An Essay on Existentialism
Yavor Stoychev
In this essay, I will investigate two contrasting ideas about the nature of human existence and its
meaning. I will start by presenting the ideas of Thomas Nagel, who believes that life is fundamentally
absurd. I will list the three common, but according to Nagel, false views on the origin of absurdity. I
will then present Nagel's own idea about the source of absurdity in life, and explain why, according to
him, there is no way out of it. I will also clarify why Nagel believes that the absurd occurs only in the
life of a human being. I will continue by examining Richard Taylor's views on the meaning of human
existence. I will explain why he believes that most people lead lives that are as meaningless as the life
of Sisyphus. I will then present a modified version of the myth of Sisyphus, in which, according to
Taylor, Sisyphus still does not lead a fully meaningful life. I will conclude this part of the essay by
expanding on Taylor's ideas about bringing meaning to human life, and explain why he believes that
most people cannot lead meaningful lives. Afterwards, I will determine whether I find Susan Wolf's
criticism of Nagel and Taylor accurate. To do so, I will present the features that bring meaning to life
according to Wolf. I will then examine the case of the modified myth of Sisyphus and explain why
Wolf believes that Sisyphus's life is not meaningful in this scenario. To conclude, I will present my
own opinion on whether Wolf's arguments show that life is neither absurd, nor meaningless.
In his article “The Absurd”, Thomas Nagel argues that human existence is ultimately absurd.
To make his point, he first presents three different misconceptions (in his opinion) about the origin of
the absurd. He presents the idea that none of our deeds matter if we look far enough into the future. He
states that this line of thought is wrong, because our present concerns are absurd regardless of whether
our deeds matter a million years from now. Nagel then examines a second argument – that “we are tiny
specs in the infinite vastness of the universe”, and that our lives are mere instances on a cosmic scale.
He argues that even if we lived forever, and were big enough to fill the universe, that wouldn't make
our life any more meaningful. The third argument that Nagel discusses claims that life is an elaborate
journey leading nowhere, and even if one's life has an effect on other people, that effect will end with
their deaths. Nagel states that life is not just a sequence of activities, which has its purpose somewhere
later in the sequence, and these chains often break within a lifetime. He also claims that things in life
that we consider self-justified, lead to a chain of justification that is never complete, and in reality these
justifications do not transcend the human lifespan.
Although he disproves these explanations for the absurdity of life, Nagel does not dispute
absurdity, but rather wants to start off with a clear ground on which he wants to build his own
arguments. In Nagel's terms, absurd refers to a “conspicuous discrepancy between pretension or
aspiration and reality”, and gives us some examples of absurd situations – a complicated speech in
support of a motion that has already been passed, a notorious criminal made president of a major
philanthropic foundation, and two others. In any case, once an absurd presents itself, people might not
necessarily be willing or able to bring their aspirations and pretensions in line with reality. According
to Nagel, human do not act solely on instinct. He believes that we can view ourselves from two distinct
perspectives – the lived perspective, and, by stepping back and looking through the eternal perspective
(which Nagel calls the “sub specie aeternitatis”). This perspective lets us realize that we can regard
everything in this world as arbitrary and open to doubt and, nevertheless, we take our lives seriously,
and we feel a sense of reward for doing so. Nagel states that these two viewpoints collide in us, and this
is the origin of absurdity in human life. He argues that we cannot help viewing ourselves seriously,
even though we realize that we have every reason to be skeptical. He points out that we take ourselves
seriously because we care about our own survival, regardless of whether we have any higher pursuits,
and that this is inescapable.
Nagel continues by examining the idea that one might escape from the absurd by seeking
broader ultimate concerns in terms of a function in something larger. He gives examples of people
serving society, God, or the empty stomach of a human-eating creature, and points out that any such
larger purpose can be put in question much the same way as the aims of an individual life. He claims
that we can step back and doubt God, society, science, in much the same way as we doubt our instincts
and personal goals, and that the only thing that “ultimate concerns” change is the scale on which we
look at things, but all of the conclusions made earlier still hold.
Before addressing the question of how we should “deal with” the absurd, Nagel presents us with
two entities, whose existence is not absurd – the life of a mouse, and the orbit of the moon. The orbit of
the moon has nothing absurd to it, because “it involves no strivings or aim at all”, while human beings
strive to survive, at least. A mouse, just like a human being, fights for its survival. However, it does not
possess self-consciousness and self-transcendence, and thus it does not realize it is only a mouse. Thus,
a mouse is not absurd, because it cannot view itself from the eternal perspective, and there's no clash.
