Chapter 6 - Critically Thinking

Critical Thinking De Anza Dr. Nicholas Baiamonte
Looking for answers for the online quizzes and exams?
If you are interested, message me via pastebin, or email me @ f0xyshawn@hotmail.com
Pricing: $30/Quiz $75/Exam
I only take money via PayPal


Analytic Philosophers and The Meaning of Life
Leo Tolstoy famously claims that science is incompatible with meaning in life and that this realization caused him deep personal despair, dejection, and suicidal thoughts. By contrast, Bertrand Russell argues in his “A Free Man’s Worship” that life can be filled with meaning while maintaining a commitment to reason and science. In fact, Russell views science as one of humanity’s greatest gifts and the cause for rejoicing. Russell finds the kinds of issues raised by Tolstoy, as well as Tolstoy’s responses to them, grotesque, inaccurate, and without merit.

Bertrand Russell occupies a special place within the history of philosophy. He was one of the key founders of modern logic, philosophy of language, philosophy of mathematics, and analytic philosophy. While an adequate discussion of “analytic philosophy” is beyond the scope of this chapter, let it suffice to say that it was / is an Anglo movement (most notably in England, the USA, and Australia) in which extremely rigorous standards of rational argumentation and analysis were / are demanded of philosophers. Analytic philosophers usually seek to reconcile philosophical “theory” with all available scientific findings. Bertrand Russell was not only the pioneer of analytic philosophy and one of the most important Twentieth Century philosophers; he also won a Nobel Prize in 1950. As a brilliant champion of rationality, humanity, and freedom, the Nobel Prize Committee said of Russell that he was “one of our time’s most brilliant spokesmen of rationality and humanity, and a fearless champion of free speech and free thought in the West.”

Bertrand Russell: A Free Man’s Worship
Russell begins his essay by acknowledging the undisputable truths of science. He tells us that:

Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.

In short, Russell agrees with Tolstoy’s analysis of the modern scientific worldview. But it is only within the scaffolding of these truths that human beings can be reconciled with the conditions of their existence. It is only through reason and science that we can understand ourselves as liberated, free, and that life abounds with meaning. Despite the chaos and harshness of nature, human beings do exist and, albeit for only a short span, we are free to think, examine, criticize, know, imagine and create! Death is unavoidable for each of us individually, and for all of us collectively. Yet within the span of a mortal’s life there is room for real meaning and significance.

Primitive Human Beings
Russell argues that primitive human beings (“savages”) feel the raw “power” of nature and their impotence before it. In response to the forces of nature and his own helplessness, Man creates “gods” of great power. Such gods are characterized mostly by “force” and the raw exercise of power. The original mode of appasing such gods was blood sacrifice, as characterized by the religion of Moloch. Human beings “prostrate” themselves before such gods, placating themselves without inquiring whether or not such gods are worthy of worship. In this pathetic tale, the oppressive forces of nature, blood lust, and cruelty prevail. Humanity’s only response is submission and degradation.  This type of religion has power but no morality.

However, as human beings gradually develop notions of morality, various ideals (such as love, kindness, mercy, generosity, goodness, etc.) become our ideal. The old gods of the “savage” are characterized by the imposition of raw, naked power. But a new notion of God emerges that is not quite so morally repugnant; human beings conceive of a God that has a moral sense and is “all-good” but is still “all-powerful.” Thus, humanity takes the brutal and harsh world of fact and harmonizes it with human ideals, namely, “morality.” Thus, “man created God, all-powerful and all-good, the mystic unity of what is and what should be.” Yet, the world of “fact” is a world of brutality, pitilessness, terror, and death. The world of “fact” conflicts with our ideals of “goodness.” Thus, the “Problem of Evil” arises and sets in motion a conflict between the worship of “force” and the worship of “goodness.”

On Russell’s view, the world of “matter” / “fact” is the world as it is in itself, independent of any human perspective or ideals. It is the unconscious universe as such, the raw forces and processes that move the universe. In respect to the world of fact, human beings are pathetic, helpless, small, insignificant, temporal, and fated to a common doom.

