The meaning of life has been and always will be argued as long as conscious beings exist. It’s almost humorous. Once you can think outside of you own survival and top asking how to do something, you begin to question why to do something. There have been many answers, whether they are religion, science or the betterment of the human species. This goal has been in the forefront of human endeavors ever since we settled down and fostered and sedentary lifestyle in which not all members of society were required to produce food. Only until the early 20th century did it become philosophical theory to discuss whether the pursuit of meaning itself had any merit, whether the universes lack of response to our search means that our search is futile. This …show more content…
On what standards does she place some activities that have more objective meaning than others? This brings up Nagel argument on the absurdity of human existence. Does it in fact matter that I balanced my company’s checkbooks in the grand scheme of things? Probably not to a random citizen in Japan who doesn’t even know you exist. Some take to the argument that since my actions do not have objective influence in the future or great distances away that therefore my life is absurd and the pursuit of meaning is hopeless. Nagel argues that definition of absurdity is fallacious and the basic assumptions used can be disavowed if placed in different perspectives. If we assume that our lives will not matter in a million years then by the same token, can it not be argued that whatever happens in a million years does not matter now? If that is the case then it does not matter that our lives will not matter in a million years and the entire argument can be avoided. Similarly, if I became the size of a galaxy, would my action carry any more meaning than they do now? At what point do I become big enough to matter? Using these assumptions Nagel proceeds to argue that true absurdity arises from our very ability to question the meaning of our actions. While we may take our lives and our goals very seriously, it is always possible to doubt ourselves, yet it is impossible to dispel these doubts. Given this, Nagel asks what are our options? 1. We can avoid tat inner monologue of doubt, but a conscious choice in the matter is impossible since as soon as the decision is reached, the doubt is already there. 2. We could look at our lives with complete sincerity and focus solely on the objective viewpoint of life, but this is easily self-undermining. 3 We could become hedonists and focus on animalistic desires. Yet given these choices in response to selfdoubt, we still take ourselves seriously. We do not feel that this absurdity
Susan Wolf, born in 1952, is widely considered one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th and 21st century. One of Wolf’s most renowned works is The meanings of Lives, which drew a lot of attention in the philosophical world for a number of questions that arose from it. Arguably her most widely debated and questioned assertion in The meanings of Lives is “If you care about yourself you’re living as if you’re the center of the universe, which is false.” This however I don’t not believe to be true. Every human being, no matter how successful or unsuccessful, has the right to care for them sleeves and not believe they are the center of the universe while doing so.
In Christy Wampole’s “How to Live Without Irony” and Richard Taylor’s “The Meaning of Human Existence” both authors argue how humans ought to live a meaningful life. Wampole tackles the argument in a different way than Taylor but they both have similar positions on the meaning. I agree with both authors in some of the ways that we should dictate our lives to justify meaningfulness but I also believe that meaningfulness can differ from person to person. Life is very precious to us; since humans have had the ability to consciously think, we have always questioning our existence. No other animal on the planet has had the luxury of pondering whether or not their life is meaningful.
"People say that what we're all seeking is a meaning for life. I don't think that's what we're really seeking. I think that what we're seeking is an experience of being alive...." Joseph Campbell made this comment on the search for meaning common to every man's life. His statement implies that what we seem bent on finding is that higher spark for which we would all be willing to live or die; we look for some key equation through which we might tie all of the experiences of our life and feel the satisfaction of action toward a goal, rather than the emptiness which sometimes consumes the activities of our existence. He states, however, that we will never find some great pure meaning behind everything, because there is none. What there is to be found, however, is the life itself. We seek to find meaning so that emptiness will not pervade our every thought, our every deed, with the coldness of reality as the unemotional eye chooses to see it. Without color, without joy, without future, reality untouched by hope is an icy thing to view; we have no desire to see it that way. We forget, however, that the higher meaning might be found in existence itself. The joy of life and the experience of living are what make up true meaning, as the swirl of atoms guided by chaotic chance in which we find our existence has no meaning outside itself.
Again, I believe Taylor is missing some important feature to his theory. It seems he is correct in stating one should have their own sense of meaning to their life not just others’ perception that one’s life is meaningful. However, there is still the problem of giving equal meaning to everyone life that is doing what they love to do. As a result, to answer this problem one could suggest in order for one to have a meaningful life a person must be subjectively fulfilled by pursuing objectively valuable ends. This way it ensures the person must find meaning in their own lives as well as creating something that benefits many that will give others the perception the person has a meaningful life.
Nagel is a profound philosopher, who defends a customary view of science a way to gain knowledge of the world. In the argument, Nagel makes it clear that there is good reason to believe that God doesn’t exist, however, he does make it clear that his views make fall along the lines of Buddhism. Nagel claims that he his questioning the theological proposition to believe in God. Nagel has given two points in proving that God does not exist. The first point goes along the lines that of that God exist, however, they don’t have a good reason to believe in God but they also have no good reason to not believe in God. Or we cannot truly understand the concept of God exist because according to Nagel its nonsense- although, we understand it as an expression
The meaning of life is to find the meaning of life. Is it not? We all go through each day trying to figure out which road out the infinite amount of paths will lead us in a better direction where happiness is prominent and society is flawless. However, not every single human being is going to fit on that narrow, one-lane highway to success. Bad choices, accidents, fate, family matters, society, temptation, anger, rage, addiction, and loss of hope can all be deciding factors in opting to choose that wrong path to self-destruction. The adverse thing is, once you've traveled so far down the road, you get so discouraged that you feel like you can never turn back or make up for the "lost time."
Thomas Nagel’s paper Death would be better if renamed “Why Death is Bad” because that is the issue he is dealing with throughout it. He is not raising a general view on what death is but rather to establish a specific point about death; that it is bad. He raises the question on how we should regard death and whether “it is a bad thing to die.” Nagel is building a case for saying that death is bad, that death is an evil and that when someone dies something bad happens to them. What Nagel is trying to establish is the reputation of Epicurus who said that death is neither good nor bad because since death is not something we experience, and death is the taking away of all experience; the ability to experience, it is nothing to us, neither good nor bad. What Nagel wants to establish it that Epicurus didn’t have it right. Nagel wants to restore our common sense or natural view that death is an evil.
Thomas Nagel begins his collection of essays with a most intriguing discussion about death. Death being one of the most obviously important subjects of contemplation, Nagel takes an interesting approach as he tries to define the truth as to whether death is, or is not, a harm for that individual. Nagel does a brilliant job in attacking this issue from all sides and viewpoints, and it only makes sense that he does it this way in order to make his own observations more credible.
The most pondered about question for a lot of people is what happens after we die? Is it a dark abyss, do we fall into a hole of nothingness, or is there an afterlife where our soul lives without our bodies? Although many are quick to respond, the true answer will always be unknown, because although we can think about death as we live, there’s no way of really knowing what will happen outside our mind when we’re gone, if the mind is one of the few things agreed upon that is certain. Thomas Nagel, author of What Does It All Mean?, considers that if a person “consists of a soul and a body connected together, we can understand how life after death might be possible” (page 89). Most philosophers argue that each person does have a soul, and this soul is a body of knowledge that people should expand upon while pushing aside bodily influences. Counter to the skepticism of Nagel, Greek philosopher Plato, in his work the Phaedo, uses the Theory of Forms to reason why souls must exist, however he lacks strength in explaining the cycle of birth and death for the soul, and more importantly how the soul popped into existence.
Thomas Nagel 's notion of moral luck poses an ethical dilemma concerning our human capacities to act morally. If we don’t have complete control over our actions, how can we be morally judged? This challenges a number of philosophers that have considered the ways in which we can universally detect when an act is morally right and when is an act morally wrong. Is there truly a unique and single way in which we can determinate what is moral, or are we purposefully ignoring mediating factors for the sake of justice?
The essay of Thomas Nagel was based on the importance of consciousness as well as the subjective character of experience. Nagel makes some very good points in his essay, What it is like to be a bat? Explaining that we experience everything as subjective and not objective. Having analyzed the essay from Nagel, I have decided that he does have a sound argument which states that every organism that experiences consciousness will experience it in its own way. Nagel also talks about the mind-body problem, discovered by Rene Descartes, which is about the physical body interacting with the nonphysical mind that also ties in with consciousness because it is based on the individuals own understanding. Although Nagel points out that we can assume or try and understand a situation through our own personal understanding, it will never be the same as actually being the person or thing experiencing something for itself. So in other words, Nagel believes that there are some experiences which are completely beyond human understanding.
Tupac Shakur once said that “During your life, never stop dreaming. No one can take away your dreams”. The challenge of figuring out what the meaning of life is difficult. We often ask ourselves who, what, when and why are we here. These questions are ones we will always wonder. The question is how we translate this into actual terms. A person’s lifetime is fulfilled with self-examination. The meaning of life often reflects back to Jesus Christ and what he has done. Some humans often wonder what his plan was for us. If he wanted us to know how and what to do in our lives he would have told us right? I mean where we begin to end. What are our lives supposed to be like? Our faith is what keeps us asking questions. For Christians we live to know what he had in store for us. We want to feel and connect with him and show our gratitude. Therefore, the meaning of life is existence; the purpose of life is self-beneficiation and reproduction.
The theistic response to life’s meaning is when one believes their life’s meaning is to live according to God’s Plan. The type of people that usually have this response to the question of life’s meaning are religious people. From a religious standpoint, as a child you are taught that God created you and he has a specific plan for your life, so if you are raised in the church it is engrained in you from a young age that God decides your meaning of life. People that do not believe in God would completely reject this response. Without the belief in God or a higher power a person would believe that the meaning of life is not determined by an outside source or a higher power.
Human life is absurd and there is no universal meaning, but humanity suffers from this inevitable fact so they try to find meaning through various created purposes to feel significant in their life. The absurdity of life is one of the biggest issues of philosophy because of the consequences it can cause in peoples lives. As human beings we desire purpose, meaning and order in life. Without the content of a meaningful life we feel lost and strive to find something that gives us meaning. We are all suffering from this unattainable goal to find a meaningful life. Albert Camus and Thomas Nagel agree with the fact that life is absurd but disagree on the right approach to life after realizing that life is without meaning.
Are you clear about the purpose of life? The purpose of your life is what you’re meant to achieve, experience and learn in this life. Finding it starts with discovering what really captures your heart. It’s the thread that connects all parts of your life.