RE: Long term Nihilists
April 16, 2015 at 4:27 pm
(This post was last modified: April 16, 2015 at 4:38 pm by henryp.)
1) Why is it illusionary and not just temporary. Are there other things that exist for a while but because they don't persist eternally, we deem them illusionary?
2) If we view meaning as a creation of the human mind with the purpose of prioritizing things to fulfill biological impulses, would that be considered objectively real? Does it matter that we aren't actually separate from the universe, and are in fact just a part of it's current state? To the point that the universe actually is responsible for creating meaning by evolving some of it's matter into Aunt Linda who believes a life lived on farmville is a life well lived?
Is Aunt Linda's biological impulse leading to her finding meaning in farmville different than a biological impulse to feel hungry when it's time to eat? If we view it as an actual neurological brain function the universe developed as it grew older rather than a non-tangible philosophical concept, does that change the discussion? I don't think anyone would say our desire to eat is illusionary. It seems no different than gravity. It's just how some matter in the universe in particular states behave.
Or do we view philosophical meaning as something separate from what our subconscious is outputting into our 'consciousness' as meaning?
----
Just adding onto my own thoughts on the fly...
Would Aunt Linda's finding meaning in Farmville be a universal law as legit as any of the others? When an Aunt Linda interacts with a Farmville, Aunt Linda finds it meaningful. In the same way that 1 + 4 = 5. So even though Aunt Linda existed only for 60 years a billion years ago, wouldn't the universal law of Aunt Linda and Farmville's remain? Does it being a law make it permanent, even though it only happened one time? It would still be a part of how you define the universe.
2) If we view meaning as a creation of the human mind with the purpose of prioritizing things to fulfill biological impulses, would that be considered objectively real? Does it matter that we aren't actually separate from the universe, and are in fact just a part of it's current state? To the point that the universe actually is responsible for creating meaning by evolving some of it's matter into Aunt Linda who believes a life lived on farmville is a life well lived?
Is Aunt Linda's biological impulse leading to her finding meaning in farmville different than a biological impulse to feel hungry when it's time to eat? If we view it as an actual neurological brain function the universe developed as it grew older rather than a non-tangible philosophical concept, does that change the discussion? I don't think anyone would say our desire to eat is illusionary. It seems no different than gravity. It's just how some matter in the universe in particular states behave.
Or do we view philosophical meaning as something separate from what our subconscious is outputting into our 'consciousness' as meaning?
----
Just adding onto my own thoughts on the fly...
Would Aunt Linda's finding meaning in Farmville be a universal law as legit as any of the others? When an Aunt Linda interacts with a Farmville, Aunt Linda finds it meaningful. In the same way that 1 + 4 = 5. So even though Aunt Linda existed only for 60 years a billion years ago, wouldn't the universal law of Aunt Linda and Farmville's remain? Does it being a law make it permanent, even though it only happened one time? It would still be a part of how you define the universe.
