Skip to main content

Can something be objectively meaningful if meaning itself only exists inside human minds?

Is it possible, simply through the study of psychology and without knowledge of mathematics, to tell that 2+2=5 is wrong? Simply through the survey of the internal contents of the mind, can you make any judgement about what is true or false? You cannot tell whether affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent are fallacious forms of reasoning or not. For that, psychology has to turn to other sciences, and so it must necessarily presuppose others.

Or take Transcendental Phenomenology, which is the study of phenomena - the subject matter of this science. To arrive at this phenomena we have to abstract from real existence and concentrate on how things appear to consciousness. This epoche, as Husserl calls it, drives a wedge between meaning and reality, but this separation is presupposed within the science and not justified within it. The phenomenological reduction is, as a consequence selective; it knows what it negates and what it preserves. There is already a duality of meaning and reality built into it.

So, the answer to your question is no, in order to be true, a content must not solely exist in my mind but should also be true about external reality. Also, we cannot assume that these meaningful contents in the mind can be individuated without relation to external reality at all.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ramanuja and Nimbarka

  The primary question for any Vedanta philosophy is what is the relation between Brahman and the world and Brahman and the individual souls. Nimbarka takes this relation to be one of identity and difference. He gives the analogy of a coiled snake and of sun and its rays. Brahman is both immanent and transcendent; the souls and matter are really just the different manifest states of the one Brahman. The concern with such a philosophy is to show that the immanence of Brahman does not compromise its unity and the impurities that accrue to the soul and matter do not thereby affect Brahman. Ramanuja believes that this is not possible in the Bheda-Abheda system (his criticisms of Bhaskara would with certain modifications apply also to Nimbarka). The reason is identity and difference cannot be affirmed simultaneously of the same object. Identity is an absolute relation or in the logical terminology of Nyaya it is a locus pervading relation. In terms of Modern Logic identity is a reflexiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why does the world exist? What purpose does it serve? An Indian Perspective

  When we talk about purpose we mean an activity that has a beginning and an end and a finite number of steps in between in and through which a task can be accomplished. So when we ask about the purpose or reason for the existence of the world we mean to inquire about why the world began to exist and when and how that purpose can be fulfilled which would be the end of history or the universe as such. There cannot be such a thing as an eternal task which we can see in Sisyphus’s story would render all activity pointless. There is also another sense of purpose in the sense of an immanent end which is not incompatible with eternity of the world. I shall elaborate that both these senses of purposefulness are rejected by Indian philosophers and then I shall explain in what sense liberation (moksha) is the purpose of our existence and the ultimate human good. Advaita Vedanta believes that the world is an appearance of the true ultimate reality Brahman. We have been trapped in the univers...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Difference Between Advaita Vedanta And Madhyamika Buddhism

  For Advaita Vedanta but not for Madhyamika, everything except Brahman is unreal. Why is it unreal? Because they lack a self or an essence. What lacks an essence has no genuine identity, because what is dependent on another cannot also be identical with itself. A chariot, for instance, is nothing over and above its parts arranged in a certain way. It has no essence, no existence that is not dependent on the parts. It has no existence outside of human conventions that treat these myriad parts as a single entity. These conventions have no foundation in reality, and everything is a conglomeration of parts to which we ascribe an essence. For Advaita Vedanta, everything different from the self or anything that is or can be an object of the self is unreal. The Self is something that necessarily exists and is unnegatable, while the existence of the world is transitory and is negated in Brahman-realization, like dreams are sublated upon waking up. Why does the world appear to us if it is ...
Post a Comment
Read more