Seeker196

From an atheist perspective, what are the remaining 'great questions'?

First, we aren't theists. Fine, OK.

Second, (most) of us aren't 'mystics' if you believe 'mystic' ideas can be seperated from theism (i.e. 'pure' taoism, atheist Hinayana buddhism, neo-paganism).

Third, we like life. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we LOVE life, profoundly. We also love knowledge, and beauty.

Well then, as whats-his-face asked, WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

There are several positions I see as I survey the 'field':

1. Absurdist: Discordian, existentialist, pagan, whatever. Given the choice between despair and having a good time, we choose the good time. After all it is kinda amusing, all the fuss and bother. Some of us pit our selves in a sort of 'war' against reality (in a way). Absurdists are happy with a glass of wine, good friends & family, and a fellowship. It IS kinda funny, ya know, so let's cast our defiance in the face of appoaching oblivion and make merry, for tomorrow we surely die. The Absurdist is into fantasy. A cultural relativist (mostly).

2. Progressivist: The progressivist thinks the Absurdist is a bit of pig. He thinks we should devote as much effort as possible to science and improving the world for future generations. He believes that science will be able to give us long, nigh-immortal lives so we can really enjoy ourselves, we can become totally understanding and 'full', then leap into oblivion knowing that you've really done it all, and you don't want to insult that beauty by allowing and endless existence to pall. The Progressive is more likely to be a fan of sci-fi, space exploration, and his politics are economic, either socialist or libertarian. He wants us to Stoically work hard and sacrifice because of an 'obligation' to people he's never met in the future, because that is beautiful, and dignified, and it 'seems right'. A utilitarian.

3. The Moral Guardian: He believes that if we all become sufficiently enlightened and take enough Phil courses we can develop a 'universal ethics' that will allow us to live lives of both happiness and truth (not a 'doctrine of pigs') since we can answer Socrates question about what is 'the good' and what is 'justice'. Can be Kantian.

4. The Quantum Dude:
He believes in a timeless multiplicity of existence. So immortality is kind of pointless. He is full of a childlike wonder at this strange, un understandable multiverse which he can only view from 'an angle' as it were. Fairly utilitarian or cultural relativist in other respects.

5. The Depressive:
This is a person with a mental disfunction. He gets off on the fact that he is smart enough to be able to despair, while the other meat-robots continue to think that with their little love, paltry beauty, and meaningless humour 'it'll all be all right'. Too cowardly to kill himself, this is usually someone who really 'secretly' needs religion, they like to feel comforted by notions of absolute meaning, but they're just to smart to fool themselves. Often a drunk, or drug-user. May espouse 'evil' as a joke, satanism etc.

6. Epicurean: the Happy Pig. They look on the cat as the ideal role model. Utilitarianism is fine, but they don't really see why it's "right" that they put themselves out much for other people if it doesn't make them happy. Rock, rock, rock until I die! Give me all the crepes, the pheasant, the DOuble Big Mac with Bacon and a Fried Egg, let's PARTY!!

Of course, the above was kind of a joke, it's more a sort of short-hand of a possible non-theist POV on existence, we all have small bits of these extremes in our make up.

I think one author said it best, when asked to define himself:

"I cannot. I contain multitudes."

NOTE: there are of course countless non-theist phil questions left, the nature of consciousness, time, space, truth.

Skepticos

One of the "great" philosophical questions:

What will cause Anakin Skywalker to turn to the Dark Side of the Force?

(Oops, wrong forum)

Smile.

- Skepticos

Keith Russell

Skepticos:

Jar Jar.

(It's gotta be Jar Jar.)

Keith.

Bill Snedden

I believe THE great question is: How shall we live?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Skepticwithachainsaw

Umm, I was unaware that ANY great Questions were actually (conclusively) solved. I must have missed the memo.

I was under the impression that we had got to the stage where it is impossible to answere almost any question completely conclusively.

Keith Russell

Bill:

How shall we live?

Sorry, I can only answer the question 'how shall I live--and that question really only has meaning and/or relavance for me.

Keith.

Starboy

Keith, he could have meant the majestic we.

Bill Snedden

The majestic "we"? As in, "we are not amused?"

Not quite, but I was referring to humanity generically. Of course, it is a question each of us must ask ourselves, "How shall I live?"

But that question cannot be asked or answered in a vacuum. One's existence as a human being must also be part of the equation. Is there a mode of living that is proper to Man? If so, the question properly becomes "how shall we live?"

Regards,

Bill Snedden

glassejaculate

I'm a good mixture of #'s 1 and 5, but I object to the portrayal of depressive atheists being so pathetic. Isn't it somehow noble for that an individual wants to be comforted by religion, but chooses not to because it's unreasonable? Maybe I'm just irked that the #5 stereotype fits me so aptly at times.

John Page

First we must seek the answer, only when we have found the answer can we proceed to the question, the ultimate question, of life, the universe and everything.
(apologies to Douglas Adams)

One possible implication from the above posts is that if the atheist viewpoint is correct then the truth is depressing. Of course, this could very well be true (sigh).

Cheers, John