How The Search For Meaning And The Futility Of Labor

Thomas Nagel states that human beings have a “natural expression” for the sense that life is absurd (Nagel 29). In his essay, simply titled “The Absurd”, Nagel argues that this natural presumption is true, but not for the reasons commonly given: the smallness and brevity of our lives. Instead, our lives are absurd because they feature an inevitable conflict between our feeling that life lacks justification and our inability to disengage with life despite this feeling. I argue that Nagel mistakenly includes awareness in his philosophical definition of absurdity. Nonetheless, his essay is an insightful read about the nature of human life.

Capitalism is an omnipresent system that has taken on many unique and defined forms throughout its existence. While capitalism comes in a variety of disguises, one thing about capitalism has always remained the same – the nature of its selfish being. Capitalism thrives on hard work. Individuals that work hard will undoubtedly be rewarded. On the contrary, those that are not able to work are left in a dreadful predicament. Even with two distinct versions of capitalism – plain capitalism and democratic capitalism – both involve the necessary component of free enterprise. Capitalism considers free enterprise something to be achieved individually with rewards intended for just oneself. Adam Smith came along and challenged that notation

Adam Smith is a proponent of capitalism, more specifically, laissez faire economic. Laissez faire is an economic policy in which businesses operate in the free market with little to no regulation from the government in a free market. Smith would disagree with Karl Marx because the two have different idea when it comes to economics. Smith argues that capitalism is the best form of economics because human self interest drives positive results in the economy. In addition, Smith would argue that invisible hand of the marketplace would help control the economy through supply and demand. When the supply is greater than the demand, the price of the product would be lower than the standard price. The opposite is that when supply is lower than the demand, the price would be above the standard price. With this, Smith believes that laissez faire would be the ideal economic plan. Furthermore, Smith would also argue that competition would lead to better product for the people as competition forces businesses to compete with each other for customers, leading to innovations and better products.

Society tends to live day to day without much question of their own existence. Humans are born into the world and without second thought begin to live their lives, but there comes a time when individuals begin to question the reason for their being. In Richard Taylor’s, “The Meaning of Life”, Taylor explores the thought that our existence, when viewed externally without our prejudices, is fundamentally pointless. A thorough analysis of Taylor’s ideas will be given to understand the reasoning behind his thoughts, his argument will then be defended from counter arguments that state that the meaning behind any entity’s life could have any alternative meaning.

In 1971, Thomas Nagel wrote a paper titled ‘The Absurd.’ He argues that the nous of the absurd arises from two belligerent propensities in us: the first is explained as, ‘we take our lives’, or at slightest the ventures we take on in our lives, and that we cannot circumvent. In addition, the second propensity is that we are capable, upon undermining or reflecting, the explanations for any of our ventures in life. Furthermore, from a radical point of view outside people’s interests nothing can be justified; however we are skilled enough in taking up such a perspective reflection. What more can be said is that this absurdity is an ailment we are predestined to by virtue of our reflective nature. Though in general understanding to the idea,

In the article “Absurd Self-Fulfillment,” Feinberg offers his readers a close up examination of absurdity, self-fulfillment, and tries to show that every human life may contain some degree of each. He discusses how Richard Taylor, Albert Camus, and Thomas Nagel, each portray that there is indeed absurdity in all human beings, through the use of their own special qualifications. Taylor and Camus both conclude that there is no meaning to anything we do, and that the human condition is pointless and meaningless. They believe that absurd humans do whatever makes them happy, but before realizing the absurd, one is a slave of their own future goals. However, Nagel claims that absurdity results from the irresolvable clash between the importance people attach their lives too, and their capability of viewing themselves from a detached and impersonal perspective. Feinberg eventually adopts Nagel’s explanation of absurdity. Feinberg’s concept of self-fulfillment can be understood in the sense of doing what one is genetically inclined to do, which includes both one’s generic

Polanyi’s describes Adam Smith’s idea of the “economic man”, as a notion of human nature in which we are meant to exchange (Polanyi, 1957). Since we are living in a market society, people must adopt a capitalistic mindset that seeks individual advantage that puts individual needs over social needs. This mindset supports the capitalist mode of production, as we concern ourselves with making money so we can buy things, which is essentially capitalisms goal. With this mindset, workers strive to work longer hours on clock time, to earn a wage in order to buy things for their own satisfaction.

