Meaning of Life.

[weepingforloman]

God cannot be visualized, b/c He is invisible.

[Midas]

God cannot be visualized, b/c He is invisible.

In this, there is possibly an element of truth.

Assuming one accepts that there is a 'God' - and to those who believe, we must accept this can mean different things to different people, then I would say that you are partly correct. By that, I mean if such existence meets the expectations of a reasonably developed, analytical, and reasoning, mind.

However, I contend that it is an impossibility for the mind not to apply some picture/image to any noun, and that includes pronouns, the moment that one hears the word. Try it, but be honest with yourself in your findings.

The picture will be different to different people. For instance, if I say 'there is a dog outside the room', to a roomful of people, immediately a picture would leap into the mind of each one. However, there would be a wide difference of size, colour, and breed in many variations if we were able to see all those visualisations.

It would be the same if I said that 'God is watching over us' (or any sentence containing the word God). I would guarantee that to the vast majority, no matter how well educated, or intelligent, and even to non believers, they would 'see' some personification of a supreme being.

Try to imagine the invisible man without seeing some person veiled by some, representative, 'invisible mist'. Try to imagine electricity without first seeing, if only for a second, some zigzaging flash line, or sparks (used in pictorial representations).

There has to be some visual effect taking place in the mind otherwise the word has no complete meaning. It would be like saying 'and' or 'but', we would be waiting for a 'picture', a noun, to complete the sense.

Many do accept God as a form of invisible 'universal mind' or energy that is constant, and everywhere. I am not going into this deeply as that is something to be discussed in another category of thread.

I raise it here for one purpose; that is to make aware the importance of words in both reading, writing, and speaking. They either create a picture, or leave us hanging in the air waiting for one.

The English language has more words than any other. This is why it has evolved as the unsurpassed language of great literature. By that I do not mean that other languages have not had, or have, great writers.

When we write, we paint a picture with words, therefore let us choose our 'colours' carefully like a great artist, and never forget 'connotation' - some people are colour blind and may see the meaning different to that which we intend.

When we read, observe the words chosen by the writer when there may have been, especially in English, a number of other words the writer could have used. That writer probably deliberated some time over the final choice, particularly when editing.

Once again, writing is painting a picture with words, and when we read we are really appreciating, or trying to, a mind picture painted by the writer, discerned by us, as with the writer, and defined by Wordsworth as that 'inward eye'.



I add this footnote:

To any who are about to question what this has this to do with 'the meaning of life', and I am sure it has leapt to the minds of the few highly critical readers, who are always ready to challenge, I contend it has every relevance.

First it has to do with 'meaning' and how can we discuss the meaning of anything without bringing in the question of 'meaning'.


"......Then you should say what you mean, the March Hare went on.
"I do, " Alice hastily replied; "at least I mean what I say, that's the same thing, you know."
"Not the same thing a bit!" said the Hatter. "Why, you might just as well say that "I see what I eat" is the same thing as "I eat what I see!........."
(Alice in Wonderland.)


Then there is the understanding of the complexity of such a subject. First we have meaning itself, then we have 'Life'. This can bring in so many avenues to go down which makes it very difficult to contain it within everyone's idea of what such a thread should be composed.

And while 'God' is held by some as relating to 'religion' and is too controversial to be discussed except in that context, then, I say, how can we discuss life without questioning its creation. Also, to many, the worship, and serving of, God, or G-d, or some 'Supreme Being,' is their only meaning of life.

[atiguhya padma]

It seems to me that anyone starting a thread entitled 'In Inquest of the meaning of life' with the analysis that the world of thought is split into believers and non-believers, has made a radical error from the very start.

The inquiry should really be does life have meaning? Not what is the meaning of life (this may sound pedantic, but the latter pre-supposes that life has meaning).

What do we mean when we say life has meaning? Are we talking about purpose?

[atiguhya padma]

God cannot be visualized, b/c He is invisible.

He seems to be inaudible too. In fact, I can't think of one sense that can irrefutably detect him. Makes you think doesn't it?

Or not as the case may be.

[Bii]

Tell me how can I get me out of these two boxes of thought and have a fair idea clean of all these borrowed ideas. I have more and more such questions that will follow. Do you have anything to cooment ?

Blaze - this is something you need to work out for yourself. You're correct in identifying that the two schools of thought are not complimentary, but there are many scientists who believe in God, and many religious people who believe in science. The key point here is, whichever way you want to go, it is belief, and beliefs are things which can only exist in the absence of proof. Many people don't accept that science is a belief system, yet people defend it in the same way as religious people defend their religion. People believe that science holds the answers, the key to the meaning of life, and in this respect it becomes a belief system, no different to religion. From my way of thinking, neither science nor religion actually hold the answers, but as a belief system either will support you, and guide your actions in life. If it's meaning you're searching for, you may have to accept that it's an answer you will never find, or perhaps you will. Perhaps the search for answers is meaning in itself?

