Lecture_schemata_3

The temporal argument it is often remarked that

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: uch realm or being), and hence, in effect, that Premise 2 of the Nihilist's Worry is true. Against the backdrop of that assumption, he presents a novel argument for why there is no immanent meaning of life either, i.e. for why (in his view) the likes of Premise 3 of the Nihilist's Worry is also correct. First, however, he considers three popular but (in his view) bad arguments for the idea that there is no immanent meaning of life (143- 44): 1. The Temporal Argument. “It is often remarked that nothing we do now will matter in a million years.” (143) Fleshed out a bit, the reasoning behind this thought goes something like this: P1 If there is an immanent meaning of life, _______________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________. P2 Life can't have consequences that reach forever into the future of the immanent realm (because there will inevitably come a point in the natural universe where it will be as if life never existed). C Therefore, there is no immanent meaning of life. Nagel’s reply: "Whether what we do now will matter in a million years could...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online