The Beatitudes

Originally posted by Palynka
You misspelled shear. 🙂

Ha. 😀

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
People die with dualism or without. What do you mean?

That is exactly my point.

Originally posted by Halitose
That is exactly my point.

You'll have to spell it out a bit. I'm dense.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You'll have to spell it out a bit. I'm dense.

Why, in Pantheism are some situations avoided and not embraced as they should?

Originally posted by Halitose
Why, in Pantheism are some situations avoided and not embraced as they should?

Say more, we are getting somewhere.

Originally posted by LemonJello
If you have some argument designed to show that absurdism precludes an objective foundation for morals, then please provide it. I know of no such argument.

Another point: If our actions are ultimately unrelated to our destiny, I submit that everything is permissible.

Originally posted by Halitose
Another point: If our actions are ultimately unrelated to our destiny, I submit that everything is permissible.

Our actions create our destiny. Even though our destiny is already there, we will make the choices to make it.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]You have already stated that you find Christianity "rationally compelling".

Yes, as opposed to a "irrefutably proven" system.

So, by the characterization of 'hope' that Pawnokeyhole provided, on what grounds can you say that your worldview is hopeful?

I have good reason to believe that my view is correct. The hope stems from reasonab ...[text shortened]... n go about doing that without resorting to incoherency?[/b]

Good point.[/b]

Could you explain how meaning is compatible with the absurd -- two seemingly contradictory terms?

Absurdism is incompatible with ultimate meaning. It is incompatible with immortality, eternal significance, and permanence. That's all. To say that the absurd is incompatible with all meaning is patently false. To see that, all we have to do is consider the ridiculous implications that follow from such a claim. The most obvious ridiculous implication is that you would be committed to the stance that nothing in this natural existence is inherently valuable or worthwhile or meaningful in and of itself. After all, if all meaning and value are merely conditional on external eschatological considerations, then no thing and no action possess inherent worth. Even love and kindness would just be means to an end. I was under the impression that you were a supporter of deontological maxims: I find it surprising that you would advance the notion that The Ends justify the mean(ing)s. Where the Bible says that I ought to love my neighbor, I don't recall any implications that the truth of that normative claim is supposed to be viewed as conditional on, or justified by, considerations of the eternal.

So happiness arises from confrontation, not contentment?

That happiness arises from contentment is tautological. So, no. Camus' prescription calls for happiness that arises in the midst of confrontation, where the confrontation is between the person and an unreasonable world.

My problem is not in its preclusion, but in its lack of provision.

This is the same charge you level against atheism. It's the old "this spoon ain't a good spoon because it ain't a knife" criticism; and it is completely irrelevant. There's no "problem" here.

I could also allude to the naturalistic fallacy in formulating an "aught" from what "is" -- the "is" being all the absurdist has IMO.

Er...no. There are many ethical theories that are compatible with absurdism. And since you are aware of the is-ought fallacy, then you know that every non-basic normative belief stems logically from yet another normative belief. Eventually, at the foundations of our noetic structures, we all possess (properly) basic normative beliefs that are supported by...gasp...nothing at all. It works that way for you, as well as the absurdist.

Originally posted by Halitose
Another point: If our actions are ultimately unrelated to our destiny, I submit that everything is permissible.

That's just a silly sound bite resembling the one often attributed to Dostoevsky that serves no purpose but to fuel the irrational fears of the fundamentalists. It's easy to submit it. Now show us your support for it. What's Premise 1?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Absurdism is incompatible with ultimate meaning. It is incompatible with immortality, eternal significance, and permanence. That's all. To say that the absurd is incompatible with all meaning is patently false. To see that, all we have to do is consider the ridiculous implications that follow from such a claim. The most obvious ridiculous implication ...[text shortened]... onal on external eschatological considerations, then no thing and no action possess inherent worth.

[/b]Interesting post, LemonJello.

The most obvious ridiculous implication is that you would be committed to the stance that nothing in this natural existence is inherently valuable or worthwhile or meaningful in and of itself.

I thought they had to commit to that claim. If there is a meaning to something (action/object/entit), and it is not the ultimate meaning, then there must be a higher order of meaning. This is obviously a recurrent problem, so I always thought that the absurdists' solution would be to declare that there is no meaning.

Originally posted by LinkHyrule
Our actions create our destiny. Even though our destiny is already there, we will make the choices to make it.

Sophocles's Oedipus Rex !

Originally posted by Palynka
I thought they had to commit to that claim. If there is a meaning to something (action/object/entit), and it is not the ultimate meaning, then there must be a higher order of meaning. This is obviously a recurrent problem, so I always thought that the absurdists' solution would be to declare that there is no meaning.

Ah, I think I see the problem. That's a good comment because it dawns on me now that many use 'absurdism' as a stance that all is meaningless. I think that sort of nihilistic stance is clearly false, and that's not the way I use 'absurdism' -- that's not exactly the way Camus would use 'absurdism' either. The recurrence argument does not demonstrate that all is meaningless because we can simply show that actions/things may (and/or may only) possess a first-order meaning that in the context of the recurrence argument is the 'ultimate meaning'; that beyond current deliberations and beyond chains of justification that terminate wholly within our natural existence, there are no further considerations necessary to make those actions/things meaningful.

I use absurdism as the stance that there is no higher-order meaning beyond this first-order in and of itself meaning. In the context of your recurrence argument, the first-order meaning is 'ultimate'; but it is not the way 'ultimate' is commonly used when in reference to immortality, eschatology, eternal significance, etc.

Originally posted by LemonJello
That's just a silly sound bite resembling the one often attributed to Dostoevsky that serves no purpose but to fuel the irrational fears of the fundamentalists.

Since watching Robert Duvall in The Apostle this weekend, I am ready to embrace the irrational. Wonderful Jesus!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Since watching Robert Duvall in The Apostle this weekend, I am ready to embrace the irrational. Wonderful Jesus!

I haven't seen that one, but it's positioned on my Netflix queue. I guess Duvall undertook a personal conquest to get that movie made, eventually financing it himself. The last time I saw Duvall on the screen, I was watching Sling Blade, which has a great script.

"Ye ort not to of done that to ye boy."

After that movie, I'm ready to embrace them french-fried potaters.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I haven't seen that one, but it's positioned on my Netflix queue. I guess Duvall undertook a personal conquest to get that movie made, eventually financing it himself.

I'm going to watch it again so I can incorporate some of the Apostle's movements into my personal gestural vocabulary. You'd swear it was voodoo.