[MD] The Meanings of Life

[david buchanan]

Hey Steve:
Pragmatism and the MOQ are all about the fuzzying-up? Really? Sorry, but I'm not buying it.
The two senses of the term "meaning" do not depend on d philosophical distinction between the content of an idea and the value of an idea. I'm simply saying those are separate questions. In fact, the content could very well be a value statement and the importance or significance can't be known without clarity as to the content.  

To ask about the "meaning" of life in the first sense is to ask for the definition of the term "life". 
To ask about the "meaning" of life in the second sense is to ask about the nature of human existence. 

Being a MOQer or a Pragmatist does not alter the fact that these are two completely different questions. That was my point and you did not respond to it so much as you weaseled out of it. This is about YOUR sloppy use of language, YOUR misuse of the terms, not Pirsig's metaphysics or James's epistemology.

Jeez, why can't you just say "point taken"? It's hardly a controversial point. Have you been taking bullshit lessons from Marsha or what? 


 
> > Steve said:
> > I think another worthy consideration regarding ZAMM and the meaning of life is Pirsig's list of questions typifying philosophical inquiry. When it is said that something means something, just what exactly is that supposed to even mean? Before people ask, "what is the meaning of life?" they may do well to consider what they mean by "meaning" in order to pose the question in a way that could ever possibly elicit satisfying answers.
> >
> >
> > dmb says:
> > I think you're confusing or conflating two different senses of the term. When we ask what the term "means" we're asking for some precision as to what the content of the idea is supposed to indicate, convey or refer to. When we ask about the "meaning" of life, on the other hand, we're asking about it's significance, import, point and purpose. We are not asking what the content IS but rather asking about what's valuable and worthwhile about it.
> 
> 
> Steve:
> The reason I raised the issue in this context is precisely because any
> pragmatist as well as any Pirsigian ought to want to fuzzy-up the
> common sense distinction you are defending here i.e., a dichotomy
> between "what the content IS" and its worth. Pirsig does his fuzzying
> by saying it all values all the way down. Pragmatists do it by taking
> meaning to be a question of utility. "What does this mean?" cashes out
> as "how is this used?" The same applies to life or the meaning of a
> term. Purpose and meaning and significance and import for the
> pragmatists are questions of use.
> 
> Asking "what is the purpose of life?" is to ask, "how is life used?"
> or the normative version, "how ought life be used so as to be a good
> life?"
> 
> Best,
> Steve