Question Home

Position:Home>Philosophy> Who thinks that people like Thomas Nagel makes philosophy seem silly?


Question: Who thinks that people like Thomas Nagel makes philosophy seem silly!?
I just did Thomas Nagel's reading on the Absurd!. I must say, that for a philosopher and a professor, he is rather wordy!. The points he was arguing were silly, and his replies or conclusions were poor!.
Basically his 14 page reading was about how our lives only seem absurd if we view them that way, and a way to tackle this absurdity is with irony!.!.!.whatever, see it's people like him that makes me hate philosophy, who cares!!?! Who cares if our lives are absurd or not!? Who cares if some people have or want meaning in their lives!? I don't, so rather than waste his time (and mine) writing 14 pages of argument debating whether our lives are absurd or not, why doesn't he write about more important things like, cultural differences, or how we can achieve world peace!? A philosophical perspective on those issues would be nice!.

I think his own reading was absurd!

Honestly he makes Nietzsche's work look like they were written by a god compared to the drivel he was on about!.

That's my two cents worthWww@QuestionHome@Com


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
I feel this way about Bertrand Russell and Ann Rand, but to each his own!. I guess if every philosophy were for everybody, then there would BE no cultural differences or impediments to world peace!. Ironically, and you will pardon the word, it is our inability to tolerate one another's ideas that MAKES cultural differences and prevents world peace!. So your dislike of Nagel is an example of the very things you want to avoid!. What an, if you will pardon the word, absurd situation to be in!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

LOL!.

I actually enjoyed "What is it like to be a Bat!?", and I think it makes a good case for the existence of qualia!. I don't think it's silly at all!. In fact, that's the kind of stuff that I like about philosophy!. However, I've never read his writing on the Absurd!. Sounds like you enjoyed it though, so I'll have to check it out!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Sometimes a postulate in one branch of philosophy can offer you a fresh perspective in a different category!.
So that looking at personal meaning and who a particular philosopher reasons about that topic would give you insight into how the would look at more abstract issues, like cultural differences or a way to achieve world peace!.
It may not seem like there is a connection, but existential philosophy is often closely linked to morality and ethics!.
I find that most good philosophers are not so much addressing an audience with their arguments but instead are detailing their own reasoning as objectively as possible so that they know why they think the way they do about some other philosophical inquiry and that if we are both inclined to be in agreement about some other fundamental point that I am willing to forgive minor deviations in how one reaches a particular conclusion!.
It may also be that you are not connected to the philosophy in the proper context!. Historical context, the prevailing attitudes of the time the work was composed also provide insight into a philosophers analysis!.
It sounds like this fellow is attempting to rebut absurdism!.
But I have not read his work so I do not know the way he attempts to refute it!.
It also sounds as though you have already decided on a stance regarding the answer to the question of meaning for human existence!.
Unless you read the work objectively it is not surprising that you were not able to take away much from it!.
It may be that instead of analyzing the arguments you analyzed only the conclusion!.
This is not a reliable way to determine the strength of an argument and I would caution against this form of hasty rejection!.
For instance I would be inclined to agree that seeking to find some ultimate purpose for the existence of consciousness may indeed by a pointless endeavor with regards to objective reality!.
But the simple fact is that humans do this almost instinctually and so there is likely some benefits in doing so!.
also I do not extend my nihilistic attitude about the existence of intrinsic value regarding the ultimate meaning of consciousness to other branches of philosophy!.
I am not an epistemological nihilist for example!.
Nor am I a social anarchist!.
Based on the length of the work you sight it is likely that a great many things are assumed to be known to the reader and this might also make the work seem less coherent if it turns out that you are not well read in philosophy!.
But I do not often encounter works that I consider "silly"!.
And I certianly do not consider philosophy itself to be a pointless endeavor!.
As for a philosophical perspective regarding cultural difference's and world peace!.
I am willing to bet that you should be able to hazard a guess about the authors thoughts by the work!.Www@QuestionHome@Com