"The Absurd" by Thomas Nagel

[@OH-fq9by]

mate your an absolute hero, was struggling to properly understand nagel until i watched this video. absolute legend

[@aysenur6761]

I just read The Absurd and the video totally helped me to comprehend more. Thanks a lot Matt!

[@MattDeatonPhD]

My pleasure :) Thanks for your interest in philosophy!

[@xuzhi892]

We have the same name brother. Thanks for helping me with my school work

[@MattDeatonPhD]

You're very welcome, Matt. Happy philosophizing!

[@samurai6613]

I was preparing for my philosophy exam, and this video clutched. Thank you so much!

[@savannahpatterson9384]

This is quite insightful!

[@alexhui7208]

I really enjoyed the summery of article and your explanation :)

[@MattDeatonPhD]

My pleasure, Allen. So glad you found the vid useful.

[@emilgarbrechtbrodersen7886]

I learned more in these 12. min, than 2 years of schooling. Thanks you :-)

[@MattDeatonPhD]

My pleasure, EG! There's lots of cool philosophy stuff out there. Some will resonate, some won't. But it's definitely worth a look.

[@MattDeatonPhD]

@@emilgarbrechtbrodersen7886 Awesome, and thanks for the kind words. What's your article about?

[@ghasemahmadi3616]

My great great grandma is just a dream... I dont even know who she was. She never existed. Same will go for me in a century or so. Same for you too dear friend

[@MattDeatonPhD]

There's hope that we'll unite in an afterlife, James... But then the people we wanted to forget, we won't be able to :) Either way, all we know for sure is this life, now. And so Nagel reminds us to make the most of it, with humility and a smile. Thanks so much for your contribution, and hoping you're having an excellent 2020 (considering).

[@msimp0108]

I always already never existed. THANK GOD!

[@christostatsispsychologist]

A lovely video, thanks! You helped clear up some of my confusion with his paper. I like the conclusion Nagel comes to; we do not need to face the absurd with despair or scorn (as Camus may argue for), but simply acknowledge it as a part of human nature, and appreciate our efforts as ironic. Nagel's definition of the absurd seems very similar to Camus: the relationship between the seriousness of man's subjective endeavours(a desire for meaning) and their lack of importance objectively (the indifference of the universe). He seems to differ from Camus in that final regard, however I'm not sure how to properly articulate Nagel's position. He doesn't seem to appeal to the silence of the universe as the second part of the absurd relationship, rather just a lack of meaning in our endeavours under close scrutiny I find most interesting his conception of the absurd as not a result of our relative smallness in comparison to the universe, or whether what we do now will matter in the far future. I believe his conception is that the absurd stems from our serious nature regarding our endeavours, when in fact under close scrutiny nothing is meaningful in the larger sense, a point of view "from which the seriousness appears gratuitous." These are just me formulating my own thoughts! Thanks again for the video Matt :)

[@MattDeatonPhD]

My pleasure, Christos! Thanks for your elaborations and additions -- cool contrast with Camus. (I've read The Plague, but never studied him carefully.)

[@tonymejorado2185]

what does nagel mean by saying " can there really be something which gives point to everything else by encompassing it, but which couldn't have,or need, any point itself

[@MattDeatonPhD]

Tony, I believe there Nagel’s saying, “If individual human lives are ultimately pretty pointless (because they’re so short and their impact so limited), then how can doing things that benefit other human lives (resolving global warming, inventing an ice cream glove, finding a vaccine for COVID-19) be meaningful? Answer: they can’t. If X doesn’t generate meaningful value, then helping a whole bunch of X wouldn’t generate meaningful value, either.”

[@luketa04]

@@MattDeatonPhD How long should something endure in order to be considered meaningful? doesn't the fact tat it is or it was meaningful in this very moment grants it pass on the meaningfulness of life?