The Ideal World: A Vision of The Good
Yet, the world of fact conflicts with the world of “ideals” / “thought.” The ideal world is the world that human beings can imagine and envision. The ideal world is a world in which human beings are free to “live in a vision of the good,” to see ourselves as creative beings that can understand the world of fact, cease to be terrorized by it, and free to reject the worship of raw power. Our ideals give us notions of goodness, truth, justice, morality, fairness, liberation, and freedom. The unconscious universe is blind to these noble ideals.

In the world of “thought” (by way of contrast to the world of fact/matter)—we are free to envision an Ideal World full of beauty, truth, love, and perfection. In our thoughts we are free to worship the best in our humanity. We are free to live constantly in a vision of the Good. Equipped with a vision of the Good, we can “descend, in action, into the world of fact…” The “Free Man” worships the ideal world of Humanity’s creation/thinking. It is through human ingenuity that moral concepts can replace raw power / force.

The First Step Towards Freedom Is Revolt, But Revolt is Not The Answer
In the movement wards freedom one feels and senses a “spirit of fiery revolt, of fierce hatred of the gods…” (Such feelings of “hate” are due to the evils inflicted by raw force and power.) Yet a mind-frame of revolt, indignation, hate, and rebellion is problematic because it “compels our thoughts to be occupied with an evil world.” This forestalls or stymies one’s vision of the Good. One who is able to attain a true vision of the Good is not enslaved by evil passions. Thus a mind-frame of revolt must be overcome.

Religion As Purification Of Our Ideals And Vision Of The Good
In advocating the renunciation of many of our desires, religions actually help us to purify our vision of the Good. Excess desire is not good for (or helpful to) us. Much of what we desire is not a proper part of The Good. Religion, in advocating a type of asceticism and austerity, helps us purify our vision of the Good!  This is one positive aspect of the monotheistic religions. However, on Russell’s view, monotheistic religions are radically in error for they usurp human qualities—namely, love, kindness, pity, humility, benevolence—and attribute them to a “God” of humanity’s own making. The notion of “God” was an attempt of primitive man to reconcile raw force and power with morality. Hence, Russell’s statement: “man created God, all-powerful and all-good, the mystic unity of what is and what should be.”

Wisdom, Renunciation, Contemplation, Judgment, and the Intellectual Mastery of the World of Fact
Desire is the wellspring of the imagination, both of which are necessary conditions for obtaining a true vision of the Good. Only through desire and imagination can there be music, architecture, poetry, literature, etc. which are expressions of the Good and the human heart. “In the contemplation of these things the vision of heaven will shape itself in our hearts, giving at once a touchstone to judge the world about us and an inspiration by which to fashion to our needs whatever is not incapable of serving as a stone in the sacred temple.” The wise contemplate the depths and wellsprings of humanity, leaving sorrow, fear, failure, and disenchantments behind.

The intellect teaches us not to be overwhelmed by the cruel forces that rule the material world of fact. We forgo utter rebellion, embrace the facts, and use our intellectual powers to master and transfigure the world in accordance with our vision of the Good. Russell tells us:

In all the multiform facts of the world—in the visual shapes of trees and mountains and clouds, in the events of the life of man, even in the very omnipotence of death—the insight of creative idealism can find the reflection of a beauty which its own thoughts first made. In this way mind asserts its subtle mastery over the thoughtless forces of nature.

Russell is suggesting that human creativity and artistic achievement is a key element in our mastering and overcoming the cruel world of fact.

