Feinberg is pretty opinionated and offers an alternative to the idea that life is absurd. Like the other authors, it might be hard to figure out exactly what he is saying before we discuss him in class. This is OK. Do your best. Nagel and Camus, however, are, I hope, MUCH MORE CLEAR now. Re-read them PLEASE. And you can email your comments to me at bakerja@cofc.edu or add them under this post as a comment (if that link is working this time.) THANKS. See you Monday.
For Monday read FEINBERG. Comment here, or EMAIL me, your reasons for thinking Camus or Nagel has the better account.
March 18, 2009 · 11 Comments
Categories: Uncategorized
11 responses so far ↓
Bobbi Lee McLaughlin // March 23, 2009 at 5:30 am |
After reconsideration of each author’s viewpoint and theories, there are a couple differences that allow you to pick a standpoint. The ones that stand out most to me are Nagel and Camus’s views of death, and size, and how these two things contribute to our existence and the absurdity of our lives. Camus’s argument is that death doesn’t matter, along with anything else. That nothing matters, there is no meaning, and no considerable reasoning to pursue or believe in anything. He encourages humans to live for the moment, embrace any situation that may arise and feel and know that you are captain of your decisions. You decide upon the quantity of experiences you will be a part of. He argues the ’scale of values becomes useless…” in an example of two men of relatively the same age, and the worlds providing the same sum of experiences for each of these men. He goes on to say that “there is no experience of death,” that nothing has actually been experienced except “what has been lived and made conscious.” An example of a pure form of consciousness is in the Myth of Sisyphus. The moment when Sisyphus is at the top of the hill, and the boulder rolls down, and he turns as to make his way back down the hill, there is a moment of clarity, of realization of what’s happening: he is “stronger than his rock.” that moment of clarification is his example of consciousness, of what is known and lived. That is what is real to him. He speaks not of size being any importance, of it all being irrelevant to the actuality of the matter. That actuality is that nothing matters.
After first siding with Camus, Nagel’s viewpoint and relation to the reality we know swayed my initial opinion. Nagel believes that death, is not meaningless because it is a fact that is known to happen, actually known. (but not subject to complete truth, because there is none of that, not that we will ever know) This absolute fate that we all share, connects us each in that there is a different relation and actualization about the idea of our lives ending abruptly…but then argued that is not even known for certain. Nothing is certain.
I spoke earlier about Nagels ability to relate to our known reality in describing his theories, he does so well by discussing size and the effect size has on human behavior and consciousness.
“Those seeking to supply their lives with meaning usually envision a role or function in something larger than themselves.” He helps explain that it is pure human nature to seek fulfillment in service, and is also natural for a human to evolve with the feeling of being a “part of something bigger.” Even after this momentary, not even actual fulfillment, we may step back and ask questions, as we attempt and figure out why, what, how..etc. Nagel states exceptionally well that after we question things, we will “stop thinking about it after a certain period of inconclusive reflection.” his term inconclusive reflection holds a strong meaning to me, almost grounds my thoughts into realizing that after this reflection, this attempt at a grasped consciousness, it is still inconclusive. The inconclusiveness to me, is absurdity.
So I guess I’m siding with Nagel, and his ability to relate and explain actual circumstances and completely metaphorical situations.
On ending thought, Nagels idea of the fact that we take the world and life we know for granted is profound and thought provoking. Its leads me to explore the possibilities of not taking the world and life for granted, of seeing what is really there, of eliminating absurdity, of complete reflection and purposeful absentmindedness. I find Nagels viewpoint beautiful, and at the end Camus’s quite pompous and meaningless, which is ironic…and actually quite absurd.
Jordan Spake // March 23, 2009 at 3:41 pm |
After rereading about Camus and Nagle and then also reading Feinburg’s views on the “absurdity of life” I still stand by my opinion that I agree more this Nagle’s views than Camus. I like the ideas of life’s absurdity spoken by Nagle more because he seems to put a more positive twist on things. Camus’ views aren’t necessarily negative, but I think they are more so than Nagle’s. I enjoy Camus’ idea of how we should just do what we like when we like and how we like, but that’s about all that strikes me as “fun” about Camus.
I really enjoy Nagle’s whole view on how even though each person knows the world does not revolve around them, you have to live your life that way or else life will just not be as great. Our lives are ALL about us even if we act that way or not. Sure life is a lot about working, but it always comes back to US as in individual, we work to support maybe our family, but ourselves ultimately.
And that’s all I have time to write for now…
Chris Woodward // March 23, 2009 at 4:33 pm |
It was and still is a struggle to read Camus and Nagle, then throw Feinburg into the mix to sort it out did not help. Feinburg points out the weakness in both C&F’s point of view. The key thing it is a point of view. It would appear there are many points of view that is addressed in his (Feinburg) work and I dare not read Taylor’s position,also.
I feel I can’t be wrong in what is absurd or what is NOT absurd, considering these philosophers have different positions on what is and what is not.
