Which, if any, of these characters did you identify with and why?

The meaning of life might really be asking what it all adds up to. According to Eagleton’s views it is widely improbable that everything in human life constitutes part of a coherent patter. Or is the question of life really asking us not what it all adds up to but what it all boils down to. Eagleton also pops the question about human life. Are we just a bearer of a coherent meaning since we use the word life as such a general term? If this is the case, then the difference between human life and the meaning of life are total opposites. In order to view life as just life we must take away the human’s mentality of life in such a general sense. For example life’s a bitch, a vale of tears, or a bed of roses. These are all summaries of human life and not life itself.

If the meaning of life lies in the common goal of human beings, then there no doubt what that is. Everyone in the world strives for happiness, Aristotle states this in his Nicomachean Ethics, that it operates as a kind of base line in human life, you cannot reasonably ask why we should seek to be happy. Desiring to be happy just seems to be a part of our nature. But really count as happiness, as individuals we strive for what makes us happy, but everyone is different. I may find happiness playing baseball with my friends; another person may find happiness in killing people, so where does the line of happiness and life meet its end? Do they really coincide with one another or is just another term that bases itself around individual need? What if people could have artificial happiness knowingly like the The Matrix machine? Aristotle believes that though happiness may rest in an artificial means, in the long run will it really make us that much happier, and in his eyes he says no. Artificial happiness only limits us to our fullest capacities like a man in a wheelchair.

Happiness is not the only meaning of life some people may see. Others include power, love, honor, truth, pleasure, freedom, reason, autonomy, the state, the nation, God, self-sacrifice, death, desire, etc. These are all things people can put in the category of what is the meaning of life. Everyone takes the meaning of life differently so it would not surprise me if every person you asked the meaning of life to came up with one of the above answers. Freud had a very interesting view on life and most of his views came down to the meaning of death. He set out believing that the meaning of life was desire or the reuses of the unconscious in our waking lives, and came to believe that the meaning of life was death. He believes that everyone is on the same death drive, meaning that we all must be ready to die. If ones live their lives in a sense that they are not knowledgeable or coherent to death (one is not prepared to die) than it is unlikely that your life will be fruitful. Freud also believed that those who lived in awareness of their mortality is to live with realism, irony, truthfulness, and a chastening sense of our finitude and fragility.

To sum this up the meaning of life is not a solution to a problem but a matter of living in a certain way. It is not metaphysical, but ethical. It is not something separate from life, but what makes it worth living which is to say a certain quality, depth, abundance, and intensity of life. In this sense the meaning of life is life itself. The theory that Eagleton proposes all boils down to the two strongest contenders in what the meaning of life is and that is love and happiness, in my opinion it comes down to these two because happiness and love have more than a individualistic meaning put on them, they are things that just seem to be a part of our nature.

Question:

It’s obvious that the meaning of life can take the shape of any word, phrase, or philosophy so it becomes really hard to distinguish what life is compared to the meaning of human life. Discuss the difference between the two and why they are separate in Eagleton’s views. Maybe human life is the key to entering the meaning of life; do you believe this to be so? Yes or No please explain you reasoning?

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?

The Meaning of Life
                       Terry Eagleton
After reading the first chapter I feel more enlightened, yet more confused, if
that makes any sense. This book is taking us on a roller coaster ride of
emotions.  The idea is that life is what you make it. Find something you
believe in, sink your teeth and hold on for dear life, until you find
something better.  This book is tilling us that life is; funny, life is
painful, life is a bed of roses, life is a bitch, life is a cabaret, life is
sadness, life is death, life is happiness, life just is or is it.
Have anyone ever told you to; grow up, wake up and smell the coffee, open your
eyes, live in the real world?  What is the real world? Is it their
interpretation of the world or meaning of life or our own?
Here is my question; does the meaning of life mean what your family, friends
or society say it is?

