It is impossible. We live, as we dream—alone. . .” (97) The novel’s ambiguous eloquence, meaningless words and deceptive realities reflect this impossibility that Conrad presents. Language, falling short of successfully conveying a truthful “life-sensation”, results in the realization that language is inherently unreal, and that true representation is an impossible paradox in itself — we can imagine it, but never bring it to life.
Many individuals come to the realization of the absurdity when they come to the contradiction of what they know and wanting to know more about what is not known. The universal question is, “is suicide legitimate” and this becomes a legitimate question because upon confronting the absurd individuals begin to question life and the meaning and purpose of being alive. The absurd makes us wonder because the answers we truly need will never be found because we all die or commit suicide and nobody comes back from the dead. Until we find the answers we truly desire, we will have to revolt and deal with the contradictions of life. Revolting against our responsibilities and problems gives our lives meaning and makes us feel like a more wholesome and emotionally capable person
Nozick is talking about how it is better for people to have more to life than just a happy but unaware life. Epicurus’s version of happiness tries to avoid any sort of hardship that might lead to pain, making it more likely for that life to be a frivolous life without meaning. Life involves much more than happiness. Life involves difficulties that help make happiness better in the long
If we examine independently the arguments presented by McCloskey they too lack adequacy to establish the nonexistence of God. McCloskey begins by addressing the cosmological argument. He proposes that the existence of the world itself does not give reason to believe in a necessarily existing being. McCloskey believes there is a lack of evidence to show the world had a cause and that God was that cause. However, Evans and Manis suggest there are beings in this world that are unaware of how they came to exist.
Absurdism, The Stranger, and life “Absurdism” (coined by Albert Camus) is a philosophy based upon the concept that the life and the world are meaningless, irrational, without sense or reason. And any effort we make to try to find meaning in them will ultimately fail. Albert Camus considers absurdity to be a fight, a force pushing between our mind’s desire to have meaning and understanding and the blank empty world beyond. In argument with Nagel, Camus stated “I said that the world is absurd, but I was too hasty. This world in itself is not reasonable, that is all that can be said.
Yet, this is something they hate: Having freedom, having choices, and having problems. The human being hides itself from freedom by self-deception, acting like a thing, as if he is a passive subject, instead of seeing the authentic being for the human being; this is bad faith.
Aquinas believes, as humans we don’t have the intellect to prove God’s existence Overall, this shows that the ontological argument doesn’t prove God’s existence, as existence can’t be a predicate, so any deductions made from this assumption can’t form valid conclusion... ... middle of paper ... ...esses his suspicion of the argument as it “lacks a single piece of data from the real world”. He also says that the argument is infantile because of this. Again, it comes back to the fact that not everyone will define God the same way, which is an intrinsic flaw in the argument. Overall, I think that the fact it is an a priori argument neither helps to prove or disprove the argument, as it can prove the argument to believers, for example, but not atheists. In conclusion, the ontological argument can’t prove God’s existence, as it is founded on the basis that you already believe in God.
There are theist existentialist and they refute the notion that god made the universe, or our world, or us, with any purpose in mind. So, god can exist, but he was not the one to install meaning into the world, your life or the cosmos. As a result, we are born into a world where our life, world, and actions lack any real inherit importance. This is known to existentialist as absurd. Which they use the word to describe a search for answers in an answerless world.
Due to this Henry’s argument is incorrect. Henry’s argument is unable to provide a proper way for truth verification thus it is a weak argument. The Skeptics require us to show them that they have to accept something as they will never claim so do to their own beliefs on their own and there claims cannot be defeated without such a thing. As such the lack of it makes Henry’s argument ineffective and forgettable. Bibliography Henry of Ghent.
Those who inhabit the land exist without faith and reject enlightenment because they are too concerned with appearances, money and other such inconsequential matters that they have lost the ability to recognize what is needed to make life better. 'Do You know nothing? Do you see nothing? Do you remember Nothing? Works Cited: Eliot, T. S. The Waste Land and Other Poems.