A Free Man’s Worship
The “Free Man” does not give in to the world of fact, nor does he give in to superstition, religion, myth, or rebellion. Free Men do not worship the forces that impale us! Rather we use our intellectual and emotional powers to respond to (and master) them (intellectually)! This is what science gives us. Mind can be asserted over raw matter.  “United with his fellow men by the strongest of all ties, the tie of a common doom, the free man finds that a new vision is with him always, shedding over every daily task the light of love.” We human beings, equipped with a loving vision of the Good, can shine the light of love upon the cruelties of the world: We can dull the pain of our fellow human beings. Russell tells us:

Be it ours to shed sunshine on their path, to lighten their sorrows by balm of sympathy, to give them the pure joy of a never-tiring affection, to strengthen failing courage, to instill faith in hours of despair. Let us not weigh in grudging scales their merits and demerits, but let us think only of their need– of the sorrows, the difficulties, perhaps the blindness, that make the misery of their lives; let us remember that they are fellow sufferers in the same darkness, actors in the same tragedy with ourselves.

Russell is arguing that all human beings live under the same conditions, the world of fact. Yet we can do a great deal to relieve human suffering.

Science
On Russell’s view, contrary to that of Tolstoy, science is a great achievement and a tool. It is the product of human reason and creativity. It is because of science that we are able to understand the human condition as it really is, in and of itself. Science allows us to repudiate the worship of raw force, disavow impotence in the face of natural forces, and resist giving into irrational fears. As the world of fact is unmasked, we are faced with the truth of matters. On Russell’s view the truth is intrinsically valuable.  It is liberating. The truth sets us free to re-focus on our human capacities. We no longer need to invent gods / God, enact a rebellion, or shake with fear and trembling at nature. Instead, we can use physics, chemistry, biology, and all of the other science to make this world human.

Diseases no longer need kill us; plagues no longer need beseech us; earthquakes need not crush us. For we have, through science and creative prowess, developed medicine and engineering.  And this is just the beginning. While the truth of the unmasked world of fact might be “scary,” it is not necessarily more anxiety ridden than the religions of Moloch, or Christianity, etc. Human vulnerability might be just as susceptible to some vile annihilation; however our vision of the Good grates against such vulnerabilities.

Humanity combats the world of fact with love, knowledge, and pity. Love brings us joy and respite from “loneliness.” And while “one shivering consciousness looks over the rim of the world into the cold unfathomable lifeless abyss,” it is the union of love as idealized by “visions of heaven” that allow us the ability to turn back to this world with an ever new and renewed confidence.  Knowledge allows us to understand Pythagoras as well as the hearts of men. Knowledge and science help us to understand the heavens. But pity brings us back to earth and echoes of cries of pain reverberate in our hearts. It is through love, knowledge, and pity that we battle famine, victims of oppression, the helpless, the old, poverty, and “all other pains that make a mockery of what life should be like.”

Meaning In Life
On Russell’s view meaning in life comes from all of the things that we care about, love, know, and take pity upon. Meaning, Russell believes, does not issue from something external to our lives, but rather from the content of our lives. Meaning need not be cast in terms of “cosmic” significance. The world of fact is pitiless and empty of value. But our conscious, human world of ideals is not so. We love and care about ourselves and others. The greatest vision of humanity is one in which selfishness gives way to a general love for (and concern regarding) the fellowship of humanity. Meaning in life issues from your human core.

Tom Nagel: “The Meaning of Life”
Without a doubt, Tom Nagel is the most famous living analytic philosopher to write on the meaning of life. In Nagel’s “The Meaning of Life” he examines the two logical possibilities in respect to the “source” of meaning in our lives. On the one hand, meaning could come, as Russell claims, from within life. On this view what gives our life meaning is the content of our lives (our relationships, dreams, goals, pursuits, hobbies, etc.). On the other hand, meaning could come, as Tolstoy claims, from something external to our lives (such as God). Nagel provides a logical analysis of both possibilities and exposes what he believes to be central flaws with each.

“Does Life Have Meaning?”
Nagel begins by stating:

Perhaps you have had the thought that nothing really matters, because in two hundred years we’ll all be dead. This is a peculiar thought, because it is not clear why the fact that we will be dead in two hundred years should imply that nothing we do now really matters.