Do you think the “what is the meaning of life” question; is a really question or pseudo question? Can life posses meaning? Are the seemingly mundane actions we push ourselves through everyday really the steps required toward achieving our life’s meaning?

I believe we as human beings demand a certain level of gratification for our lives. We need to believe that there is a purpose to everything; I believe it helps us cope with the day to day. Whether you believe you are on this planet to serve a greater purpose, or that God has placed you on this planet to serve his will we all need to feel that there is a reason for existence. The truth is that even if you don’t believe in the meaning of life, you do. Because not believing in a meaning is believing in something, no meaning. Like I said above, we are creatures of gratification . . . .nothing is worth doing if there isn’t a reason.

I also think in order to analyze the meaning of life you must consider death. Like I have said in class on more than on occasion, I truly believe there will come a point for everyone (some sooner than later) when, faced with the eminent conclusion of your own global insignificance, when you will sit and ponder the effect that your life has had. I really think that until you are really ready to sit and ponder that question, sit and evaluate your inner most soul that you will never even begin to realize the potential that your life, your existence, however insignificant, has impact on the world. Whether that impact is culminated into a personal meaning of life . . . . that is for you to decide. For most, I would presume, this instance of self reflection will not come until shortly before your death. When you sit back and try to rationalize your life.

If you were to sit back right now and try to reflect on your life, up to this point right now, would you be happy with were your life is? Do you feel that you have made an impact on this world?

The Politics of Recognition.

This reading (admittedly difficult) is an essay done by as an introduction to essays written by 3 political philosophers. It examines what exactly recognition is in relation to self consciousness and identity. The author begins with the idea that one group can assimilate with a more dominate group simply based on modernist thinking. This stems from modernist thinking which at the time this was written, was prevalent in early 17^th century Germany brought by the invasion of Napoleon. The main idea took individualism to the spectrum of it being communally dependant. As you will read, early romantics strived to get to the grass roots of such beliefs and it was up to Hegel to walk the fine line between modernistic thinking and romanticism practiced by many. The essay goes on to ask the question of “What is recognition?” Do we know who we are? Do we depend on each other in determining our self-recognition? Do we even know if we do this or not?  The author asks the question based on the infinite possibility of self-consciousness.  The Author uses Hegel’s Dialectic of Master and Slave to  answer many of these question along with provide insight on relationship between two groups and how they are co-dependant but do not seem so from the surface. Hegel digs deeper into the question is many ways showing the various stages of finding who we are (recognition). Hegel questions the paradox of the self conscious. On one hand, it exists in itself, primarily for itself, while on the other hand, self-consciousness exists only is the has been created by recognition of another. A sense of self is recognized by one but it is an idea that we all have and we created for ourselves. He answers what pure self consciousness is in 3 different way noting that each one does not end, yet it is a cycle. Hegel uses Dialectic of Master and Slave as his example of understanding this concept. He brings to light how it may seem the master may have a better sense of self, more so than the slave but just the opposite is it was really takes place. However, neither have true self recognition. The author of the essay describes 4 insights to Hegel’s work. All of which describe what the definition of true recognition is. As you read further into the piece, you will come to see similarities in the struggle with that of the like of Socrates and Martin Luther King Jr. However, in this work, the struggle is to find what true recognition and self consciousness is for you, the individual.

Read the parts you didn’t understand again… I did and it was helpful. When you re-read it and slow it down, it makes much more sense.

 As you read, ask yourself the following questions: (I did!)

1.       What is your personal definition of ‘self’ and is it dependant on others thinking/influence?

2.       Is your definition of recognition or self defined by nature (were you born with it?) or by societal influence (was it bestowed upon you by the culture or society you live in?)

My questions for the class are:

What historical facts does King use of to illustrate his reasoning for going forward with the fight for equality?

Keeping last week’s readings on myth and cultural stories in mind, do you think that King’s use of historical references in the letter his way of re-telling the cultural “story” of the United States? Why or why not?

Related Links
http://www.thekingcenter.org/mlk/legacy.html