How does philosophy determine the meaning of the world?
"The meaning of being", in all the variants I know, implies in the answer a person and his place in the world.
Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Interesting question. But it seems to me that this reasonable question contains an internal contradiction. After all, meaning is a human trait, and the answer to your question probably lies in recognizing the “meaninglessness” of the world and in man's opposition to this meaninglessness. The world (being) has always been, it is indifferent to man, but for some reason we do not realize this and try to overcome this indifference. On the one hand, this in itself is meaningless, since the indifference of the world cannot be overcome (by definition). On the other hand, the whole science is built on this struggle: we are trying to overcome the insurmountable. This, by the way, is pretty damn interesting!!! Thanks for the question. Something to think about.
Philosophy does not define the “meaning of the world” in any way (meaning is something that is integral, and we always deal only with a part of the universe).
So it (meaning) is of some other nature. Not physical, but metaphysical. And not in the world, but “behind” the world (in another dimension of the world). Philosophers then say: “as such, “” meaning in general.”
For the meaning “as such” is that within which the meaning of the world is visible (and it can only be seen “on oneself”). The structure of the vision is the SAME, but what we saw is different. Yes, they expressed it in different ways. Well, as they could)).
Philosophy clarifies, thus, the vision of the meaning of the world (like the operating system, which allows you to understand files).
Being was not and will not be. it only exists, remains in the monistic deixis. Therefore, it is incorrect to ask about the meaning of being. Everyone finds “their own meaning of being.”
The question confuses similar but different concepts.
“The meaning of being” is “why everything (that exists in what exists)”?
This is a philosophical question. Many thinkers have answered it, and it is up to the contemporary to choose the appropriate answer for him/her.
“The meaning of life” – “why does a person live”? The answer to this question depends on whether the person is meant in general, or the individual meaning of a particular person? In the second case, the meaning is subjective, and everyone finds the answer to it himself.
“the meaning of the world”, if by it we mean only the created, material world – “what was it created for”?
Philosophy should not answer this question, at least not the part of it that accepts only scientific knowledge of the world. The meaning of being is established through God, as is the meaning of human life.
According to the subject ontology, the universe was formed by chance, which means that it exists as a whole – “as it should”. So if the “meaning” itself is conceived as a certain expediency of actions, then any interpretation about the “meaning of being” and the “meaning of the world” is pointless, because only purposeful actions can have meaning…
As many philosophers, so many opinions. No, there are still more opinions than philosophers. So do not look for a single opinion of philosophy. It doesn't exist, and it never did.