If someone had such a thought, it probably indicates or eludes to the fact that we spend our lives running around, making plans, doing tasks, living out our earthly stretch of time only to die after 80 years or so later. And all of our accomplishments will be gone or forgotten a few generations after we die. Perhaps some of our achievements will last longer, but they will eventually fade into the annals of time. Simply put: Our accomplishments do not last.

What we do amounts to nothing when looked at objectively. Such is our nature. Nothing lasts. Everything is finite. Even if you produce a masterpiece of music, art, or literature, which might last for thousands of years, it too eventually dies off when our plant dies and when our solar system dies. Suppose, however, that someone objects: One may reasonably object at this point and say that, when analyzed from within life, we can find an abode of meaning and purpose. When viewed from a first-person, subjective point of view—a view from within life—our lives make sense enough and have meaning.

Thinking About Meaning From Within Life
There seems to be a point to most of what one does when looked at from within the context of a given individual’s life. You can easily provide justifications for the things that you do. You might say: I wake up in order to start the day; I eat in order to obtain nutrition. I attend college in order to get a good job; I work in order to obtain money. I earn money in order to raise a family, etc. And so on and so forth. In short, we can come up with explanations and justifications for most of what we do, big and small, from within life.

The Problem With Theories That Ascribe Meaning From Within
Nagel believes that there is a serious logical problem with theories that ascribe meaning from within life. There is a non-trivial logical problem with tracing out a story of meaning from within life: The inside story does not explain your life taken as a whole. That is, it does not explain the point of your whole life (taken from birth to death).  A chain of justifications that provides some connection between the links in the chain does not explain the chain as a whole, in its entirety. And when one asks about the meaning of life, one is really asking about the justification for one’s life as a whole.

The Point of View From the Cosmos (--The Objective, Third-Person Point of View)
Nagel is infamous for drawing a distinction between the subjective and the objective. The subjective point of view is a first-person perspective, how things seem from an individual agent or from subjective-consciousness. On the other hand, there is the objective point of view. This is a perspective from the outside, from a rational third-person point of view. Nagel (and others) often equate this view to the “view” of the “cosmos” / “universe.”

In this context, Nagel is saying that from the outside, from the point of view of the cosmos, it doesn’t seem like your life matters at all. From the point of view of the cosmos, it does not matter that you even existed. You are just a temporary configuration of atoms, just like our planet, just like our sun, just like our solar system, and just like the whole cosmos—all of which is headed for total extinction. From this point of view, your life does not really seem to matter at all.

In order to help understand the “objective” point of view, imagine a super rational alien intelligence that simply observes cosmic phenomenon. Imagine that the disinterested observer views the motion of the planets, the churning gasses of the stars, views cycles of life and death, and views the movements of planets and other celestial beings. Such an intelligence, let us imagine, is timeless. It has watched our planet come into existence and has viewed each form of life emerge, and many die. Consider all of the species of life that have emerged, come to pass, or gone extinct. Consider all other cosmic phenomena: Asteroids collide into our atmosphere, causing mass damage. Many species of life die off, and others come into being. Nagel is suggesting that from a purely rational perspective that simply observes the cosmos as such, there would hardly be any point to any given person’s life. People are born, live a tiny stretch, and then die. The universe is indifferent. Not only would it not matter if “Smith” did not come into existence. It would not matter if nobody came into existence.

But Life Seems To Matter!
Most people, however, will objection. One might reply: “Well, my friends and family care about me; and I care about my friends and family. Lots of people matter to me.” Since you matter to yourself and others—and since others matter to you and to them—that is all that matters!

The problem, according to Nagel, is that it does not matter that you matter to other people: They too are meaningless from the point of view of the universe. The only thing that you can establish by elaborating a story about how you are meaningful from within life is that you have a feeling that there is a point to your life. You do not actually get any(real) meaning from such stories (or chains of justification). And your family and friends may also have a feeling that they matter and so on. But, actually, it is all meaningless if there isn’t a point to the whole thing.

Objection: Why Care About “Cosmic Significance” or “Grand Meaning”??
Suppose you do not care much about any sort of “grand meaning”—meaning that lasts beyond the stretch of your life or the life of our planet. Suppose you just care about the various things within your life –college, your family and friends, your pets, your TV. Programs, your sex life, etc… You matter to yourself and others; and others matter to you. And that is all that matters. Who cares if the “justifications” that you provide do not add up to much from a third-person point of view (i.e., the point of view of “the cosmos”)?

Nagel’s Objection and the Crux of the Issue:
Nagel tells us that: “This is a perfectly good reply. But it only works if you really can avoid setting your sights higher, and asking: “What is the point of the whole thing?” Once you raise that question, you open yourself to the possibility that your life is meaningless.

According to Nagel, when we ask about “the meaning of life,” we are really asking for a justification for our lives as a whole. Anything less is insufficient. To simply assert justifications for what you do within life will not really substitute for an answer to the bigger, more important question: “What is the point of the whole thing?” It is this question that haunts us and demands an answer. And any attempt to skip it or bypass it is just a way of avoiding the real issue about meaning in life. Thus, Nagel thinks that Russell’s analysis of meaning is superficial at best. Russell suggests that meaning arises from the content of our lives, the exact “stuff” that Nagel claims is nothing more than “feelings.” According to Nagel’s analysis, Tolstoy might seem to have been on the right track, as he was looking for grand, cosmic significance. Unfortunately, however, Nagel will argue that Tolstoy’s route is even more problematic than Russell’s.

Larger Than Life Theories
Once we give up looking for a justification for our lives as a whole within life itself, we turn to a different type of theorizing: We look for something larger than life that will confer justification on the whole of our life, i.e., our life taken as a whole. What sorts of things might explain the point of your life as a whole? According to Nagel, you could appeal to something larger than life. Such examples might include:
Political or Social Movements
Some “Noble Cause”
That which provides the “good” for your family heritage
Or, most commonly “God”

Each of the items listed are “larger” than your life and will exist after your life.  Perhaps your life is justified, and thus has meaning, in virtue of: “Democracy” or “Communism” or “God,” etc…

The Infinite Regress Puzzle
Nagel believes that “larger than life” theories seem to tackle the “bigger” question concerning the point of your whole life—that is, the types of answers provided in “larger than life” theories refer to justifications that go beyond the “content” of your specific life so as to provide a “global” justification for the whole (or totality) of your life (lived from birth to death). This would be very intriguing and interesting except that such theories actually suffer from a crucial logical flaw: They generate a vicious infinite regress puzzle.

Puzzle: You can always ask about the larger thing what meaning it has. “What is the point of that?”

Suppose that someone claims that their life, as a whole, is meaningful in virtue of its being connected to something larger, such as “Democracy.” While “Democracy” is larger than any given individual, and is a “cause” that will continue on after the death of the individual, it does not really justify your life (i.e. provide a meaning or point to your life) unless it, itself, has a point. Supposing that someone asserts “Democracy” as the “point” of their life as a whole, we can simply ask: “What is the point of Democracy?” Logically, the question of meaning was simply transferred to another thing. And the first thing, Democracy, cannot provide a justification for your life unless it, itself, is fully justified by something larger than it.

Let us suppose that the inquiry continues. What gives meaning to “Democracy,” let us assume for the sake of this example, is “Freedom.” Thus “Freedom” is larger than Democracy and is the point of Democracy. However, it is always possible (and logically necessary) to ask: “What is the point of Freedom?” Again, logically, the question of meaning is merely transferred to another thing. The first thing (“Your Life) and the second thing (“Democracy”) cannot be justified by the third thing (“Freedom”) unless it, itself, is fully justified by something larger than it.

