than myself, but i want reason to help me make that leap, and that is in itself irrational! Hence, I am always dissatisfied. Historically, I think many many people have found this desire to be pressing. Look at Anselm and Aquinas. Proofs of God! How contradictory. And yet, Kierkegaard's method of overcoming this need doesn't satisfy me either. So I look to action in the world as that which might hold the answer: my deeds, my actions, my choices. Certainly the starting point will be different for many.
I think most people accept the beliefs served up by their particular culture, including beliefs about right and wrong, what has value and what does not, and what is worth wondering or talking about. Its not the way I would want to live, but that is a different question.
Easy to do with computer games, not so much with life.Joe, I think you just described my whole life so far...
Crash the system? That begs a really big question. HOW?
Unless you drop everything your doing in life and just start agian somewhere else , which is virtually impossible.
Once you have chosen a path in life, it's damned hard to change your mind and go back.
Time is a one-way street after all.
It's not hard to change paths, it's just scary. I've chaned paths 4 times in my life and each time was a life altering experience (really?). It's only change and most of the time change can be a good thing.
The first time I changed paths I fell into a big hole- I'm still in it...
Life is change, isn't it? After all, from one day to the next so much of what happens to us is not under our control anyway. It's the perception that we make all the big decisions that actually stops us from making many of them.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks