I think you have exquisite taste. I'll give Jessica Biel a "close second" because she's good at killing vampires. Dead last place goes to Jessica Simpson for destroying the dearly loved franchise of "The Dukes of Hazard." The only reason Jessica Alba is in the running is because 'Sin City' redeemed 'Dark Angel.' Cogito, I now accept your punishment for causing a debate leading to open warfare. I can think of no other debate more divisive than "The Jessicas." To me it's worth dying for.
Jessica Chobot!!! And all you bastards can go to hell if you think otherwise. I'm serious. Alba, please...
All this talk of debate makes me want to go fishing. Jessica Rabbit is only a figment of twisted minds, but speaking for my fellow figments and twisted minds, she's is hot. I just don't think you could call her the meaning of life. A close second but that's because females out number males. Meanings of life or anything else will always be in the eye of the beholder. Just like a MLT: a mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomato is ripe.
Now you did it! And I told you so! Cogito is coming in here and he's bringing hellfire with him! He said no blood-thirsty debates! This 'Jessica thing' is pure poison! Quick, change the subject to something less combative, like Obama's Kenyan birth certificate. Yikes, I've been here short of two weeks and I'm going to be banned over the dreaded Jessica gambit...
I wouldn't argue with him Chuck, he knows what he's doing and by previous experience is taking precaution for hostility. I remember when he gave me a infraction cause i got mad and said something deep and he stopped the conversation from getting out of hand. Usually i don't do stuff like that, but it happens to all of us i suppose. Mistakes happen, we learn from them. He just wants what is best for the nature of the situation and keep things flowing correctly. I'm not trying to take sides here but im going by personal experience and what i learned from topics such as these. I don't mean to come off as rude, im just trying to let you see why he's doing what he's doing.
Another aspect of this caution is the venue and overall purview of the specific forum. Let me give you an analogy. In another forum, the place ripped itself to pieces over the word "poser." Here in a writing forum, that word means nothing and I can scream it at the top of my lungs and Cogito probably couldn't care less. However, in a biker forum, the idea is like pulling a knife. You have insulted a man to his core. You have openly, publicly and in front of tens of thousands of like-minded hobbyists on the 'www' inferred the guy is a fake, not a real biker. This got so bad a few weeks ago that the forum passed bi-laws for specific words. Not ideas, just the words. I told the new mod to insert this puerile invective into the dim recesses of any tailpipe of his choosing. As you can imagine, I got banned. Over a word. Words are ideas. It is my convoluted opinion that in any 'cyber forum' the word 'forum' is used incorrectly. A cyber forum is private property, not really a free-flowing soapbox for honest opinions. I had always held that you only say things in a forum that you would to a guy's face in a saloon. I've had to amend that self-imposed rule. A saloon is a better place to debate. Forums are like kissing your girl friend in front of your mom. The idea is permitted, but seldom does the entire course of behavior pan out. Now, I'll be honest, I first thought the idea of "the meaning of life" was pretty tame. I figured we'd discuss how it relates to the stories we're working on, perhaps some personal spiritual anecdotes and then some idiot (usually me) would joke that his 'meaning' was old swimsuit calendars and chocolate pudding. After a dozen posts, the thread would die a meaningless and quiet death. Obviously, this forum's guide is that discussing 'meaning' is akin to yelling 'poser' into a drunken biker's face. We don't do it, there's a good, albeit underlying reason, and whether I think it's too cautious is immaterial. Hey, just use the PM feature to a member for private thoughts.
No, Descartes also thought god existed... I think that that was what he was actually trying to prove...
Yeah he did. Later in life. But no one should take the Ontological argument seriously, not even for half a second.
Ah, but if you take things seriously, you can write very exciting, disturbing stories from them by turning them!
A very refreshing response. Always questions statements that begin..'nobody should take.....seriously'= I do!
I don't know what this means. What are you saying? If you don't know Descartes used the Ontological argument, which states that the definition of something proves it's existence. For example: the idea of a titanic creature floating in space and eating entire planets means that because this idea exists it must also exist as a physical entity. It's an argument that has been refuted many times before and is no longer taken seriously by modern philosophy, hasn't been taken seriously for hundreds of years. Yet if it seems logical to you then please explain.
why don't you all just stick to the thread's raison d'etre?... digressing all over the place, debating what you think descartes meant/believed, and chatting about a cartoon sexpot isn't getting the op's question answered, kids...
