The existence of us is always questions by ourselves, no matter philosophers or ordinary people. In view of the meaning of life, Nagel and Grayling hold completely different views.
Nagel believes that life is pointless as a whole while Grayling thinks that the meaning of life is the meaning we give it, which varies from case to case.
First and foremost, Nagel points out that the meaning of life can only be found within our lives as there is no immortality of achievement. He adds that none of the justifications for the things we do within life clarify the point of our lives as a whole. He also remarks that the relational meaning does not equal the meaning of life as a whole. We, humans, are social animals which need self-validation from people surrounding us, so we usually have a strong tendency to present our importance
…show more content…
Nagel suspects that we can still ask for the point of religion when we are offered a religious answer to a phenomenon, just like the aforementioned case. He also has doubt about God acting as the ultimate justification of the meaning of life. This situation is a bit different from the case of the big bang. In creationism, God is the creator of all things in the world, and we are created to fulfill His purposes. Nevertheless, it does not matter that we are created only to fulfill His purposes. We are not the creator of ourselves, so we do not have the power and the right to alter the purposes of being created or made to life. Regarding to this powerlessness, we will eventually be made to achieve the purposes since our destinies have already been determined by God at the beginning. We should recognize and accomplish the value and meaning of life to ourselves and to the people related to us rather than to God within our limited life. If God really have reasons of creating lives, it is futile to attempt to discover it because we, humans, are obviously inferior to God and incapable of comprehending