Absurdism

  • Thread starter Thread starter LotusCarsLtd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
polytropos said:
I assume that you favor the figuring of happiness as subjective for some reason. By demonstrating that subjectivity only implies that it is felt only by things with a mind (as opposed to all things), you have not shown that what causes a particular person happiness is arbitrary. What I am saying is that you have trivialized your definition of subjectivity; yes, by the definition you have used, happiness is subjective, but I think you will find, if you think about it, that it does not necessarily prove your larger point.

When we talk about subjective versus objective morality, we are not talking about whether just humans have moral impulses or whether that tree also has moral impulse. Objectivity in this respect refers to universality, and of course we are referring to universality among humans, things with intellects. A morality common to all men is not thought to be subjective (though it could be defined as such, it would not be expedient and would have little implication in conversation). Likewise, happiness for all men is not necessarily subjective. This is the position of the Church.

In the Christian worldview, we do not grant ourselves meaning as a result of our personal preferences to worship God. The preference to worship God is not uniquely ours; it is an inclination common to all men as a result of their being made that way. It is the only way to reach true and full happiness.

As for your example, the two things (worshiping God and raising a child) are not at all mutually exclusive. We need God’s guidance to be parents; our children need our guidance and benefit, like us, from being raised in the faith. I know this is not your point, but I think it should be clear that worshiping God is not the only source of happiness. It adds happiness to other areas of life.
Click to expand...
I am quite certain you have no idea what my larger point is, since you are very determined to misconstrue my meaning. If you want to argue with your imagination, you don’t need me to do so.
 
By claiming that happiness is a subjective emotion you are not trying to argue that it is not the same for all people? You can see where the debate over the subjectivity of happiness arose in this thread on page 2. I think you make your larger point fairly clear.

In any case, my point stands that your declaration of happiness as subjective, by your definition, is trivial and without implication.
 
People can subjectively think they are happy. Objectively, they are not. People who value highly money, sex, drugs, and fame, and achieve these things, think they are on top of the world. Then you hear of them committing suicide. That is becasue they are in truth not objectively happy. The French writer, Emile Zola, once said, “If you shut up the truth and bury it under the ground, it will but grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way.” A bullet to the head is a sign that one mistook the experience of false happiness for true happiness … which is in God alone.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
People can subjectively think they are happy. Objectively, they are not. People who value highly money, sex, drugs, and fame, and achieve these things, think they are on top of the world. Then you hear of them committing suicide. That is becasue they are in truth not objectively happy. The French writer, Emile Zola, once said, “If you shut up the truth and bury it under the ground, it will but grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way.” A bullet to the head is a sign that one mistook the experience of false happiness for true happiness … which is in God alone.
Click to expand...
So people who believe in G-d never suffer despair and commit suicide? Or do they not really believe in G-d or have the wrong belief?
 
meltzerboy

**So people who believe in G-d never suffer despair and commit suicide? Or do they not really believe in G-d or have the wrong belief? **

Catholics who commit suicide, for example, have lost their faith and trust in God. Despair is a deadly sin, the opposite of hope, one of the three great virtues.

Believing in God is not a magic bullet ride to salvation. But it sure beats believing in Nogod.
 
Meaning does not = purpose. Perhaps without God life has no purpose. However, it will still have meaning.
We create meaning all the time. For example,“1+1=2” is a meaningless ink pattern (it is not a true or false proposition ) until consciousness understands it.
Without consciousness there is no meaning. For example, an on light switch does not refer to an on light.Computers can manipulate patterns (0011000111000) but have no understanding (meaning).
 
wittgenstein said:
Meaning does not = purpose. Perhaps without God life has no purpose. However, it will still have meaning.
We create meaning all the time. For example,“1+1=2” is a meaningless ink pattern (it is not a true or false proposition ) until consciousness understands it.
Without consciousness there is no meaning. For example, an on light switch does not refer to an on light.Computers can manipulate patterns (0011000111000) but have no understanding (meaning).
Click to expand...
We also tend to assign meaning to things which may, objectively speaking, have no meaning, such as random patterns. We seem to have a motivational need to seek and find meaning in our lives and in our world by means of grouping, organizing, categorizing, interpreting, evaluating, and stereotyping.
 
wittgenstein said:
For example,“1+1=2” is a meaningless ink pattern (it is not a true or false proposition ) until consciousness understands it.
Click to expand...
Propositions in systems of logic (like the system of arithmetic) can be true or false. Their evaluation is, of course, contingent on the understanding that we are working in the system of arithmetic, but you and I understand when we see 1+1=2 that we are doing arithmetic and within that system, the proposition is true.

The natural numbers, though beings of reason, are abstracted from the real world. Though one could argue that 1+1=2 is meaningless in the sense that there was a time (before Arabic numerals were developed, say) when no person would have understood it, the logic that it engenders is eternal, ie. if we take a single unit of extension and another single unit of extension, we will combined have what we now call two units of extension. Indeed, that was true before humans existed.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
People can subjectively think they are happy. Objectively, they are not. People who value highly money, sex, drugs, and fame, and achieve these things, think they are on top of the world. Then you hear of them committing suicide. That is becasue they are in truth not objectively happy. The French writer, Emile Zola, once said, “If you shut up the truth and bury it under the ground, it will but grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way.” A bullet to the head is a sign that one mistook the experience of false happiness for true happiness … which is in God alone.
Click to expand...
I think you’re confusing happiness with something else, like health or well-being. I don’t understand how it is even possible for someone to feel happy, but not actually be happy. Just like if someone feels sad, they are sad. Same for any other emotion.

