Recent ruminations on the meaning of life

[Lark]

I'd consider a blog on this topic as its one of enduring interest to me but I dont plan on continuing with it in the way I think a blog might or ought.

I read this quotation though and it really struck me and I thought I'd see what anyone else thought in relation to it, like if it was on to something. Anyway its by someone called Seyed Javad Miri in an essay called Humanism and Sociological Imagination, under a subheading of normative humanism and the question of wellbeing:

To be able to love life, and yet to accept death without terror; To tolerate uncertainty about the most important questions with which life confront us - and yet to have faith in our thought and feeling, in as much as they are truly ours.

I've been keeping note books with bite size insights or quotes in them for years like that, does anyone else do that?

 

[Qre:us]

I'd consider a blog on this topic as its one of enduring interest to me but I dont plan on continuing with it in the way I think a blog might or ought.

I read this quotation though and it really struck me and I thought I'd see what anyone else thought in relation to it, like if it was on to something. Anyway its by someone called Seyed Javad Miri in an essay called Humanism and Sociological Imagination, under a subheading of normative humanism and the question of wellbeing:

To be able to love life, and yet to accept death without terror; To tolerate uncertainty about the most important questions with which life confront us - and yet to have faith in our thought and feeling, in as much as they are truly ours.

I've been keeping note books with bite size insights or quotes in them for years like that, does anyone else do that?

I'm doubting whether you read the actual essay. The above quote is by Eric Fromm, from his book, "The Sane Society", not Seyed Javad Miri (who was probably quoting him).

 

[Lark]

I'm doubting whether you read the actual essay. The above quote is by Eric Fromm, from his book, "The Sane Society", not Seyed Javad Miri (who was probably quoting him).

No, I'm afraid you are wrong there, Seyed Javad Miri's essay is in the book Reclaiming the Sane Society, a recent publication which you can look up given your doubts and appreciable rigor, and this is not a direct quote from the Sane Society itself, not in the text of Reclaiming the Sane Society.

Although would you make such a brash statement if you did not already know that? Perhaps, perhaps not. I've formed my opinion already though.

 

[Lark]

Reclaiming the Sane Society: Essays on Erich Fromm's Thought (Imagination and Praxis: Criticality and Creativity in Education and Educational Research): Amazon.co.uk: Seyed Javad Miri, Robert Lake, Tricia M. Kress: 9789462096059: Books

The Sane Society (Routledge Classics): Amazon.co.uk: Erich Fromm: 9780415270984: Books

I own and have read them both.

Now back to the point of the thread.

 

[Qre:us]

No, I'm afraid you are wrong there, Seyed Javad Miri's essay is in the book Reclaiming the Sane Society, a recent publication which you can look up given your doubts and appreciable rigor, and this is not a direct quote from the Sane Society itself, not in the text of Reclaiming the Sane Society.

Although would you make such a brash statement if you did not already know that? Perhaps, perhaps not. I've formed my opinion already though.

Unlike some people, I make a brash statement when I validate it for its accuracy, first. [Borderline insult removed- instead, enjoy this fun fact: the term for a fear of palindromes is "aibohphobia," which itself is a palindrome.]

Reclaiming the Sane Society: Essays on Erich Fromm's Thought (Imagination and Praxis: Criticality and Creativity in Education and Educational Research): Amazon.co.uk: Seyed Javad Miri, Robert Lake, Tricia M. Kress: 9789462096059: Books

The Sane Society (Routledge Classics): Amazon.co.uk: Erich Fromm: 9780415270984: Books

I own and have read them both.

Now back to the point of the thread.

I call bullshit.

I don't know what the Amazon links are supposed to prove, other than the fact that you located those books on Amazon, read their synopsis and reviews, and claimed that as proof that you "own and have read them both".

Just to help you out, here's a free pdf of Fromm's full book, The Sane Society. (You know, just in case you're actually serious about ruminating on those thoughts you claim to; it provides some enlightening context)

https://historicalunderbelly.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/erich-fromm-the-sane-society.pdf

Pg 197, second paragraph, in his chapter, "Man in Capitalistic Society" (Chapter 5):

To be able to love life, and yet to accept death without terror; To tolerate uncertainty about the most important questions with which life confront us - and yet to have faith in our thought and feeling, in as much as they are truly ours.

[Another fun fact brought to you by the moderatorial team: there are more plastic flamingos in the U.S. than real ones.]

 

[1487610420]

 

[Cellmold]

Well, I can safely give up on attempting philosophical thought now; that was great.

 

[Passacaglia]

I've been keeping note books with bite size insights or quotes in them for years like that, does anyone else do that?

It's funny; I love philosophy and I love talking philosophy, but it's not something I spend a lot of time thinking about. There are quotes and adages that I think contain a lot of wisdom, like the serenity prayer, but I don't make a habit of writing them down.

I don't think that life has inherent meaning, unless it be 'the purpose of life is to propagate life.' But that's more evolution than philosophy.

 

[Lark]

It's funny; I love philosophy and I love talking philosophy, but it's not something I spend a lot of time thinking about. There are quotes and adages that I think contain a lot of wisdom, like the serenity prayer, but I don't make a habit of writing them down.

I don't think that life has inherent meaning, unless it be 'the purpose of life is to propagate life.' But that's more evolution than philosophy.

You might like to read Seneca, I've been reading his letters recently in a pocket hardback edition and it was good.

You say that life propagating life is meaningless, I dont know how that could be so, even if you state it in as mundane a fashion as you did.

