Richard Taylor's The Meaning Of Life: Critical Analysis

downloadDownload
  • Words 1444
  • Pages 3
Download PDF

As people, we can’t understand a reality where our lives are lost and pointless, so we search for answers to this vulnerability by going to science, religion, and ourselves for answers. We are angled to accept that we were put here on Earth for an explanation regardless of how little it is. We have a desire to know why we were put here and if our lives have any importance at all. A few people acknowledge that our materialistic and shallow society have made our motivation or if nothing else, it’s helped shape it. However, I trust it originates from the inside.

In the content of “Meaning of life” by Richard Taylor, he offers the conversation starter ‘Does life have meaning?’, displaying his situation to be assured. Taylor proceeds to make his disagreement by utilizing a fantasy. For instance, the legend he utilizes is called Sisyphus, who is the option in contrast to people in his relationship. Taylor expresses that this question is for all scheme and purposes difficult to reply as no proof will, with sureness, comprehend the riddle. This is yet a vital proposition we have all posed to ourselves once or on various occasions sooner or later in our lives. Taylor starts his argument off by explaining what he thinks to be a meaningless existence consist of; it’s a cyclic routine that we follow every day that never amounts to anything (Taylor 677). He goes on to use the Sisyphus’ myth about a man that was condemned by the Gods to roll a boulder to the top of a hill over and over again for eternity. Sisyphus rolled the boulder up the hill to then have it roll back down by the end of the day, to then have to repeat his actions the next day and so forth. This life, Taylor states, to be what a meaningless existence consists of. His everyday actions lead nowhere and thus, make his life unimportant. If our everyday lives consisted of these meaningless cyclic repetitious activities, as Taylor says, then we, ourselves, won’t have meaning in life. Continuously, Taylor goes on to present a situation where maybe if Sisyphus was rolling the boulder up the hill to create something significant, for example, a temple. Then maybe that would make his life more meaningful. Following this concept, Taylor says that if the temples were destroyed Sisyphus’s life would then again be considered meaningless even after all his hard work. Taylor continues his argument by saying that if Sisyphus would not only enjoy the action of rolling a boulder but also not think of doing anything else that would fulfill him more than this action, than that, in turn, makes his life have meaning. Taylor portrays this feeling with a ‘drug’ Sisyphus was injected with that makes him love the task he is doing (Taylor 675-678). Therefore, what Taylor’s argument is stating is that there can be meaning in life if what you are doing is satisfying your desires and if what you want to do. Thus, saying that it is possible to find meaning in life, but it is needed to be found within oneself and had to be your choice and what you want in life. For example, if you come from a long line of lawyers and it’s a family job, you feel almost obligated to follow their path and become a lawyer even though your dream is to become a dancer. You are contributing to life and helping people, making himself meaningful to others, yet to himself, he feels as though there is no meaning. His real desires will not be fulfilled nor explored. He will be living in a life of repetitious routines just like Sisyphus’ meaningless existence.

Click to get a unique essay

Our writers can write you a new plagiarism-free essay on any topic

A good objection I found for Taylors argument is one found in an article called “The Good Cause Account of the Meaning of Life” by Aaron Smuts. In this article, Smuts agrees with the hypothesis expresses that ‘an individual’s life is important in ideals of and in respect to the measure of objective they’re unanticipated for.’ Although Smut agrees with Taylor that there can be meaning in life, he challenges Taylors argument on why and how meaning can be found or achieved. He at that point proceeds to contend that Taylor’s emotional hypothesis can prompt hazardous consequences to accept his disagreement. Smuts at that point gives the case of a ‘brutal torturer’ and clarifies that in the event that we applied Taylor’s viewpoint with their life as being important. There’s a little chance that this viewpoint was to be utilized. With that being said, additionally, you can state that somebody who causes hurt, had an additional impact in their life only to find that their activities fulfill their wants aside from somebody who had not caused anybody hurt. At this point they likely can’t discover an exit from Taylor’s horrible dull cycle. This model shows that occasionally the craving we people feel isn’t constantly significant or what gives our life meaning, chiefly if our activities brought about by want are hurting others.If this perspective were used, then you are saying that someone who causes harm, like a terrorist, has more meaning in their life just for the fact that their actions satisfy their desires than someone who had not caused anyone harm yet, they also can’t find a way out of Taylor’s vicious repetitious cycle. This example shows that sometimes the desire we humans feel is not always meaningful or what gives our life meaning, mainly if our actions caused by desire are harming others. If we were to agree with Taylor, then brutal torture has more meaning in life than the life of a person who is aspiring to cure cancer or any other deadly disease. The uncontrollable desire that a sadistic torturer has would, in theory, surpass those desires a doctor has to save lives. This example shows that in some cases the desires we have are not meaningful at all but hurtful towards others. According to Smuts what gives our life meaning is the good our actions do. The more legitimate we do, the better. If we are good people and our activities follow, while we are pursuing our dreams, then, in turn, we have a meaningful life. I believe that the argument is stronger than the objection because the meaning of life comes from within oneself, it is individualized and personal. Taylors argument reinforces the subjective theory, that meaning in life can be found in each of us; each human has different meanings in their lives as no one is going to have the same meaning of life because we all had encountered very different life experiences and differing opinions and goals. There are things one might believe are very life fulfilling and meaningful while others might think those same things are worthless.

The meaning of life comes from within us; it’s not some universal meaning of life people can achieve just by doing good deeds. That is why I believe the objection to be faulty to a certain extent. I do agree with some of what Smuts says, I do think that following our desires is what gives our life meaning, but I also agree that it depends on the actions we take to fulfill our desires. Even though I partly agree with Smuts, I’m more inclined to Taylor’s argument. I believe that the argument is stronger than the objection because the meaning of life comes from within oneself, it is individualized and personal. Taylors argument reinforces the subjective theory that meaning in life can be found in each of us; each human has different meanings in their lives as no one is going to have the same meaning of life because we have all had very different life experiences and differing opinions and goals. The meaning of our life does not come from someone else or can be changed by people, it is something that comes from deep within us that can only be modified by ourselves and if we choose to. Just like Sisyphus and how his life had meaning because he enjoyed the act of rolling the boulder repeatedly. By him being satisfied with himself and his actions, Sisyphus is happy with his life. It had nothing to do with if the boulder had a purpose, like a temple, or if it caused good or bad consequences because no matter what he found meaning in doing it. Even if he had harmed someone during his task, it wouldn’t have changed anything because he still enjoyed what he was doing. This view supports the notion of meaningfulness being individualized and not generalized to the masses.

image

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.