[lit-ideas] Re: The meaning of life
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Mike Geary <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:42:38 -0330
I recall reading, some time ago now, something to the effect that if a lion
could speak we wouldn't be able to understand him/her. But such radical
indeterminacy of translation should not worry anyone who abides by Mike's
brother's maxim regarding the obligation of allowing for universal
availability of meaning. On that maxim, each human tribe is free to pursue its
conception of the good and meaningful life - so long as that conception is a
reasonable one. (I.e., the Catholic Church is free to excommunicate apostates
and heretics, but it cannot burn them to death. Whatever did happen to minority
rights, anyway?)
But does such a maxim really apply to forms of life not possessing (or not
possessed by) capacities for rational autonomy? Animal, insect and plant forms
of life cannot be assessed via a criterion of "reasonableness." Nor can rain
forests, oceans, and woolly mammoth DNA. On traditional moral grounds, we hence
cannot view these as being "moral subjects." But then on what grounds do we
claim, when we do so claim, that humans have certain moral obligations to the
preservation and perpetuation of such forms of life?
Returning to the preparation of a lovely prime rib roast, seasoned with garlic
and red peppers. Pomme frites mit mayonnaise on the side. An Australian Shiraz
to wash it all down.
Walter O.
Co-habitating with a very large, aloof and temperamental Calico cat.
Quoting Mike Geary <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> My older brother Emory and I used to argue about the meaning of life. He
> insisted that any meaning had to be one that comported with our uncle Mike's
> (yes, my namesake -- or am I his namesake? I've never been sure about how
> that word works) understanding of the world. Uncle Mike was a very caring
> soul, easy going, gentle, not so bright, but a damn good man. I took my
> brother's argument to be that the meaning of life should be unencumbered with
> any ideas that uncle Mike could not readily grasp, that meaning should first
> and foremost be available to all and that it should encompass the elemental
> notions of compassion and kindness with which our uncle Mike had no problem
> understanding and subscribing to.
>
> I disagreed with my brother. Like Eric argues, or so I take him to argue,
> there are as many meanings to life as there all people on earth. I don't
> know if animals ever wonder why they exist. They well could, of course, but
> thank God, we have yet to find the Rosetta Stone to unlock their languages
> and so we've been relieved of having to accommodate their opinions. Can you
> imagine having to argue with a mole about the meaning of existence? Or a
> dung beetle? Or...oh, nevermind, I'm sure you get the idea -- but wouldn't
> it be fun to quizz a cat? A dog, no doubt, would mirror my uncle Mike. But
> a cat -- I would love to be in on that discussion.
>
> Long ago I decided that the meaning of life is me. It's come to my attention
> that a lot of people disagree.
>
> Mike Geary
> Memphis
> going on sabbatical again.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Eric Dean
> To: lit-ideas
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 5:34 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The meaning of life
>
>
> Stalling on a response to Walter's comments about the universality of moral
> maxims, I turn instead to Walter's question about the response to "What is
> the meaning of life?"
>
> Contrary to the response, the question need not be ill-formed in the way
> the response suggests if one assumes that there can be meaningfulness apart
> from human life. I believe the question of whether there is meaningfulness
> apart from human life is a reasonable one, even though I actually believe
> there is no such meaningfulness, i.e. even though I actually believe human
> life is "the very element of meaning itself", as Walter paraphrases (I think)
> the responder.
>
> I think the question about whether there can be a broader, non-human
> meaningfulness in which human meaningfulness is embedded (I'm deliberately
> generalizing what I imagine is an aspect of the Christian story about God) is
> coherent because it might provide one sort of answer to the question of how
> it is we can communicate with one another at all. It would do so by saying
> something like: we can communicate with one another because there is a larger
> framework within which our actions, including the noises we make as we do
> what we call talking, all have a place and that place establishes what we
> think of as 'meaning'.
>
> As I say, I don't believe that picture myself. I think instead that we
> humans grow into our adult selves in a community which is a community
> precisely because its members are always enacting together various partly
> pre-defined, partly improvised roles in partly pre-defined and partly
> improvised stories, which means in my mind that we adult humans have grown
> into being the improvising enactors of such roles ourselves. Those roles and
> stories, which by the way can be and unfortunately all too often are full of
> roles locked in hopeless mortal conflict, those roles and stories project,
> usually tacitly, the existence of exactly the sorts of structures which the
> broad non-human meaningfulness model would want established for us by some
> agency (hopefully benevolent) outside ourselves.
>
> All that said, I do not understand how one might go about answering the
> original question ("what is the meaning of life?"). I understand "what is
> the meaning of the word 'bicycle'?", but I don't understand "what is the
> meaning of bicycles?" except as code for some other question like "what story
> might people who ride bicycles be dramatizing in their use of them?" in
> which case what I've already written is what my answer would be about the
> meaning of life.
>
> That, however, may simply reflect a serious lapse in my upbringing or
> education. Maybe my teachers didn't respect my autonomy enough?
>
> Regards to all,
> Eric Dean
> Washington DC
>
> > Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:12:51 -0330
> > From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
> > To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [lit-ideas] The meaning of life
> >
> > On another philosophy listserv the following question arose:
> >
> > What is the meaning of life?
> >
> > An intriguing transcendental response (not yet a riposte) was:
> >
> > Life, human life to be precise, is a necessary condition of meaning, so
> the
> > question is inappropriate and "ill-formed." (Flayling gestures to
> > Wittgenstein's writings ensured.) It is senseless to ask after the
> meaning of
> > life since there is and can be no "meaning" independent of human life.
> Life is
> > the very element of meaning itself.
> >
> > Comments welcomed.
> >
> > Walter O.
> > MUN
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