[@MattDeatonPhD]

@@luketa04 Meaningfulness would seem to come in degrees, and depend on the nature, size and longevity of an action or person's impact. Nagel's point is that whatever our impact, it's not nearly substantial enough to warrant our too-often grave concern. For example, ten minutes ago I hung a towel holder in my family's new camper. Then I stepped back, critiqued it, and noticing that it wasn't perfectly straight, became frustrated. "Dammit," I thought. "I'm going to be reminded of that mistake every time we use this camper. A brand new camper, now mared with an uneven towel holder..." But responding to you here and reconsidering Nagel's advice reminded me to relax and take stuff in stride, and now that crooked towel holder can hereby kiss my ass :D I like crooked stuff. It looks better that way...

[@luketa04]

@@MattDeatonPhD okay...so he is critiquing more our internal stance towards the facts that the absurd provides us...?

[@MattDeatonPhD]

@@luketa04 Our internal stance. The absurdity is how seriously we take ultimately superficial things, all the while realizing they're superficial. We forget and fret the small stuff (like our lawns, patio chairs, towel holders), but should know better. Mayflies, on the other hand, aren't smart enough to know better, and so at least their meaningless lives aren't also absurd.

[@NGEternal]

My favorite bit from the article is this part and the part that comes after it: "Before turning to the question whether the absurdity of our lives is something to be regretted and if possible escaped, let me consider what would have to be given up in order to avoid it." Namely, Nagel talks about how the thing that would need to be given up is our capacity for self-consciousness. You touch on this in the video, but the way I interpreted this bit, specifically, is that a world which you are aware of is thus _fundamentally_ absurd. I.e. there is no way to be "transcendentally" conscious as humans are and not face this paradox of absurdity. This puts me at ease, because it suggests there is as yet something we do not understand about conscious reality---or at least something I do not understand yet (intuitively/experientially). It's like Nagel says, is this even a problem? It makes me feel like it really is less of a problem if it is indeed fundamental. The burden of consciousness, for now, is that we have no idea where it came from and yet we're all but tasked with answering that question. It's like this burden follows directly from the capacity to recognize it. So in a sense the answer might be that there is no answer, that it is not a problem. If this is a facet of consciousness, so be it. I'll take that psychic tension.

[@MattDeatonPhD]

Yes, given our circumstances, awareness and reflection do seem to lead to that conclusion. To fully escape it, we'd either need different circumstances or diminished awareness. And so given how much we value reflecting, we'll just go ahead and do it absurdly :)

[@AttilaM-p6x]

Thank you. If I understand you correctly, Nagel wants an intellectually honest way to take life seriously. His argument in "The Absurd" is that even if we can't fill our lives with a sense of meaning, that doesn't mean our lives must feel empty. Instead, we can fill our lives with the feeling of irony. So a lighthearted, ironical attitude is the one that is reasonable to adopt. Someone who wants to have an objective meaning to life may not accept the above. But, they could use it as a fallback option. Even if they try to seek a meaning but fail, the worst case scenario is that they end up with Nagel's lighthearted ironical attitude for life, rather than despair. So it's justified to still keep looking for a meaning, and use this as a safety net. What do you think? I'd be very happy to read a response. Have a nice week.

[@jaegonekim]

How did you film this video? Liked and subscribed!

[@MattDeatonPhD]

Like this :) kzbin.info/www/bejne/q3WuXp2CaL19ms0

[@mazorine]

Subscribed for the accent ngl

[@MattDeatonPhD]

Courtesy of East Tennessee :-)

[@raymondnewton2388]

Being remembered is of little use when you're dead.

[@markgordon5266]

The ancient Greeks would disagree, but then again, they're dead, too.

[@joshuabuyogan1505]

A reading for my Philosophy class led me here because I am unable to fully understand Nagel's article. Thanks for this extremely helpful video!

[@MattDeatonPhD]

Glad I could help, Josh -- thanks for stopping by.

[@msimp0108]

Nothing could be more absurd than reflecting on the absurd.

[@MattDeatonPhD]

Except reflecting on the absurdity of reflecting on the absurd ;)

[@msimp0108]

@@MattDeatonPhD uh oh. I sense an infinitely absurd infinite egress.

[@MattDeatonPhD]

@@msimp0108 Indeed! I get trapped there every time :D

[@rusirumunasinghe7354]

So it all boils down to “don’t worry too much”? Because if one keeps on questioning the absurdity we see how useless and empty everything is, I mean is it really worth it to keep living in that shallow state? It kind of sounds to me like shutting down one’s eyes to escape from the horrors that exist in front of him.

