Death and the Meaning of Life - Essay Example

December 13, 2005 The Meaning of Life Finally Answered It’s the question of the ages asked by philosophers and theologians throughout the centuries. What is the meaning of life? Or perhaps more importantly, is there a meaning to life? If one were to ask philosopher Thomas Nagel, the answer he’d provide is both simple and complex. The short answer is no, there is no meaning to life. The long answer depends on the acceptance of two main arguments: 1. That there is no life after death and 2. That things accomplished in this life, whether they exist only during a single lifetime or throughout many, are not permanent and therefore do not provide enough basis for meaning. Given that the above two premises are accepted as fact, Nagel says without meaning after death and without meaning during life, there can be no meaning to life. Of course, the first hurdle to overcome in making this argument valid is to prove that the initial premises are true. In the case of the first premise, that there is no life after death, Nagel argues that there are two possibilities in death. The first is that human beings consist of a dual nature, that is, their souls and bodies exist as two entities connected together. If that’s the case, then it is conceivable that once the body dies, the soul can continue to exist. However, at that point, without the actions and sensations of the physical body, the person you were in life can no longer exist as the same inner being because it is now “depending on different causes and influences – direct communication with other souls, for instance” (pp. 88-89). If the soul is dependent on the body, then it must also die with the body. Therefore, through pure observation and without any kind of religious belief system in place, Nagel says there is no reason to believe that there is such a thing as life after death. The obvious hole in this line of reasoning is the idea that the soul might be able to detach itself from the body and continue to exist, regardless of its exact form and nature. Although he admits there is a chance the soul could continue to exist, he indicates it would be so changed by the transformation that it would no longer be the same individual known in life. Nagel fails to take into account the possibility that the soul, once freed of the body, might have to make some adjustments, but could become something in addition to what it was in this life, kind of like waking up from a dream. You remember who you were, but you are now something more as well and can refocus your attention to developing that new aspect of yourself. The idea that death is just another step taken in the evolutionary journey of an individual would support this assumption, with the resulting inner life being not exactly the same as it was in the body, but not necessarily different, either. One could argue that the change itself is enough to denote a different nature to the soul, but that would only be in the sense that one is a different person after having learned to speak Spanish after speaking English. The second premise, the idea that things accomplished in this life are not permanent and therefore do not provide enough basis for meaning, actually has more than one aspect to it. Nagel first points out that most of us don’t do anything in our lifetimes that create long-term impact on the human race, so we have to figure out the point within our own lives. He argues that we do many things in our lives that each have a unique meaning in itself – working to support yourself, eating because you’re hungry, skiing for recreation or sleep because you’re tired. Nagel says further that even if we manage to accomplish something in one life that has far-reaching effects on future generations, such as a life-changing novel or a great political upheaval that brings change upon the way future generations will live, these things, too, are not permanent in nature but will fade and die eventually or will die when the sun stops burning and all life on Earth ceases to exist. However, none of these things, when brought together as a whole life, point to any great higher purpose for the individual. “Looking at it from the outside, it wouldn’t matter if you had never existed. And after you have gone out of existence, it won’t matter that you did exist” (p. 96). He acknowledges that it will matter to your friends and relatives, but since none of their lives point to anything greater, it doesn’t matter whether they existed or not, either. “Give that any person exists; he has needs and concerns which make particular things and people within his life matter to him. But the whole thing doesn’t matter” (pp. 96-97). It is equally difficult to accept this argument as completely valid as well. If we take the argument that the soul can continue to exist without the body and that the soul retains enough of its unique inner being to remember who it was in the body, it is possible that these relationships, being the most impacting events of our existence here and the only things we really have an effect upon, are the meaning of life. It stands to reason that if the single largest place where we have an effect in life is in the relationships we have with other human beings, any meaning to life there might be would be found in this bond. With the knowledge gained and the lessons learned through these relationships, perhaps the soul then takes those lessons remembered into the next journey of self-discovery, whatever that might be. It would be necessary in this instance for the soul to retain enough memory of the inner being it was in the body for it to grow from this experience, further supporting my first argument that it does not necessarily follow that the soul would lose its current identity. Finally, Nagel discusses the religious context of the discussion, that “your life might be thought to have meaning in a religious context, so that your time on Earth was just a preparation for an eternity in direct contact with God” (pp. 97-98). He leans heavily on the defense that it’s inappropriate to question the purpose of the meaning of God or to question the nature of God as a means of not exploring this idea further. “The idea that our lives fulfill God’s purpose is supposed to give them their point, in a way that doesn’t require or admit of any further point” (p. 99). My counterarguments so far have had nothing to do with the concept of a God or what his or her purpose might or might not be. Rather, my arguments are strictly regarding the growth of the individual soul as it grows from the physical plain to the spiritual plane to the following plane. Just because we cannot view what that next higher plane might be does not mean it does not exist just as because we cannot see beyond the horizon doesn’t mean the earth falls off into space. It may be small consolation, but it does not mandate a lack of meaning to life just because we cannot glimpse the end-game from our current vantage point. It is at this argument that Nagel veers off to conclude his argument that human life is meaningless. It might be said that this counterargument is in itself spiritual in nature. However, if we’re to discuss life after death, in other words, the idea of life outside of the physical body, the discussion cannot be anything but spiritual in nature. Works Cited Nagel, Thomas. Name of book. City of publication: Publisher name, year of publication. Read More