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

Read it again, Fathom. The way I read it, it supports your stance well. If you don't set up a goal such as that described, your existence will not acquire meaning. That's how I read it.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

That's true, P-c, I was objecting to the assertion that life should have meaning at all but probably over-egging the pudding.
Sorry about the double post - I have no idea how that occurred.

F

Well, er, *my* life/existence has meaning to me...!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

...er well it will have. It's beginning to have some meaning to me too but I didn't mean life from the viewpoint of the individual; I meant Life as in life on Earth. It might be quite important to me right now but in the scheme of things it's just a minor accident of the laws of nature.

F

you may both find this thread of interest http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F19585?thread=277047&skip=0&show=20 it raises some good points for and against 'meaning'...eventually

Thanks

I've been there before but thanks for the reminder, I'll have to read through the backlog (dismissing the bits I don't agree with as usual ).

F

oh, but of course

I think the statement means science or religion taken to their unbridled extremes are without ethics and can easily become absurd or destructive.

It's a commonplace of philosophy that ethical statements (or religious statements, or scientific statements, etc.) cannot be reduced without remainder to statements in other categories. What we're suggesting here, I take it, is that to have practical use they also cannot be reduced without remainder purely to statements in the same category. (eg ethical statements reduced to *purely* statements about ethics are essentially meaningless)?

I think I agree with that.

Noggin