Introduction:
The meaning and purpose of life have been a topic that mankind has grappled with since time immemorial. Philosophers, sages, and theologians have all produced a plethora of answers to what the purpose of life is. Many are optimistic, vouching for a blissful hereafter that accompanies a virtuous life, whereas certain philosophers are skeptical about whether there is any meaning to life at all. Thomas Nagel is a renowned American philosopher who argues not only that human life is absurd, but that humans cannot escape this absurdity either. His position is a unique one, for it differs from those who appeal to the finitude of human life and universal existence. He posits that human life would remain to be absurd even if it lasted for an eternity, and even if the universe were to last forever. Having argued that humans cannot escape the absurdity of their lives, he posits that we need not be overwhelmed, nor depressed by such a reality. He believes that if life is meaningless, then its meaninglessness doesn’t matter either. Furthermore, he prescribes humor and irony in dealing with the absurdity of human life. In his writing, prior to explaining the absurd, Nagel contends that the argument “our lives will not matter in a million years, therefore our lives are absurd” is not a satisfactory argument. Nagel argues that the absurdity in human lives lies in taking it seriously whilst simultaneously failing to dispel doubts regarding the meaninglessness of our lives in the grander scheme of things. Despite this, Nagel maintains the position that the absurdity of our lives need not serve as a source of distress for us. This is because if something is meaningful to us, despite its objective meaninglessness, it suffices in giving us satisfaction, regardless of the “bigger picture”.
Paragraph 1: Why humans cannot escape the absurdity
In Nagel’s paper, “The Absurd”, he first rebuts specific arguments put forth for arguing that life is absurd. Thereafter, he goes on to formulate his argument for where the absurdity in human life lies, and why humans cannot escape absurdity. In Nagel’s opinion, the inescapable absurdity of human lives lies in us unavoidably treating our lives with seriousness whilst acknowledging that, objectively, there is no significance nor importance in how we live our lives (Nagel, 1971). According to Nagel, in virtue of the creatures that we are, we cannot and do not sit back idly and let our life go on passively. Secondly, we are creatures that invest a great deal of deliberation and time into the decisions we make and the sort of life we embark upon living. Humans are “not led by impulse, nor are they instinctual in their decisions – they invest enormous amounts of time and energy in their lives” (Nagel, 1971). However, despite all this, there is no escaping the absurdity of our lives as it’s the nature of reality. Furthermore, humans cannot escape this absurdity because justifications given for giving meaning and purpose to our actions can never be fully proven. If one is to argue that their life escapes absurdity because it fulfills a particular purpose, Nagel would proceed to question how that particular purpose escapes absurdity. Reason alone cannot be used to escape the absurdity that applies to this world. This is because whatever justification is given, a justification must be required for that very initial justification. This then produces an infinite regress of justifications that cannot ever be put to rest. This absurdity cannot be escaped even if one attempts to tie themselves to an eternal cause or movement, because those very movements/causes would need justifications. Some have attempted to escape the absurdity of human life by doing that, and the following paragraph will illustrate how that is not a plausible escape from the absurdity of life, and a solution that Nagel himself has proposed.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Paragraph 2 How should we respond to the absurdity of our existence? How should we not?
The infinite regress of unsatisfactory justifications prevents greater causes and movements from rescuing mankind from leading absurd and meaningless lives in the greater scheme. Take for example Mr. Marx, who claims to lead a meaningful and purposeful life because he partakes in the communist revolution. Mr. Marx reasons that this endeavor of his is objectively meaningful and justifies that by saying, “It benefits the lives of ordinary persons.” What Mr. Marx can’t answer is why benefitting the lives of ordinary persons is justified. Even if an answer is provided, the same question of “why is …. justified” can be asked of that justification. The infinite regress of questions seeking a justification that needs no justification cannot be provided by Mr. Marx. Having established the unescapable absurdity of human life, and how we should not respond to it, how does Nagel recommend we respond? Nagel recommends immersing ourselves in everyday life and not reflecting too deeply on the absurdity of life. This is because “if life is meaningless, then its meaninglessness doesn’t matter either” (Nagel, 1971). This absurdity and inability to escape the infinite regress of justifications is part of the human condition and so it must not be taken too seriously to the point that it infringes on our happiness and day-to-day life. Through humor and irony, one can appreciate the meaninglessness of life in terms of not taking it too seriously. This, too, can remove a lot of the worries and pressures that accompany the trials and tribulations of human life.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the reason why human life is absurd is that it’s treated with too much seriousness whilst simultaneously being acknowledged to lack objective meaning and value. No rational justification can rid it of the absurdity that plagues it, because any justification provided would need a justification. This cycle of infinite regress is impossible to escape from according to Nagel. Nonetheless, through irony and humor, one should lessen the burden it poses on the conscience. In so far as something gives a person meaning and happiness, that should suffice for that individual and they need not tire themselves with overwhelming philosophical thought and reflection over this matter.
Works Cited:
- Nagel, T. (1971). The Absurd. The Journal of Philosophy, 68(20), 716. https://doi.org/10.2307/2024942
Stuck on your essay?
