The meanings of the question

class: center, middle, inverse, title-slide

.title[
# The meanings of the question
]
.subtitle[
## John Wisdom
]
.date[
### PHIL 2350 The Meaning of Life - FS23
]

---

# Agenda for this week

1. Video Lecture 1: John Wisdom: The Meanings of the Questions of Life
2. Video Lecture 2: Susan Wolf: Meaning in Life 
3. Quiz

### For next week (after Thanksgiving break)

1. Two readings only.
2. One commentary on *one* of the readings.
3. One reply to *one* commentary.

- Reading 1: Thomas Nagel: Death (pp. 215-222)
- Reading 2: Bernard Williams: The Makropulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality (pp. 223-238)

---
class: medium-font

# Questions for this week
1.	What is the main aim of Wisdom's text regarding the meaning of life?
2.	What argument does Wisdom object to? What is the conclusion of that argument? Which premise or premises does Wisdom believe are false?
3.	Why should one believe that the question of the meaning of something requires invoking an external context?
4.	Why doesn't the question of the meaning of life need to invoke an external context?
5.	What is the difference between objectivism and subjectivism about value?
6.	What is the difference between objectivism and subjectivism about the meaning of life?
7.	What is Wolf’s main thesis regarding the meaning of life? What is her argument?
8.	What does Wolf mean by “active engagement”?
9.	What does Wolf mean by “projects of worth”?
10.	Why should one believe that the meaning of life requires both active engagement and projects of worth?
---

# Wisdom's _The Meanings of the Questions of Life_

Main aim: To object to an argument that intends to conclude that the question "What is the meaning of life?" has no meaning.

Argument to which Wisdom will object:

1. (For all X) If the question "What is the meaning of X?" has meaning, then a proper answer to the question should invoke a context beyond X.
2. Thus, if the question "What is the meaning of life?" has meaning, then a proper answer to the question should invoke a context beyond life.
3. The answer to the question "What is the meaning of life?" cannot invoke a context beyond life, because there is nothing beyond life.
4. Thus, the question "What is the meaning of life?" has no meaning.

---
class: small-font

# P1: Proper answer to a question

.pull-left.w65[
Premise 1: (For all X) If the question "What is the meaning of X?" has meaning, then a proper answer to the question should invoke a context beyond X.

- What is the meaning of this __sign__? A proper answer should mention the context external to the sign.
    - Bad answer: The meaning of this sign is that the arrow is black and the background is yellow.
    - Good answer: The meaning of this sign is that there's a dangerous curve ahead.
- What is the meaning of this __rash__? A proper answer should mention the context external to the rash.
    - Bad answer: The meaning of this rash is that it is red and in the patient's hands and feet.
    - Good answer: The meaning of this rash is that the patient suffers from hand-foot-mouth disease.

Proper answers (arguably) should invoke the _external context_ of the subject-matter of the question.
]
.pull-right.w30[
    <img src="assets/curve-sign.jpg" alt="" width="500"/>

]

---
class: small-font

# P1: Proper answer to a question

.pull-left.w65[
Premise 1: (For all X) If the question "What is the meaning of X?" has meaning, then a proper answer to the question should invoke a context beyond X.

Proper answers (arguably) should invoke the _external context_ of the subject-matter of the question.
]
.pull-right.w30[
    <img src="assets/rash.jpg" alt="" width="500"/>

]

---
class: medium-font

# P1: Proper answer to a question

If it is _impossible_ to mention the external context of the subject-matter of the question, then the question seems meaningless:

- Consider the question "What supports _all things_?" 
    - Bad answer: A supports B, B supports C, C supports D, ...
    - Good answer: A, B, C, D, ... are supported by X, and X is beyond all things.
        - Problem: X _does not exist_.
- If there's nothing that could possibly answer a question, then that question is meaningless:
    - "What is _bigger_ than the biggest of all things?" By definition of "the biggest of all things", there's nothing bigger!.
    - There's nothing that could properly answer this question, so it is self-contradictory and therefore meaningless.

---

# P2: Life involves all things.

P2: If the question "What is the meaning of life?" has meaning, then a proper answer to the question should invoke a context beyond life.

When we ask about the meaning of life, we ask about the meaning of _everything_.
- My life, your life, everyone's life.
- Past, present, future.
- Earthly life, eternal life, etc.

Due to P1, a proper answer to this question should invoke a context beyond all things.

But there's _nothing_ beyond all things! Which leads to P3: The answer to the question "What is the meaning of life?" cannot invoke a context beyond life, because there is nothing beyond life.

---
class: medium-font

# Wisdom's objection

Main thesis: An argument to the effect that the question "What is the meaning of life?" has no meaning is unsound.

For this argument to be unsound, some premise must be false. But which one?

---
class: medium-font

> Imagine that we come into a theatre after a play has started and are obliged to leave before it ends. We may then be puzzled by the part of the play that we are able to see. We may ask “What does it mean?” In this case we want to know what went before and what came after in order to understand the part we saw. But sometimes _even when we have seen and heard a play from the beginning to the end we are still puzzled and still ask what does the whole thing mean_. In this case we are not asking what came before or what came after, we are not asking about anything outside the play itself.

> We are, if you like, asking a very different sort of question from that we usually put with the words “What does this mean?” But we are still asking a real question, we are still asking a question which has sense and is not absurd. For our words express a wish to grasp the character, the significance of the whole play. They are a confession that we have not yet done this and they are a request for help in doing it. Is the play a tragedy, a comedy or a tale told by an idiot? The pattern of it is so complex, so bewildering, our grasp of it still so inadequate, that we don't know what to say, still less whether to call it good or bad. But this question is not senseless. (pp. 194-5)

---

# Wisdom's objection

- The question of the meaning of life is a different question than the meaning of a sign or a disease's symptom.
- A proper answer to the question of the meaning does not need to be determined by something outside life.
    - It's about the _character_ or _significance_ of life, which does not need to invoke things outside life to be properly answered.
- Analogy with the meaning of a _play_.
    - We are able to find meaning to the internal coherence and plot of the play, without invoking considerations external to it.
- This is not to say that the question is not difficult. Perhaps the _answer_ is beyond us, in the sense that we don't know it. But the question is not senseless.
    - A child can make sense of the meaning of a simple play.
    - When confronted with a complex play, the chilmd might not get its meaning, but not because of that we say that the question is absurd.

---
# Wisdom's objection

So, which premise is false? __Premise 1__:

Premise 1 may be true of _some_ things, not _all_ things.