Quote:
Originally Posted by Philo
Nagel finds Camus' attitude toward the absurd "romantic and slightly self-pitying."
He says, "If a sense of the absurd is a way of perceiving our true situation, then what reason can we have to resent or escape it? Like the capacity for epistemological skepticism, it results from the ability to understand our human limitations. It need not be a matter for agony unless we make it so. Nor need it evoke a defiant contempt of fate that allows us to feel brave or proud. Such dramatics, even if carried on in private, betray a failure to appreciate the cosmic unimportance of the situation."
I think Nagel has a good point for those who insist the situation is "absurd". But imo "absurd" or wildly unreasonable, illogical, inappropriate, preposterous, ridiculous, ludicrous, farcical, laughable, risible, idiotic, stupid, foolish, silly, inane, imbecilic, insane, harebrained, cockamamie (per google definition) is an extreme judgement of the situation. At most, my judgement would be "puzzling". For those who insist on the judgement "absurd" I suggest they consider the possibility that they are looking at the so called "true situation" in the wrong way and/or judging it by questionable criteria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philo
I don't think Nagel has a problem with the idea that we may have good reasons for taking seriously the particular things we take seriously. His claim is not that taking life seriously is absurd.
His claim is that absurdity arises when there is a "conspicuous discrepancy" between the seriousness with which we take our lives, and the fact that we can always understand that ultimately which things we take seriously is arbitrary.
I don't think "we can always understand" that as being a "fact". If the Ultimate is in the here and now of our lives rather than some imagined "out there" place then the fact for understanding is quite different. It's also quite different if "Ultimate" is just a nonsense word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philo
He's just claiming that it's true, not that we need to take it seriously.
I don't know what you mean by an "arbitrary understanding." Nagel is not claiming that all of our beliefs are arbitrary, just that our choice of which things to care about/take seriously in our lives is arbitrary, from a broader point of view (i.e., from a point of view not attached to our personal lives/subjective constitutions).
As others have pointed out itt, we can imagine taking this broader point of view but what we see there when we do so is inescapably attached to our personal lives/subjective constitutions. That's why we're having this discussion. We don't all see the same "truth".
I find this word "arbitrary" puzzling. Google defines it as; based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. We have good reasons here and now, on the ground so to speak. Why would we expect reasons for what we take seriously here and now on the ground to be up in the air someplace?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philo
Again, I don't think Nagel would disagree that life can be meaningful in that sense. The absurdity he is talking about does not go away just because you find certain things meaningful though.
He points out that the life of a mouse is not absurd, because a mouse is not capable of self-consciously reflecting on its choices, but that doesn't mean that we should prefer the life of a mouse to ours.
Existentialists ask us to step back from ourselves and look at what we take seriously in life from a broader objective viewpoint. They say that if we do so we will realize the absurdity of the situation. I claim that the absurdity goes away if we step back again and consider the subjectivity involved in our first step back and the possibility that we're looking at the situation in the wrong way and judging it based on the wrong criteria.
PairTheBoard