How does this quote by C.S. Lewis' make sense?

[cafolini]

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.

Believing or disbelieving anything whatsoever doesnt necessarily make it true. Correct. And the passion of convictions does not necessarily make them true. As Nietzsche would say, "a note for asses."
People try to redeem belief or disbelief coupons to feel good, even when aware that they are in the way of knowledge. Con artists of belief and disbelief profit from that hipocresy.
This situation is unsolved by any method whatsoever, except letting it be and providing room for evolution, because there are those who are unaware of their own confusion. And those who become aware can't go anywhere but to evolve and become more knowledgeable. Thus comfortable museums of history must be provided for nuts of all kinds.

[BienvenuJDC]

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.

Disbelieving something because it makes you feel uneasy doesn't make it false either, it stands in the way of understanding the truth.

[JuniperWoolf]

Disbelieving something because it makes you feel uneasy doesn't make it false either, it stands in the way of understanding the truth.

I'd love to be able to believe in an afterlife, it doesn't make me feel uneasy at all. You know what makes me feel uneasy? Ceasing to exist upon my death. Still, even though the very idea is terrifying, it's still the most likely scenario.

[YesNo]

I'd love to be able to believe in an afterlife, it doesn't make me feel uneasy at all. You know what makes me feel uneasy? Ceasing to exist upon my death. Still, even though the very idea is terrifying, it's still the most likely scenario.

A few years ago, I would have thought that also, but then I read Raymond Moody's Life After Life about "near-death experiences". He's the one who coined the term. More recently, he also described "shared-death experiences".

Now I know from previous posts that you don't recognize these things as evidence, but from my perspective there is no need to "believe in" this evidence anymore than there is need to believe in the evidence for the big bang. So from my perspective, the most likely scenario is that you can't die no matter what transformation occurs to the matter-energy stuff of your body. If you think about it, that is "terrifying" as well.

Regarding the original post, there are two ideas which are joined together:

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning:

just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

The second idea makes sense to me, but I don't understand the first one. What is Lewis referring to when he says the "whole universe"? Is it the matter-energy space-time universe that science claims to study or is it something more? If he is referring to the stuff from the big bang, I don't know whether it has any "meaning" unless one can somehow take a stand outside of it.

[stuntpickle]

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.

Thank you for your time.

I think what Lewis is saying is far less esoteric than many here seem to think. He is proposing that the statement "the universe has no meaning" is an irrational statement, since when one uses the word "universe," one does so presuming one will be understood. Of course, the half-clever second-rater will reply with something like the following: "asdfkjh has no meaning;" but this is an entirely different variety of statement, which demonstrates that no one understands what "asdfkjh" refers to (moreover, "asdfkjh" probably even qualifies as a nonce word and, thus, has some meaning), whereas "universe" is understood to refer to an object or collection of objects/things. You can of course try to refine what precisely Lewis is referring to when he uses the word "universe," but this itself implies that you have understood, in part, what he meant. Consider YesNo's response in which he/she wonders whether Lewis means "matter-energy space-time universe that science claims to study"--which immediately demonstrates that we are all in the same ballpark of meaning.

Imagine that someone said "words don't have meaning." Is the receiver of the statement supposed to understand it? After all, the obvious intention of the speaker is to impeach the very vehicle he uses. So the the recipient is justified in responding "that is nonsense" or "no thanks, I just ate" or "strawberry."

The usage of the word "universe" implies some meaning; otherwise one would not use it. When one speaks or writes one does so with the assumption that one will be understood.

Lewis's example of darkness tries to elaborate by showing how in a world where no eyes existed there wouldn't be a debate about whether or not "darkness" had meaning, simply because no one would be able to formulate the question. The very fact that there IS a debate about whether the universe has meaning settles the argument.

[mal4mac]

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."

This is a standard argument dating back to St Anselm, at least. It's also, a very bad argument!

Imagine that apple, imagine biting into it *but* imagine it tastes of chicken. Got it! OK. By Lewis' argument the chicken-apple now exists! God has as much existence as the chicken-apple.

