Re: CHAT: facing your own mortality (as a conlanger)
|From:||R A Brown <ray@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, July 5, 2008, 7:15|
I've tried hard, and until today succeeded, in keeping out of this way
off-topic thread, despite noticing quite a few fallacies being aired.
>> [mailto:CONLANG@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf Of Jorg
>> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 23:05:22 -0400, Dana Nutter wrote:
>>> I know other believe differently, and they are entitled to
>>> so, but my philosophy is when I'm gone, I'm nothing more
>>> food for the worms whether anyone remembers me or not.
Lucretius said much the same 2000 years back, only he did it more
poetically (being a poet :)
>>> something behind means nothing to me.
Which Lucretius did not say. This does not by any means necessarily
follow from the previous statement. In his case he thought his message
was important to save both his contemporaries and posterity from fear
induced by superstition and religion, as he understood it.
>> That's a rather bleak and cynical outlook, I must say.
> Cynical, yes. But that's the way it is, however it doesn't have
> to be bleak.
Depends what one means by cynical, I guess. It doesn't seem to accord
with the original meaning, i.e. pertaining to Cynics and their
philosophy to live virtuously in accordance with nature. But the modern
definitions of 'cynical' does seem to me to be bleak.
>> I know that I don't know what happens to me after I die,
>> but apart from this _scio ut nescio_ I firmly believe
>> that we are here with a purpose, namely to make the world
>> a better and more beautiful place. And that means that we
>> *should* care about the rest of the world, even beyond our
>> own lifespans.
> The whole thing about purpose is based in the belief in some
> type of grand scheme which presumes a "creator". Therefore
> without a creator and a plan, there is no purpose either.
No, that simply does _not_ follow. One obvious example is the Marxist
notion of dialectic materialism. There is certainly no place for God or
any sort of creator (whether one wants to put the word in quotes or not)
in this philosophy, but their most definitely is the notion of purpose.
Likewise one can believe their was a creator and yet not hold any
(strong) notion of purpose. Some deist ideas seem to me to be like that:
there was a 'watchmaker' who set the whole thing going but then left it
running - it's simply a machine ticking away.
Lars Finsen wrote:
> Anyway, we probably wouldn't have this discussion if we
> were Chinese. Or maybe not even if we were born a 1000 or even 100 years
> Maybe we shouldn't have it at all, as we are wildly off-topic.
Amen! It's wildly off-topic.
Could we end it or at least take it off the list and carry on privately?
(but don't involve me in any private discussion, please)
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]