To what extent is life on this earth absurd?

[WmJackP]

…but if one’s goals, values and principles are arbitrary they are worthless because they amount to no more than wishful thinking

Of course, you are right that if I invent a dysfuntional set of values then the argument in support of them collaspes. This doesn’t mean, however, that values are not subjectively derived, and, it also doesn’t mean that once created that they cannot be more universally accepted and applied. Ultimately, however, values are relevant to time, place and circumstance. The Code of Hammarabi worked its time and place just as the Jewish biblical prosciptions served a purpose, had wide acceptance and application. I would disagree, however, with an argument that either are absolute in the sense that they are intrinsically resistent to change.

 

[WmJackP]

You’re rather good at assigning fault yourself.

 

[InJesusItrust]

Sorry. I can’t agree. You claim “truth by its nature is absolute”. but that is simply another way of saying that there are absolutes. The word “truth” is a word with whatever assigned meaning we give it. You are simply assigning a quality of “absoluteness” to it.

For example, consider the cartoon character in the wizard of Id who is chained upside down in his cell. Perhaps, he might say “I am free” and from the point of view of his jailers that would be a lie; yet, if he is free in his own mind then it is a “truth”. Consider if he believes that he is serving some purpose–a living example of the defiance of man against the forces of tyranny, for example, then he is freeer than his jailers, in that sense.
Make sense?

Not really. He may have an opinion or a delusion but that does not change the fact that he really is or isn’t. You’re confusing truth for opinion. If something is true every opposing belief is false. We may not be able to prove the truth but it remains true.

 

[Linux]

You’re rather good at assigning fault yourself.

Pointing out error in your thinking processes is a pleasure.

 

[R_C]

Make sense?

No.

Pick up a copy of Summa contra Gentiles, a masterpiece of philosophy and logic by one of the greatest philosophers the world ever had, Thomas Aquinas. Read that carefully. Then we can discuss. Otherwise you don’t realize just how nonsensical this sounds to some of our ears.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Of course, you are right that if I invent a dysfuntional set of values then the argument in support of them collaspes. This doesn’t mean, however, that values are not subjectively derived, and, it also doesn’t mean that once created that they cannot be more universally accepted and applied. Ultimately, however, values are relevant to time, place and circumstance. The Code of Hammarabi worked its time and place just as the Jewish biblical prosciptions served a purpose, had wide acceptance and application. I would disagree, however, with an argument that either are absolute in the sense that they are intrinsically resistent to change.

What is dysfunctional? How do you tell? Why is being dysfunctional, however you define it, a problem? Why does whether or not the Code of Hammarabi “worked” matter in any way, and what does that actually mean in any case?

 

[WmJackP]

Not really. He may have an opinion or a delusion but that does not change the fact that he really is or isn’t. You’re confusing truth for opinion. If something is true every opposing belief is false. We may not be able to prove the truth but it remains true.

Once more, I am afraid I disagree. In my judgment, there is not a confusion between fact and opinion. Rather the confusion is between “correponding truth” and “interpretative truth”. Corresponding truth is objective because it appears to correspond to reality. For example, the cat is on the table" is a statement which either corresponds to reality or not. There is also what some might call “interpretative truth” which is not necessarily a statement of fact, as such, but, rather a condition which is interpretated, and, thus, is subjective, even by your more rigid standards. A raging storm on the high seas may be seen as possessing a majestic quality, or, may be seen as deadly peril, to give an example.

it may thus be that the Wizard’s character interprets his situation in a favorable way without being delusional. Although, certainly, objectively, he is chained upside down on a wall. Nonetheless, the state of “being free” is an interpretative condition.

Similarly, when we consider whether one’s life has meaning or not, there are, indeed, objective aspects to one’s life. However, its meaning is derived from one’s subjective interpretation of it. For example, It is true that I may be infirm, broke, disabled and otherwise impaired; but, the meaning of my life is a truth which is subject to interpretation, hence, its truth is subjective.

