Could someone elucidate this quote for me? I'm having difficulty understanding his explanation on why the universe must have meaning.
I'm also interested to hear your thoughts about this quote.Originally Posted by C.S. Lewis
Thank you for your time.
In order to disprove something's existence, you must first recognize its existence. Sort of a Kantian paradox, existence is the mind's capability, and yet it is the mind that tries to question this very existence. Lewis here equates universe with its spiritual meaning more than just physical
I wrote a poem on a leaf and it blew away...
Sorry, I still do not understand. Could you expand on that a little more?
According to this theory, if something exists in the mind, if you can conceive it mentally, it exists and therefore has meaning.
Take an apple - when I say apple, even if you are not looking at/holding an apple - you can picture it in your mind. you can wrap your head around the idea of an apple - it exists.
Now let's say you want to prove to someone that an apple does not exist. In order to even approach the argument "an apple does not exist" you must first conjure up the image of an apple. Since you have conjured up that image you have just proved its existence and therefore cannot prove its non-existence - does this make sense?
This argument is used a lot to approach the less tangible subjects of the universe and, in particular, God.
It is argued (and I don't want to turn this into a religious thing, even though that is where C.S Lewis goes with his thinking), but it is argued that those who try to disprove God (atheists) cannot do so, because in order to disprove God, they must have an idea of God, and by that very idea,
Try it out for yourself - try to prove that an apple doesn't exist without bringing up the idea of an apple. You can't do it. It's like trying to describe what "green" is without using "green."
I wrote a poem on a leaf and it blew away...
Wait. What theory are we talking about here - the Kantian paradox?
Also is something missing from the end of your second to last paragraph? "and by that very idea,"
And let's see if I'm understanding this correctly. Since I can conjure up a universe without meaning, therefore it must exist, right?
Since I can conceive mentally a beluga being in my room right next to me at this exact moment, it exists and has meaning? I'm not talking about just conjuring up a beluga, but a beluga in my room right next to me.
I cannot grasp this logic.
If I wanted to show that apples do not exist, couldn't I just envision a universe where apples do not exist and never have and never will exist? These two ideas would contradict each other though. Is this the paradoxical part?
Last edited by Try; 11-06-2011 at 04:30 PM. Reason: Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me, by the way!
Sorry, typo on my part. By that very idea, he must exist.
We are talking both about the Lewis quote and Kantian paradox, because they are the same thing.
As for your beluga in the room - I am afraid I overstepped the boundaries of the mind according to Kant, and left out an important part.
There is a philosophy known as "idealism" that would support your beluga in the room, because according to idealism, reality exists in the mind, and so if your mind creates it, it is real. So if you can see in your mind, a beluga in the room, he is there....enjoy.
Now, Kant did away with this logic by claiming that (and I'm paraphrasing)
"The mind is constrained by the physical world of math and science." So existence is based on our mind, yes, but under the constrains of what is physically natural. So, no, your beluga would be classified here as supernatural.
Now what about this Lewis quote? Kant put forward the argument that we cannot conceive of "God" or the "universe" because they exist outside of the scope of the physical world. But the paradox that Lewis draws attention to is, by realizing that we cannot conceive of something, we have given it meaning.
So your beluga may not exist, but it has meaning because we heave entered into this discussion. We have spiritually created a beluga in your room.
I know this seems a bit chopped up, and perhaps I was wrong to bring Kant into the mess - because he is a problem unto himself.
One way to look at it, taking all of this, might be to separate existence from meaning, wherein "existence" means physically present (you can see, hear, feel, taste, smell, or sense it), and meaning means "spiritual existence" (in which you can conceive of it).
I wrote a poem on a leaf and it blew away...
It has meaning. But none in occurrence. It's the VERSE of the UNI in existence. But he's mixing indirect thinking in the statement to attemp a proof of the hocus-pocus.
Now, mine should be a lot more difficult to grasp. Lots of grandeur and finnality to be abandoned before that.