Camus explanations of the Myth of Sisyphus, presented the concept of the absurd by outlining the beliefs that an individuals life has worth but only his live in a world that denies such worth to survive. Therefore, the absurdity in the statement, explains the fact of a clash between the orders through which an individuals mind hard for, likewise the lack of order that we as humans find in the world.

Adam Smith and Karl Marx are both considered few of the most influential giants in social and economical history. When viewing their economical standpoints, it is not difficult to recognize the difference in ideas that they have regarding society. Adam Smith is an advocator for capitalism and the wealth that can be accumulated in it, while Karl Marx critiques on the flaws of capitalism and praises communism that will overthrow the capitalist society. However, both of them base their theories on the characteristic of labor. Even though Marx and Smith both point to the significance of one's labor in a capitalist society, Smith views labor as having the potential, in conjunction with the division of labor, to stimulate the public wealth and

In “The Meaning of Lives,” Wolf asserts that the question “What is the Meaning of Life?” is inherently unintelligible because it is uncertain what the question is asking. In other words it is too general because it has no specified context. Wolf then acknowledges, however, that there is value in examining the meaningfulness of a life. This is because she observes people wanting meaning as an unchangeable fact. While there is no grand reason for meaning, she suggests that we can create value through what we do in our life. In her work, Wolf constructs a framework on how to obtain meaning in one’s life. I will examine her view, then critically discuss the positive attributes and the shortcomings. Wolf does a sufficient job to outline a possible way to achieve meaning. However, I will argue that a definition for the meaningful life that does not include morality and happiness is not sufficient. Lastly, I will express the subjective and objective tension that weakens her stance.

Capitalism started up as a system of investing and sharing money in order to increase the value of resources in the future. Capitalism was just an economic system, but then soon turned into a complex system of ethical practices. Harari defines capitalism as, “a set of teachings about how people should behave, educate their children and even think” (Harari 314). This economic system evolved along with the people that were endorsing it. Capitalism enables the rich to get richer, while the poor continue to get poorer. There are many benefits to capitalism, but there are downfalls as well, and these downfalls tend to be masked because of the rapid speed capitalists grow at. Harari first presents a definition for capitalism, and soon goes into great detail on why capitalism, while fast paced and unforgiving, is able to stand unwavered while other productions fail.

Simone de Beauvoir’s argument in part three section five, titled “Ambiguity” rejects Albert Camus’s nihilism and makes a clear distinction between the concepts of absurdity and ambiguity. De Beauvoir states that ambiguity cannot be confused with absurdity, and that declaring existence absurd is the same as saying that existence can never have meaning. If existence is absurd, the rationalization of the real world leaves no room for ethics. Saying that existence is ambiguous means that the meaning of existence is never fixed. There is no single “meaning” of existence, and individual will have their own meaning. In her argument, de Beauvoir claims, “So is it with any activity; failure and success are two aspects of reality which at the start are not perceptible”. In other words, the outcome of an action is ambiguous at the start. De Beauvoir believes that the main problem of human existence lays in the fact that transcendence has to be found by itself, while at the same time it is never able to fulfill itself. Therefore, freedom is achieved by man by the simple fact that he pursues it. Something can not attempt to fulfill itself by any means that would ruin its meaning.

One of the conflicts that underlies the feeling of absurdity that we as humans want a reason to the universe but also the universe says nothing and is quite, it does not respond back to us. Camus states, “The climate of absurdity is in the beginning. The end is the absurd universe and that attitude of mind which lights the world with

The advent of the ideal of capitalism is often attributed to Adam Smith. Sometimes called “The Father of Economics,” Smith was an 18th century moral philosopher from Scotland. Smith is perhaps most known for writing the book “An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.” In this book Adam Smith considers and advances the ideas of the division of labor, the invisible hand, the pursuit of self-interest, the proper role of government and the idea of a Laissez-Faire (or noninterventionist) economy. Each of these ideas were considered heavily during the establishment and development of the United States. Because of their adoption into the new American government, the United States became the forerunner to the free-market.

Adam Smith is considered as one of the most influential economists in the 18th century. Although his theories have been criticized by several socialist economists, however, his idea of capitalism still has great impact to the rest of the economists during classical, neo classical periods and the structure of today’s economy. Even the former Prime Minister of Britain, Margaret Thatcher had praised on Smith’s contribution on today’s capitalism market. She commented “Adam Smith, in fact, heralded the end of the strait-jacket of feudalism and released all the innate energy of private initiative and enterprise which enable wealth to be created on a scale never before contemplated” (Copley and Sutherland 1995, 2). Smith is also being recognized