He told them there is no overall ultimate meaning to life, somehow imposed upon us from an external source, while making it quite clear that everyone gives their own life meaning.

Are you saying his position is that there is no objective meaning to life, only subjective, or is that all you?

I don't want to be misled.

Did you even make it all the way through your own article? It is at best an out of context snippet of a quote.

What he said in full was, and I'm just going to copy and paste here:

He said while there is no overall purpose to life, people can find meaning within their personal lives through work done on earth.

Do you agree?

...and I don't have a full transcript to see if he said anything about it in the rest of his talk, how exactly is it clear to you what position he took on it?


The closest he got was mentioning social inequality and poverty. While those are certainly issues upon which morality bears nothing he said about them tells us anything about his stance on the objectivity or subjectivity of whatever moral system he uses to evaluate them.

Do you believe his position is that there is no objective, only subjective, meaning to life.

Do you agree?

...rather than "objective".

But it would be nitpicking. Basically, yes.

Ummm... yeah? I do agree with myself.

and what meaning there is, is subjective?

(FWIW, I agree with myself only half the time.)

Yes, there is rather obviously no universal meaning to life.

Whether there is objective meaning to life can be quibbled on technicalities but basically no, not that either.

I don't think we need to phrase that speculatively given the entirety of all of human history. There simply are.

People have al ways and will always clash with disparate views.

Where does that leave us?

...to reduce the casualty inflicting properties of said clash. Better? Because unless the human race evolves into a singular consciousness hive mind the clash of ideas ain't going anywhere.


(And they didn't put up that statue because they thought the guy was civil)

Or was it just a random thought you felt like sharing?

Objectively, to millions of Mongolians, serving him and the Mongolian people, was the meaning of life. A clear, objective common purpose having little to do with subjectivity. Nut unlike North Korea.

A view the western Asians did not share, I'm sure.

..to qualify my earlier comment with the fact that if you said "objective" instead of "universal" it was subject to quibbling.


Generally when you have to say something was true *to X group of people* (like, for example, "to millions of Mongolians) but not *to Y group of people* (like, for example, almost everyone who wasn't those millions of Mongolians) you are describing the very definition of a subjective property.


But then someone comes along and says "well it's an objective fact those people had their subjective belief! Aha! Objectivity achieved!"

Every universal value is objective. But not every objective value is universal.

It's pretty clear to me he's saying is there's no invisible man in the sky who is assigning purpose to your life and you have to figure that one out on your own.

I was replying to the morality thread at the same time.

the first four responses to the article:

http://www.alligator.org/news/campus/article_c058fc0e-cee4-11e5-b38e-ab280e25228d.html

...I was commenting on what the author wrote verses what she quoted Mr. Barker as having said and what the four initial responses to her article seem to have gleaned as to what he meant (as based on the quotes of Mr. Barker she provided).

The author is apparently misconstruing Mr. Barker's point of view.

I asked whether that is being obtuse?
I did not imply any specific motive, I asked for suggestions on what could be a motive for such a title.

She was motivated to write the article (and included title), I asked for options on what that motive could be for such a title, which seems to be in direct contrast to what Mr. Barker was intending to convey.

What is relevant is whether he was arguing there is no objective meaning to life. That is a very old question and from the article, that's exactly what he was saying. He was saying the only meaning to life is subjective.

So, why wasn't that the title of the article?

A subjective/objective meaning to life <> no meaning to life.

do you think he was saying there is no objective meaning to life, only subjective meaning?

And do you agree with that?

...I was commenting on the title of her article which clearly reads that Mr. Barker said "There is no meaning to life".

I provided a quote of Mr. Barker (from the article):

I know precisely what Barker meant.

The question put to you is: "Do you think the meaning of life is objective, subjective or absent?"

It is hardly an irrelevant question.

Why do you decline to answer it?

...or is not.

My point was to discuss the contradiction between the title of the article and what Mr. Barker said.

Whether I believe Mr. Barker holds an exclusive Objective/Subjective meaning to life or whether I believe myself there is an exclusive Objective/Subjective meaning to life is irrelevant to a review of the title of the article in contrast to what Mr. Barker is quoted to have said.

He did not say "There is no meaning to life."

Having either a subjective or objective based belief to the meaning to life <> having a belief that there is no meaning to life.

Your pursuit of separate questions, without first addressing the original question, is a deflection in each case.

Modus operandi, yet again and again.

It becomes tedious.

Text conversations with you, in relation to the articles you post, produce nothing informative if you are unable to evaluate the premise and presentation of the articles without diverging into personal inquires.

A conversation of personal points of view may develop organically after a healthy discussion on the merits of the propositions and points with the posted article in question, but without a fair discussion and evaluation of what was posted, there is insufficient dialog and trust developed to delve into personal points of view.

It is probably why many people find conversations with you very frustrating and anything but enjoyable.

Since you've never been reluctant to post yor persional beliefs here, I can only conclude you do not like the implication of your answer.

Tedious indeed.

As they made rather clear was their purpose in posting here?

They said *exactly* what the purpose of the postings was. So yeah, I know. And you should too.

That is generally why people say things.

Where?

Do you think I'm NeoGreen?


(But if I was going to hazard an answer for him. It would be he *did* answer. His answer was that he was here to address the article title inaccuracy and not other issues. And you just didn't like that answer so you kept asking your question.)

(I'm answering in between trying to stop a foreclosure.)

But your proxy answer for him is a shitty one.

We weren't created for some purpose and again so what if we have no purpose other than we are what we are. Some of my favorite things have no real purpose. I have paintings and little knick knacks and some toys left over from when my kids were little. I don't do anything with them I just enjoy them. And when I hang out with people we aren't necessarily doing anything important just shooting the breeze and maybe making cookies. But, I do try to be kind to people rather than an asshole.

Why?

And why should you expect anyone else to behave the same way?

I like to think that I have some objectivity in life.

You know what to do.

I have no wish to be your master but since providence wills it I must comply.

You want to refer to individuals in the Teachers Union abusing children, as somehow equivalent to the RCC hiding, moving, shell-games, creating fake recommendations to re-home offending priests in new communities, extracting people who covered it up away to non-LEO jurisdictions, as somehow equivalent, you're not making any sense. They aren't the same issue.

When people like me are critical of the RCC for the abuse issues, it's in reference to the BEHAVIOR OF THE ORG IN RESPONSE to the problem as it happened. Still waiting for any evidence from you that supports your reference to Teachers Unions in the same context. Without that to support your tangent, it's simply an empty deflection. Nothing more.

And when/if you supply evidence to back that bullshit up, make sure you consider the scope, scale, prevalence, and the duration wherein the RCC, as an org, was engaged in it. Not to mention the impunity with which the RCC ignores/relocates/etc, abusers and their protectors, beyond the reach of local law enforcement.