Beliefs are personal, and no one should be attacked for their beliefs, except in those cases where beliefs are injurious to others. I dislike the way that, even in this forum, people casually insult others based on their beliefs, attack them and say that they are wrong. When we're talking about belief, how can anyone say that their beliefs are right, and someone else's wrong? At best all that can be said is that they are different.

If you believe both in God and in science, then you need to find a way to reconcile these two opposing beliefs in your own mind, in a way you are comfortable with. Perhaps the way to approach this is to consider them as approaching different subject matters - science seeks to understand the mechanics, religion seeks to provide meaning. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just a suggestion to your problem.

[weepingforloman]

He seems to be inaudible too. In fact, I can't think of one sense that can irrefutably detect him. Makes you think doesn't it?

Or not as the case may be.

Considering that God is entirely spirit, I would find it hard to believe that someone had seen/heard/touched/smelled/tasted Him. Especially that last one.

In this, there is possibly an element of truth.

Assuming one accepts that there is a 'God' - and to those who believe, we must accept this can mean different things to different people, then I would say that you are partly correct. By that, I mean if such existence meets the expectations of a reasonably developed, analytical, and reasoning, mind.

However, I contend that it is an impossibility for the mind not to apply some picture/image to any noun, and that includes pronouns, the moment that one hears the word. Try it, but be honest with yourself in your findings.

Bolding mine, obviously. This is true, but we are warned not to do it, so that we do not make the image we manufacture the object of our worship. There is a famous prayer, I don't currently remember who wrote it, it may even be simply a traditional prayer, that ends with "Not to what I imagine Thee to be, but to what Thou knowest Thyself to be."

It is pointless to try to picture God... How can you picture the Source of all Being?

[bookworm57]

[QUOTE=atiguhya padma;402273]He seems to be inaudible too. In fact, I can't think of one sense that can irrefutably detect him. Makes you think doesn't it?


So, With respect, because none of your senses can irrefutably detect God, It must be the same for everyone ?

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

God is often pictured as an old, white man with a beard and living on a cloud, it is quite moronic. People anthropomorphize religious figures all the time, even their lord and savior Jesus Christ...




Blue-eyed Jesus, what a joke.

Here's another good one, taken from a Christian website. Note that this is being serious. (http://biblia.com/christianity2/8-god.htm)



Juxtapose this with Poseidon of Ancient Greece...



Funny how "pagan idolatry" is recycled...

But seriously, Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote prolific philosophy on the subject of language and philosophy. A precursor to his Tractatus was a group of people that called themselves the Vienna Circle, a group of scientists and mathematicians that met with each other to discuss philosophical matters. They agreed that words that are devoid of meaning, or rather, not derived from experience are to be disregarded. Of course, this has a profound impact on philosophy, as they rejected metaphysics and other kinds of wild speculation that hinged on deceptive syntax and diction. This movement is known as logical positivism. Though it isn't around now, it was a very powerful idea and laid groundwork for modern philosophy and logical analysis.

In Wittgenstein's Tractatus, he explains that what humans see is a state of affairs, and that thought is a projection of this state of affairs but derived from sense. It was his idea that thoughts are not totally wrong because they are propositions of things that are known through sense. He writes some analytical stuff and concludes famously "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." Tractatus is regarded as one of the best works of 20th century philosophy.

{edit}

[Midas]

".....Bolding mine, obviously. This is true, but we are warned not to do it, so that we do not make the image we manufacture the object of our worship. There is a famous prayer, I don't currently remember who wrote it, it may even be simply a traditional prayer, that ends with "Not to what I imagine Thee to be, but to what Thou knowest Thyself to be."......................."

It is pointless to try to picture God... How can you picture the Source of all Being?

__________________


Not quite sure what 'Bolding mine' means, or refers to.

It has nothing to do with a concious act. For example, if I said to you, or anyone, try not to think of a dog, or ship, or car, it would be impossible for you not to think of whichever.

In attempting not to think of something, we think of it more,

It is impossible for us not to put a picture, if only for a moment, to any noun
we hear said to us. It is out of our hands. It is an automatic response.

When we are reading we are constantly putting pictures in our mind conveyed by the writer. If the writer gives insufficient description, then we apply our own.

If you (anyone) try it yourself, as I suggested, and you are honest with yourself, you will understand without anyone explaining.

It is the same for me, knowing this does not make anyone an exception.

I understand your argument that it is believed by some that we are not supposed to envision the Deity. I believe that is so in the Christian belief.

However, saying is one thing, doing another. It is an automatic response to put a picture to a noun. When we try not to, it is even more difficult - the picture stays longer. In fact, as long as we try not to.

[weepingforloman]

God is often pictured as an old, white man with a beard and living on a cloud, it is quite moronic. People anthropomorphize religious figures all the time, even their lord and savior Jesus Christ...




Blue-eyed Jesus, what a joke.

Here's another good one, taken from a Christian website. Note that this is being serious. (http://biblia.com/christianity2/8-god.htm)



Juxtapose this with Poseidon of Ancient Greece...



Funny how "pagan idolatry" is recycled...

