The reading was written by Thomas Nagel, and dealt with the topic of the feeling most people have in relation to life being absurd.
Nagel first examined some standard reasons why people feel life is absurd and evaluated their adequacy. He concludes that such reasons fail as arguments, yet he still believes they are fundamentally correct expressing something difficult to state. He then attempts to explain what it is that seems so absurd about life, then provides some solutions.
Nagel writes that an absurdity in life arises for us when we perceive a discrepancy between an inflated pretension or aspiration and reality. In addition he points out that any sense of absurdity “is supplied… by the collision between the seriousness with which we take our lives and the perpetual possibility of regarding everything about which we are serious as arbitrary, or open to doubt.” I would agree with him on both accounts, in addition to his analysis that such a collision makes us want to do one of several things:
I have always been of the mind if I seriously believed God did not exist, then I would simply end my life to escape the futility and absurdity of life. While Nagel admits this is one solution, I was surprised to discover I could accept his reasoning for the second option of living. The second option he provides was that we could approach our life with irony. In other words, we can live as though what tends to matter to us actually does, because we know it does not really matter.
The scary thought here is if one seriously believes life does not ultimately matter, and so choose the solution to live rather then commit suicide because it does not matter either, then it seems to me that adopting the view nothing really matters would have natural repercussions on a person’s life actions. There would be no reason why one should not adopt a selfish approach to life.
It could lead to all sorts of injustices. Although I suppose the irony argument could also be employed here, that is, while injustices may not ultimately matter, if we feel they do then we can believe they do because it does not matter anyway. Yet such a conclusion tends to be based on an appeal to a person’s good conscience, and there seems to be no reason one could give on why one should not simply ignore it for their own benefit.
If everyone were to adopt Nagel’s conclusion, I think the outlook for humanity would be quite horrible. I personally believe Nagel too readily dismisses other solutions which seem to provide better foundations not only for purpose in life, but also for values which we all tend to hold as good despite whether or not we live up to them.
The solution I am thinking of is one involving God. While I do not think one should accept a religious belief purely on the grounds that it provides a nicer solution to life’s absurdity, it certainly provides what I perceive the best framework for a more caring and loving approach to life and others. These are qualities I am sure everyone recognises as good. So unless a person is happy to live life as having no ultimate meaning, of which I can see the appeal, then I think one should seriously consider a theistic solution which can provide significant meaning and better foundations for values and a selfless lifestyle.
© 2004 Scott Brisbane