If we de-romanticize the term 'meaningful' (strip away connotations like 'impact on my life' or 'importance, significance') then, yes, "May the Force Be With You" is just as meaningful as "Thou Shall not Kill", to my mind. I haven't thought it out as well as it seems like you have, but I believe the meaning of a statement is determined ultimately in one way- whether or not the speaker [i]meant something [/i] when they said it. That and nothing more. If I utter, and I intend to communicate something with my utterance, then my utterance has meaning, full stop. I can't think of any exceptions to that rule.
Oh yeah, “force”. Sorry. I saw the Matrix once, too. I just have a tough time using movies in philosophy.
And yes, I mean to de-romanticise meaning. And everything else philosophical. But you are using the word meaning for “intention” here. That is, in effect, a different word.
“My father called me today.”
“God spoke to me today”.
“I saw my mother today.”
“I saw the hand of God today.”
Let’s say you got a message from God today. Only later, upon reflection, you realised that it wasn’t God talking at all, but that it was you, rationalising some act. Is there a difference between this and thinking that you had dinner with your best friend, and then realising that it wasn’t your best friend at all, but a stranger? Would one of these events mean one thing, and the other, another thing entirely to you? I bet it would.
If you were watching a movie, and a character held a gun up and said “I’m going to kill you” - looking right into the camera, that is, would this mean the same as if the guy sitting in front of you did the same thing? I bet it wouldn’t.
Sure, in the first instance, where I thought I had gotten a message from God, then decided otherwise, I would feel good- as though I had figured something out, and alleviated some confusion. In the second instance, where I suddenly realized that the person I thought was my best friend was a stranger, I would actually be distressed, and feel more confused than when I started. Is that what you mean?
It wouldn’t mean the same thing, no- but only because I know the intention wasn’t the same, either. If I was from some strange country that didn’t know anything about motion pictures (and yet could comprehend English somehow) they may not be so different after all.
That is part of what I mean, yes. You would be confused because you are used to being able to rely on your sense better than that. That’s how you verify literal meaning - with your sense (at least someone’s senses - we cannot experience everything ourselves). You would likely question your sense of reality - what would anything mean then?
In the second example, you are merely changing the example, and also the issue.
But first - in the movie, what is the speakers intention regarding you?
Also, how about if that same character says “Kill someone today.” How is that as meaningful as “Thou sahll not kill”?
That character has no intention. If you watch the movie twice (as i should have watched Star Wars" twice) could he change his mind? Is his intention his own? If so, he can change his mind. We are not talking about the author’s intention here, or the director’s or the actor’s. The Director’s intention may be to make one more big movie and retire, for all we know.
But if you know nothing about movies, that goes to significance, which is a separate issue. If I say “thou sahll not kill” in a language you don’t happen to understand, it has meaning (especially under your thesis of intention) but no significance to you.
I will sing the same song to you, Obw - “meaning” and “intention” are two separate words. “What are the referents of this sentence?” is not the same question as “what does the speaker wish to convey?” Sad, but true.
“Dog” and “cat” are different words, too. Feel free to ask me any time you are confused.
faust, that cold, grey, dry, and dreary is only part of life, and only by perspective. There is beauty in logic as well. But you know that, because that sort of clarity denies nihilism.
perspective alllows truth to exist. It also allows non truth to exist.
A lie that exists is the truth. that it maybe false does not mean that is is not truth.
what is the opposite of truth? Lie or false. or mabe fake. or perhaps reality?
All these words are perspective words. The sun does not come up for a person that lives in a cave and is blind. You can tell them that it does. talk and explain scientifically and mathamatically that it does. but, from their perspective you lie. you see, they can not feel, nor see, nor sense the sun so it does not exist, For them so you are lying to them. Now you can force them to feel the heat from the sun on their skin but, what good would that do? A fire causes heat too as does a lightbulb. they cannot see the sun.
The truth is a perspective word. what exists for one may not exist for another. Your knowledge, senses, faith and belief combine to make the truth for you. If we were meant to see the same then we would. trying to remove a persons truth is like removing their heart. Why would want to do that if they cause no harm to others?
A wise man once said that happiness and beauty are like a bluebird landing in your hand… they can only last as long you don’t try holding the bluebird too tightly.
But as philosophers (myself included) we are examiners. (much like faust examines “was this god or was it me”) When the bluebird of happiness lands in our hand, we crush it then autopsy it, and then try to understand the basis of happiness.
The basic man doesn’t try to understand the concept of happiness and simply enjoys it. Is it not better to be a basic man? Why am I cursed with the skeptical mind to question my reality?
PK:
The highest truth is the relative position of where we currently are in life. It’s as absolute as it needs to be, and as liquid as it needs to be.
Scythe - Oddly, I was just talking about this (in general terms) with Kriswest. It is very difficult indeed to sail away on a philosophical journey without the urge to jettison our ballast. But any sailor can tell you, that is an invitation to disaster.
One’s grandflights, one’s Sunday baths,
One’s tooting at the weddings of the soul
Occur as they occur. So bluish clouds
Occurred above the empty house and the leaves
Of the rhododendrons rattled their gold,
As if someone lived there. Such floods of white
Came bursting from the clouds. So the wind
Threw its contorted strength around the sky.
Could you have said the bluejay suddenly
Would swoop to earth? It is a wheel, the
Rays around the sun. The wheel survives the myths.
The fire eye in the clouds survives the gods.
To think of a dove with an eye of grenadine
And pines that are cornets, so it occurs,
And a little island full of geese and stars:
It may be that the ignorant man, alone,
Has any chance to mate his life with life
That is the sensual, pearly spouse, the life
That is fluent in even the wintriest bronze.
I agree, the meaning of such claims have been lost in our modern age. The words of the Bible which are translated as “truth†in English point to that which is established, trusty and trustworthy. They literally mean firmness or figuratively indicate security but also moral fidelity, stability, steadiness and truth. They are אמוּן ('êmûn); אמנה אמוּנה ('ĕmûnâh), Feminine of 'êmûn; אמן ('âmên) from 'âman; אמן ('ômen)
If you take into account that the people around them were idolaters and by assumption people who put their trust in the more material and in strength and power, the followers of Abrahams God depended more upon the inner Way with their undetectable God. Whereas their neighbours were more limited with their sight to the physical world and their perceptions, they trusted in the truth that was before time and which is the foundation of life. This was perceived to be a “higher†truth.
The fact that they used words which mean that which is established, trusty and trustworthy indicates that this was no illusionary or fanciful imagination, but reputable wisdom.
Kris - “perspective” - it’s all we have. That’s pretty Nietzschean. And reliance on our senses - your cave-dweller. Nietzsche was not only the Antichrist, he was the Anti-epistemologist. Philosophically, the latter was more important, even if the former is more “famous”. The fact is, I cannot explain it better tha you have already.
Bob - Biblical truth is metaphysical (before time) truth, and teleologically an appeal to authority - from God, detectable or not. Neither is “detectable”, in fact. Undetectable truth is a nonsense term - or it is nothing like “truth” the way I use the word. So, we have the difference between trusting our senses and trusting something else more. What that something else really is, is the priestly caste - the political leaders of the tribe. For they are the only sensible vectors of that truth.
Sense (the senses) is the basis of my “epistemology” - such as this idea is operant at all within my worldview. Which isn’t much. I cannot claim that reliance on the senses aobne is epistemology at all, I think.