h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Moth,

The amazing uncrashable az!

What, N1NJ4 being sarcastic? I never would have believed it.

well, it's either sarcastic or totally DUH. I'm being optimistic.

*laughs* Believe me, it's sarcasm. Coming from a frequent victim of this sarcasm.

well then I suggest that he/she learn to do it better . . .

No not sarcasm...

Innapropriate wording. I was meaning being less unhappy?

Still bad wording

A poor person is eating from a dumpster because they are starving. the feel terrible because they don't have food. By eating anything they are feeling better, or trying to feel better, they may not be enjoying it but they are becoming happier.

Hope this cleared up a little of my sarcasm, I also hope that by thinking my non-sarcasm was sarcastic, you were not caused any unnescicary (sp?) stress.

That sp is so you guys dont nail me on that word. Focus on the post not the tpyos. (ha ha)

Wow what a post.

I am a he, thanks for the sensitivity az. margarita and brit would have been all over you if you din't do that little he/she thingy

You guys (and gals) must remember that life isn't just a human condition. Certain things are basic to all forms of life. Eating breathing and sex to name but a few.

N1NJ4,

Yes, well, 'sensitivity' is my middle name.

az

i just found this really interesting website, i havnt read through it all, but its all these attempted theories of things, im not to sure if they are correct or not, but they seem good, there is one called The meaning of life, the universe and everything and one called Is there a reason for our existence? so you might be interesting in reading that it is located at http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/index.htm down at the bottom

Depending on your definition, life could be a condition of eating and breathing and having sex.

Hmmmm, personally my life doesn't = eating + breathing + sex. I doubt yours does either, N1NJ4.

A673526

The meaning of life as a category error.

Noggin

hi Noggin,

Well, if I have grasped even a part of that link (and in truth, just read it very quickly) my first response is that there is a basic difference between 'hearing' and 'listening'. All hearing is not listening, but rather just our ability to hear. When we listen, we are paying attention to what we are hearing, which makes it a totally different sort of activity.

Also, about not being able to 'see' into someone else's mind, etc. And so - have I got this right? - that unless a behaviour is shown publicly then it cannot be perceived by others? This sounds a bit obvious.

Hang on, going to go back and read that again.

But what do you specifically mean by saying that the meaning of life is a category error?

az

I was being a bit jokey, there, but the "beetle in a box" section is the relevant one. I *think* the point being made is that talk about meanings is rooted in a social practice that derives from publicly observable behaviour. Meaning is something that we "do", rather than something that we "have". Hence the category error.

As Moth might say - it forces you to think outside the box (in this case the one with the beetle in it).

Noggin

Noggin,

Just taking this bit by bit.

If Mary is deemed intelligent by the writing of lucid essays, what does this say about someone of equal intelligence who never bothers to write an essay in their entire lives? It obviously doesn't make them any less intelligent.

And the beetle in a box thingy. Yeah, well, this is how most people operate - they don't show the world most of what is going on inside their own box. But this doesn't make it any less real or valid. Though I suppose in terms of 'mental language' it makes sense that out there in the world this doesn't actually exist, as it is only in the mind of the person.

Also, a lot of mental states are often not shown to the public (specially if you're English ) But quite often you can 'feel' a person's anger (for example) without them displaying it.

I personally don't feel like a person's behaviour necessarily reflects what is actually going on inside of them. That is what often makes it difficult to trust people. Because they can present any sort of public facade they like, but it often has nothing to do with what they are truly feeling.

Have I been reading all this the wrong way, or is it just as obvious as it all sounds? I mean, there are actually two separate verbs for the ability to take in sound. Hearing is just the physical ability and listening means that one is paying attention to what one is hearing.

No doubt I am not getting *something* more important about this. So, please explain.

az

To 'think' outside the box, or 'behave' outside the box?

I cannot really agree that meaning is something we 'do' rather than something we 'have', though in my personal experience, the more I 'do' in my life tends to give my life more meaning. The more I actively participate in this whole being alive business - rather than just thinking about it - makes my life feel more real.

But without the thing we 'have' it would not be possible to 'do'.

Does that make sense?

az

Or alternatively, without what we 'do' we couldn't 'have'. Chickens and eggs probably.

But we couldn't talk about (consistently represent in words) the mental things if it never tied in to behaviour. The ability to deceive presupposes something that isn't deception. Maybe we can't represent our own mental lives to ourselves except by the same signs with which we represent it to other people (even if we don't do so on some given occassion).

On the whole I was just trying to inject a novel perspective on the question.

Noggin

Well, Noggin, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is sometimes the problem I have with philosophers or other intellectuals - that they think more about life than they live it.

I don't mean you, of course! But when it comes to trying to find a meaning for one's life, it's often the people who quite naturally live their lives fully who never need to ask themselves this question.

<>

Not sure about that. I know that we often use other people as projection screens to show ourselves to ourselves and others. But I think the basic stuff - the 'have' - is innate and possibly has no sort of way to be truly shown externally.

az