Chapter 2 Terry Eagleton, The Meaning of Life
Chapter 2 and 3 are interesting and can be summarized by stating that the other philosophers mentioned inquired deeply about the question “what is the meaning of life”. They questioned the possibility that this question was complex and had multiple meanings and if the question should be asked at all. The problem with the language and the intent in which it was being used was the focus. Chapters 2 suggested that both the question and the answer to the question “what is the meaning of life” were biased due to the context of the language. The word meaning has different uses that fall into 3 categories. The first has to do with the intention of something or having it in mind. The second meaning is related to the mind. The third encapsulates both having it in mind that it signifies something. What is it about context of the question “What is the meaning of life” that is appealing to the philosophers? What do you think the intention of the language was when the question was asked? Lastly, do you believe that the language or context relates to an already written narrative of the self conscious?
3 Comments
I believe that the intention of the language in the question, “What is the meaning of life” has less to do with the English/grammar lesson that Eagleton spent so much time writing about and more to do with trying to make sense of our existence. At one time or another, everyone asks themselves, “what is it all about, what am I supposed to be doing, what is my higher purpose or why was I born?” Philosophers like this question because no single definitive answer exists – this lack of a right or a wrong answer gives them something to think and write about without the concern of being wrong. How can you be wrong about something for which there is no right answer? I believe that the individual is in control of his own self narrative- as he has the capability of making decisions that affect the direction of his life.
Strangely enough, I believe a person can get bogged down in life with too many specifics, especially when they pertain with a obtuse question such as “the meaning of life.” The intention of the author, as his past influences, are striving for the same thing….the truth. At least pertaining to the meaning of life. It is when we trim away the contextual subplot of the actual meaning and focus on the end result, will probably yield a better, more finely honed answer. As in some of the other blogs, I believe “meaning,” equals heft in a person’s life. Action, not pondering will decide whether we lived a good life or not. It is all good to have noble intentions. To not follow them through would be the real tragedy. The reason why the actual question opposed to the actual systematical juxtaposition of the actual words is more important, is that, the same question has been pondered for thousands of years, no matter how elegantly or simply phrased…..
I think I can agree with Rachel in this aspect… of course the context of any question (let alone this one, which may be the hardest question – ever!) plays a role in how a person is going to answer. Eagleton does divulge into a lot of grammatical reference to the question which I found to be a great point of view but over-done. “What is the meaning of life?” is so appealing to everyday people and philosophers alike because of one simple fact. There is no concrete (correct or wrong) answer. The sheer hearing of that question may scare the hell out of someone when they first hear it. We find ourselves looking for the unknown day in and day out. We, as people, KNOW 3+3 = 6. We, as humans, KNOW that the world is flat. We are a species that is above anything else in term of knowledge and brain power. Yet, we know the gravity of the moon because we walked on it, but we certainly can’t give a concrete answer on “What is the Meaning of life?” Perhaps we can answer the question… but none of our answers will be parallel… this is what makes the context of the question so interesting.
Post a Comment