Although people actually think about meaningness in terms of stances, mostly they think they think about meaningness in terms of “systems.” Systems include religions, philosophies, ideologies, spiritual and psychological frameworks, and so forth.
-
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
Because people are mostly not aware of stances, it is somewhat unusual to commit to a stance directly. Instead, people commit to systems, which in turn demand certain stances. [https://meaningness.com/stances-are-unstable …]
Prikaži ovu nit -
Here are 7 confused stances: ETERNALISM: Everything has a fixed purpose, given by some sort of fundamental ordering principle of the universe. (e.g. God, Fate, etc) If you just follow the eternal law, everything will come out right. https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg/status/1158236468340502528?s=20 …
Prikaži ovu nit -
NIHILISM: Nothing has any purpose. Life is meaningless. Any purposes you imagine you have are illusions, errors, or lies.https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg/status/1158236776009555968?s=20 …
Prikaži ovu nit -
EXISTENTIALISM: Since the universe does not supply us with purposes, they are human creations. Mostly people mindlessly adopt purposes that are handed to them. You need to throw those off, and choose your own purposes, as an act of creative will.https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg/status/1158237149248012288?s=20 …
Prikaži ovu nit -
MISSION: After you are dead, it is meaningless how many toys you had. What matters is the impact you made for others. You have unique capabilities to improve the world, and it’s your responsibility to find and act on your personal gift.
Prikaži ovu nit -
MATERIALISM: The supposed cosmic purposes are doubtful at best, but obviously, people do have goals. There are human purposes no one can seriously doubt: survival, health, sex, romance, fame, power, enjoyable experiences, children, beautiful things.
Prikaži ovu nit -
MONISM: Monism, the idea that “all is One,” is based on the accurate insight that we are not isolated individuals, that there is no hard boundary between self and other, and that things are connected in innumerable ways, many of which we cannot know.
Prikaži ovu nit -
DUALISM is the reverse of Monism. Monism is the stance that fixates sameness and connections, and denies differences and boundaries. Dualism is just the other way around: it denies sameness and connections, and fixates differences and boundaries.
Prikaži ovu nit -
These have the same roots Eternalize says there's meaning elsewhere Nihilism says there's meaning nowhere Existentialism says meaning is in your head Mission: mundane is meaningless, mission meaningful Materialism: the opposite Monism: we’re all one Dualism: the opposite
Prikaži ovu nit -
STANCES UNSTABLE: The confused stances constantly collide with reality. It is impossible not to see this, and impossible not to suffer the consequences This makes it impossible to remain consistently in a confused stance; they are always unstablehttps://twitter.com/eriktorenberg/status/1158239101696581632?s=20 …
Prikaži ovu nit -
Dualist eternalism: everything is given a definite meaning by something separate from you. Monist eternalism: you, God, and the universe are a single thing, which is definitely meaningful. Dualist nihilism: we are isolated individuals, wandering in a meaningless universe.
Prikaži ovu nit -
HOW ALL THESE STANCES BREAK DOWN:https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg/status/1158238255609012224?s=20 …
Prikaži ovu nit -
WHY DO THEY ALL STANCES BREAK DOWN? THEY DENY NEBULOSITYhttps://twitter.com/eriktorenberg/status/1158238768295481345?s=20 …
Prikaži ovu nit -
Confused stances are half right, otherwise we wouldn’t fall for them.
Prikaži ovu nit -
In order to combat the confused stances, we need to adopt the complete stance: Meaning is real (and cannot be denied), but is fluid (so it cannot be fixed). It is neither objective (given by God) nor subjective (chosen by individuals).https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg/status/1158239971993640960?s=20 …
Prikaži ovu nit -
Meaningness is a quality, not a thing. Meaningness is always nebulous: indefinite, uncertain, ambiguous. THIS COMPLETE STANCE recognizes the inseparability between nebulosity and pattern.
Prikaži ovu nit -
MEANING IS NEITHER OBJECTIVE NOR SUBJECTIVE, BUT INTERACTIVE. Like a rainbow:https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg/status/1158391649959104512?s=20 …
Prikaži ovu nit -
Zooming out, let’s give a brief history of how meaning has evolved over time. We started in Choiceless mode, aka living in tribes This is the most natural one. Nearly all humans who have ever lived have only experienced meaning in the choiceless mode.https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg/status/1158364339763650560?s=20 …
Prikaži ovu nit -
We moved on to systematic mode. A systematic culture answers “why” Q’s w/ “becauses” “Why” questions, the logic goes, eventually reaches an ultimate, eternal Truth. This Truth is the foundation of the system.https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg/status/1158364339763650560?s=20 …
Prikaži ovu nit -
Rationalist eternalism is the confused stance that there is a pattern to everything, that all patterns can be discovered by reasoning, and that they give everything meaning Rationality is good—but an incomplete way of understanding the world.https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg/status/1158362048025255937?s=20 …
Prikaži ovu nit -
Why is rationality often not sufficient on its own? *It universalizes when things are often context specific.* Generally, knowledge of a specific object does not count as “rational” unless it applies to every other object in some class.https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg/status/1158240417277730816?s=20 …
Prikaži ovu nit -
Rationality failed us because it tried to prove too much. It doesn’t appreciate that reality is nebulous, so it commits inaccuracies against perception.https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg/status/1158393818280005632?s=20 …
Prikaži ovu nit -
Zooming out, more historical context on rationality/systemacity:https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg/status/1158367600210038785?s=20 …
Prikaži ovu nit -
A history of how meaning fell apart The first half of the twentieth century was awful—in every way. The glorious accomplishments of the systematic era could not hold civilization together, and seemed likely to be lost entirely in a global conflagration.https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg/status/1158367053797056512?s=20 …
Prikaži ovu nit -
Countercultures emerged as a result of these failures. Both the hippie movements and the moral majority movement. The hippie movement was monist — emphasizing that all are one and blurring the boundary between private/public.https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg/status/1158368316148396034?s=20 …
Prikaži ovu nit -
In contrast, the dualist moral majority promoted: - man’s dominion over nature - submission to the Creator - and to legitimate secular authority - nationalism - racial segregation - distinct gender roles - the sanctity of marriage versus the sinfulness of non-marital sex
Prikaži ovu nit -
The dualist counterculture also claimed to want to restore “traditional values.” It was never clear which era it proposed to return to. In fact, it wanted to “restore” a romanticized, mythical past in which the systematic mode actually worked. Sound Familiar?
Prikaži ovu nit -
Both Countercultures had more in common than you might thinkhttps://twitter.com/eriktorenberg/status/1158368643195052032?s=20 …
Prikaži ovu nit -
The countercultures failed. Why? Rejecting rationality was the central conceptual move of both countercultures. But this was an error. Rationality was never the problem with the systematic mode. The Problem with systematic mode was ETERNALISM.https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg/status/1158369410660352007?s=20 …
Prikaži ovu nit - Još 24 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.