Philosophy Final Exam- The Meaning of Life

William James

"humans are blind to how other people bestow value or place significance on things." the judgment we place on something depends on the internal feelings caused by that something to the person When a person experiences a positive internal feeling towards it, it has some kind of value humans don't have easy access to the internal feelings of others because we are blind to others feeling towards things, we can easily misjudge the value that a person bestows on a certain thing.

Existentialism *sartre*

"there is simply no grand pre-established, overarching point or mining of human life waiting to be discovered" For most things, essence precedes existence People traditionally believe it is this way for humans too. For humans: "existence precedes essence" Sartre assumes that God doesn't exist in his argument - Sartre believes that there is no God, and bc of that there wouldn't be an idea of what a human being is. "not only is man what he conceives himself to be, but he is also only what he wills himself to be after this thrust towards existence." Thus-individuals are completely free to determine their own sense of meaning- define themselves.

Concerns with Stoicism

#1-stoicism underestimates how much we are in control of our mind external state of affairs. #2- in the final phase of stoic progress, we have to relinquish all desires. How does one achieve that if you have to desire having no desires?

Sartre Enormous burden of responsibility Humans must confront.....

*anguish* about the heavy feeling of "total and deep responsibility" for ourselves *forlornness* in light of the distressing reality that God doesn't exist and that we're left with nothing to rebel from or turn to for answers *despair* over the fact that because *we* are and fully responsible there's no guarantee that we won't blow it and make a mess out of the world "...we are alone with no excuses"

What to take away from stoicism

1) emphasis on self control- be in charge of your desires 2) realism- be upfront with what you can't control 3) a resource in times of misery- when all else fails, work on yourself and your desires to help deal with things you cannot change

Kierkegaard

1) if we believed there is no grand sense of purpose, human life would be full of despair 2) we simply cannot accept a human life devoid of comfort and full or despair 3) thus, we cannot accept that there is no eternal framework that provides purpose

What does it mean to "embrace the absurd?" Sisyphus!!

1) maintain awareness of conflict between our desires and the world and not trying to overcome it 2) We revolt. Accept that life is meaningless, we know we are going to die but revolt against death itself 3) We live in freedom. Recognize we're not bound by any idea about a role we must fulfill take each moment as it strikes us 4) soak up as many experiences as possible.

If God exists, and theism is true, then....

1) we have a satisfying explanation of the origin and sustenance of the universe 2) we can be confident that good will win over evil 3) We know that God loves us and cares for us 4) we have an answer to the question "why be moral?" 5) we can be confident that cosmic justice reigns in the universe 6) we can know that all persons are of equal worth 7) we can enjoy grace and forgiveness- a happy ending 8) we can be confident that there's life after death Follow up questions: -what would you add? -is there anything specific to Christianity you would add

Robert Nozick

3 Reasons against the experience machine 1) there are certain things you want to accomplish in the world 2) you want to BE a certain type of person 3) You are limited to a man-made reality world that goes no deeper than that which man can construct -you have no contact with deeper reality/significance

Aristotles Teleology

All activities have some type of aim -there must be a final and highest end that we pursue for its own sake -if there is no end, then there would be an infinite regress of pursuing instrumental ends -there is some end which we wish for its own sake

CAMUS VS. NAGEL

Camus recommends defiance -shake our fist at the world that doesn't provide -live in spite of its refusal- we revolt -Lends nobility to sisyphus Nagel thinks Camus's view is romantic and self-pitying -absurdity doesn't warrant much distress/defiance -absurdity is human -reflects our advanced characteristic as reflective conscious Nagel "if life is meaningless, then the fact that life is meaningless, is meaningless"

The Highest End

Conditions 1) for which all other ends are ultimately pursued 2) which is pursued for itself 3) which is never pursued as a means to another end 4) which is self-sufficient

Aristotle's final end?

Eudaemonia.--> life well lived (some=happiness) We pursue eudaemonia for itself, its the end for which everything else is pursued, we don't pursue it for the sake of anything else, and achieving this end makes life choice-worthy Virtue- is necessary but not sufficient. We don't aim for virtue for the sake of virtue

Meaning of life=

Life has purpose (good or bad); theres some intrinsic rationale to it.

Thomas Nagel

Million Years Argument: nothing we do today will matter in a million years, nothing now matter either, nothing now matters Nagel's response: the fact itself won't matter in a million years. since premise one isn't true, it can't be used to argue that nothing matters now. It matters if something is important, not if it will be important later. Considerations about the future don't add anything to mattering Space and Time arguments: "we are tiny specks, our lives don't matter" "our lives are fleeting moments on the geological time scale" Nagel's response: neither smallness or brevity necessarily entail absurdity

Nagel

Nagel thinks that life is peppered with moments of everyday absurdity, but he has a different analysis of absurdity.

What does Eudaemonia consist in?

Not life- shared with plants not growth and nutrition- animals and plants not sensation- cattle feel this too "active life of the rational part of man's being. one part is rational obedience to a sense of reason. other part- sense of possessing and exercising reason and intelligence Function of Man: *activity of the soul in accordance with reason, or not apart from reason*

Camus's Question: What if life has no meaning and is absurd? Should we just kill ourselves? Camus's great question

Option 1- suicide, throw in the towel because life is meaningless Option 2- Take recourse in the transcendent- simply refuse to accept that life is absurd by seeking to relate to what transcends our world (blind faith in God's plan) Option 3- Come to terms with the fact of absurdity. accept the gentle indifference of the universe and by doing so open up possibility of revolt, passion, freedom Camus rejects option 1- he didn't commit suicide camus rejects option 2- he thinks taking recourse is cowardly a weak form of suicide

Pojman and Kierkegaard

Pojman has an atheist interlocutor who states Thesis #1 its more important to be autonomous than to have some grand meaning or purpose to life. Thesis #2 even though religion may provide a grand meaning to life it doesn't allow humans to be free or autonomous

Can we escape this absurdity? Nagel

Service to God, society, advance of science Nagel "even those enterprises don't somehow bestow meaning unless they are themselves already meaningful.

