Which again are immanent things here the internal

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: as its purpose some later member of the sequence. Chains of justification come repeatedly to an end within life … No further justification is needed to make it reasonable to take aspirin for a headache, attend an exhibit of the work of a painter one admires, or stop a child from putting his hand on a hot stove. (144) In other words, Nagel is claiming, in effect, that the second premise of this argument, P2, is false. There are immanent things, he claims, that can have intrinsic worth, e.g. the relief of pain (by taking aspirin), the enjoyment of aesthetic experiences (by attending an art exhibit), the prevention of harm to others (by stopping the child from putting her hand on the stove), etc. Having dispensed with what he considers to be three bad arguments against the possibility of an immanent meaning of life, Nagel then goes on to present what he considers to be a good argument for this. We'll call this Nagel's "Clash of Perspectives Argument," for reasons that will soon become apparent. To understand, and succinctly represent Nagel’s own argument, we must first distinguish between two different perspectives, or points of view, on the ways in which our lives relate 4 (through our actions and the situations in which we...
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