3 deleted 1 character in body
source | link

The writer of this sentence has not defined meaningless to mean objectively meaningless, and he has done nothing to define bad or goodness, so it is like comparing apples-and-oranges when we ask whether something may have objective good quality even though it "is" meaningless.

Suppose the writer of the sentence actually believes that meaning in life is derived from productivity. Thus a sad, self-hating factory worker who is a full-time internet troll has lots of productivity goodness as long as he doesn't fail to tighten those two bolts whenever they pass his station on the assembly line. (A reference to Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times) Maybe this goodness is enough for him to have objective quality!

But if the writer of the sentence is an internet moderator whose purpose is to sell advertising to companies that don't like to see vitriol next to their detergent ads, then that same sad factory worker doesn't have goodness no matter how productive he is at work. This doesn't sound good enough for him to have objective quality after all.

I can impose any such value on "goodness", since the author did not define it. Of the three things quality, goodness, and meaning, meaning is getting fully defined here. Quality is also getting a strong treatment. But the author is starving the definition of goodness such that his argument fails to hit the mark with me. I just end up skeptical.

It is my own synthesis that people get meaning from an authority in their lives. If you give that authority to a skillful book author, then he can assign you meaning. Great!

But does the author have your best interests? Maybe he's using ambiguous words and suggestion to manipulate you into selling your stocks when the market is highlow, so he can buy 'em. Or maybe he's trying to get you to buy shares in Florida swampland ETFs, which he is selling. How could you know?

The writer of this sentence has not defined meaningless to mean objectively meaningless, and he has done nothing to define bad or goodness, so it is like comparing apples-and-oranges when we ask whether something may have objective good quality even though it "is" meaningless.

Suppose the writer of the sentence actually believes that meaning in life is derived from productivity. Thus a sad, self-hating factory worker who is a full-time internet troll has lots of productivity goodness as long as he doesn't fail to tighten those two bolts whenever they pass his station on the assembly line. (A reference to Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times) Maybe this goodness is enough for him to have objective quality!

But if the writer of the sentence is an internet moderator whose purpose is to sell advertising to companies that don't like to see vitriol next to their detergent ads, then that same sad factory worker doesn't have goodness no matter how productive he is at work. This doesn't sound good enough for him to have objective quality after all.

I can impose any such value on "goodness", since the author did not define it. Of the three things quality, goodness, and meaning, meaning is getting fully defined here. Quality is also getting a strong treatment. But the author is starving the definition of goodness such that his argument fails to hit the mark with me. I just end up skeptical.

It is my own synthesis that people get meaning from an authority in their lives. If you give that authority to a skillful book author, then he can assign you meaning. Great!

But does the author have your best interests? Maybe he's using ambiguous words and suggestion to manipulate you into selling your stocks when the market is high, so he can buy 'em. Or maybe he's trying to get you to buy shares in Florida swampland ETFs, which he is selling. How could you know?

The writer of this sentence has not defined meaningless to mean objectively meaningless, and he has done nothing to define bad or goodness, so it is like comparing apples-and-oranges when we ask whether something may have objective good quality even though it "is" meaningless.

Suppose the writer of the sentence actually believes that meaning in life is derived from productivity. Thus a sad, self-hating factory worker who is a full-time internet troll has lots of productivity goodness as long as he doesn't fail to tighten those two bolts whenever they pass his station on the assembly line. (A reference to Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times) Maybe this goodness is enough for him to have objective quality!

But if the writer of the sentence is an internet moderator whose purpose is to sell advertising to companies that don't like to see vitriol next to their detergent ads, then that same sad factory worker doesn't have goodness no matter how productive he is at work. This doesn't sound good enough for him to have objective quality after all.

I can impose any such value on "goodness", since the author did not define it. Of the three things quality, goodness, and meaning, meaning is getting fully defined here. Quality is also getting a strong treatment. But the author is starving the definition of goodness such that his argument fails to hit the mark with me. I just end up skeptical.

It is my own synthesis that people get meaning from an authority in their lives. If you give that authority to a skillful book author, then he can assign you meaning. Great!

But does the author have your best interests? Maybe he's using ambiguous words and suggestion to manipulate you into selling your stocks when the market is low, so he can buy 'em. Or maybe he's trying to get you to buy shares in Florida swampland ETFs, which he is selling. How could you know?

2 added 582 characters in body
source | link

The writer of this sentence has not defined meaningless to mean objectively meaningless, and he has done nothing to define bad or goodness, so it is like comparing apples-and-oranges towhen we ask whether something may have objective good quality even though it "is" meaningless.

