6 ms·
Paul Tillich is definitely interesting, but I find his conclusions deeply unsatisfying and even somewhat "new agey." This is pretty typical of existentialists t
by swat535 3y ago
Paul Tillich is definitely interesting, but I find his conclusions deeply unsatisfying and even somewhat "new agey." This is pretty typical of existentialists though. When you search for meaning and purpose, you tend to find it in reinforcing what it is you want in the first place. So for Nietzsche, it was ultimate freedom, for Kierkegaard it was Christianity, for Camus it was living contradiction, and for Tillich it is some sort of Christian-y/pantheist/new age hybrid. It doesn't help that unlike most existentialists, Tillich is a pretty dull writer.
That doesn't mean he didn't have a number of insights and thought-provoking ideas, and really my criticism is more due to my feelings about existentialism than Tillich itself. I find a vigorous approach to seeking/knowing truth far more interesting and satisfying than seeking (or creating) meaning/purpose.
- knightoffaith 3y agoDoesn't the "rigorous approach to seeking/knowing truth" seem kind of detached from the reality of life to you? It seems to me that humans are not just disembodied thinking things but agents that actually live in the real world, that (in my view) must live to some end, some purpose.
- HKH2 3y agoOur purpose is pretty clear: to reproduce. What sets us apart from other animals is the way we structure our curiosity.
- knightoffaith 3y agoSure, in terms of evolutionary "purpose" (which is not really purpose, just the way we make sense of what evolution is doing---we know that evolution doesn't have some goal in the sense that it is an agent whose will is oriented towards that goal), our biology is (more or less) optimized to pass on genes. That says nothing about what our purpose in the sense of what we ought to do. I imagine most people would simply deny that things have purposes at all; they simply are the way they are.
- HKH2 3y agoYou were talking about people being detached; to be attached to the reality of life is to act, to reproduce. Our biology tells us that we ought to have children, but we don't see it very clearly because we have found ways to hijack our impulses.
- knightoffaith 3y ago>to act Yes, that seems clear to me. >to reproduce No, that doesn't seem clear to me. I have no trouble imagining being perfectly tethered to the reality of life but having no plans to reproduce. Not that reproduction is a bad thing, but I just mean to say that I don't see how facts about our biology can alone dictate what's meaningful and what's not. It seems to me that from facts we can only derive more facts. >Our biology tells us that we ought to have children Well, it doesn't really tell us that we ought to do anything, does it? We're generally instilled with a biological impulse to reproduce, sure. But this still says nothing about what we ought to do. A fact about our biology doesn't directly justify a value concerning what we should do, because facts can't directly justify values, they can only justify other facts. I'm not arguing this point just for the sake of argument - I wouldn't want my original comment to be read as something like, "Forget about math and philosophy and crap like that, just have sex!" No no, I just mean to say that instead of getting too caught up entirely abstract epistemological issues about which we can never be completely certain about anything (pace Descartes), it makes sense to philosophize in a way directly related to us being living, acting things and not philosophical proof machines. And this living and acting ought not necessarily involve having children, though it could.
- HKH2 3y ago> It seems to me that from facts we can only derive more facts. You seem to think of knowledge as something that has to be expressed in language to exist, whereas I do not. > because facts can't directly justify values Values are rooted in biology. Facts are not prescriptive, but our biology is. > And this living and acting ought not necessarily involve having children, though it could. You can find all sorts of words and facts to try to justify meaning, but meaning itself is ineffable; it is felt. Individualism will only get you so far. > it makes sense to philosophize in a way directly related to us being living, acting things and not philosophical proof machines. I don't think the poster you were replying to would disagree. I think they were getting at how people chase after a simulation of meaning instead of acting in a meaningful way. I think you can seek truth without getting lost in language games.
- erikpukinskis 3y agoThat perspective seems arbitrarily tied to the first billion years of evolution. What of the next billion?
- HKH2 3y agoWe're not going to escape our biology.
- ganzuul 3y agoWhat you reproduce is not the same as what your ancestors reproduced.
- HKH2 3y agoSo?
- ganzuul 3y agoSo it is not a self-contained purpose. The purpose leaks into other aspects of reality.
- HKH2 3y agoI'm not quite sure what you mean. Features of the purpose are repurposed, but the purpose remains there all the same.
- ganzuul 3y agoI mean it is not one singular purpose but a collection of motions from which procreation emerges. “Purpose” implies a focus of energy. Procreation is a sustained diffusion of energy. I do believe purpose exists, but that procreation is only tangential with it.
- ganzuul 3y agoYou spend about 8 hours per day in something other than this definition of the “real” world. Levels of reality imply levels of truth.
- knightoffaith 3y agoOh, of course there's truth, and it's something to be concerned about. I just mean to say that philosophizing in a way cognizant of our status of living, acting things as opposed to truth-generating machines makes a lot of sense, particularly because there's going to be a level of uncertainty that pervades all our knowledge. But uncertainty shouldn't paralyze us into never-ending rational analysis.