Sorry, Shaker, that is a prime example of dismissing the one, and then conveniently resurrecting it. Whilst I'd agree that the Gandhis, Martin Luthers and Luther-Kings, and Nelson Mandelas have had very public impacts beyond their own individual deaths, just how many other Jo and Joe Bloggs have had far less public, but no less valid impacts beyond their own deaths - most grandparents, friends, parents, even children. Often those impacts aren't carefully planned by those people - they just are.
That's exactly what I already said.
So are you now denying that, in post #6, you said
In the absence of the former, there are only the latter - the transient, subjective things we do that matter to us while we're alive. In some cases a few exceptional people have purposes that go on beyond their own individual death and who remain an inspiration to those who come after: the Gandhis, Martin Luther Kings and Nelson Mandelas of the world, etc. That's for the exceptional few: most people find meaning and purpose in more private and personal concerns - their children; a garden; the books they write; music and so forth.
In other words, only the exceptional few intend that their lives should have an impact on anything beyond their own deaths? Of all the people I know well, and that probably numbers in the one or two hundreds now, I know of almost no-one who doesn't want their life to have had some form of impact on their extended family, community, perhaps even nationally or internationally after their death. For instance, I believe that, having been involved in the training of 120 or so teachers whilst I was in Nepal, the quality of education in Nepal will have been raised at least a little bit for the foreseeable future. I also know that some of those students have now gone to become teacher trainers in their own right thus extending that legacy both longitudinally and laterally, as it were.
It wasn't chosen by him, since - based on my own experience at any rate - we can't, and don't, choose what we value (or don't value).
Something that I wopuld only partially agree with. Take, for instance, the situation of a number of College and University Christian Union leaders over the years. I can think of several who were dedicated to their roles whilst at College/University, who then moved on into the world of work and, over time,
decided/chose to ditch their Christian faith. In some cases this was as a result of their later experiences (both within and without the church context), for some as a result of what can only be termed peer pressure and for some (a minority) to satisfy others' opinions.
I may lose interest in something and gain an interest in something else, but these aren't matters of deliberate choice under conscious control.
From my experience, I would have to disagree.
As I said in a post that wigginhall responded to not long ago, lives are given meaning and purpose by the things we value yet we don't choose the things we value - the conclusion being that lives can have meaning and purpose but not by choice.
Whereas in my experience, we value things and people because of an underlying, pre-existing meaning in our lives. So, for instance, I believe that we ought to protect and support refugees and migrants, not so much because of what they can bring into our lives, but
because they are human beings who have a purpose and a meaning to their lives even without our intervention. Our intervention doesn't give them purpose and meaning - which is how I understand what you are trying to say.
And you have definitive evidence for this assertion, Shakes? If you have, you will be the very first person that I know, perhaps even the world knows, to have such evidence.
Which assertion?
The one that my comment was in response to - "It is all the same at the end of the day ..." (post #6)
