Significance
Philosophy Now|June/July 2024
Ruben David Azevedo tells us why, in a limitless universe, we’re not insignificant.
Ruben David Azevedo
Significance

Many people assume, in the face of a virtually infinite universe, that we are insignificant beings. This assumption arises from our comparative extreme smallness. After all, our planet is nothing but a ‘blue dot’ in a vast solar system, a grain of dust lost in a second-rate suburb of a vast galaxy, which in turn dwells among another three hundred billion galaxies or more in the known universe alone. We’re negligible and peripheral – they say – and the universe is completely blind and indifferent towards us.

I think this common assumption of our insignificance might be challenged in eight arguments:

First: Relative size alone cannot be a measure for the absolute significance of a thing. Comparisons don’t tell us anything about one’s value in absolute terms, or a whale would be more significant than a human being merely because of its size. The same with certain dinosaurs, space rocks, planets, even galaxies. Complexity may tell us something about significance, but not size alone.

Second: Our alleged insignificance is not some law or definitive statement given by a universal judge with a privileged insight into the very marrow of universe – that is, into its absolute nature. Therefore, our alleged insignificance cannot be an absolute, objective or universal value. And how could we ourselves, being nothing and knowing nothing, issue such an objective universal truth – thus contradicting our own petty nature and infinitely tiny intellect?

This story is from the June/July 2024 edition of Philosophy Now.

Start your 7-day Magzter GOLD free trial to access thousands of curated premium stories, and 9,000+ magazines and newspapers.

This story is from the June/July 2024 edition of Philosophy Now.

Start your 7-day Magzter GOLD free trial to access thousands of curated premium stories, and 9,000+ magazines and newspapers.

MORE STORIES FROM PHILOSOPHY NOWView All
Anselm (1033-1109)
Philosophy Now

Anselm (1033-1109)

Martin Jenkins recalls the being of the creator of the ontological argument.

time-read
8 mins  |
October/November 2024
Is Brillo Box an Illustration?
Philosophy Now

Is Brillo Box an Illustration?

Thomas E. Wartenberg uses Warhol's work to illustrate his theory of illustration.

time-read
8 mins  |
October/November 2024
Why is Freedom So Important To Us?
Philosophy Now

Why is Freedom So Important To Us?

John Shand explains why free will is basic to humanity.

time-read
6 mins  |
October/November 2024
The Funnel of Righteousness
Philosophy Now

The Funnel of Righteousness

Peter Worley tells us how to be right, righter, rightest.

time-read
10+ mins  |
October/November 2024
We're as Smart as the Universe Gets
Philosophy Now

We're as Smart as the Universe Gets

James Miles argues, among other things, that E.T. will be like Kim Kardashian, and that the real threat of advanced AI has been misunderstood.

time-read
10+ mins  |
October/November 2024
Managing the Mind
Philosophy Now

Managing the Mind

Roger Haines contemplates how we consciously manage our minds.

time-read
9 mins  |
October/November 2024
lain McGilchrist's Naturalized Metaphysics
Philosophy Now

lain McGilchrist's Naturalized Metaphysics

Rogério Severo looks at the brain to see the world anew.

time-read
10+ mins  |
October/November 2024
Love & Metaphysics
Philosophy Now

Love & Metaphysics

Peter Graarup Westergaard explains why love is never just physical, with the aid of Donald Davidson's anomalous monism.

time-read
6 mins  |
October/November 2024
Mary Leaves Her Room
Philosophy Now

Mary Leaves Her Room

Nigel Hems asks, does Mary see colours differently outside her room?

time-read
7 mins  |
October/November 2024
From Birds To Brains
Philosophy Now

From Birds To Brains

Jonathan Moens considers whether emergence can explain minds from brains.

time-read
7 mins  |
October/November 2024