Logically speaking, an infinite regress is ensuing.  An infinite regress argument is a distinctively philosophical kind of argument purporting to show that a thesis is defective because it generates an infinite series wherein the infinite character of the series strips the thesis of its power to justify the proposition (or propositions) in question. In this case, the thesis that “Democracy” provides a justification for one’s life as a whole is bogus because it is subject to an infinite regress: “What is the justification for Democracy?” And when an answer is asserted, such as “Freedom,” that too lacks justificatory power in virtue of its being subject to the regress: “What is the justification for Freedom?” ……and the series continues to infinity. Thus, no logically acceptible justification is ever given.

In short, the key problem of an infinite regress is this: If the larger than life thing has meaning in virtue of something larger than life, then an infinite regress will ensue. We can always ask of the thing that is larger than life: “What is the point of that?” A deadly infinite regress follows. The sum result is that the quest for meaning and purpose will go nowhere.

What If There Is No Answer Forthcoming About The Thing That Is Larger Than Life?
Suppose that in response to the question--“What is the point of that?”--there isn’t any answer forthcoming. In other words, if one has no answer to the question about what justifies the thing that is larger than life, i.e., the question --“What is the point of that?”-- then one has not given an explanation at all. No progress has been made. The question was simply pushed on to another thing that, ultimately, does not confer meaning upon life. Thus, one’s life as a whole is pointless and there is no explanatory advantage of referring to the thing that is “larger than life.”  Remember, the only reason for bring something “larger than life” into the picture was to justify that thing in question. But if the larger thing cannot justify one’s life, then there is no point whatsoever in even mentioning it. One might as well scream: “Pizza!” It would be just as logically useful (--or useless--).

The Religious Answer
There is a special significance, so many think, to referring to “God” or “God’s Plan” as the thing that is larger than life that will justify and confer meaning upon one’s life as a whole. Tolstoy went this route. Many are tempted to answer the larger than life question by saying: “My life has meaning in virtue of fulfilling God’s purpose (--which is larger than life--).” However, Nagel holds that such answers are not really very helpful. Once again, we can simply ask: “What is the purpose of that.” But since few claim to know God’s mind, there is usually no answer forthcoming. But suppose someone conjures up an answer.

The Regress Problem And Theistic Claims
The very same regress problem occurs: You can simply ask of God’s Divine scheme / plan: “What is the purpose of that?” Once again, the “purpose” or “meaning” is placed upon something else that, itself, needs explaining.

God’s Plan / Scheme Is “Unknowable”
One popular approach is to say that God’s plan /scheme is unknowable and cannot be questioned. Why popular, this is not helpful in pursuing questions about the meaning of life.

Problem #1: Unknowable Plans / Cosmic Schemes
While saying God’s scheme is unknowable is common among laypersons, it is NOT obviously true—nor is it even obvious WHY it should be true. Why shouldn’t we be able to “know” God’s scheme? Bertrand Russell among others argues this point at length.

Problem #2: Intellectual Defeatism
Secondly, this type of answer is defeatist and intellectually weak. It is tantamount to saying that life has a purpose but that we cannot know it. But this is just as unsatisfying as giving no answer at all.

Problem #3: Theism and Atheism Have The Same Net Result
Consider propositions (A) and (B). They have the same net result: Neither ascribes meaning to our lives. One says there is no meaning, and the other says there is meaning but that it is unknowable.

(A) Atheistic / Scientific claim:

“There is no grand meaning to life. Life occurred due to a host of random factors—none of which were planned—and none of which ultimately “mean” anything.

(B) Theistic Claim:

“Life has a secret meaning that only God knows. It is beyond human comprehension, or so hidden in God’s mind, that humans will never know about it.”

One might ask: How is the latter theistic claim, (B), different in net consequence from the scientific / atheistic claim, (A)?  All things considered, both amount to the claim that either there is no meaning in life, or there is meaning but we cannot know it. How, we might wonder, does the theistic claim come off “better” or “more comforting” than the atheistic claim? The matter is unclear.