Consider, for example, the Christian marytrs being fed to the lions or the terrorists who flew airlines into the twin towers, both groups interpretated their situations and status in favorable ways notwithstanding the objective facts. I do not think you would doubt that there was an abundance of subjective interpretation given to their situations.

Do I make sense?

 

[tonyrey]

The significance of life is —to use a worn out maxim–“in the eye of the beholder”.

If significance is entirely in the eye of the beholder the significance of your belief is also entirely in the eye of the beholder, i.e. it is insignificant! Relativism is self-destructive…

If one’s goals, values and principles are arbitrary they are worthless because they amount to no more than wishful thinking.

Of course, you are right that if I invent a dysfunctional set of values then the argument in support of them collaspes.

“dysfunctional” implies that there is a set of values which is not entirely subjective because it corresponds to reality.

This doesn’t mean, however, that values are not subjectively derived, and, it also doesn’t mean that once created that they cannot be more universally accepted and applied.

Scientific values are also subjectively derived in the sense that they presuppose a mind which creates them.

Ultimately, however, values are relevant to time, place and circumstance.

There are logical, scientific, mathematical and metaphysical values that apply to **all **times, places and circumstances.

Meaning is derived ultimately from the self and the values he creates for himself. You give meaning to your life, I suspect, by your system of belief. I have found meaning in my children and in my studies and professional life. I have a cousin who has never found her way, and, that is sad, but, ultimately it is a personal failure on her part.

Le Mythe de Sisyphe is a classic but both Sartre and Camus were humanists in spite of their philosophy of absurdity- which is impossible to reconcile with day-to-day life.

The Code of Hammarabi worked its time and place just as the Jewish biblical prosciptions served a purpose, had wide acceptance and application. I would disagree, however, with an argument that either are absolute in the sense that they are intrinsically resistent to change.

Is that argument resistant to change?

 

[Linux]

If significance is entirely in the eye of the beholder the significance of your belief is also entirely in the eye of the beholder, i.e. it is insignificant! Relativism is self-destructive…

“dysfunctional” implies that there is a set of values which is not entirely subjective because it corresponds to reality.

Scientific values are also subjectively derived in the sense that they presuppose a mind which creates them.
There are logical, scientific, mathematical and metaphysical values that apply to **all **times, places and circumstances.

Le Mythe de Sisyphe is a classic but both Sartre and Camus were humanists in spite of their philosophy of absurdity- which is impossible to reconcile with day-to-day life.

Is that argument resistant to change?

Very gooood.

 

[tonyrey]

Very gooood.

Thanks! They are not original ideas, of course.

 

[tonyrey]

1. We live in a VERY RAPIDLY changing world that causes things to become chaotic. We are in the midst of a digital revolution that forces the world to become chaotic. Too much pain and suffering in this world. Trying to find meaning in our world, without deep religiosity, is bound to lead to absurdity. The morale in the secular world is very low overall.

Yet some aspects of life were chaotic before the digital revolution…

 

[tonyrey]

There is objective meaning and purpose to creation and to life, and there are absolute laws of mathematics, science, and morality meant to keep creation and life in order and lead them to perfection.

What is more, those absolute, universal, timeless laws of mathematics, science, and morality can be learned through reason alone, and their logical soundness can be fully demonstrated - just like the opposite belief can be shown to be irrational or at least not logically sound.

I hadn’t read your post when I made a similar statement!

 

[tonyrey]

ab·surd
/əbˈsərd/
Adjective

1. (of an idea or suggestion) Wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate: “so you think I’m a spy? How absurd!”.
2. (of a person or a person’s behavior or actions) Foolish; unreasonable.

I’d say life is somewhat absurd. Parts are completely orderly, logical, and sensible. Other parts, especially human parts, and completely ridiculous.

Which parts? Both the appendix and “junk” DNA have both been recently been found to have useful functions…

 

[tonyrey]

Not really. He may have an opinion or a delusion but that does not change the fact that he really is or isn’t. You’re confusing truth for opinion. If something is true every opposing belief is false.

