Experience manifests that everyone is mortal, and as conscious beings, it is sensible that we ask why we are living. We desire to seek a means to the end of our existence, or rather we have a yearning to know if our being has a purpose. I believe that with human reasoning, we can infer a subjective purpose in light of an objective truth. A distinguishment must be made between objectivism and subjectivism, objectivists state that truth is only affirmed in fact where as a subjectivist’s argue that universal truth is beside the point, only belief matters. Some examples of objective truth include theism and existential absurdity. One claims that God exists while the latter states He doesn’t. To better support my premise on the meaning of life, …show more content…
One solution to this endeavour is recognizing that we have a capability to make choices. Nozick elaborates on Kant’s philosophy of autonomy by saying, “people have an intrinsic worth in virtue of their capacity for autonomous choices, where meaning is a function of the exercise of this capacity (Nozick, 1974).” Nozick is not implying that we get to choose to make meaning in life, but rather our choices directly formulate value. Soren Kierkegaard continues to refine this concept; agreeing that our existence is relative to making choices, and in addition there are three distinct spheres that comprise how we interpret a good life. These spheres have disproportionate significance and one can not inhabit multiple realms of existence simultaneously. The first sphere is the aesthetic; commonly referred to as the self-fulfillment sphere because an individual is making choices that will procure the greatest amount of personal satisfaction. Since this sphere is focused on sensation, it does not have lasting fulfillment, but rather it minimizes life 's immediate boredom. The second sphere; ethical, is a transitional sphere of reality where a person makes choices that are most advantageous to others rather than themselves. This notion rejects the materialist view of self centeredness, and requires a person to be morally obliged to promote what is good and dismiss that which is evil. Ethical choices are not as exhaustive to maintain as the aesthetic over time, but it can be hard to justify why one should choose to be self sacrificial to others. The reason being an ethical existentialist does not have a universal solution to Solomon’s question “what profit is produced from my labor?” A person can respond that they bring about value for others to employ, but that does not amount to a higher meaning to life if everyone 's value is contingent on others. Kierkegaard
There are two basic kinds of ethical judgments. The first have to do with duty and obligation. For example: "Thou shalt not kill, lie, or steal." "You just keep your promises." These judgments often uphold minimal standards of onduct and (partly for that reason) assert or imply a moral ‘ought.’ The second kind of judgment focuses on human excellence and the nature of the good life. These judgments employ as their most general terms "happiness," "excellence," and perhaps "flourishing" (in addition to "the good life"). For example: "Happiness requires activity and not mere passive consumption." "The good life includes pleasure, friendship, intellectual development and physical health." I take these to be the two general types of ethical judgment, and all particular ethical judgments to be examples of these. The main contention of this paper is that we must carefully distinguish these two types of judgments, and not try to understand the one as a special case of the other.
Without God live is meaningless. We have no purpose for existence except to exist and at the end of life all that is left is death. If there is no life after death and no offer of immortality then life itself is absurd (Craig).
Humans, throughout recorded history, have searched for a proper way of living which would lead them to ultimate happiness; the Nicomachean Ethics, a compilation of lecture notes on the subject written by Greek philosopher Aristotle, is one of the most celebrated philosophical works dedicated to this study of the way. As he describes it, happiness can only be achieved by acting in conformity with virtues, virtues being established by a particular culture’s ideal person operating at their top capacity. In our current society the duplicity of standards in relation to virtue makes it difficult for anyone to attain. To discover true happiness, man must first discover himself.
Many centuries ago, people started thinking about the question “Who we are, where did we come from, and where are we going?” While seeking for the answers, many standpoints developed. Everyone has an opinion; when confronted with life’s decisions, even on what not to do and how to best stay away from regret. Then, another question was raised: can the individual ever be higher than the universal? Lead by the famous philosopher John Stuart Mill, many people believe that all are born selfish hedonists and get shaped by the culture and environment and eventually live for the society.
To prove his point he references the experience machine, similar to The Matrix. What if you could choose a life, plug into that machine and live the rest of your life plugged into it? This is assuming that as soon as you plug in you forget that you are plugged in. Nozick believes that value is good in itself but that there are some independent of happiness. Such a moral commitments, like who you would leave behind. The actuality/authenticity of experiences. Although, most importantly we value interconnectedness with humans. Genuine contact. In the experience machine you lose autonomy as well. There is not room for growth because you are no longer the author of your own life. It is for these other values that stand apart from happiness, which Nozick believes we care about far more than life
“The thing is to understand myself, to see what God really wishes me to do; the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die” (Kierkegaard 95). Søren Kierkegaard was a clear supporter of expressing our own personality. He wanted us to take the time to find our true selves. Even though he acknowledged there were social systems in our society, he still believed we were our own individual human being. The only way to make sense of our life and find our individuality is to embrace our faith in God. Kierkegaard wanted human beings to be able to exercise their freedom. Human beings should not postpone their choices simply because they do not know the universal truth. As humans we cannot postpone our choices because we will never
Philosophy is one’s oxygen. Its ubiquitous presence is continuously breathed in and vital to survival, yet its existence often goes unnoticed or is completely forgotten. Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant was one of the many trees depositing this indispensable system of beliefs into the air. Philosophy is present in all aspects of society, no matter how prominent it may be. As Kant was a product of the Scientific Revolution in Europe, the use of reason was an underlying component in the entirety of his ideas. One of his main principles was that most human knowledge is derived from experience, but one also may rely on instinct to know about something before experiencing it. He also stated that an action is considered moral based on the motive behind it, not the action itself. Kant strongly believed that reason should dictate goodness and badness (McKay, 537). His philosophies are just as present in works of fiction as they are in reality. This is exemplified by Lord of the Flies, a fiction novel written by William Golding. The novel strongly focuses on the origins of evil, as well as ethics, specifically man’s treatment of animals and those around him. Kant’s philosophy is embedded in the thoughts and actions of Piggy, Ralph, Jack, and Simon throughout the novel. Kant’s beliefs also slither into “Snake,” a poem by D.H. Lawrence, focusing on the tainting of the pure human mind by societal pressures and injustices. Overall, both the poet in “Snake” and Piggy, Ralph, Jack, and Simon in Lord of the Flies showcase Immanuel Kant’s theories on ethics, reasoning, and nature.