Problem #4: God is the Unexplained Explainer
The idea of God is supposed to be the idea of something that can explain everything without having to be explained Himself. Yet this is hardly a coherent notion. This is very hard to understand, and some find it nonsensical. The idea of an unexplained explainer is similar to the medieval notion of “the uncaused cause.” If one asserts that everything has a cause—that having a cause is a postulate of pure logic; then God must also have a cause. To say “God has no cause” seems like a violation of the postulate. It seems to violate the very logical postulate that led to the “God” hypothesis. Similarly, the notion of an unexplained explainer faces the same difficulties. One can put this idea as follows: Why can’t we demand an explanation for God? There is no logical reason why we cannot do so.

Nagel puts the idea thus:

If God and His purpose are offered as the ultimate explanation of the value and meaning of our lives, why are we prevented from asking about His Purposes? It isn’t clear why the questioner cannot continue the investigation or that “God” as final explanation really explains anything at all.

The point of the investigation into meaning was to gain an insightful understanding of things. If “God” is to explain everything, then He too must be explained.  Or, at least, His “Purposes” must be explained. Yet, equally important, the explanation must forestall any infinite regress. But what purpose could be offered that would be sufficient in and of itself so as to avoid any possible infinite regress? Nagel does not believe this is possible.

God’s Unknowable Plan
If “God” or “God’s Plan” is offered as a final explanation that, itself, admits of no explanation—then we might wonder if we have made much progress or really gained any insightful explanation. Consider the following two claims:

“Life has meaning in virtue of God’s plan, but I know nothing about the plan.”
“I have no idea what gives life meaning; things just are this way.”

In terms of justification and explanatory power, proposition (1) and proposition (2) are equally useless. Neither explains anything. If God is supposed to give our lives meaning that we cannot understand—then it is not much of a consolation. If we are stuck with “God” as the ultimate answer and justification, then we do not have much by way of an answer (or a justification). If belief in God is belief that the universe has purpose and is intelligible, but not to us—then it is in no way obvious that one has explained anything at all.

Nagel’s Conclusions
Nagel tells us that if we simply focus on the small scale and only concern ourselves with what is within life, and do not worry about purpose on a grand scale (i.e., “What is the point of it all?” or “What is the point of your life as a whole?”) perhaps we can be satisfied and just move on with the business of living life. Nagel writes:

If you ever ask yourself the question, “But what’s the point of being alive at all?, leading the particular life of a student or bartender or whatever you happen to be—you’ll answer: “There is no point. It wouldn’t matter if I did not exist at all, or if I didn’t care about anything. But I do. That’s all there is to it.

Realizing that there is no grand purpose to one’s life, that one is just a speck in the void of cosmic space, destined to go out of existence in a blip of cosmic time, one simply toss up one’s hands and says: “Nothing really matters.” Such a thought might be satisfying to some and depressing to others. But for most of us, Nagel thinks, this type of (nihilistic) response (to the question of meaning) just grates against our human tendency to want to matter from the outside.  As human beings we have a sense that we are important! We think that our lives should matter, that our human endeavors are meaningful in a deep and non-trivial sense.

The Human Condition Is Absurd
In the final analysis, Nagel agrees with Camus that life is absurd. Yet, Nagel’s reasoning is different from Camus.’ According to Nagel: If our lives genuinely have no meaning when viewed from the outside, no real meaning as such, then we are ridiculous beings for living our lives as though our efforts / actions /goals / projects are (in fact) meaningful. We go about as if our lives are meaningful. We take ourselves quite seriously. We worry and fret about our jobs, our families, our education, our social circle, etc. However, we are ridiculous for taking ourselves seriously.  And if we cannot stop taking ourselves seriously, then we have to put up with being ridiculous. In that case, life is not only meaningless, but absurd. The absurd, on Nagel’s view, arises from a paradox: Our lives as a whole have no justification and, thus, have no real meaning. Yet we act as if they do. We take ourselves very seriously. But a meaningless being acting as if its life is meaningful is ridiculous. And we seem to be unable to stop taking ourselves seriously. So we are constantly being ridiculous. And that is utter absurdity.

======================================================================================================