Oct 8: Meaning
|
|
|
To do for next class - 1) Read chapter 13; 2) How does a 'sense of time' relate to 'pure becoming'? That is, how are they different or the same, what problems/characteristics do they share? What do you think of Taylor's praise of greatness? 3) Your first paper! |
To do for next class - 1) Read chpt. 1, we will discuss it two classes from now. 2) What differences do you expect there to be between metaphysics and epistemology? What similarities? |
Introduction
Perhaps the most perplexing, yet utterly cliche, question we can ask what do a philosophy is "why my here?" Equivalently, the question can be phrased as: "What is my purpose?" Or as Monty Python might say "What is the meaning of life?" Perhaps the fact that these questions are cliche does not render them uninteresting, as in many cases, but rather shows their importance and ubiquity. For some reason almost everyone asks themselves at some time: what is my purpose? For Taylor, meaning is unique to the human species. He notes that we exist, like every stick and stone, and that we are alive like every housefly and snail, but for some reason (perhaps hubris) he claims they do not have meaning as we do. It would not matter, he says, if those things had never existed at all. But why think our existence matters?
Religion
For many, religion's main purpose is to provide an answer. For, we will be judged when we leave this life to determine our eternal existence. As well, we are playing our role in God's plan, whatever that maybe. So, we have an answer. However, as Taylor notes, metaphysicians are unsatisfied with this response for they believe the answer should come from reason and observation (except Kierkegaard). Taylor concludes from this observation that religion is utterly groundless, unlike metaphysics. However, many would clearly disagree and we should not take Schopenhauer's word for the role of religion. What is true, is that we should not accept a religion on authority or popularity alone.
Worth
For Kant, all human beings have an inherent worth. This is why they, alone among God creatures, have a purpose, rights, and responsibility. Clearly, Taylor disagrees with this view of humanity. Rather he wishes to argue that the vast majority of people live worthless lives, pursuing wealth or power or living for the next episode of ER. Unlike Kant, he believes meaning is no birthright.
As well, Taylor argues that the mere passage of time does not provide life meaning. It is, of course a necessary condition on history and Taylor believes that history depends on human creativity. Thus, he concludes it is a condition for a meaningful life. What you think of this logical argument? What unargued for assumptions is he making? (Note how he posits the existence of gods at the bottom of p. 133; need life to have history).
Time and meaning
Taylor argues that time has no sense in a lifeless world. He has ius imagine a "clockwork" planet on with everything what happens is contained in what has gone before. From a God's eye view, Taylor thinks such a world, because it is devoid of creation, in uninteresting and timeless (without time). Taylor even sees the same world when we introduce any living thing that is not rational (i.e. not human).
What is wrong here (that is on p. 134)? First, if there is any God it will find nothing novel whether or not we exist. Second of course it makes sense to assign time to events since we do it geologically. Third, creativity is not something we can share with gods if they don't exist. Forth, what of deteriminism and fatalism so hardly espoused previously? Fifth, creativity can be given an explanation like the unique snowflake. Sixth, his rejection of Darwinism again rears its head when he claims that biological systems cannot have innovation. He obviously has no sense of the behavior of complex systems. Notice how the conclusions from previous arguments begin to pile up when asking these kinds of questions - errors become at least additive. I just don't know what definition of innovation he is working with here. At least I can't see one which isn't arbitrarily dependent on species chauvinism. Is Taylor's discussion here consistent with his discussion on p. 82 in regards to pure becoming? If it is what distinction is he relying on heavily?
Sisyphus and creativity
As a side note, do you know why the myth of Sisyphus is so compelling? (Camus)
Taylor believe that if Sisyphus' stones are used to build something lasting and beautiful then his existence has gained a kind of meaning. Perhaps this is the only meeting available for those who believe we are parts of god's plan. But for an even greater sense of meaning, Taylor thinks Sisyphus must be aware of the results of his work. What he does become meaningful because he builds something great, beautiful and understandable. But more than this, we must bear a certain relationship to what we build. That is, it must be his product, his creation, the results of his thought and creation and then, for Taylor, it will reach the fullest heights of meaningfulness.
Taylor says that meaning is inseparable from the concept of creativity. Even if this conclusion logically follows, what is missing? What is creativity? If I define something for you as be just like X and don't tell you what X is, I really haven't told you anything. Furthermore, Taylor seems happy with the distinction between people and nature, a distinction I do not know how he can possibly justify (see p. 138). As well, how can our creations be our own if our existence depends upon another creator, that is God? Do we determine what will be or does God? What of fatalism, that is how does it affect the concept of creativity? How could we create something unforeseen (by God or man; see p. 138) if fatalism is obvious from a God's eye view?
For Taylor creativity is linked strongly to uniqueness. But it is not the uniqueness of a snowflake. It seems to me it must also be more than uniqueness to which the notions of success or failure can apply since such notions can apply to snowflakes. It seems to depend on the notion of intention, a mysterious notion indeed - one which may have a deterministic explanation nonetheless. Stranger yet, Taylor claims on p. 139 that there are acts of equal creativity yet different degrees of worth and meaning. But I thought creativity was just what gave life meaning and worth (though this can be reconciled - one is the worth of an act, the other the worth of a life...?).
Greatness
Where does this conception lead Taylor? That is, when we equate creativity and meaningfulness what does it means for the vast majority of people? We end up at a kind of elitism. This is a conclusion reached by many philosophers including Aristotle and Plato. Notice the examples of greatness which Taylor chooses. Who gets to chose what counts creation? Or more importantly as a good creation? Taylor laments that this vision of greatness is not shared by religion. But socially speaking, what is the result of his vision of greatness? Oftentimes it is one of an elite class in which the general populace does not even have a chance to create. Some think this is the reason for the success of Christianity - because it levels the playing field. We had better be careful when taking either extreme.
To do for next class
1) Read chpt. 1, we will discuss it two classes from now. 2) What differences do you expect there to be between metaphysics and epistemology? What similarities?