(June 21, 2015 at 9:42 pm)Barefoot Wrote:(June 21, 2015 at 9:41 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Naturalism has fuck all to do with meaning.
The first premise is a non-sequitur.
Could you elaborate?
Which part did you have an issue with?
Naturalism can be true in a world that is *devoid* of meaning (intrinsic or subjective). In essence, naturalism is the view that the only forces that operate on the world are natural ones - it is, in short, a rejection of the supernatural. It does not appear that consciousness is required in order for the world to exist (though it is in order for us to observe it), and meaning is incoherent without consciousness.
Written another way, the argument is essentially "the supernatural is required for meaning to be deterministic".
Furthermore, I question whether the second premise is demonstrable. The entire thing appears to be argumentum ex culo.