Basically, the fact that we think of meaning is already evidence that there must be meaning. Lewis says we have a sense for meaning, a sense that couldn't exist if there was no meaning. But we also have free will. That means, we can make an error if we misunderstand our free will to mean we are free when it comes to meaning, that we can simply pick and choose. That betrays a deeper sense in us, that we suffer or get corrupt if we go for picking and choosing instead of believing the truth. A kind of built-in judgment. Jesus said the truth will set us free and His word is the only judge.
I'm afraid comrade Darnays argument is a little flawed. By using the example of the apple he has nullified the point he he is trying to make. Apples patently do exist although someone who has never seen one may not believe in them. However, it is possible to present this individual with concrete evidence, ie an apple, and thus prove that they exisit.
It would have made more sense to have posed the question: "If a unicorn is a magical, mythical beast, and consequently does not exisit in fact, is a thought of a unicorn a real thought?" Now you can show someone a picture of a unicorn and providing they are aware of the concept, they will immediately recognise the picture of being of a unicorn. It doesn't make the unicorn real, only that someone has imagined one, and drawn a picture of it. It doesn't mean the unicorn exisits, only that the picture of the unicorn does.
The only way to prove the existance of a thing is to provide tangible evidence of it. It is impossible to disprove the existance of a thing as the only evidence one can provide is it's absence. All this proves is that it is not physically present or that no one has found one yet. Meaning is, in and of itself, an abstract concept and entirely relative. Belief in a concept is essentially a matter of faith, which is where Lewis is coming from.
Last edited by Hawkman; 11-07-2011 at 10:43 AM.
I think that Lewis's analogy with darkness is flawed, because he's citing it as a standalone concept, whereas in the case of 'meaning' he's citing it as applied to a known existent thing - 'the universe'.
'Meaning' exists as a concept whether or not it applies to the universe. Words have meaning. Football matches have meaning. See Spot Run has meaning. That doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that the universe must have meaning because we can imagine it might have.
If that were the case then we'd have to say that wardrobes must contain magical worlds because we can imagine they might do.
What does it mean to you that if we have no meaning in our life, it is empty and futile? I am speaking of a sense of fulfillment in life, something we all strive for. The noble thought, the sense of truth and beauty where you can breathe and say yes, this makes sense, this is how it should be. I suppose it must be about the narrow gate and the wide gate ... it's something you need to experience for yourself if you have to give doubt such a value..
Flawed? I think not! Oversimplified maybe, but not flawed. I was trying to argue that even with a tangible object (apple) you need to recognize its existence before being able to disprove it, as you yourself state: "The only way to prove the existance of a thing is to provide tangible evidence of it." And so it is with the universe, which, for the purpose of the OP, is as tangible as an apple, but a bit more difficult to grasp. By trying to disprove the universe, like an apple or unicorn, you must recognize its tangibility, and thus its meaning.
I wrote a poem on a leaf and it blew away...
There occurs no universe, except in the pseudo-imaginary two-dimensions of existence; purely pseudo-imaginary and intangible in physics; a mere leap of useless finality. Men are incapable of measuring such a whole. And if there occurs no whole, there occurs but a meaningless UNI, what I call The Verse of the UNI. It only exists by insane postulation. It's in a museum of unnatural history in occurrence. It's meaningless to the senses.
The indirect thinking of C. S. Lewis cannot apply to the subject in question. While light or darkness is a matter of intensity measurement, the so-called universe can't be measured, not even imagined. Even the apple can't be declared a universe, since in that case we would have to be able to measure experimentally its minutest detail of infinitesimals and even smaller. Such postulations are a vestige of philosophy, or what I call obsolete systems of confusion and leaping insanities.
Last edited by cafolini; 11-07-2011 at 05:26 PM.
But believing in something because it makes you feel good doesn't make it true, it stands in the way of arriving at the truth.
__________________
"Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
-Pi
what are traditions?
web design new york
Posting Permissions
