amantha wrote:4. It follows from this that purpose (teleology) and meaning (understanding and actualizing or knowledge of purpose) are inherent and intrinsic aspects or reality irrespective or whether or not there is a coherent, organized universe available within which self aware intelligences can be conscious of their owe individual teleology and capable of acting upon the meaning they perceive.
How does this follow? "Meaning" is a word--a human word. So without humans how can there be meaning?
And words mean things. I'm really not following your argument, which apparently is that The term "meaning" is a word. Humans use words. Therefore, without humans, there are no words. Hence, without words that convey meaning, meaning disappears from the universe.
I think so. Even if meaning exists outside of you and me, it only has meaning to me in as much as it makes me happy. So meaning ultimately comes back to me (for me that is). I cannot separate meaningfulness, meaningfully from my own perceptions. I am the judge and jury of the meaning of the universe (for myself).
Is this a kind of Postmodern analysis of my argument, or just verbiage? Meaning exists in the universe because there is an eternal plan and purpose to consciousness and existence, which God conveys to his children. He tells us we can become like him if we follow certain rules and conform ourselves to certain principles.
Subjectivist materialist rationalizations regarding humans aloneness in the universe (with all that implies for the manner in which we comport ourselves while here) only write the fundamental problem in larger script.
The problem is only a problem is we see it as one. In other words, we assign the meaning. If God consigned you to hell for your behavior in this life do you then not have a choice in how you respond to that punishment? In other words, even then, the meaning of your life will be in how you choose to perceive your surroundings. It's a matter of attitude. You will always assign the meaning to your perceptions. Lemons to lemonade, etc. etc.
The "template" is the fundamental meaning for which the universe is created (teleology). That meaning is God's work and glory, which is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man". In this sense, the template cannot be altered, for
i'm confused. is meaning the template God actualizes, the purpose itself, or is it the knowledge of that template (see my Coggins quote a few posts above).
Coggins7 wrote:I am, however, fully aware of just how theoretical and speculative theoretical physics and pure mathematics can be, so don't patronize we with clever word play.
Pure mathematics is speculative? Gee, learn something new every day. . . [/sarcasm]
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Cog's and A light's assumption that "meaning" has to be secured instrinsically with a final cause in sight is one that plenty of non-theists have believed and delineated in sophisticated ways. See Aristotle, Hegel, Marx, Lukacs, etc.. In fact, the point of Marxism was to wed "metaphysical materialism" with teleology. Intelligent design is about the most naïvely psychologizing and ham-fisted way to establish purpose in the world ever concocted. There is nothing essentially "theistic" about the notion of teleology and the best teleology has probably set forth by non-theists.
More importantly, on our side of the continental/analytic divide where the debates on moral realism take place, the focus derives from GE Moore's famous treatise on ethics which doesn't, funny enough, involve itself in teleology. His issues revolved around the "naturalistic fallacy" and the "open question". He was of course, a moral non-naturalist. You'll see non-naturalists get hung up over deriving an ought from an is, but that has nothing to do per se with teleology.