Why Does It Matter?

On May 21, 2011 more hoi polloi round the world prepared themselves for what was accepted going to be their last day on earth. According to a man by the name of Harold Camping, by 6 pm on May 21st, the world was supposed to have experienced a reverend earthquake thus preceding The Rapture, and it seems as though people around the world spend their last days on earth doing many different subjects. This al unmatchable shows what values we respect and how we view them. Harold Camping had concocted many heinous math equation that led him to publicize his fourth prediction.Although the mensuration of thought and research he put behind his Christian instinct was impressive all he managed to do was create a moment of desperation for those of us who lead a sinful feeling, and a glum ray of hope for those who cling to the prophetic words of people like, Harold Camping. As nonpareil privy imagine, the last few days have been determined by the predicted end of the world, and thro ugh outlets much(prenominal) as Twitter, Live Journal, and Facebook, stories of how people washed-out their last days have surfaced.Some people thought it would be a great composition to spend their life savings or their childrens college funds, some people spent the day fulfilling their goals and dream, others just spent the past few days locked in and repenting, and the rest either didnt care or forgot. All these crazy fear-based decisions lead to a piddling list of much greater and loaded questions Is it worth it? Does it matter? and wherefore does it matter? Of course these are questions that fall under the category of The consequence of Life, and are virtually impossible to reply to, merely everyone should be authorise to possess their own educated opinion, right?In Thomas Nagels bear witness The Absurd he raises some interesting, but conflicting arguments toward lifes absurdity. In his very complicated essay of thinking(prenominal)izations, he basically presents us w ith the 3 main reasons why life could be cerebrateed absurd 1) Whatever we do now leave non go the world in the future, so why does it matter? 2) We are continuously considered small when compared with the universe, and our lives considered short, so why do we matter? 3) Our actions have no purposeful end, so why do they matter?Nagel tries to justify his statements, but in the end his statements contradict his points, and this could even be summarized in one simple explanation. If you will not be around in the undermentioned 1 million years, how could you or anybody else judge peoples actions to determine if whether or not they infinitely matter or not matter. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, existentialist philosophy is considered a philosophical theory or approach which emphasizes the existence of the separate person as a free and responsible agent find out their own development through acts of the will (Oxford).Within this reasoning is what Nagel based his ess ay on, but as black and white as this may seem, many other factors should be calculated when trying to determine whether or not existentialism is rational. Without delving as well as far into the topic of religion, the question about the worship of certain issues still lies on the table. When trying to find a religiously ambiguous debate against existentialism one of the most important questions to consider would be In a world in which we act on impulse without the fear of repercussion, how would our feelings as human race beings factor into our decisions?As keen-sighted as there has been the existence of humans on this earth, it would probably practiced to assume that there has also been the existence of feelings among the people. Feelings are probably the one impulse that humans find the most difficult to quell in their everyday lives, and from personal experience, one of the most pleasantly intrusive aspects of human life. Although this might be debatable, the statement prev ious to the latter is not. In her 1970s book Never in Anger Portrait of an Eskimo Family, Professor dungaree L.Briggs studied the Utkuhikhalingmiut (Utku) Eskimos of the Canadian Northwest Territories. In this tribe she found that ira and aggression was extremely rare. Briggs suggests that even in circumstances that we would find intolerably frustrating or offensive, the Utku do not get angry. Where we would be rebellious or even furious, the Utku are merely resigned. Anger is an unreasonable result (qtd. By Solomon). Even in instances such as these, the Eskimo are in a way brainwashed from a young age in order to lead this harmonious life, and even then they lose their cool.As inform by a fellow anthropologist ,by the name of Catherine Lutz, among the Ifaluk of Micronesia, the most serious hap of aggression last year, was when one man touched anothers shoulder. He was subjected to a severe fine, a reasonable penalty for extremely unreasonable demeanour No matter what one tri es to do feeling will ever resurface and affect our judgment whether we mean to or not. Its plainly just part of the way we were made and will always endure that way.To argue that someone could easily discard their feeling and act strictly on impulse would be an ignorant statement. When talking about the tenability as opposed to the morality of a situation it then becomes a little bit more tricky because as Robert Rorty makes a grand job in pointing out, who rouse define rationality? In unity with his characteristic nominalism, that rationality is not a thing, to be Socratically defined or characterized in any singular way.I would say that it is one of those essentially repugn concepts of philosophy (like freedom, truth, and justice) which plays a primarily polemical as salubrious as a normative role in our conversations, despite the descriptive characterizations that are readily available in behavioral theory and the cordial sciences. The question is how the term is being used in any busy context and what distinctions are being made for often the real communicate is political and not merely conceptual and conveyed only by implication. (qtd.By Solomon) With arguments such as this one it brings us back to the original debate. Who is to decide what is rational? For one person might think something is a great idea when in reality it might not be, but at the alike(p) time still remain it remains a decisions in which it will not tip the scale in either moral direction. As we probably could assume from the beginning, these questions are probably best if left unanswered. They complexity of trying to find the true meaning of life is far too great a task for someone of our caliber to judge.The best thing that we can do as a society is stick unitedly and apply our best traits to create a harmonious place for us to develop and live in. The one thing that is irrefutable would have to be the undeniable fact that if we live our lives in the best way we can wh ile making the best decisions within societys judgment, we cant really go wrong, and if Nagel had one thing right, it was that our time on this earth is short, so we might as well take benefit of the things weve been blessed with and live life to the fullest.