[@MattDeatonPhD]

An, think of it this way. One could accept Nagel's premises and take the despair route. But I think his encouragement is this: "Human life is what it is -- short, not especially impactful or important. It aint much, but it's also all we've got. So embrace and enjoy it! Take it seriously (because we can't help but take it seriously -- that's the absurdity). But not TOO seriously :-)"

[@markgordon5266]

@@MattDeatonPhD I think this is where Epicurus got it right, and where our sense of irony comes in handy, and where the Marx Brothers absolutely nailed it.

[@MissHappyKate]

There is no subject. NO subject. There are no people in the world. There's just 'What's Happening' / 'What Is' / 'This'. An appearance. There's nothing behind it, it's an empty appearance full of everything. No-thing AND Everything. (**not be interpreted as 'a' no-thing (subject),..it's simply ''No-thing-Everythinging ''...no duality , Emptiness-Everythinging, no duality. There's seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, sensations, and thoughts simply happening - but not to/for anyone. 'Me' is only a thought. Any and all references to 'me' is only ever a thought. And always, always in the past or the future...never Here, Now...the only placeless place where life is actually happening. [[This constantly, up to 18 hours a day being in thoughts of the past and future creates that lifelong underlying feeling of unease and fear we all suffer from, because......life is only ever happening here, now and we're never present to it.]] The 'me' appears sometime from about 18 months of life on wards due to consistently being taught, conditioned-into-believing we are Jack / Jill, a separate 'entity' /thing, and being taught, conditioned into believing everything else is separate. And especially being thought to give out attention every waking hour to the 'Everything' of the appearance, and never, ever!.. to the No-thing' of the appearance. As the 'me' gets stronger an illusion of a contraction happens in the body and sights, sounds, taste, sensations, smells and thoughts change from just happening,....to happening to 'me'. --> I (subject) hear that sound (object). I see that bird. I taste food...etc. I (subject) thought of Jill's birthday (object) . But that's not true, that is not our actual experience. There is no subject hearing an object. Sound and hearing happen simultaneously. Sound-hearing . There is no separation. Taste-flavour happen simultaneously. Seeing-bird is one happening. That's all undeniable. And of course thoughts have already occurred seconds before we even notice them and claim we thought the thoughts. We do not create our own thoughts.. thoughts arise, there's no 'we' / 'person' inside thinking them. Absolute unquestioned belief in our 'me' is what creates ALL problems and suffering. // Without language there could never be thoughts. That's absolutely undeniable too. So, without language the (illusion of) me could never have been created. Without language we could never have been taught and conditioned into believing we are separate entities...and so there would only be seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling and sensations happening.....to no one. (Which is what's actually happening anyway,.. because there is genuinely no 'we', 'me', there is no one, no persons in the world.) Life is an appearance (an empty appearance), it is appearing....but the 'me' is a total illusion, it's absolutely not real at all. {{Scientists will never find out what 'This' is, because there is 'no one', there's no subject (or object}}) The 'me' is only a construct of thought. What is constructed can be dissolved. Once dissolved life is seen for the first time As-It-Is, as it really is. Wow! The 'me' has dropped for thousands and thousands. If you're interested in listening to some of them talk about how it happened you can do so here: kzbin.infovideos Jim Newman, non-duality is super brilliant at explaining 'This', ''What Is' and the illusion of 'me', but he's pretty hard to understand as a beginner.

[@MattDeatonPhD]

Sure there's a subject. I don’t know about you, but it certainly *feels* as if there’s truly a *me* here reading this post, pondering a reply, deciding what to say, typing, reviewing, revising and sharing. From my first-person perspective (and I suspect from yours as well), these aren’t simply events happening. I’m not only watching, but involved, choosing, acting, driving. So not only does it seem that there are observers separate from, while at the same time contained within, existence (namely, you and I), we’re actively causing many of them to happen. I’ve read Eastern arguments about how the self is an illusion and we’re all part of one collective consciousness. And when I meditate (and actually do it correctly), the self does drift into the background. But mind-quieting and identity-denial are two separate things, with the former not necessarily entailing the other. Settling our monkey mind chatter doesn’t show that there’s no “I” here. I just shows that “I” have different layers, and my most cerebral, advanced, and possibly most genuine/best self isn’t as burdened by superficial worries, physical drives or bad habits. However, I’m not an expert, just some dude 😊 Thanks for your contribution to the discussion!

