Compare and contrast Camus’s, Nagel’s, and the existentialist’s (as set out by Sartre and De Beauvoir) positions on the meaning and value of human life. Which is the best supported position (be sure to give reasons for your judgment), and what problems does it still face? How might it respond to these problems?
In this essay I will compare and contrast Camus’s, Nagel’s, and the existentialists’, specifically Sartre and De Beauvoir, positions on the meaning and value of human life. In addition, I will support Camus’s argument, as his is the best supported argument, and possible problems the argument faces.
Beginning with Camus’s argument on the meaning of life, he argues that the human condition is absurd. With this in mind, Camus asks …show more content…
Nagel tends to point out that there is no meaning in life, but not much about what to do about this realization. Existentialists argue that life’s authentic existence has to start with the recognition of the nothingness that is life. This point is were they separate from Camus and Nagel, because existentialists from life, one is at complete liberty to make the free choices that will dictate and define the meaning of an individual life. Sartre importantly argues, that first, comes man’s existence, then (after), through life he defines himself. Sartre argues that nothing is a result of built in human nature, or nothing is predetermined for a person, essentially it is all up to what a person decides to make of his or her life. De Beauvoir echoes Sartre’s sentiments in that she believes that man in born fundamentally free. This freedom underlies everything De Beauvoir argues; including that it allows man to be aware of himself as a result. De Beauvoir contrasts to the other philosophers and their arguments, in a that she outlines several types of people who deny themselves from this knowledge of freedom, either due to unawareness of purposeful ignorance. Ultimately, De Beauvoir argues that, similar to Sartre, that an individual must choose what direction to take in their life or what to do with their life, and the importance in acknowledging the freedom that one …show more content…
However, Camus fails to recognize that there may be people who do find life to be absurd and may not want to take the options of suicide, leap of faith, or recognition. This makes the assumption that anyone automatically fits under the three options. Also, there may be people who fail to find life absurd, or the human condition to be absurd. These individuals may already be living their life to the fullest, and may not need a justification, or reason to find happiness in the search for a meaning in
In this essay I will compare and contrast Camus’s, Nagel’s, and the existentialists’, specifically Sartre and De Beauvoir, positions on the meaning and value of human life. In addition, I will support Camus’s argument, as his is the best supported argument, and possible problems the argument faces.
Beginning with Camus’s argument on the meaning of life, he argues that the human condition is absurd. With this in mind, Camus asks …show more content…
Nagel tends to point out that there is no meaning in life, but not much about what to do about this realization. Existentialists argue that life’s authentic existence has to start with the recognition of the nothingness that is life. This point is were they separate from Camus and Nagel, because existentialists from life, one is at complete liberty to make the free choices that will dictate and define the meaning of an individual life. Sartre importantly argues, that first, comes man’s existence, then (after), through life he defines himself. Sartre argues that nothing is a result of built in human nature, or nothing is predetermined for a person, essentially it is all up to what a person decides to make of his or her life. De Beauvoir echoes Sartre’s sentiments in that she believes that man in born fundamentally free. This freedom underlies everything De Beauvoir argues; including that it allows man to be aware of himself as a result. De Beauvoir contrasts to the other philosophers and their arguments, in a that she outlines several types of people who deny themselves from this knowledge of freedom, either due to unawareness of purposeful ignorance. Ultimately, De Beauvoir argues that, similar to Sartre, that an individual must choose what direction to take in their life or what to do with their life, and the importance in acknowledging the freedom that one …show more content…
However, Camus fails to recognize that there may be people who do find life to be absurd and may not want to take the options of suicide, leap of faith, or recognition. This makes the assumption that anyone automatically fits under the three options. Also, there may be people who fail to find life absurd, or the human condition to be absurd. These individuals may already be living their life to the fullest, and may not need a justification, or reason to find happiness in the search for a meaning in