Eudaemonia

The life well-lived, life worthy of the Gods (NOT: happiness)

mistake 2-false dilemma

Theism sees freedom and religion as importantly bound together. "if we know why we're here and what options in our destiny really are, we will be able to choose more intelligently than the blind who lead the blind in ignorance."

Other types of ends

Vulgar people- pleasure is the highest end Cultivated people- honor is the highest end some say- virtue is the highest end ---the point of being virtuous is living well, so there must be something else we are after

Autonomy vs. Meaning

While autonomy may be more valuable than some purposes we have in life, that doesn't entail that autonomy is more valuable than *all* good purposes Moreover freedom might be more valuable than some purposes we can't really understand freedom apart from some notion of purposiveness freedom and purposiveness are attached- not conflicting. Atheist argument (what she really meant) -if we could choose between [a] a world in which we're fully free and autonomous and [b] a world governed by God, she would choose [a] Mistake #1: makes autonomy into an unjustified absolute (in terms of value) Mistake #2: offers a false dilemma (between freedom and religion)

Two shared features of Epicureanism and Stoicism

a kind of askesis: way of life a eudaemonistic teleological structure: the telos of life is achieving eudaemonia, we should live life in a way that facilitates this end

Confronting "The Absurd"

awareness of the absurdity of life starts to emerge when we recognize the fact that most of what we do in life comes out of the sheer force of habit *we are lucidly that there is a tension between what we are after and what the world presents us*

stoicism vs. epicureanism

both want to achieve eudaemonia- but they disagree on what eudaemonia looks like.

Philosophical definition of absurdity

collision between the seriousness with which we take our lives and the perpetual possibility of regarding everything about which we're so serious as being arbitrary or open to doubt with respect to its importance.

virtues

courage temperance liberality magnificence pride good temper friendliness truthfulness etc.

Camus- what keeps us from suicide?

denial, hypocrisy, cowardice or laziness... Camus's recommendation: Embrace the absurd by living in tension without trying to overcome it.

Absurdity in everyday life=

discrepancy between aspiration and reality Responses to Absurdity: -modify aspirations in the moment -try to bring the situation into accord with aspirations -remove oneself from the situation altogether

Stoicism

eudaemonia: living a life of good flow, in agreement with the way things are. - you must align your desires with the way things are. "align mind internal with mind external to achieve eudaemonia -you must reshape or eliminate your desires, so that your desires align with how things occur. -if it's raining outside (external), then you should desire nothing more than it is POINT -one's properly controlled internal state is necessary and sufficient for eudaemonia. -We are actors in a play and your role is not up to you -use desire as a tool to eliminate desire.

Epicureanism

eudaemonia: living a life of good pleasure Epicurus: understands pleasure to be freedom from mental anguish/disturbance (ataraxia) and freedom from physical pain. Kind of like Hedonism- but they don't view pleasure in the positive sense. The point of life: achieve a static state of ataraxia. Eliminate all sources of disturbance -unnecessary and unnatural desires -irrational fears Death: soul is made up of atoms. At death the soul atoms are scattered, the soul does not survive death. -the soul does not survive death, and bc of that there is no regret, no afterlife, and no pain or punishment- nothing to be afraid of "death is nothing to us"

James *modern day america*

human limitation of blindness towards internal feelings of others implies a certain kind of duty of tolerance. KEY: others must be "harmlessly interested and happy in their own way" - we have no grounds for condemning another's preferred way of living, as long as they're not harming -we have no belief about what is good for others, we also then have no grounds for condemning someone's preferred way of living -if this is true, we should tolerate, respect and indulge those whom we see are harmlessly interested in their own ways- even if they don't make sense we called to tolerate and respect

Step back or not?

imagine a mouse. it has no feelings of absurdity because it can't step back and view itself under eternity we could avoid absurdity by not taking a step back- but we have already done that, we would have to forget.

How do we achieve eudaemonia?

must perform our function and perform it well -cultivate and practice the virtues - we also need to have good fortune Virtue is a straight path to eudaemonia -if we are deficient in some virtue then we will fail -if we are excessive we will fail -Virtue will be the middle point between two extremes Virtue: habits of the soul that are functional -internalize habit into nature, your so is courageous -take pleasure in being/doing a courageous act -need a harmonious balance of virtues in life

Autonomous=

self- governing; the ability to make choices on the basis of good reason rather than coerced

mistake 1 difference of values

we can value other things over autonomy (happiness or purpose)

Fact #1- we take ourselves very seriously Fact #2- we can also back up and reflect

we have the ability to stand back and examine our lives in a form of detachment ...when we do this we see that our lives are resting on habits and responses that we don't question. this is where absurdity comes in "we engage seriously, but realize that maybe the seriousness is itself unjustified and yet that doesn't thwart our seriousness.

Absurdity akin to response to philosophical skepticism

we take our seriousness into action no matter how absurd we believe the action is.

wealth

wealth and possessions can't be the highest end because we want wealth for something else- wealth isn't unconditionally complete.

mind internal vs. mind external

what is up to us (intention, desire, aversion, perception), vs what is not up to us (body, property, reputation, etc.)