RE: The Not-so-elephant In The Room
December 11, 2015 at 8:38 am
(This post was last modified: December 11, 2015 at 8:45 am by Excited Penguin.)
Well, sorry if you can't have a discussion about such topics. Maybe you shouldn't frequent a forum if you expect everyone to agree with you. I didn't think I was being rude, I was just speaking my mind and telling you what your statement sounded like to me, truthfully.
In other words, you seem to be a coward.
There never was any objective meaning to begin with. To negate that is beside the point. So pardon me if I just ignored that kind of pointless statement, I wouldn't have thought you were simplistic enough to point that kind of thing out.
Inanimate objects can't have meaning in and of themselves, without a conscious being infusing them with it. That's obviously true. So why bother pointing it out?
I would call an objective meaning that which would be beneficial to human society or relevant to the survival of the human species as a whole. I would feel extremely confortable calling that objective. I don't see any point in talking about things that clearly don't make any sense, though.
In other words, you seem to be a coward.
There never was any objective meaning to begin with. To negate that is beside the point. So pardon me if I just ignored that kind of pointless statement, I wouldn't have thought you were simplistic enough to point that kind of thing out.
Inanimate objects can't have meaning in and of themselves, without a conscious being infusing them with it. That's obviously true. So why bother pointing it out?
I would call an objective meaning that which would be beneficial to human society or relevant to the survival of the human species as a whole. I would feel extremely confortable calling that objective. I don't see any point in talking about things that clearly don't make any sense, though.
