<a href="http://www.geocities.com/vaksam/">Sam Vaknin's Psychology, Philosophy, Economics and Foreign Affairs Web Sites
Some philosophers say that our life is meaningless because it has a prescribed end. This is a strange assertion: is a movie rendered meaningless because of its finiteness? Some things acquire a meaning precisely because they are finite: consider academic studies, for instance. It would seem that meaningfulness does not depend upon matters temporary.
We all share the belief that we derive meaning from external sources. Something bigger than us – and outside us – bestows meaning upon our lives: God, the State, a social institution, an historical cause.
Yet, this belief is misplaced and mistaken. If such an external source of meaning were to depend upon us for its definition (hence, for its meaning) – how could we derive meaning from it? A cyclical argument ensues. We can never derive meaning from that whose very meaning (or definition) is dependent on us. The defined cannot define the definer. To use the defined as part of its own definition (by the vice of its inclusion in the definer) is the very definition of a tautology, the gravest of logical fallacies.
On the other hand: if such an external source of meaning were NOT dependent on us for its definition or meaning – again it would have been of no use in our quest for meaning and definition. That which is absolutely independent of us – is absolutely free of any interaction with us because such an interaction would inevitably have constituted a part of its definition or meaning. And that, which is devoid of any interaction with us – cannot be known to us. We know about something by interacting with it. The very exchange of information – through the senses - is an interaction.
Thus, either we serve as part of the definition or the meaning of an external source – or we do not. In the first case, it cannot constitute a part of our own definition or meaning. In the second case, it cannot be known to us and, therefore, cannot be discussed at all. Put differently: no meaning can be derived from an external source.
Despite the above said, people derive meaning almost exclusively from external sources. If a sufficient number of questions is asked, we will always reach an external source of meaning. People believe in God and in a divine plan, an order inspired by Him and manifest in both the inanimate and the animate universe.
Richard Taylor, an American philosopher and author of, “The Meaning of Life” believes you can live a meaningful life as long as you realize your will and are completely involved in it and enjoy it, then you are no longer needed and your life was a successful one. “This is surely the way to look at all of life- at one’s own life, and each day and moment it contains; of the life of a nation; of the species; of the life of the world; and of everything that breathes” (Taylor p 27). He proves this through the ancient myth of Sisyphus. Sisyphus was sentenced by the Gods to spend an eternity rolling a stone repeatedly to the top of a hill and once it reached the top, it would roll right back down once again. Taylor calls Sisyphus’ life as an “endless pointlessness.” Taylor relates human life to Sisyphus’ life. He believes that both of our lives can have meaning. Taylor asks us to look at Sisyphus’ story in a different way. For example, while the Gods sentenced him to rolling this stone up a hill for an eternity, what if they gave him a “strange and irrational impulse” to roll the stone repeatedly. Now, according to Richard Taylor, Sisyphus’ life would now have meaning and if we were to be as invested as Sisyphus in rolling the stone, then our lives have meaning as well.
Epistemology “is a complex and usually opaque subject concerned with the origins and nature of knowledge.” (pg.17)
Aristotle elaborates further that what we might name our power of knowing is not in reference to actual begins, until it truly comprehends. This view is different of the early philosophers, who said that the power of knowing must include all things if it can know all things. But if it knew everything, then it would be an eternal intellect, and not just a possible intellect. Along the same lines he said that of the senses, if they were fundamentally composed of the things they observe, their observations would not assume any external practical things.(4)
A wonderful description of the nature of God’s existence that includes the absolute possession of characteristics that have to be uniquely God was said, “First, God must exist necessarily, which means that God’s existence differs from ours by not being dependent on anything or anyone else, or such as to be taken from him or lost in any way. God has always existed, will always exist and could not do otherwise than to exist. Also, whatever attributes God possesses, he possesses necessarily” (Wood, J., 2010, p. 191).
Humans look for some key equation through which they might tie all of the experiences of life and feel the satisfaction of action toward a goal, rather than the emptiness of which sometimes consumes the activities of our existence. However, humans may never find some great pure meaning beyond their mundane existences, because there is none. What there is to be found, however, is the life itself. Humans seek to find meaning so that emptiness will not pervade every thought, every deed, with the coldness of reality as seen by an unemotional eye. Without color, without joy, without future, reality untouched by hope is nothing more than an empty void. Man’s search for meaning is depicted in John Gardner’s Grendel, as Grendel’s perspective and philosophy
Hume distinguishes two categories into which “all the objects of human reason or enquiry” may be placed into: Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact (15). In regards to matters of fact, cause and effect seems to be the main principle involved. It is clear that when we have a fact, it must have been inferred...
