Lecture_schemata_3

Lecture_schemata_3

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: is an immanent meaning of life, then life must significantly relate to the entire immanent realm or to a very large swath of the immanent realm (i.e., to the entire natural universe or to a very large part of the natural universe). P2 Life can't significantly relate to the entire immanent realm or to a very large swath of the immanent realm (because life and its consequences are just insignificant, small parts of that realm). C Therefore, there is no immanent meaning of life. Nagel’s reply: "…if our lives are absurd given our present size, why would they be any less absurd if we filled the universe?" (144) In other words, according to Nagel, the first premise of this argument, P1, like first premise of the previous argument, seems inappropriately to assume the very truth of its conclusion. Thus, this argument also seems question- begging. 3. The Instrumental Worth Argument. Another inadequate argument is that because we are going to die, all chains of justification must leave off in mid- air: one studies and works to earn money for clothing, housing, entertainment, food, to sustain oneself from year to year, perhaps to support a family and pursue a career—but to what final end? All of it is an elaborate journey leading nowhere. (One will also have some effect on other people's lives, but that simply reproduces the problem, fo...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/12/2014 for the course PHIL 1000 at UWO.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online