What Fienburd saying once the human is self aware that is when they know what is absurd and not absurd and what it takes to become self-fullfilled. But he covers himself with specific positions out of Camus and Nagel as agreeing with. His weakness is he points out their flaws in their argument.
As Nagel states ” It need not be a matter of agony unless we makes it so.” I take this to mean we accept we are self-aware and know it.
Camus analysis of Sisyphus did he get the gods mixed up or is Wikipedia wrong. Is is Aries or Mercury who released death. Maybe he wrote this tongue in cheek, just to lead those who read his writting into the light by having them find the weakness and absurd points and maybe become self-aware so that they do push at the edge of society and not follow along un-aware.
My wife had surgery Friday and I am home taking care of her. These reading have made me second guess myself, what I though she did was absurd in her life is not so because it is her life. And what I am doing now may be absurd but only I can make the call on the last.
Michael Bannon // March 23, 2009 at 4:49 pm |
after reading feinberg, i found his work to be somewhat easy to read. i was able to understand him the first time through and i enjoyed his views. as for Camus vs. Nagel, i still prefer Camus’ theories over Nagel’s. although they are kind of unrealistic in the sense that no matter how much you do not care or how much you want to live like a rebel without a cause, he cant negate that we are all still human; and as humans we think through every decision that we make. like instincts, you cant throw all reason out the window as easily as Camus says.
going back to feinberg, i liked how he discussed his issues with both authors and then showed how he would do things. absurdity.
ethicsclass // March 23, 2009 at 5:33 pm |
The first time I read the Camus essay I got a sense of what he was saying, yet could not wrap my head around it. My first feeling I got was similar to the feeling I get when I think about winning the lottery. I start to get excited about everything I would buy and my ideas make me feel better (I would be able to pay back my parents with a huge retirement home, buy my friends cars, etc.) about myself until I realize that this is largely not possible and the good and excited feelings I just had are worth nothing. This is similar to how Camus says, “beginning to think is beginning to be undermined. The worm is in man’s heart”. It’s like the absence for any profound reason for living. If you start to think about it, you think about it until you just stop. Going on with life “is a matter of persisting”.
Nagel’s account of absurdity is a little different. He finds that absurdity in life comes from the seriousness we take in life and the actual minuteness of it all. Nagel admits that ending one’s life is an option for dealing with the absurdity in life, but also says that even though nothing matters, we can live our lives anyway because we know they don’t matter. However, if believing that nothing matters, you still have to care for ones self in order to persist. I think Nagel’s outlook is too pessimistic and doesn’t provide adequate solutions for living a meaningful life.
Feinberg, indeed, summed up the two authors with great ease (something I only dream of doing). He sums up an author, Taylor, who I have not read, as well as Nagel and Camus. He gives the supermarket regress story that describes the endless circle of thought one could get in if we were to think about our real meaning of existence. He describes our actions of working to provide food as “a meaningless ritual-dance [more] than something coherent and self-justifying. He also gives more ways to interpret the Sisyphus myth as a meaningful life—like salmon that swim upriver, battered by rocks, only to die at the end of the journey—life for the rock pusher, and the salmon, and the human is justified in that it’s doing what it is meant to do. However, humans have a unique situation because we have the ability to self-reflect. A salmon cannot look at his life and wonder why he is swimming upstream only to die, but a human can look at his life and wonder why he goes to the factory everyday only to provide money for food to live, and so on. He talks about self-fulfillment as a justifiable reason for living. We lead a life of planning, problem solving, pursuing goals, and to “make the best of the situation”. He says we do this because “there is no fulfillment in resignation and despair”. He also talks about self-love being similar to an arranged marriage. You do not select the person you become, but a “stable person ripens into true love, in an unstable person sours into rancor and self-destruction. And the truest expression of one’s self-love is devotion towards one’s own good, which is the fulfillment of one’s own nature—absurd as that may be. Feinberg relates with Camus, and discusses how Nagel does not incorporate all of Camus’ thought correctly.
Marcus // March 23, 2009 at 5:45 pm |
The first tme I read Camus and Nagel I was somewhat lost. Going over it in class really helped me understand it better when I read it again. I have to admit I somewhat agree with them both. I believe Camus was telling us to look within ourselves for meaning and how we should not get lost in looking for meaning and allowing this world to pass us by. Instead we should understand that life is life and will continue with or without us so we sould enjoy it by living everyday to the fullest.
I found myself in agreement with Nagel who’s views were somewhat simular to Camus’. I felt he took the thought and opinions of others in consisderation more than Camus because you may say you don’t care what others think but you do and can’t really help it. He said it is our nature to think and give meaning or purpose and that’s what keeps us sane. As far as the Feinburg reading I thought it was clever how he used the Sisyphus example and showed how things would be different if he had a natural tendency to push rocks.
zach thomas // March 23, 2009 at 6:04 pm |
feinberg speaks of self fufillment in two terms, that of “generic nature” and that of “individual nature” i think its neigh impossible to seperate these two. althogh genetic bias does push in a certain direction, these roles arent nessicarly static. (im a horrible speller, so please forgive me) i think that althogh we adhere to these genetic predispositions, we are fundamentally who we make ourselves to be, that of the “individual nature” i think this restriction even though it may be viewed as a freedom acts as a catalyist for absurdity. though we gain some self fufillment, we can not excape the absurd nature of relaity, i think that camus saw this and that is why he faced it head on “lving to the hilt” so to say. an attitude for life truely to be envied.