Suppose the writer of the sentence actually believes that meaning in life is derived from productivity. Thus a sad, self-hating factory worker who is a full-time internet troll has "objective" goodnesslots of productivity goodness as long as he doesn't fail to tighten those two bolts whenever they pass his station on the assembly line. (A reference to Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times) Maybe this goodness is enough for him to have objective quality!

But if the writer of the sentence is an internet moderator whose purpose is to sell advertising to companies that don't like to see vitriol next to their detergent ads, then that same personsad factory worker doesn't have "objective" goodness no matter how productive he is at work. In both cases I'm putting "objective" in quotes because it's only sensible in the context of the author's un-stated personal preferences; This doesn't sound good enough for him to have objective quality after all.

I can impose any such value on the author"goodness", since he or shethe author did not define it. Of the three things objective meaningquality, goodness, and meaning, meaning is getting fully defined here. Quality is also getting a strong treatment. But the author is starving the definition of goodness such that his argument fails to hit the mark with me. I just end up skeptical.

It is my own synthesis that people get meaning from an authority in their lives. If you give that authority to ana skillful book author, then he can assign you meaning. Great! But

But does hethe author have your best interests? Maybe he's using ambiguous words and suggestion to manipulate you into selling your stocks when the market is high, so he can buy 'em. Or maybe he's trying to get you to buy shares in Florida swampland ETFs, which he is selling. How could you know?

The writer of this sentence has not defined meaningless to mean objectively meaningless, so it is apples-and-oranges to ask whether something may have objective good quality even though it "is" meaningless.

Suppose the writer of the sentence actually believes that meaning in life is derived from productivity. Thus a sad, self-hating factory worker who is a full-time internet troll has "objective" goodness as long as he doesn't fail to tighten those two bolts whenever they pass his station on the assembly line. (A reference to Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times)

But if the writer of the sentence is an internet moderator whose purpose is to sell advertising to companies that don't like to see vitriol next to their detergent ads, then that same person doesn't have "objective" goodness. In both cases I'm putting "objective" in quotes because it's only sensible in the context of the author's un-stated personal preferences; I can impose any such value on the author, since he or she did not define objective meaning.

It is my own synthesis that people get meaning from an authority in their lives. If you give that authority to an author, then he can assign you meaning. Great! But does he have your best interests?

The writer of this sentence has not defined meaningless to mean objectively meaningless, and he has done nothing to define bad or goodness, so it is like comparing apples-and-oranges when we ask whether something may have objective good quality even though it "is" meaningless.

Suppose the writer of the sentence actually believes that meaning in life is derived from productivity. Thus a sad, self-hating factory worker who is a full-time internet troll has lots of productivity goodness as long as he doesn't fail to tighten those two bolts whenever they pass his station on the assembly line. (A reference to Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times) Maybe this goodness is enough for him to have objective quality!

But if the writer of the sentence is an internet moderator whose purpose is to sell advertising to companies that don't like to see vitriol next to their detergent ads, then that same sad factory worker doesn't have goodness no matter how productive he is at work. This doesn't sound good enough for him to have objective quality after all.

I can impose any such value on "goodness", since the author did not define it. Of the three things quality, goodness, and meaning, meaning is getting fully defined here. Quality is also getting a strong treatment. But the author is starving the definition of goodness such that his argument fails to hit the mark with me. I just end up skeptical.

It is my own synthesis that people get meaning from an authority in their lives. If you give that authority to a skillful book author, then he can assign you meaning. Great!

But does the author have your best interests? Maybe he's using ambiguous words and suggestion to manipulate you into selling your stocks when the market is high, so he can buy 'em. Or maybe he's trying to get you to buy shares in Florida swampland ETFs, which he is selling. How could you know?

1
source | link

The writer of this sentence has not defined meaningless to mean objectively meaningless, so it is apples-and-oranges to ask whether something may have objective good quality even though it "is" meaningless.

Suppose the writer of the sentence actually believes that meaning in life is derived from productivity. Thus a sad, self-hating factory worker who is a full-time internet troll has "objective" goodness as long as he doesn't fail to tighten those two bolts whenever they pass his station on the assembly line. (A reference to Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times)

But if the writer of the sentence is an internet moderator whose purpose is to sell advertising to companies that don't like to see vitriol next to their detergent ads, then that same person doesn't have "objective" goodness. In both cases I'm putting "objective" in quotes because it's only sensible in the context of the author's un-stated personal preferences; I can impose any such value on the author, since he or she did not define objective meaning.

It is my own synthesis that people get meaning from an authority in their lives. If you give that authority to an author, then he can assign you meaning. Great! But does he have your best interests?