But seriously, Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote prolific philosophy on the subject of language and philosophy. A precursor to his Tractatus was a group of people that called themselves the Vienna Circle, a group of scientists and mathematicians that met with each other to discuss philosophical matters. They agreed that words that are devoid of meaning, or rather, not derived from experience are to be disregarded. Of course, this has a profound impact on philosophy, as they rejected metaphysics and other kinds of wild speculation that hinged on deceptive syntax and diction. This movement is known as logical positivism. Though it isn't around now, it was a very powerful idea and laid groundwork for modern philosophy and logical analysis.

In Wittgenstein's Tractatus, he explains that what humans see is a state of affairs, and that thought is a projection of this state of affairs but derived from sense. It was his idea that thoughts are not totally wrong because they are propositions of things that are known through sense. He writes some analytical stuff and concludes famously "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." Tractatus is regarded as one of the best works of 20th century philosophy.

{edit}

I agree. More than a bit moronic. Jesus was Palestinian. God does not have a body. These are not the things I swear by. These are simply instances of misplaced zeal.

__________________


Not quite sure what 'Bolding mine' means, or refers to.

It has nothing to do with a concious act. For example, if I said to you, or anyone, try not to think of a dog, or ship, or car, it would be impossible for you not to think of whichever.

In attempting not to think of something, we think of it more,

It is impossible for us not to put a picture, if only for a moment, to any noun
we hear said to us. It is out of our hands. It is an automatic response.

When we are reading we are constantly putting pictures in our mind conveyed by the writer. If the writer gives insufficient description, then we apply our own.

If you (anyone) try it yourself, as I suggested, and you are honest with yourself, you will understand without anyone explaining.

It is the same for me, knowing this does not make anyone an exception.

I understand your argument that it is believed by some that we are not supposed to envision the Deity. I believe that is so in the Christian belief.

However, saying is one thing, doing another. It is an automatic response to put a picture to a noun. When we try not to, it is even more difficult - the picture stays longer. In fact, as long as we try not to.

My only point is that it would be pointless to present my mental image of God to you, because I know it is utterly incorrect. In fact, it resembles, to an extent, a combination of the Pringles logo, the Pepsi logo, and a sweeping cape combined. Stupid, I know, which is why I prefer not to mention it. The "bolding mine" refers to the fact that I bolded your statement in the quote.

[NikolaiI]

My only point is that it would be pointless to present my mental image of God to you, because I know it is utterly incorrect. In fact, it resembles, to an extent, a combination of the Pringles logo, the Pepsi logo, and a sweeping cape combined. Stupid, I know, which is why I prefer not to mention it. The "bolding mine" refers to the fact that I bolded your statement in the quote.

Midas' post is beautiful, and he is entirely right about paint a picture with words. That's how good writers think, I think. They look at sentence structure, length, flow, paragraphs, etc., all of it, and have a knack for seeing and judging beautiful paragraphs, etc., probably, because they're easy to read.

Anyway, you give us a picture with your words, and you express your idea of God through any medium you want - poetry, a short story, art, a novel, philosophy, whatever, and that's how you share it. Perhaps you view God as invisible. Then that's the image of him. Perhaps you associate him with stain-glass windows in Church, then it's probably mostly colours, and that's beautiful too.

I don't think it's a bad idea to talk of God, or think about him in images. In my mind, God should be equal to blessedness, and isn't that the whole idea, is happiness and blessedness? God, prayer? Etc., etc.

Anyway for me that's what God is. And that's why I see Jesus as equal to the Buddha, because Jesus=blessedness, the Buddha=blessedness, Jesus=the Buddha=God=prayer, etc. Nature, too.

Anyway, you present some idea of God with every word, and every action, etc., as well as yourself, you project it. Thoughts, too, but no one can see those.

[weepingforloman]

The difference between you and I is that I am exclusive, and you are not. Because I am exclusively Christian, I take it as law when I am commanded not to make images. I take it seriously when Christ declares that He is the only way to God. Because I believe exclusively, I find myself bound by certain restraints. You do not. That is the first difference.

I would be interested in discussing the differences between Christ and Gautama elsewhere.

[Bii]

isn't this getting rather off topic? Perhaps this debate belongs in the religious literature forum rather than philosophy?

[blazeofglory]

I know for sure that nobody could answer this question perfectly and knowing that I sill wallow in asking. This is the luxury of asking, at times unmindful of being answered inaccurately or fatuously.
The joy of asking is something unmatchable.

[librarius_qui]

It is in my humble opinion that life truly has no meaning. We are organisms put on this planet to live our life and and do what pleases us. We are nothing but another species with superior intelligence and reason. That is why our life has so much structure and beurocracy. We live our life in guaranteed death. We reproduce and the next generation goes through this life cycle. Repeated hundreds of times all while the process of Evolution takes place. Therefore our life truly has no meaning. In a broader sense nothing really has any meaning whatsoever. But our emotions, our emotions is what blinds us into this anomaly which very few ever realize that we are meaningless. On this earth to do only what pleases us.

I realize that this idea has brought many poets to their death by suicide.

Sincerely, A thoughtful adolescent and realist.

Life has no meaning, until you find a religion [ ... ]