Danielle Scolaro // March 23, 2009 at 6:36 pm |
I reread the Camus and Nagel material prior to reading Feinberg. Camus and Nagel’s views of absurdity are VERY different and I believe I have chosen a side! Camus’s view on the world includes that it is so absurd that it is meaningless. He describes a moment in time where we realize just how absurd life is – a pause of consciousness. In Camus’s world the best way to live life is to bravely accept that the world is absurd and do whatever you want because nothing matters. Camus pushes the idea that everyone is a stranger to themselves. I am siding with Nagel’s point of view! One reason that I am siding with Nagel’s point of view is that Nagel states that life although maybe absurd, can be satisfying and have some meaning. Another reason that I am siding with Nagel is because Camus’s view is utterly depressing and cynical. I recognize that I do not understand the meaning of life, but not for one second have I ever wanted to believe that this was all absurd and meaningless.
Feinberg was very good about explaining Taylor, Camus, and Nagel. I specifically like how Feinberg analyzes Sisyphus‘ story in the different point of views of each philosopher. It was easier to understand this way because I felt that Nagel misunderstood a lot of what Camus was trying to say. My favorite part of the reading is when he talks about the relationship a person has with herself. On p. 178 “In this way self-identity can be conceived as a kind of arranged marriage (I did not select the self that was to be me) that in a stable person ripens into true love, but in an unstable one sours into rancor and self destruction. And the truest expression of one’s self-love is devotion toward one’s own good, which is the fulfillment of one’s own (who else’s?) nature-absurd as that may be.” This agrees a lot with what Nagel was saying about taking care of yourself and being brave although life is absurd. I personally think that the quote rings true to me. A lot of unhappy people need to learn to love themselves and their view on life will be much brighter.
Justin Funderburk // March 23, 2009 at 6:51 pm |
I like Camus’ idea of living moment by moment by doing things that feel good to you. I also like his idea that you shouldn’t take things second hand and that you should only believe what you believe. These two ideas are interesting and comforting for living by the moment. However, living by this would only make life meaningless and make nothing matter to you. You wouldn’t want to live if you believed this.
That is why I sided with Nagel. Nagel has a more optimistic view on the absurdity of life. He thinks that it is our human nature that gives meaning to life. Feinberg agrees with this by giving meaning to the example of sisyphus pushing the rock up the hill. Feinberg says sisyphus could have meaning to life if this was his nature because it is not a complication for him.
Robert L. Keller IV // March 23, 2009 at 6:56 pm |
As I read this, the read of Camus became much clearer. Since this was mostly a summary of Nagal and Camus, how the differed, and how they are were the same, aswell as his (Taylor) own view and take on both.
It interested me how the Sisyphus story has been bent to each person’s criteria for Absurdity. Examples being, it was made his nature to want to push the rock, a goal was given for pushing the rock, only a finite time of pushing the rock then a death, pushing many rock to the top to make a temple, etc. Each being explained a different type of Absurd nature.
The only question I seemed to not get answered was, “What is the non-absurd considered to be?” I was glossed over, but never really given an answer that made me realize what they expect as the opposite of the absurd.
Alex LeVeen // March 23, 2009 at 11:34 pm |
The meaning of life seems to be the center of focus for these readings. Personally, I believe that all life has both meaning and purpose. Individually, some are more profound and complex than others. The meanings and purposes become more obvious when one looks at populations of any given species, as part of a food web of any ecosystem on our planet. A keystone predator is given more meaning/purpose to a particular ecosystem, becase the fate of subordinate species of that food web depend on the vitality of that population of keystone predator. Giving a definition to “the meaning of life” is like giving value to a variable, and thus becomes relative to perspective. In the equation, x^3 + 69 = y, one can define either variable with a specific value and invariably, regardless off value, will always arrive at a conclusive point on a 2-dimensional plain. My point is: there is not only one solution, instead there are infinite possibilities positive and negative, big and small…
I found translations of Plato perplexing, yet stimulating of critical thought. I can understand and relate with the idea that there is a natural goodness in truth. On the other hand, Camus’ ideals were a total “turn-off” for me . While I can relate to “living for the moment”, I must admit it is not likely to be the path to success. It seems struthian to me to avoid looking into the future. Furthermore, one’s perseption of the moment is also vague and relative to perspective: as a species we have been here 200,000 years, this is only a short “moment” of geological time (several billion years).
Also, absurd has two putative defintions in Webster’s Dictionary:
1: ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous
2: having no rational or orderly relationship to human life : meaningless
As a student of biology, I find the argument, calling upon the majority of human existence as absurd to be both feckless and appealing to sciolism. Feinberg does a good job in bringing to light the absurdity found in both papers.