Quote:
|
Are you saying that if you left good and evil in a room alone they would workout what they meant to each other---I really thought not. Meaning is biological determined, it is the subject that holds meaning, not the object.
|
Personifying good and evil only increases the problem. Doing so sets them as two separate 'things', when they are inextricably tied together (as far as I can tell).
But, hey, if you like the personification thing, I can run with it. I would say that they are conjoined twins, and that to separate them would be the death of them. They need not fight, as they depend upon one another.
If I say of an object that said object is evil, I have implied that some other object must be good. Though, even this is misleading as I do not see how anything can be necessarily good or evil - only relatively good or relatively evil under some certain set of circumstances.
Quote:
|
Yes, meaning is limited to a subject/consciousness, or ones biology, reality is that which is experienced as the relation between subject and object. The physical world is deviod of all meaning, it only acquires meaning in its relation to a subject/biology. As Schopenhauer put it, "Subject and object, stand or fall together." The physical world is limited, it is limited to biology for any meaning whatsoever.
|
I can buy this. The only thing is that your position here implies my position on good and evil - we apply meaning to the world, and to have a meaning 'good' to apply to something requires that we have a meaning 'evil' to also apply to something.
Again, one implies two, good implies evil.