Replies

Tax-chick did the right thing. When she did, I asked the moderator to remove my response, and retracted my accusation. I would hope that this is also the right thing, and the matter is closed. I request that you treat it as such.

A learning experience, now completed, as far as I'm concerned.

Cheers to all!

Tax-chick did the right thing. When she did, I asked the moderator to remove my response, and retracted my accusation. I would hope that this is also the right thing, and the matter is closed.

But it wouldn't hurt anyone to be a little more complete, would it?

Click THE JULIAN HUXLEY LIE. You'll find this fellow sounds a LOT like a rational leftist, and this article discusses in huge detail how Julian was originally 'slandered'. Oh and this:

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption.

The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality.

We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.

The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning--the Christian meaning, they insisted--of the world.

There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever." [Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means, 1937]

So, Tax Chick, you were not too far off - there is a Huxley out there who liked to 'confute' these people..

Of course, the dude who compiled all this is an evolution defender with lots of free time on his hands, and he does mental pretzels showing that the Huxley's are really ok people. From his point of view, it seems the philosophy of scientific materialism is disconnected from the philosophy of meaninglessness. That evolution is somehow, 'meaningful'. But I didn't get how. I get the distinct impression that evolution is firmly rooted in meaningless, in unadulterated materialism.

Anyway, it was nice to see all the civility...