The Meaninglessness of Meaning

[Pyrrho]

Nestor, let me see if I understand your opening post.  You are simply suggesting that there is no inherent value in things, that value implies a valuer?  Is that it?

That, yes,

So far, so good.

and also, does the possibility of such "valuers" existing in any physical sense dissolve  alongside the illusion of the "self"? If not, what's the justification? And if the illusion is good enough for us (er... seemingly impossible to avoid, not only in language, but in  any subjective - and hence, objective - construct of the world) to maintain such common usage of selves and values, why not other metaphysical concepts, like free will, and even gods?

Starting with the first sentence there, what the hell do you mean?

Look, I value things.  Which is another way of saying, I care about things.  Or to say the same thing in other words, I have feelings.  That, however, is as nothing to the universe.  I am going to die, just like everyone else.  What I value makes no difference for the universe.  My valuing something tells you about me.  It tells you nothing about anything else.  Except insofar as learning about me tells you about other things similar to me.

When we say that humans value things, that tells us about humans generally, not about the universe as a whole or anything else.


For the "self," as usual, I refer you to David Hume.  I am a bundle of perceptions.  I do not perceive my self as a separate thing.  And when we look at Alzheimer's patients, and at senile people, and brain damaged people, all of the modern science seems to support Hume's contention, that you are not some magical thing, but can lose a part of you without losing all of you.