"People say that what we're all seeking is a meaning for life. I don't think that's what we're really seeking. I think that what we're seeking is an experience of being alive...." Joseph Campbell made this comment on the search for meaning common to every man's life. His statement implies that what we seem bent on finding is that higher spark for which we would all be willing to live or die; we look for some key equation through which we might tie all of the experiences of our life and feel the satisfaction of action toward a goal, rather than the emptiness which sometimes consumes the activities of our existence. He states, however, that we will never find some great pure meaning behind everything, because there is none. What there is to be found, however, is the life itself. We seek to find meaning so that emptiness will not pervade our every thought, our every deed, with the coldness of reality as the unemotional eye chooses to see it. Without color, without joy, without future, reality untouched by hope is an icy thing to view; we have no desire to see it that way. We forget, however, that the higher meaning might be found in existence itself. The joy of life and the experience of living are what make up true meaning, as the swirl of atoms guided by chaotic chance in which we find our existence has no meaning outside itself.
“And although an idea may give rise to another idea, this regress cannot, nevertheless, be infinite; we must in the end reach a first idea, the cause of which is, as it were, the archetype in which all the reality that is found objectively in these ideas is contained formally.';
Many people wonder: what is the meaning of life? What is the human purpose on this earth? At least one time in our lifetime, we all look at ourselves and wonder if we are living our lives the way we were meant to live them. Sadly, there is not a definite answer to the principles of human life. Every human comes from different backgrounds and different experiences throughout their existence.
This argument is against the supposed necessity of connection. “Necessity” here may refer to logical necessity, or it may not distinguish between this and physical necessity. To be physically necessary is to be sufficiently caused, but contingent upon the conditions of the event and the properties of all objects involved. Physical...
Scottish philosopher David Hume is amongst one of the most influential empirical philosophers to date for his work in epistemology, metaphysics, and philosophy of religion. As an Empiricist Hume claimed that the only way we can obtain knowledge is through our senses however he argues true knowledge is unattainable for all intent and purpose, due to the problem of induction.By briefly examining Hume 's problem of induction and it 's dependancy to of the so called principles of Uniformity of Nature we could come to a conclusion that Hume 's is correct. In this paper I would like to argue in accordance to Hume 's statement that we cannot have access to true knowledge. By reviewing the definitions of induction, deduction, and the principles of uniformity of nature and examining the possible problems they inflict on the idea of knowledge, we will come to agreement with Hume 's that the idea of knowledge does not simply exist.
So concluding that ‘I am,’ ‘I exist,’ is true whenever it is conceived in mind, attests the fact that since thinking is taking place, regardless of whether or not what is being thought of is true or not, implies that there must be something else involved in the notion, precisely the “I.” Consequently, “I exist” is a certain belief from which other certain truths can be inferred.
Interpretive epistemology, which stems from idealist ontology, asserts that the world is made up of ideas: about oneself, others, society, or nature (Giacomini, ...
Conclusions regarding knowledge are inevitably and fully the result of the concepts that we use because concepts are inseparable from an individual 's thoughts, memories, and preconceived ideas; however, there are some aspects of a concept that must be addressed when it comes to the existence of a “pure concept”. A concept – void of any bias is likely impossible, simply due to the fact that concepts cannot be exclusive of an individual 's mentality. Concepts are used to interpret, analyze, and evaluate experiences, information, and facts in an attempt to answer questions and resolve issues. Depending on the concept an individual chooses to use, the conclusions that arise from the concept are often unique to that specific concept. The use of
If I was provided with the statement, “Define the term ‘balance’.” my immediate response would be that balance means when something is equal or uniform. If a psychology major was asked the same exact question, they might answer that “balance” is a state of mental/emotional stability. Under the circumstance that the psychology major and I were in the same room looking at an art piece such as “The Starry Night” by Van Gogh, we might both answer that balance is when unity or harmony can be seen in a subject. Our answers to open ended questions or vague statements vary depending on what circumstances we are provided with or the settings that we see the subject matter in. However, if our solutions to statements such as “define the term ‘balance’” vary depending on the context, does absolute truth exist (truth being the state or quality of being true; the “real” facts (Truth).