Why does Lewis require the Universe to have some meaning that we tap into? Man is a meaning creating creature he doesn't need God to ladle it out. You could make the meaning of your life anything that gives you joy - from engaging in arguments on Lit. forum, to trying to create the chicken apple...

[mal4mac]

I'd love to be able to believe in an afterlife, it doesn't make me feel uneasy at all. You know what makes me feel uneasy? Ceasing to exist upon my death. Still, even though the very idea is terrifying, it's still the most likely scenario.

Why? Are you terrified of sleep? How can you be terrified of anything that places you in a state where you cannot feel pain, or be terrified, ever again. The ancients are very good on this - Plato, Seneca especially - and also Schopenhauer. Read these masters and you may not feel so uneasy - I don't.

[stuntpickle]

This is a standard argument dating back to St Anselm, at least. It's also, a very bad argument!

Imagine that apple, imagine biting into it *but* imagine it tastes of chicken. Got it! OK. By Lewis' argument the chicken-apple now exists! God has as much existence as the chicken-apple.

Why does Lewis require the Universe to have some meaning that we tap into? Man is a meaning creating creature he doesn't need God to ladle it out. You could make the meaning of your life anything that gives you joy - from engaging in arguments on Lit. forum, to trying to create the chicken apple...

Mal,

You just have no clue what you're talking about. Sorry.

First, despite what some other posters have said, Lewis is not explicitly discussing the existence of anything in this passage. He is simply pointing out a contradiction in the statement "the universe has no meaning."

Second, you wonderfully demonstrate not only that you misunderstand the ontological argument for God, but that you don't even know what it says. The argument does not say "I can imagine God; therefore, he exists." There's a major logical detour through "possible worlds" and "maximally great beings." I find it a little funny that you seem to suggest that an argument by Anselm is somehow antique and beneath discussing, when your "refutation" comes from a fairly bad argument made in the 11th Century. Regardless of how convincing you believe your refutation to be, you must understand that both Descartes and Leibniz dealt with the ontological argument in the 17th Century, long after chicken-apples and perfect islands were proposed. Remember Descartes, the father of modern philosophy? In case you forgot, I will remind you that the ontological argument was a major part of his work--despite your refutation. Even now serious studies are being made of the argument, which leads me to...

Third, you have no clue how philosophy works. The major disagreements in modern philosophy are largely the same as the disagreements of antique philosophy. Refutations of arguments rarely consign the argument to philosophy's dust bin. Instead, the arguments are generally refined and restated. Moreover, refutations are seldom of the "this is stupid" variety; they are mostly particular complaints about very specific flaws. An entire worldview being exploded as spectacularly as logical positivism is a rare occurrence, and STILL logical positivism could make a come back, but it won't be because of Dawkins and Harris because, first, they'd have to know what logical positivism is.

If your interest in the ontological argument extends beyond popular atheistic rhetoric, you might want to check out the modal argument made by Plantinga (who, by the way, was awarded a Guggenheim) or the various attempts to use computational analyses to refine the argument. I will, however, warn you that the aforementioned work is likely to be over your head--not because you're stupid, but because it's fairly advanced stuff. Whatever you decide, you should probably stop scoffing at well regarded philosophical arguments simply because you don't agree with them. I mean, come on, even Bertrand Russel thought the ontological argument was sound.

[Charles Darnay]

Mal,

You just have no clue what you're talking about. Sorry.

First, despite what some other posters have said, Lewis is not explicitly discussing the existence of anything in this passage. He is simply pointing out a contradiction in the statement "the universe has no meaning."