[@MissHappyKate]

@@MattDeatonPhD Thanks Matt. For 4,500 years, since the Vedas it's been known there is no subject. Scientists have now 'confirmed' we do not create our own thoughts. Everything you wrote in your reply was only conditioned thoughts (beliefs, opinions, information) that arose automatically in the appearance of Matt. 'You' didn't think them. If 'you' do create your own thoughts 1.) why would you ever choose to create negative thoughts that bring you down, and 2.) how come you can't choose to think of something you don't already know. Go ahead, think of something, anything you don't already know. You can't, because all that's ever happened in the appearance of Matt your whole life, in response to stimuli is simply automatic 'reactions' arising from your conditioning (up to that date). Also, all references to yourself, to 'Matt' in your response, every one of your references was only one of your conditioned thoughts, written down. As I was saying initially the 'me' cannot be found *except-in-reference-to-thought. Quote: ''.....but it certainly 'feels' as if there’s truly a 'me' here reading this post, pondering a reply, deciding what to say, typing, reviewing, revising and sharing....'' unquote. Everything you wrote there is simply conditioned thoughts. That's undeniable, and certainly does nothing to prove 'Matt' exists. Sensations arise - yes. 'Me', which is a thought, arises and claims the sensations, owns the sensations and puts meaning to them, E.g...a sensation of hunger arises, possibly followed by the thought I'm hungry. I'm hungry is simply a thought....no prove at all that there's a subject. Take language out of the picture and there cannot be thoughts, without thoughts there is no way to claim life is happening to a 'me'. There is no way for there to be 'other', 'other' people, nations, races, countries...that's all made up by language. That's undeniable. Life is simply happening, to no-one. Without language if the sensation of hunger arises, a move towards food would happen. The latest model of a car passes, that's simply seen. 'Matt' might claim he's seeing the car, but that's just a thought. A feeling of want, aspiration might arise, Matt might claim those feelings are 'his' feelings....that's just a thought. There are no subjects. There is no subject. There are thoughts about a subject, and there's attributing sensations and feelings to be a subject, but no subject. Cheers. :-)

[@MattDeatonPhD]

​@@MissHappyKate Thanks for the thoughtful engagement. If by denying the existence of subjects you're suggesting that there are no separate, observing entities, that seems obviously false. You have a perspective, I have a perspective, and while we can communicate and even empathize with one another, your perception and lived experience is separate from mine. I'm seeing my screen, a coffee cup, a manilla folder and glasses in the foreground, sunlight shining in from the side, etc. You're seeing these words, plus whatever's in your environment. Our separate experienced views constitute separate consciousnesses, separate identities, and therefore separate subjectivities, linked to separate subjects. Or at least that's what I take "subject" to mean -- at root, an observer. Note how being an observer, and therefore a subject, doesn't require language. I would use my dog Buddy as an example, but he actually recognizes a few words. So consider a mouse. No language (certainly no complex language), but a nervous system similar enough to our own to assume that mice perceive the world in a consciousness in the same way (or at least a similar enough way) as we do. Another example: What's the fastest way to get to your bathroom? Before you began to explain the path with words ("Down this hallway, 2nd door on the left..."), your mind's eye is likely visualizing the path. Thus, not only observation, but thought, and not only thought, but thought without language. That mouse could of course do the same, especially if it had learned to run one of those cool lab mazes. Last, the question of free will vs. determination is a good one, but it doesn't seem to be necessary to address the question of whether subjects exist, unless we build free will into our definition of subjects. I don't see why we have to do that -- can imagine an entity with a sophisticated enough neural network to be able to fully observe stuff and even enjoy the experience of contemplating thoughts (and therefore be a subject), that might upon examination have its thought processes traced to predictable biological/chemical/physical reactions, undermining the possibility of a meaningfully free will. And on free will, that's not a subject I've studied in depth, so won't pretend to understand more than I do. But I do agree with Kant that even if we don't have conclusive reason to conclude that we possess it, it would still be personally beneficial to behave (and attempt to believe) as if we do. (Determinism is just so depressing!) But just because scientists can observe the biochemical processes that precede conscious thoughts doesn't mean the thoughts aren't our own, aren't generated from what we experience as our direct subjective selves, etc. The subconscious is a vast, complicated thing, and if Tim Crane's correct, contains a mess of half-understood contradictions. But this doesn't preclude the possibility of reflective decision-making, which, if nothing else, would at least seem more free than operating on instinct. Thinking about this makes me realize I should really look further into the whole free will thing... though from what I remember, simply defining free will presents a dilemma. It can't = randomness, for will implies authorship and control, which is the opposite of randomness. However, your point is that what we perceive as decisions are actually the unavoidable product of underlying natural forces -- even if emerging from me, not something that "I" can claim as meaningfully chosen. My point is that even if we can't conclusively show that what we experience as free decisions are genuinely free (in part because even defining free will is itself illusive), this doesn't undermine the belief that the world is full of billions of actively perceiving (and possibly choosing) subjects.