We may not be able to prove the truth but it remains true.

Perhaps “The truth remains the truth” would be less open to criticism!

 

[tonyrey]

What is dysfunctional? How do you tell? Why is being dysfunctional, however you define it, a problem? Why does whether or not the Code of Hammarabi “worked” matter in any way, and what does that actually mean in any case?

I’m very glad I don’t have to answer those questions… :clapping:

 

[tonyrey]

When you find God, and serve God… life becomes so full of reason there is no room for absurdity.

I agree that there’s no room for absurdity in the end but in the short term it’s a different matter. For example, evil turns out to be absurd…

 

[tonyrey]

That way of thought is unclear. If misunderstood, can lead to injury. According to one understanding of this idea, for instance, a person with a mental disability or some grave paralysis or a person with a terminal illness has no purpose in life and may as well kill himself. Entire populations that live in the deepest poverty, with no hope other than living and dying in misery and hunger, would have no reason to live. There would be no need to spending billions, or to offer our lives and become missionaries and go live with them and bring some basic help.

What gives meaning to life is life, regardless of any vain purpose or vain goal, because all of those things will pass. In fact, we can clearly show that life is the result of love (and I mean, life as coming from a Creator) and that as a result the one thing that gives true essence to life is love, a love that expresses itself in the search of our Creator (which manifests itself in the search for truth, knowledge, understanding, and in the expression of creativity) an in the love shown towards those who surround us.

I speak of true love here, a love that is unconditional and self-giving. I don’t speak of the kind of selfish “love” that aims at satisfying the senses, for that is in fact the root of all inclinations that injury the person and the society he lives in…inclinations such as the desire to possess, be it power, money, exterior beauty, or sexual pleasure…those things do not give meaning to life, they deprive it of meaning.

That is not to say that the desire to have goals, to accomplish, are not good. They are very good. But not as an end.

As for the set of values and principles, those are already created for us, a perfect, universal, timeless and unchanging set of values and principles whose ultimate goal is to lead men to true joy, true peace, and to fulfill their most intimate, most essential desire to love and be loved, to be part of a family which includes all and excludes nobody, and to be truly, physically and spiritually not servants, not creatures, but the sons and daughters of the living God.

A superb post.

 

[WmJackP]

“dysfunctional” implies that there is a set of values which is not entirely subjective because it corresponds to reality.

We operate from different predicates. Consequently we aren’t going to ever agree and it is not enjoyable to be going back and forth with an endless exchange of attempts to communicate. Having said all of that, I can’t resist taking one more poke at explaining myself:

Dysfunctional means is doesn’t work. If I wear a size 10 shoe then size 8 won’t fit. But there is no absolute which requires me to have a size 10 shoe size.

JP

 

[shoe]

1. Entirely
2. To some extent
3. Not at all

Please justify your answer.

I don’t think that God would have created life on earth if He thought life were absurd. I believe that since God intentionally made human beings in His image, He has given great value to each person; consequently, each person has a built-in meaning of being part of His purpose on earth, and therefore a good reason to seek Him. God has filled His creation not with absurdities, but rather with value, meaning, and purpose.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

We operate from different predicates. Consequently we aren’t going to ever agree and it is not enjoyable to be going back and forth with an endless exchange of attempts to communicate. Having said all of that, I can’t resist taking one more poke at explaining myself:

Dysfunctional means is doesn’t work. If I wear a size 10 shoe then size 8 won’t fit. But there is no absolute which requires me to have a size 10 shoe size.

JP

I know you said that you’re done, but I have to point out that “I wear a size 10 shoe” is an absolute. You can only say “a size 8 doesn’t fit” if you already know that you wear a size 10 - or at least that you have a shoe size, and that it isn’t 8.

We’re asking how, in a view that denies any objective anything, you arrive at the conclusion that you wear a size 10 shoe. And the fact that your feet hurt in a smaller size isn’t enough, because in a world without any absolutes you cannot take it as a given that your feet don’t hurt in the right shoe size. So to speak.