Second, you wonderfully demonstrate not only that you misunderstand the ontological argument for God, but that you don't even know what it says. The argument does not say "I can imagine God; therefore, he exists." There's a major logical detour through "possible worlds" and "maximally great beings." I find it a little funny that you seem to suggest that an argument by Anselm is somehow antique and beneath discussing, when your "refutation" comes from a fairly bad argument made in the 11th Century. Regardless of how convincing you believe your refutation to be, you must understand that both Descartes and Leibniz dealt with the ontological argument in the 17th Century, long after chicken-apples and perfect islands were proposed. Remember Descartes, the father of modern philosophy? In case you forgot, I will remind you that the ontological argument was a major part of his work--despite your refutation. Even now serious studies are being made of the argument, which leads me to...

Third, you have no clue how philosophy works. The major disagreements in modern philosophy are largely the same as the disagreements of antique philosophy. Refutations of arguments rarely consign the argument to philosophy's dust bin. Instead, the arguments are generally refined and restated. Moreover, refutations are seldom of the "this is stupid" variety; they are mostly particular complaints about very specific flaws. An entire worldview being exploded as spectacularly as logical positivism is a rare occurrence, and STILL logical positivism could make a come back, but it won't be because of Dawkins and Harris because, first, they'd have to know what logical positivism is.

If your interest in the ontological argument extends beyond popular atheistic rhetoric, you might want to check out the modal argument made by Plantinga (who, by the way, was awarded a Guggenheim) or the various attempts to use computational analyses to refine the argument. I will, however, warn you that the aforementioned work is likely to be over your head--not because you're stupid, but because it's fairly advanced stuff. Whatever you decide, you should probably stop scoffing at well regarded philosophical arguments simply because you don't agree with them. I mean, come on, even Bertrand Russel thought the ontological argument was sound.

I think there indeed a question of existence in his implication of meaning.....not existence as a physical body of space but existence in the spiritual sense.

Other than that, I agree with your post.

[stuntpickle]

I think there indeed a question of existence in his implication of meaning.....not existence as a physical body of space but existence in the spiritual sense.

Other than that, I agree with your post.

Charles,

I am, in no way, hostile to idealistic philosophies, and it is perhaps true that Lewis is, in the broader context, suggesting that meaning and existence coincide, but no such claim can be divined from the quoted passage alone. When someone asks about a particular passage, I find it problematic to refer outside that passage and, in your case, to entirely different works by different authors. Thus, my use of the word "explicitly" when I said Lewis was not discussing the existence of anything.

[stuntpickle]

I think there indeed a question of existence in his implication of meaning.....not existence as a physical body of space but existence in the spiritual sense.

Other than that, I agree with your post.

I guess I'm saying that from the Lewis passage an argument such as the following could be constructed:

1. To evoke an object or objects with language implies meaning.
2. The statement "the universe has no meaning" evokes "the universe"
3. Therefore, "the universe" has meaning.
4. Therefore, the statement "the universe has no meaning" is self-refuting.

My point about Lewis not discussing the existence of anything, when clearly he is discussing the existence of darkness is that I don't think his intention with the passage was to formulate an argument that ends with the conclusion "Therefore the universe exists"--even though the existence of the universe is assumed.

The passage does not lead irrevocably to the existence of the universe, or at least in a way that can be demonstrated logically.

Of course, I might be wrong.

P.S. Wittgenstein would never accept #1.

[Darcy88]

"Regardless of how convincing you believe your refutation to be, you must understand that both Descartes and Leibniz dealt with the ontological argument in the 17th Century, long after chicken-apples and perfect islands were proposed. Remember Descartes, the father of modern philosophy? In case you forgot, I will remind you that the ontological argument was a major part of his work--despite your refutation."

Yeah, do you remember Hume? How about Kant? Both offered pretty solid objections, if not legitimate refutations, of said argument.

[stuntpickle]

"Regardless of how convincing you believe your refutation to be, you must understand that both Descartes and Leibniz dealt with the ontological argument in the 17th Century, long after chicken-apples and perfect islands were proposed. Remember Descartes, the father of modern philosophy? In case you forgot, I will remind you that the ontological argument was a major part of his work--despite your refutation."

Yeah, do you remember Hume? How about Kant? Both offered pretty solid objections, if not legitimate refutations, of said argument.