If, however, a mouse were able to view itself from the eternal perspective, it would be absurd. This
begs the question whether humans can avoid the absurd by refusing to view themselves from the
eternal perspective, and the Nagel concludes that this cannot be achieved by the will.
The questions remains: how to deal with the clash between the eternal and the lived perspective,
and the absurd it represents? Nagel believes that philosophical skepticism should not make us stop
eating or breathing. It should not make us denounce who we are, but rather bring a “peculiar flavor” to
our ordinary beliefs, while we go back to our small and meaningless pursuits. Nagel's idea of how to
deal with the absurd is radically different from Camus's because it doesn't treat absurdity as a problem
and a threat to our dignity, but rather “a manifestation of our most advanced and interesting
characteristics”. Nagel regards the “defiance or scorn” proposed by Camus as pointless and dramatic.
In his article “The Meaning of Human existence”, Richard Taylor argues that most people live
meaningless lives. He starts by saying that simply being alive is not meaningful, He believes that
animals do not lead meaningful lives, because they are driven by instincts, and humans are only
superficially different. Taylor describes a meaningless life as a life that is repetitive and lacks purpose.
He gives the example of Sisyphus, who would push a stone up a hill forever just to see it fall down
again. He continues by pointing out that meaning has nothing to do with justice and happiness. He
claims that, as far meaningful life is concerned, most people are just like Sisyphus. Richard Taylor
opposes Camus's view that believing that what we do is meaningful brings meaning into our lives.
Rather, he believes that most people live in constant self-deception, linking meaning to happiness,
romanticizing their lives, and escaping boredom in ways that are as meaningless as a good party or a
fun weekend in the mountains.
Taylor provides us with three concrete criteria for leading a meaningful life: one should pursue
goals in a self-directed and creative fashion; one should pursue goals that a real, and achieve them.
According to Taylor, if one is just doing their part without any kind of creativity and self-direction, this
does not make their lives meaningful, because one is just a tool in the hands of their master. To
demonstrate the concept of creativity, we can use a version of the myth of Sisyphus, in which Sisyphus
would push countless stones that would stay up and become a foundation for a magnificent
indestructible temple. In this universe, Sisyphus still does not lead a truly meaningful life. He does not
push the stones because he really wants to, but because the Gods want him to – he lacks creativity,
which Taylor thinks of in terms of a state of mind. But even if one pursues goals with all their
creativity and zeal, this is till not enough. According to Taylor, the goals pursed must be real. He gives
the example of nuns, who really believe in God, but God does not exist. In this scenario, the nuns still
do not live a meaningful life, because, although they might be self-directed, and might believe they are
doing something great and beautiful, this is clearly wrong if there is no God. But even if God existed, if
the nuns kept praying and praying, and the result of their prayers never came, their life would still not
be meaningful. Why? Because, according to Taylor, the goals must be achieved. The very idea of
pursuing goals that can never be achieved makes the whole exercise meaningless, as there is no real
result, and this is as close as the definition of meaninglessness as we can get. Pursuing a goal that can
be achieved, but falling short of it is also meaningless.
Under these criteria, Taylor reaffirms his position that very few people live meaningful lives.
He observes that often the happiest people lead the most meaningless of lives. And most people strive
for happiness. Many people do not do what they want in life, but just blindly follow the commands of
their boss, team lead, or manager, or are just prevented by fate from achieving the goal they so eagerly
fought for. A scientist can lose the meaning of their life's work if somebody makes that amazing
discovery before they do. Taylor believes there is much we can do to bring meaning to our lives, but
sometimes fate might not give us a chance to do so.
In her essay “The meaning of lives” Susan Wolf presents a different view of what makes life
meaningful. Her criteria are not as “harsh” as Taylor’s and Nagel’s and she argues that there are more
ways in which we can make our lives meaningful. Much like Nagel, she starts here essay by first
arguing what makes life meaningless. She presents us with four examples of a life that lacks meaning –
the life of “The Blob”, “The Useless”, “The Bankrupt”, and “The Bored Housewife”. “The Blob” is a
person who puts a lot of effort in his job, and comes home to relax by watching TV and drinking beer.