The universe we inhabit is by all accounts an atypical one; a few people manage its foolishness by encompassing themselves with faith, while others disregard all its significance. Existentialism, nonetheless, ushers us down a remarkable course that darkens these perspectives toward one of a kind belief structure. Despite the fact that we can experience circumstances that are out of our control, we do have the ability to control how we manage said circumstances and regardless of whether we decide to create significance from them. The chase for our actual importance is primitive as are the answers that have maintained it throughout history. Certainly, life does not have an unmistakable settled intending to it; it is up to every person to find their own particular relative target and accomplish their own joy. This is absolutely what existentialism suggests, that it is not prone to know reality,
This service-learning project has not only to better understand Kierkegaard’s philosophy but also Mill’s and Aristotle’s theories regarding ethics and virtue. For example, Aristotle reveals that a human being’s telos is eudaimonia (happiness). However, in order to achieve this we must practice virtue since it “comes into being as a consequence of habit” (21). Nonetheless, at the beginning of practicing virtue it will be unpleasant. Only through habit will a person become virtuous and eventually derive pleasure form such
Natural disaster causes damage for lives and their homes. Many families face a danger of lack of water and food, and transportation. Sarah and her children were struggling to survive from that disaster, and the only store is closed to prevent robbers from the community. Therefore, Sarah can perform an action that can be applied and relate to three ethical theories, Emotivism, Egoism, and Kant’s theory
Our purpose in this life is a question that has been asked countless times and answered in various ways. One of the central rational arguments for the existence of God is the teleological argument. This argument focuses in on how intricately designed aspects of life that could not have just fallen into place on their own, they must have had a creator. One of the central practical arguments for the possible existence of God is Pascal’s Wager. This argument is based on weighing the consequences that result from the gamble of believing in God or not believing in God. These arguments can be viewed as comparable and also as diverse.
My primary problem to existentialism stems from Sartre’s claim “We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards.” (Sartre) He argues that human existence came before all, that we came into being and then gave meaning to everything. This argument appears to oppose biological science, from an evolutionist and creationist standpoint.
Hedonism is a way of life that is rooted in a person’s experiences or states of consciousness that can be pleasant or unpleasant. The ethical egoist would state that a person should maximize his or her pleasant states of consciousness in order to lead the best life. Act Utilitarian on the other hand would state that these enjoyable states of consciousness should be maximized by one’s actions for everyone in order to attain the most utility. On the surface, this appears to be a good way to live, however, as Nozick states through his example of the experience machine that living life as a hedonist can be detrimental. It is a hollow existence that will ultimately be unsatisfactory because of the lack of making real decisions and relationships which are important to living a fulfilling life.
In the late eighteenth century, with the publication of his theories on morality, Immanuel Kant revolutionized philosophy in a way that greatly impacted the decades of thinkers after him. The result of his influence led to perceptions and interpretations of his ideas reflected in the works of writers all around the world. Kant’s idealism stems from a claim that moral law, a set of innate rules within each individual, gives people the ability to reason, and it is through this that people attain truth. These innate rules exist in the form of maxims: statements that hold a general truth. Using this, Kant concluded with the idea of autonomy, in which all rational human wills are autonomous, each individual is bound by their own will and in an ideal society, people should operate only according to their reason. Influenced by Kant’s ideas, an american writer by the name of Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote his own call to individual morality through an essay on Self-Reliance. In “Self-Reliance”, Emerson tells individuals to trust in their own judgments, act only according to their own wills, and to use their own judgment to determine what is right. Emerson’s Self-Reliance and Kant’s autonomy differ to the extent of where reason comes from. However, they agree on its purpose in dictating the individual’s judgment and actions. As a result, Autonomy and Self-Reliance have essentially the same message. Both Kant and Emerson agree that the individual should trust only their own reason, that they are bound only by their own free will, and that the actions of an individual should be governed by reason.
...he physical, social and economic prices to seeking and obtaining the good life can drive us to abandon our search and leave us under the control of our circumstances, good or bad. Despite the costs of living the good life it is important to keep true to one’s beliefs. The costs are only temporary and minor in relation to the benefits of achieving the good life. The values that we hold form our identity and to against our values would be to contradict ourselves. In order to enjoy the good life we as individuals must know our inner selves and become one with it.