How totally surprising that a New Atheist has completely missed the point!

Some guy mistakes a vague idealism for the ontological argument for God, completely misrepresents said argument and then ridicules it for being old while citing a thousand-year old "refutation." I correct said guy, and shortly thereafter another guy shows up to remind me that Hume and Kant objected to the argument. This sort of thing happens, I guess, because the adolescents constituting the New Atheist movement all vow to misinterpret any mention of God, the Bible or the work of C.S. Lewis as a challenge to debate the proposition "God exists" on the spot.

I guess now I'm supposed to remind you that Hume's variety of philosophical empiricism was exploded in the first half of the 20th Century or that the vast majority of philosophers think there are major contradictions in Kant's work. BUT ALL THIS IS BESIDE THE POINT! One reads neither Hume nor Descartes for the purpose of divining this or that ultimate argument; instead, one reads the work of the aforementioned philosophers in the hopes that one will learn how to think and, consequently, will avoid showing up on some internet forum and completely misinterpreting all that has been said.

Actually, I suspect you haven't even read Hume or Descartes and, instead, spend your time scouring wikipedia, youtube and infidels.org looking for "slam dunk" refutations of the cosmological arguments for God. If you had actually read Hume or Descartes, you probably wouldn't have confused my correction of some guy's wild misinterpretations as a literal advancement of the ontological argument. I mean, seriously, no one was even talking about the ontological argument for God until some guy started rambling incoherently about "chicken-apples."

[YesNo]

1. To evoke an object or objects with language implies meaning.

...

P.S. Wittgenstein would never accept #1.

OK, I'll bite. Why would Wittgenstein never accept #1?

I've read Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, but I made as much sense out of it as I did the current issue of Poetry--which was not a lot.

Both were either over my head or below my feet.

Here is the original quote from Lewis:

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

The word "universe" has various meanings. I don't think that is the issue here, but if that is what Lewis is arguing, then what Lewis said was trivial. The second idea in the quote makes me think that you may be right. Lewis is just arguing that the word itself has meaning. Is that all there is to it?

[stuntpickle]

OK, I'll bite. Why would Wittgenstein never accept #1?

I've read Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, but I made as much sense out of it as I did the current issue of Poetry--which was not a lot.

Both were either over my head or below my feet.

Here is the original quote from Lewis:

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

The word "universe" has various meanings. I don't think that is the issue here, but if that is what Lewis is arguing, then what Lewis said was trivial. The second idea in the quote makes me think that you may be right. Lewis is just arguing that the word itself has meaning. Is that all there is to it?

My admittedly limited understanding of Wittgenstein is that later in his career he considered language merely a sort of linguistic game rather than the true currency of meaning.

You say that Lewis's discussion of meaningful language is a trivial point; I would, however, disagree. I would, in fact, suggest that it is THE major point of modern philosophy--or at least related to it. The relationship between language and consciousness is one of the primary foci of modern philosophy. Some would say that language is, in fact, the primary fabric of consciousness, that consciousness is, itself, constituted in language, that language forms a "matrix," if you will, through which we all experience a muddled actuality. Is our notion of a universe entirely distinct from the word "universe?" Is our notion entirely distinct from an external actuality? Does an external actuality exist? Does Descartes's thinking "I" exist outside an elaborate system of language? Is the appropriate philosophical starting place the interior of the human mind or an external system of physiological structures? Does answering the aforementioned questions in a particular way completely invalidate the questions, themselves? Does this--the universe and all the things it contains--mean something? Are we the arbiters of this meaning or merely the receivers of it? Is there even a "we?"

Personally, I'm with Descartes. I have no doubts about my existence, and the interior of the self seems the obvious place to start since it is the lens through which all other things are known. Of course, the materialists and the naturalists are determined to prove otherwise--even if it means pretending that consciousness naturally emerges as an effect of physical complexity, that the soul is constituted in the brain, that consciousness can, itself, be constructed out of Lincoln Logs.

The New Atheists are just an unimportant side show.