Wolf considers this a typical example of a meaningless life – a life that is passive, unconnected, and
leading nowhere. “The Useless”, a company executive that works tirelessly for the sole purpose of
acquiring wealth, is just as meaningless – while there is a clear dominant activity, Wolf argues that it is
pointless and empty. “The Bankrupt” – a person who passionately pursue a goal, just to see his project
fail at the last moment – also leads a meaningful life, because, according to Wolf, they spent too much
time on a failed project. The last example – the “Bored Housewife” is an example of somebody who is
active, but not “actively engaged” – she simply goes through the motions, without pursuing any kind of
inner calling. After summing up her arguments for the lack of meaning in these examples, Wolf
provides us with a definition of what she would consider a meaningful life as characteristics that are
not present in any of the four examples of meaninglessness – “a meaningful life is one that is actively
and at least somewhat successfully engaged in a project (or projects) of positive value. Wolf recognizes
that the terms used in these proposals are rather broad, and tries to refine them. She starts by defining
“projects” as activities that are not necessarily goal-directed, but can also refer to relationships and
other activities that we might not take on deliberately. Then Wolf focuses on the definition of “positive
value”. She does not give criteria that determine objective goodness, but she believes that there must be
objective standards on which we can base our judgment. She agrees with Taylor, that believing that
something is meaningful doesn’t make it so, because allowing this will remove the difference between
striving to lead a meaningful life and striving to lead a life that seems meaningful. She also claims that
if one suspects their life might not be meaningful, merely changing their opinion, but continuing to lead
their life in the same fashion will not bring meaning into their lives. In this respect, Wolf would
disagree that if Sisyphus were injected with a substance that makes him feel great about rolling stones
up a hill, his life gets any more meaningful, because adopting an attitude that transforms an objectively
meaningless act into a meaningful one does not bring true meaning to one’s life.
Wolf’s views of meaning are quite different from those of Nagel and Taylor. Nagel believes
that life is utterly meaningless and absurd, and there is no escape, but it’s ok, and we can all have a
good laugh about it, and then keep going. Taylor believes that there is a way to live a meaningful life,
but most people don’t try, don’t care, do it wrong, or never get the chance. He believes that very few
people do it right, and bringing meaning to one’s life requires a complete and single-minded devotion
to a “real” goal and achieving it. He thinks of meaning as something that stems from a truly spectacular
achievement, and that as long as there is active participation and creativity involved, the attitude of the
person doesn’t matter. Wolf thinks that attitude does matter. In fact, she thinks that meaning cannot
exist if the person does not truly think that what they do is meaningful. She also thinks that life has
moments of meaning, as opposed to a final pass/fail grade in the end, and that if you had meaning at
least once, your life is meaningful.
After reviewing the three essays, I must say that I do not find Wolf’s arguments against Nagel’s
views on absurdity and Taylor’s views on meaning convincing enough. Wolf herself acknowledges the
existence of the absurd, as defined by Nagel, and her proposal for dealing with it does not significantly
differ from Nagel’s “ironic” approach – both of them agree that the absurd is not a real problem, and
that we should not panic or get disappointed, but rather acknowledge it and continue to live our lives
unaffected.
But Wolf tries to argue that both Nagel and Taylor are “harsh graders” when it comes to the
meaning of life. Taylor and Nagel would argue that the only objective measure we have is the
perspective of eternity. Wolf, however, believes that a community can bring objectivity to an action
and thus make it meaningful. Yet I fail to see how, if a person’s opinion can be subjective, a
community of individuals can be relied on to be objective. From a more “mathematical” perspective,
this might be true if the community is infinitely large, and has infinite diversity. But real communities
are not like that. They are a rather homogeneous group of people with similar tastes who think alike.
Sometimes intense communication can occur inside a community, while it remains relatively isolated
from the rest of the world. I believe that in such a case, a community becomes closer to what we regard
as a “sect”, and no objectivity can be expected from it.
In this essay, I presented the two perspectives that, according to Thomas Nagel, clash to cause
the absurd in human life, and shown why this clash does not occur in other animals and inanimate
objects. I also pointed out what Nagel believes to be the appropriate response to this absurd. Next I
presented Richard Taylor’s idea about the meaning of human existence, and, through discussion and
alteration of the myth of Sisyphus, showed what the two main characteristics of a life that is not
meaningful, and then listed the three features that must be present to bring meaning to life and
explained why each of them is necessary according to Taylor. Finally, I discussed Wolf’s criticism of
Nagel and Taylor. I presented the features that Wolf finds necessary for a meaningful life. I examined
her views on the modified myth of Sisyphus, and explained why his life is not meaningful according to
Wolf’s criteria. Finally, I provided my own arguments against Wolf’s idea of objectivity, and
concluded that her analysis fails to see that a community can be subjective.