[@MissHappyKate]

@@MattDeatonPhD Hi Matt, thanks again. I literally never get in to discussions. On a rare occasion I'll drop a loaded comment for no other reason than it may resonate with someone,..which would then instinctively prompt an urge in them to find out more about the 'me' being an illusion, an urge to want to find out how, and if it's possible to undo conditioning / the 'me'. It's really not my intention to prompt a discussion about the 'me' being real or not. Oh dear. Sorry! To continue the discussion I'd only repeat what I've already said as there isn't a resonance, it's going over your head. You mentioned lots of 'things',...people/separate entities, mouse, dog, you/Matt, manilla folder, thoughts, laptop screen, thought images, sunlight, glasses, 'the 'me', but not a word about the undeniable boundless Emptiness that you were surrounded by, limitless in all directions. You completely overlooked it because, ,,as I was saying there in my first post,,, from the time we are born we are conditioned into giving our entire attention to the coming and going, to ever-changing 'things'. We are never taught to give any attention whatsoever to Emptiness, the always here, never changing No-Thing. The Emptiness you're in now, reading this, is the very same Emptiness that's here in this room I'm in now, in Ireland. The same emptiness here the day you were born, and when the Egyptians, Romans, Jesus, Buddha and dinosaurs walked the earth. The very same emptiness Neil Armstrong landed in, and so on. All things come and go and constantly change but Emptiness never comes and goes...it's unmoving. It's eternally here. All things are in Emptiness. All things are 'made of' Emptiness. / / There's simply Emptiness-Everything-ing, And anything can happen in that. Anything. Including the 'feeling' there's a 'me'. Call it No-Thing if you prefer. 'Unchanging No-Thing' appearing as 'Always-Changing-Everything.' That's what's looking out of all eyes. No-Thing/Emptiness is looking out of your eyes, looking out of mine, your dog's eyes, the eyes of a mouse and all apparently separate people. But only apparently, there's no separation. There is no duality. // You feel there's really a 'me' , an entity (and other entities, separation) because it was drummed in to you when you were a child. From then and as a adult giving all of your attention to 'me' and thoughts is what sustains the illusion. There's no denying the 'me' feels real and yes everyone lives by it, operates as if it's real..and just look at the horrific state of the world because of that false belief. Belief the 'me' is real is the cause of all suffering, wars, hate,...etc. (The appearance ...the world, people, animals...etc..is actually happening, the 'me' is a complete illusion.) . Why not try to find out. The 'me' is not a constant, it's always, always changing it's likes, dislikes, wants, hates, opinions, beliefs...etc,. How can something so changing be real. When someone says 'I hate myself' Whose the 'I' and whose the 'myself' the 'I' hates. How can there be two selves. Is there an unchanging, unaffected-by-anything 'I', and a moody, always changing, always wanting, fear-filled 'me'. Which one of those two could real. If there's an 'I' that knows a 'me'....one of them must be fake. Which. There can't be two real selves, one has to be fake. // Maybe some time give your attention to the undeniable unchanging Emptiness you're surrounded by and your body/mind is made up of. Next time you meditate, how about mediating completely on the Emptiness you're surrounded by, or on the Emptiness of the body, see if you can feel the lightness of being. Don't close your eyes. Keep them open but relax your focus. Everything in front of you and at both sides should be in your vision but you're not focused on any one thing. And,/or perhaps check out some non-duality by many different people to see if any one in particular resonates with you. There are thousands and thousand of books, and hundreds of talks on utube. If and when it resonates with you nothing will interest you like this will. There's nothing more worth finding out the truth about in life. I'll bow out for now Matt and I wish you the very best. Cheers, Catherine. :-)

