University of Massachusetts Boston Paper 2 Topics: Meaning of Life Seminar –

Thursday PHL 207G-01C – Spring 2022

Instructions and Due Date Final Version Due Date: Tuesday, April 5, 6pm Draft Due Date: Friday, April 1, 6pm. This is a hard deadline. Do not expect or request an extension on this deadline. If you did not submit a draft for the first paper, then you must submit a draft for this paper. Failure to submit a draft by the deadline may result in a penalty for your paper grade. While it may be possible to accept your final version late due to extenuating circumstances, no drafts accepted after deadline for any reason. Please do not email late drafts to evade this requirement. Also, do not send pdf documents. Convert all documents to word doc/docx or rtf format. It is in your interest that I spend time assessing your paper rather than converting the document. Re-visit the tips for writing philosophy papers (posted on Blackboard). Submit a paper on one of the following topics. In these questions you are asked to state and explain the author’s views on the subject. You are also asked to spend at least one of the pages explaining and defending your own view of the matter. Accuracy, clarity, and evidence of careful thinking, as well as the cogency of your position are the crucial features in these essays. If you intend to submit this paper for WPE consideration, ensure that you spend enough space showing your understanding of the central concepts without resorting to mere paraphrase or summary. Be sure to use quotations to support your interpretation of the authors, where appropriate.

Question 1. Analyze why Schopenhauer interprets life as amounting to suffering, and what he believes makes life more insufferable. Why does Schopenhauer think that suffering outweighs pleasure in life? Why does Schopenhauer reject God as a source of meaning in life? Why does he think that love is not capable of providing meaning either? If life is as meaningless as he intimates, does he think that suicide is an appropriate choice? Why or why not? What advice does Schopenhauer offer in terms of trying to inhabit a world with such woes? What arguments could one

use to challenge him? Where do you stand on Schopenhauer’s views, and why? Be sure to use concrete example to illustrate your points. Question 2. Explain Moritz Schlick’s position with regard to the meaning of life, and in particular his attitude toward “goal-oriented” approaches to life. Does he think that the struggle to survive amounts to a meaningful existence? Why or why not? What does he borrow from Nietzsche in responding to Schopenhauer? What is the centrality of play in Schlick’s outlook, and why is his distinction between pleasure and joy important in this regard? What is Schlick’s attitude towards the modern world? Do you agree with his approach in this regard? What might be some of the challenges in living in accordance with his perspective on the meaning of life? Question 3. Why does Albert Camus think the question of the meaning of life is so urgent? Why does Camus think that life is objectively meaningless, and delve into what he means by “the absurd.” Why does the experience of the “absurd” raise the topic of suicide in Camus’ estimation? Explain how Camus defends revolt as an alternative to suicide or faith (and how does this link to the significance of the book title “The Myth of Sisyphus?). What are the ramifications for religion if Camus’ position is on the mark? In what way does Camus ultimately see the lack of meaning as a positive phenomenon? What do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of Camus’ stance? (Be sure to defend your responses) Question 4. How does Kurt Baier believe that science and religion respond to the question “Why is there a world at all rather than nothing?” Which approach does he favor, and why? What does he see as the difficulties of the view he rejects? Why is Baier not disturbed by the notion that the cosmos and ourselves originated out of purposeless, natural forces? What counts as a worthwhile life in Baier’s estimation? Is Baier’s stance convincing? Why or why not? (Make sure to defend your responses). Question 5. Evaluate how Richard Taylor uses the ancient myth of Sisyphus to explore whether life is meaningless. How does Taylor reinvent the myth of Sisyphus in order to get readers to think about life differently? Does Taylor think that we need an afterlife or God to render life meaningful? Why or why not? In Taylor’s eyes, what does make life meaningful and why does he interpret it as superior to views that he rejects? What do you see as the strengths and pitfalls of his position and why?

Question 6. How does Nagel explore the so-called absurdity of human existence? Why does Nagel criticize Camus’ responses to the phenomenon of absurdity? Making sure to explain what Nagel means by self-fulfillment, how does he think it helps to get around the notion of meaninglessness? How can self-fulfillment be attained to a greater degree in Nagel’s estimation? How can self-fulfillment be squandered? Can self-fulfillment make life worth living even in the face of absurdity (as Nagel contends)? Why or why not? Question 7. Explore E.D Klemke’s reasons for challenging transcendental sources of meaning. Are his arguments convincing? Why or why not? How does Klemke defend the notion that life can still be worthwhile if it appears to lack objective meaning? Why does Klemke champion subjective meaning over objective meaning? In your estimation, can subjective meanings be enough to make for a meaningful life? Why or why not? (Be sure to use some concrete examples to make your case). Question 8. Both Viktor Frankl and bell hooks highlight the importance of love in the search for meaning. Compare and contrast how they tie love into meaning. Make sure to explain what both thinkers define as love. What do you see as a strength and a pitfall regarding their perspectives? Do you think the modern United States presents any obstacles to such visions of love? Why or why not? Do you see love as crucial for living a meaningful life? Why or why not? Question 9. Using her essay "Love as the Practice of Freedom", compare and contrast bell hooks' notions of the "systems of domination" and "the ethic of love." (make sure to define both phrases) Extrapolate why she believes systems of domination threaten meaning while the ethic of love enhances meaning. In her estimation, why do systems of domination threaten love? How does she wield examples from history to make her case? Do you think we can stand to learn anything from bell hooks' vision during the turbulent times of 2020 and if so what? Can her stance be incorporated into practice in the current day? What do you perceive to be the strengths and pitfalls of her position and why? Question 10. Imagine you are at a café and your friend asks you about your Meaning of Life class at UMB. You tell her about bell hooks and her key ideas in her essay "Love as the Practice of Freedom." (make sure to cover the key concepts, especially "systems of domination" and "the ethic of love"–delving into what they mean and

why they provide meaning). Explore in your conversation how love adds meaning while domination detracts from it. And banter about how her ideas could be applied to the tumultuous times of 2022. Your friend raises skeptical challenges about whether hooks' ideas could really operate and their merits. Do you defend hooks or side with your friend's skepticism? Take the conversation where it goes! (and weave in a few real quotes from hooks) Question 11. Using Man’s Search For Meaning as your main launching pad, explore Frankl’s central claims about the meaning of life topic. Analyze some of the different elements of what he argues can add meaning and how he uses examples to illustrate his line of thinking. What are some of the possible strengths and pitfalls of his position and why? Ultimately do you tend to agree or disagree with his position and why? Question 12. Imagine you have a dialogue in a café and you discuss Frankl's key ideas with a friend who then raises skeptical challenges to his ideas and you explain where you stand and why.