I know that this is a serious pursuit, but it's about this time in the exchange of information that I start to wonder if everyone is missing the boat. In truth, how does/will mankind ever really know? There's a big fork in the road. Let's suppose there is no overall, organized design. An errant lightning strike hit a puddle of primordial pond scum and created simple life, like my cousin Bobbie. In that argument, refining origami is just as important as discovering dark matter energy. If there is a design, and we make it to the other side, how do you know that some ticked off ethereal being isn't going to bark at you, "You're the president of MENSA, you achieved world peace, but look at your hands, I made you to be a potato farmer!" Taken from that perspective, rooting for the Chicago Cubs makes more sense. I don't offer this perspective to be flip, per se. But I did have my world turned upside-down when I heard a sportscaster make a comment on the Olympics. His view was the skating wasn't a sport, things have to have a 'score' so the winner can be easily discerned--beholding a skill is just pandering and observation. I think this applies. Who's got the correct score? Descartes, or the guy that cuts my lawn?
It was definitely not what he wanted to prove. Descartes lived during the Renaissance, a period in which many beliefs and theories were challenged. In my opinion, he came to the conclusion of Cogito Ergo Sum to demonstrate that blindly believing in something can be dangerous and that doubting is important (he even challenged his own mathematical theories in the process). Of course Descartes could not have challenged the existence of God in his book or he would have been sentenced to prison. It is also known that he was very cautious in his writing as he was scared of being branded an heretic. For this reason, "Le traité de l'homme" was published after his death.
A wise bird once told me it's fitting for a nimble and vital philosopher to eschew dogmatism. Or something. Perhaps you dismiss it too readily? While we might think it refutable (refuted), Anselm's formulation of it really is a thing of beauty. A product of great intellectual virtuosity. Many considerable minds have grappled - at length - with it. (Some still do, incidentally). And while many of those minds are perhaps happy that vis-a-vis the existence of god it cannot stand, it still merits attention because some refutations have given rise to further difficulties. eg If we demand that a thing must not include existence among its predicates, does not assume existence as part of its definition, you might encounter something interesting. We might define a unicorn as a horny horse that is entirely mythical. Suppose that tomorrow an Amazonian explorer happens upon a herd of horny horses. We could not call them unicorns (since unicorns, by our definition, do not exist). Anyway, I quite like Agreen's answer here. When I'm feeling especially base, I quite like Vonnegut's effort: 'To be the eyes, ears and conscience of the creator of the universe.' Other times, when I'm feeling excessively spiritual, I might find meaning in that bit of female flesh where the buttock meets the upper thigh.
Haha. art, this is the reason why I like your posts. And that is all very true. You are right, I perhaps shouldn't dismiss it completely. I think it was David Hume who thought that the idea of using the ontological argument is irrational because there is no real way of arriving at these ideas through sense datum. I have to admit, I do find this argument very convincing. That is not to say that I am skeptical about everything I've not seen before, I've never been to Moscow, even though I'm certain the city exists - this is something of a logical fallacy, I will admit, but then again I have no serious reason to believe Moscow does not exist. With deities it's a little different, because they are said to have direct contact with us.
The meaning of life is jellyworms. Since we are, basically, in a grain of dust inside a infinite Universe that will rip itself apart in a gazillion years.
My point is, it doesn't matter if Descartes was saying something convincing or not convincing. It doesn't matter what the meaning of life is (interesting though it may be) - what matters is thinking about it, wondering about it, coming up with ideas, using them to write novels...
I think depending on your scope there's different meanings. On a cosmic scale we are but a minor addition to the vast stretch of space that is our universe. There's no meaning in our existence, only beauty in the scale of things and appreciation for the opportunity. On the scale of our species, I'd say we were naturally made to continue our evolution. That's why we love sex and living and that's why we're good at what we do (working with tools, surviving in extreme conditions, etc). On a societal scale, meanings become extremely biased. My personal longing is that our existence will not need to be verified by any actual answer, and that instead we work towards making life on Earth wonderful for all creatures, not just us (coz I'm a dirty hippie). Then, on to a personal scale, there's really no telling. We spend our lives questioning ideologies from great thinkers of the past while simultaneously trying to find happiness in our current life. If I could point out my personal goal, it'd be happiness, knowledge and the certainty that I've helped my children or any future generation.