Also, people might pretend to be happy, even pretend to themselves that they are happy, but that is not the same as actually feeling happy.

And Polytropos, my definition of subjective isn’t trivial, it’s accurate. It refers to that which is perceived by a subject, rather than something that exists objectively independent of a perceiving mind.
 
By trivial I don’t mean inaccurate. There are multiple definitions of subjectivity, and the one you have selected does not have substantial implications for the debate being had. The debate is not whether happiness is experienced in the mind but whether there is such a thing as “true happiness.” In this case, another definition is appropriate: “relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.” This is the definition that we use in discussions about morality. Morality is, of course, experienced by the mind; that is not a point of contention. The debate is whether morality varies from person to person.
 
DaddyGirl said:
I love that movie, too!!! Love it!

(“Guy, Guy… maybe you’re the plucky comic relief. You ever think about that?”)
Click to expand...
“We better get out of here before one of those things kills Guy!” Gets me every time 🙂
 
polytropos said:
By trivial I don’t mean inaccurate. There are multiple definitions of subjectivity, and the one you have selected does not have substantial implications for the debate being had. The debate is not whether happiness is experienced in the mind but whether there is such a thing as “true happiness.” In this case, another definition is appropriate: “relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.” This is the definition that we use in discussions about morality. Morality is, of course, experienced by the mind; that is not a point of contention. The debate is whether morality varies from person to person.
Click to expand...
No, the question is about whether there is an objective happiness. The assertion I am contending against is that there is only one True Happiness, and that anyone who seems happy but does not hold to the same beliefs as Catholics must not actually be happy. My point is that there is no difference between feeling happy and being happy.
 
Response to post 92
Interesting points! They help me clarify my points to myself!
There is no objectivity without subjectivity. Without subjectivity (consciousness ) there is no meaning and without meaning there is no objective knowledge. Without subjectivity (consciousness ) there are no concepts to be objective.
 
Response to post 94,
I fear that our (not just you and I, but everyone participating in this conversation ) debate is becoming semantic (differing about the definitions of words and not anything substantial )
For example, I agree if happiness is defined as a feeling, there is no diff between a true and false feeling, that does not apply to subjective facts,only objective facts)
However, I can lie to myself (an interesting paradox;)). I can convince myself that I love someone that I really do not.
 
ngill
**
My point is that there is no difference between feeling happy and being happy. **

This is to argue that people cannot delude themselves that they are happy. I don’t agree. People can confuse the achievement of pleasure, or the achievement of goals, with happiness. But absent God, when these achievements or goals are taken away (sex, money, drugs, fame, power) an emptiness of soul will follow. But with the love of God we can lose everything else and still feel whole. All the afflictions of Job could not take away his happiness in God.

Nor did it occur to him that life is absurd and that he should go and hang himself.
 
There was an interesting episode of the “Simpsons”. Mr. Burns wanted to experience what Homer had. He joined Homer’s bowling team. Unfortunately, Mr. Burns became obsessed with winning the trophy. He totally missed the point! Its not the trophy (symbol) its the reality of experiencing the contest with friends. Symbols have replaced reality. That is our trajedy. God is being * (reality) itself.
  • Aquinas
 
Charlemagne_II said:
ngill
**
My point is that there is no difference between feeling happy and being happy. **

This is to argue that people cannot delude themselves that they are happy. I don’t agree. People can confuse the achievement of pleasure, or the achievement of goals, with happiness. But absent God, when these achievements or goals are taken away (sex, money, drugs, fame, power) an emptiness of soul will follow. But with the love of God we can lose everything else and still feel whole. All the afflictions of Job could not take away his happiness in God.

Nor did it occur to him that life is absurd and that he should go and hang himself.
Click to expand...
How do you tell when someone is genuinely happy or “deluding themselves that they are happy”?

And I don’t know when last you read Job - he seemed pretty miserable.
 
Job had a job. Pleasing God! Spirituality is more then mechanistic duty. If my wife told me that she loved me because that was her duty (job) I would know that she never loved me! Luckily, this conversation is academic (semantic ) and not actual. 😃
 
Ngillo9,
Do not delude yourself with the delusion that I am on your side! I’ll be back at you later. Right now, I am attacking friends that are wrong!
 
ngill

And I don’t know when last you read Job - he seemed pretty miserable.

But because he was a godly man he did not regard his life as absurd and commit suicide.

Anyone else in his shoe who had the same suffering, and no use for God, might well have hung himself.

How do you tell when someone is genuinely happy or “deluding themselves that they are happy”?

By whether or not they have found God.

Most atheists on their deathbed are not happy, and they suddenly find God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top