[@cavy369]

@@MattDeatonPhD i think all they meant is that the perception/perspective you believe you hold is just a mechanism. The feeling of 'you' is just a dream/an illusion.

[@keramatebrahimi943]

Since death is the ultimate end,then suppose you are dead right now,and since you exist then enjoy your life.reorder your patio furniture.

[@MattDeatonPhD]

Contemplating our inevitable bodily death does indeed help us better appreciate being alive. Our window on Earth may be brief. But its brevity amplifies every moment's value. P.S. I rearranged patio furniture just yesterday (really!!!). Stop spying on me...

[@luistirado6305]

I agree with most of what Nagel says, but his criticism that he has regarding engaging in politics can be self-defeating. I'm sure that Nagel believes in the notion of political fairness, or at least equal status under the law. By dismissing politics entirely you end up letting those in positions of power continue to subject the population to conditions of subordination. At least when there is some resistance to that power, people tend to enjoy their lives better because they maintain a degree of life-affirming rights and liberties.

[@MattDeatonPhD]

I think you're right, Luis. I don't know much about Nagel personally, but it makes sense that he'd support maintaining enough political space and personal freedom for folks to live their lives as they see fit. In fact, he was probably arguing, and I was definitely parroting, from a position of relative peace, prosperity and advantage. Ultimately, his advice is to just not take any of it too terribly seriously. But that's easier to say when you're comfortable and secure.

[@VersanGetryx]

first

[@MattDeatonPhD]

Exactly.

[@williamcallahan5218]

The fly's life is not absurd because it is empty, empty of own sel. It appears dependently... Nagarjuna and boy did you get Buddhism wrong. The point of Buddhism is to facilitate the realization that there is no self.

[@cavy369]

Well Nagel clearly misunderstood the Buddhist way then

[@MattDeatonPhD]

Or maybe I misinterpreted Nagel :-) But if there's a plausible Buddhist response to what I took to be Nagel's critique of their approach to overcoming the absurdity, explanations are welcome. Either way, thanks for your interest!

[@cavy369]

@@MattDeatonPhD in short, relinquishing desire is not a disciplined series of events... You just do it! It's instantaneous - there's no fretting it. Check out Alan Watts' talks/videos on Buddhism for a more in-depth exploration of the Buddhist way

[@MattDeatonPhD]

@@cavy369 Watts is the man for sure :) I've tried the Buddhist way in this regard, agree that desire is the root of suffering, and have had limited success. But permanently letting go of all desire would seem to take some pretty concentrated effort. But I'll see what I can find from Watts -- thanks for the recommendation!

[@luketa04]

I would like more comments talking about this possible issue.

[@MattDeatonPhD]

@@luketa04 What are your initial thoughts on it?

[@glenhorn9453]

Realize that we are here to continue the work Jesus Christ to save the world from sin and Hell Fire! It is coming soon. Heaven is coming soon; we should be part of it. God says we are fearfully and wonderfully made. God saw this was good, (with purpose). We have purpose or we would not be here. We did not chose to be here on earth; God did! The devil does not want us to have purpose! To go to Hell, do nothing! Have no purpose. NO. We are here to win the lost from sin, and spend eternity with God! Job 38 must be read to atheists!

[@MattDeatonPhD]

Thanks for the encouragement, Glen. Cheers, Matt

[@ghasemahmadi3616]

Such a bullshi....