My entire point, was simply to illuminate the possiblity of another way of thought. That is, ideas exist before their "creators" bear them. Much like the concept that people have souls and their body's are the bearer of them.

Again, I don't adamantly follow either side of the coin; I just wanted to give the benefit of both sides to our Monks here.

Ommm,
Gryn

My entire point, was simply to illuminate the possiblity of another way of thought.

First, I hope this doesn't seem like an attack. I love a good discussion and this is simply intended in that spirit.

While I acknowledge your statement, I question the utility of it. I can think all I want to that Audrey Hepburn will show up (around age 25 or so) and fall madly in love with me. I can make the assertion that this has happened and the obvious question is: is this true? So for me, thought deals with truth. Admittedly, there are things that cannot be proven true or false and these things fall outside the realm of rational inquiry. As a result, those "unproveable" things are matters of faith (religion comes to mind). I have no problem with that.

In this case, the original argument (I mean that in a philisophical, not combative, sense) was whether or not the idea of Perl could exist prior to Larry Wall. We can't disprove a negative, so it's impossible to disprove the assertion that Perl did not exist prior to Larry Wall if that's all the information available to us. In this case, we have more information. We can assert, and subsequently prove, that Larry Wall created Perl. Ergo, Perl did not exist prior to Larry.

I assume that there are those who are willing to get into some Platonic debate about Larry creating the physical manifestation of some ideal, but so what? How does that benefit us if we're looking for truth? It calls into dispute the origin of everything. We quickly have an infinite regression of ideals being spawned by previous ideals. If we simply assert that the ideal that Larry Wall manifested as Perl was the original, what basis do we have for the "first cause"? None. It's not rational.

If we wish to posit that there are other modes of thought, that's fine (my ex-wife certainly had a strange mode of thought). Other modes of thought are fine for speculation, creativity, imagination, what have you. But if we're interested in "truth" (i.e., something that is falsifiable - even if it is not proven true or false) then we quickly get called on the carpet. There aren't too many "way(s) of thought" that arrive at truth. If someone asserts that there are other ways of arriving at truth, I ask them to detail them. It's fun watching them squirm out of that.

And to answer the original question of this thread: my opinion regarding the meaning of life is that it is up to the individual. My personal meaning is to understand what is truly important to me and to engage in a lifelong pursuit of it, so long as I don't hurt others.

Cheers,
Ovid

Join the Perlmonks Setiathome Group or just go the the link and check out our stats.

Phooey, Ovid, I had your nice long over due reply for you, but my browser ate it :( . Maybe I'll write it again sometime when I'm not mad at my computer :) , sorry.

Ciao,
Gryn