Comments on “Exiting eternalism”

Comments

Broken links

David,

The “relatively inaccessible” link is broken. Also, the links on all the notification emails have been broken as well.
Unrelatedly, I was wondering if you have thoughts about how the stances relate to one’s thoughts about love, i.e. eternalist views on what love means, etc.

Eternalism & love

Thanks for pointing out the broken links! The underlying technologies make them hard to fix, unfortunately.

Love does get extensively coopted and distorted by eternalism. In extreme cases, love is itself taken as the “eternal ordering principle” (i.e. God, more-or-less). Short of that, love is usually considered a “higher purpose” in the mission/materialism dichotomy, and then given various special, fixed meanings. I guess everyone is familiar with how those work; they’re the main topic of many genres of television, written fiction, and so on.

Like everything else, love’s meanings are—instead—nebulous, varying, ambiguous. From point of view of the complete stance, that’s not a problem at all; one just allows it to be however it is, without adding or subtracting meaning from it.

Add new comment

Navigation

This page is in the section Eternalism: the fixation of meaning,
      which is in Meaning and meaninglessness,
      which is in Doing meaning better.

The next page in this section is Non-theistic eternalism.

The previous page is Accomplishing eternalism.

This page’s topic is Eternalism.

General explanation: Meaningness is a hypertext book (in progress), plus a “metablog” that comments on it. The book begins with an appetizer. Alternatively, you might like to look at its table of contents, or some other starting points. Classification of pages by topics supplements the book and metablog structures. Terms with dotted underlining (example: meaningness) show a definition if you click on them. Pages marked with ⚒ are still under construction. Copyright ©2010–2019 David Chapman.