![]() ![]() The classic example coming from Christian theology which argues that meaning is a function of both God (a supernatural being) and everlasting life in heaven (a supernatural realm). Supernaturalism: Meaning in life requires the existence of some supernatural realm or supernatural beings. The members of the first taxonomy have already been highlighted in the opening paragraphs to this post. This will be familiar territory to anyone whose read my previous entries on the philosophy of meaning, but repetition can be useful.Īs Weijers sees it, views about meaning in life break down into two overlapping taxonomies. In his article, Weijers spends a good deal of time going over them. There are several families of views about meaning in life. And third, I examine Weijer’s view and the argument he presents in its favour, evaluating its premises as I go. Second, I discuss two critiques of meaning within the naturalist worldview (which are explicitly mentioned by Weijers). First, I offer a taxonomy of possible views about meaning in life. I break the discussion down into three parts. In the remainder of this post, I want to outline Weijers’s view, and subject it to some (mild) scrutiny. There, Weijers presents a novel, wholly naturalistic view of meaning, that blends contemporary techno-utopianism with classic philosophical debates about the meaning of life, to produce a robust, inflationary theory of meaning. I have experimented with such deflationist views myself in the past.īut maybe there is no need for naturalists to be so deflationary when it comes to meaning? Dan Weijers makes this argument in his recently-published article “ Optimistic Naturalism: Scientific Advancement and the Meaning of Life”. Thus are told we have to “create our own meaning” or that we have to “make do with worldly goods”. Though the former option is, for many, more welcoming than the latter, it is still typically thought to require some re-orientation or re-conceptualisation of what meaningful life is: wholly naturalistic meaning is possible, but it is deflationary, and somehow less than supernaturalistic meaning. With their rejection of supernaturalism, and its associated religious doctrines, naturalists are forced to abandon this conception of meaning.īut where does that leave them? Two options seem to arise: (i) they can embrace the possibility of meaning without the supernatural or (ii) they can reject the possibility of meaning outright. ![]() That is to say: meaning has only been thought possible if there is a supernatural realm in which we can achieve eternal salvation, or from which a divine being bestows meaning upon our mortal human lives. Historically, the possibility of true meaning in life has been tied to the religious worldview. Robert McCall the Prologue and the Promise ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |