What is the best argument you can provide against Schopenhauer’s argument?
Arthur Schopenhauer’s philosophy tells us that our life is not as good as we used to think. He argues that life is inherently bad and sometimes we may have good moments, but those are short-term exceptions of constant suffering. We have goals and we want to own certain things. Consequently, we experience boredom or depression if we do not struggle towards our goals or do not have the object of our will. Shortly after we succeed, we lose our will and forget about it even though we may have spent years of suffering. Eventually, we make new goals and the cycle repeats itself. That is why Schopenhauer felt that life is meaningless because our choices are either struggling or boredom, both of which result in suffering.
At some point, I would agree with Schopenhauer’s statement that life is meaningless because there is no single direction in it, there is no ultimate goal, except keeping the maintenance of daily life. Even the maintenance of the life of mankind on the Earth does not have a meaning. Since there is no ultimate goal it is impossible to answer the question: "What on Earth we are here for?" The God could give …show more content…
For instance, when I do sports I am always using my motivation, struggling and seeking an end goal, as well as achieving a goal keeps me motivated. However, I am also having fun while I am doing it. "Life is a game". The game does not make sense as the ultimate goal, the process itself is important in it. In the process, we rejoice, grieve, get angry, learn, laugh, cry. In general, we live. We live in the emotions that came from the process. And only when we turn the last page of this process, then we can learn its true meaning.
The meaning of life is estimated at its end, as a subjective assessment of the lived life and the correspondence of the achieved results to the original
Arthur Schopenhauer’s philosophy tells us that our life is not as good as we used to think. He argues that life is inherently bad and sometimes we may have good moments, but those are short-term exceptions of constant suffering. We have goals and we want to own certain things. Consequently, we experience boredom or depression if we do not struggle towards our goals or do not have the object of our will. Shortly after we succeed, we lose our will and forget about it even though we may have spent years of suffering. Eventually, we make new goals and the cycle repeats itself. That is why Schopenhauer felt that life is meaningless because our choices are either struggling or boredom, both of which result in suffering.
At some point, I would agree with Schopenhauer’s statement that life is meaningless because there is no single direction in it, there is no ultimate goal, except keeping the maintenance of daily life. Even the maintenance of the life of mankind on the Earth does not have a meaning. Since there is no ultimate goal it is impossible to answer the question: "What on Earth we are here for?" The God could give …show more content…
For instance, when I do sports I am always using my motivation, struggling and seeking an end goal, as well as achieving a goal keeps me motivated. However, I am also having fun while I am doing it. "Life is a game". The game does not make sense as the ultimate goal, the process itself is important in it. In the process, we rejoice, grieve, get angry, learn, laugh, cry. In general, we live. We live in the emotions that came from the process. And only when we turn the last page of this process, then we can learn its true meaning.
The meaning of life is estimated at its end, as a subjective assessment of the lived life and the correspondence of the achieved results to the original