Don’t say I never prepare you.
Here’s the Pinterest link.
Now, let’s just get it over with and say that the intentions behind this seem to be noble, and the designer of it seems to be wrestling with a paradox which he/she finishes by having the more pleasant side facing up. Very well.
In fact, over most of my life, I would have found this quite inspiring. It would not be my aim to discourage the designer.
My comment is that the paradox is vastly overstated, and perhaps is the wrong word.
The upper half operates solely on the premise of scale – if you are small, you are insignificant. In this sense, only the Universe taken as a whole has any significance because (as I understand), the next smallest unit is vastly smaller than the entire Universe. A super cluster of galaxies, or something, but there are enough of those that any single one is rather insignificant.
This is the mistake of a many atheists.
To address this in a preliminary way, the very smallest things are important in the sense that they compose all of the biggest things. If string theory is true, for example, then the shape, dimensionality, and vibrations of a string are some of the most important facts in all reality. Keep in mind, even in the context of string theory, that a string is so small it is actually impossible for us ever to observe it.
This is the mistake of small-minded men, which is one of the chief mistakes that Christianity corrected.
This also assumes there is such a thing as significance, which necessitates such a thing as meaning. And, dare I say, objective meaning.
And so we have the second half of the graphic, which basically required the first half as a strawman. Very well.
I have no argument, even, in those things which are cited as giving each person “enormous” significance. I think they’re truly significant, and “enormous” may be an understatement. It certainly fits with the motif of the first half.
How is it, though, that uniqueness = significance? Why should love have any bearing on reality so that it could be considered significant?
Again, I think it does, but I’m driving at the underlying metaphysics, here.
Or, let’s be done dissecting a feel-good pin which probably was not given much thought beyond the motif. Nor should it be required to. What is Pluchar driving at here?
I think we too easily ascribe meaning to things without giving that meaning any legs to stand on, philosophical or otherwise. I think we’ve gotten off track with our metaphysics, in that most of the time we’re ignoring metaphysics. The result is a confused public discourse, a false sense of freedom and no sense of responsibility, a hundred movements and no direction.
And quasi-inspirational graphics that evoke no change.