I think evolution is a miracle and something that only God is capable of and man has tried repeatedly to imitate, usually unsuccessfully or with limited success. The whole thing has meaning.

It depends whether you think that meaning exists in the world to be perceived, discovered by human minds or if its a by product or product of the human mind. In the modern world its easy to believe that its all a product or by product, the modern world has a (hu)man centred world in the way that the past had a geocentric universe, it has eschewed a lot of understanding and not been a cultural asset or made for the improvement of humanity. However, if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, it does make noise, it cant but make noise.

 

[evilrubberduckie]

42

 

[1487610420]

 

[Passacaglia]

You say that life propagating life is meaningless, I dont know how that could be so, even if you state it in as mundane a fashion as you did.

I think evolution is a miracle and something that only God is capable of and man has tried repeatedly to imitate, usually unsuccessfully or with limited success. The whole thing has meaning.

You mean that life propagating life is meaningful because of God, or by some other virtue? Either way, I'm interested in how you would phrase it.

It depends whether you think that meaning exists in the world to be perceived, discovered by human minds or if its a by product or product of the human mind. In the modern world its easy to believe that its all a product or by product, the modern world has a (hu)man centred world in the way that the past had a geocentric universe, it has eschewed a lot of understanding and not been a cultural asset or made for the improvement of humanity. However, if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, it does make noise, it cant but make noise.

There are physical facts which exist independently from us, like gravity, the nature of light, etc.. But when it comes to philosophy, spirituality, and religion, I long ago came to the conclusion that meaning is something we project onto our world. I know the meaning of my life, and I try my best to live up to that meaning.

 

[Lark]

You mean that life propagating life is meaningful because of God, or by some other virtue? Either way, I'm interested in how you would phrase it.

Either or both.

There are physical facts which exist independently from us, like gravity, the nature of light, etc.. But when it comes to philosophy, spirituality, and religion, I long ago came to the conclusion that meaning is something we project onto our world. I know the meaning of my life, and I try my best to live up to that meaning.

I think you're wrong about that, I dont think that those disciplines you mention are as "positive" as the laws you mention, ie gravity etc. although I dont believe that one deserves to be the realm of perception and the other invention, there's no consistency there.

 

[Passacaglia]

Either or both.

Okay, cool. How would you phrase it? I'm not looking for something to argue against; I'm honestly curious what you find meaningful about life propagating life, particularly without referencing God.

I think you're wrong about that, I dont think that those disciplines you mention are as "positive" as the laws you mention, ie gravity etc. although I dont believe that one deserves to be the realm of perception and the other invention, there's no consistency there.

You think physical facts are more positive than philosophy, spirituality, and religion? I'm somewhat surprised you think so, but I'm not going to argue.

What don't you find consistent about separating one from the other?

 

[Lark]

Okay, cool. How would you phrase it? I'm not looking for something to argue against; I'm honestly curious what you find meaningful about life propagating life, particularly without referencing God.

Why without referencing God?

You think physical facts are more positive than philosophy, spirituality, and religion? I'm somewhat surprised you think so, but I'm not going to argue.

What don't you find consistent about separating one from the other?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Henri_de_Rouvroy,_comte_de_Saint-Simon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_Comte

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism#Auguste_Comte

 

[Bush]

Wow. The first page absolutely floors me. Who gives a shit about who said a thing? The idea's out there to be discussed; the rest is pedantry at best and appeal to authority at worst.

... anyway ...

Tangential here: Either physical reality "really really" exists, or it's something that a lot of us observe and so we come to a consensus and agree that it's "real." Either way's fine by me. But even though they're more concrete, they're not necessarily more meaningful than the threads we weave through them.

 

[Passacaglia]

Why without referencing God?

Because I already know how your God makes things meaningful. You said that 'the purpose of life is to propagate life' can be meaningful by virtue of other ideas, so that's what I'm interested in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism#Auguste_Comte

It seems we agree that facts which can be verified with empirical evidence belong in a different category than philosophy, spirituality, and religion. If you find something inconsistent about this, I'd appreciate you spelling it out for me, as I don't read as much as you do.

 

[Lark]

Because I already know how your God makes things meaningful. You said that 'the purpose of life is to propagate life' can be meaningful by virtue of other ideas, so that's what I'm interested in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biophilia_hypothesis

It seems we agree that facts which can be verified with empirical evidence belong in a different category than philosophy, spirituality, and religion. If you find something inconsistent about this, I'd appreciate you spelling it out for me, as I don't read as much as you do.

I dont think its as easy to draw boundaries as you do, also I think while that appears neatly demarcated it is reductive, empiricism is not all it is cracked up to be and I'm not simply talking about metaphysics and spirituality/religion, which I detect a dismissive aversion for on your part, but quantum physics, other sorts of theoretical and research domains, logic, inferences, hypothesis, all exist which are not strictly empirical but basically the best guess, without being invalid. I think that all knowledge should strive towards the positive.

 

[miss fortune]

does there have to be meaning for something to exist?

can't we just be happy that it does?

 

[EcK]

does there have to be meaning for something to exist?

can't we just be happy that it does?

No. If the brain has agency and assigns meaning to its environment then it follows that the environment must have inherent agency and meaning.

Its like a straberry cake. If the strawberry cake tastes like strawberry cake then it follows that weat tastes like strawberry cake.

If the cake is made by a conscious being then it follows that so was water, weat and all other ingredients.

*broken logic*