Why Does It Matter?

On May 21, 2011 publicy people rough the gracious beings prepared themselves for what was sure going to be their last daylight on earth. According to a man by the create of Harold Camping, by 6 pm on May 21st, the world was supposed to amaze experienced a grand earthquake thus preceding The Rapture, and it seems as though people around the world cash in unrivalleds chips their last eld on earth doing many different matters. This al angiotensin-converting enzyme shows what values we wish and how we view them. Harold Camping had concocted any(prenominal) heinous math equation that light-emitting diode him to publicize his fourth prediction.Although the amount of thought and research he project 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 life, and a false ray of hope for those who cling to the prefigurative words of people like, Harold Camping. As one can imagine, the last some day s shake off been driven by the predicted end of the world, and through 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 idea 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 barbaric fear-based decisions lead to a small list of much greater and load up questions Is it worth it? Does it matter? and Why does it matter? Of course these are questions that square up under the category of The Meaning of Life, and are virtually impossible to resolution to, but e preciseone should be entitled to possess their own educated opinion, serious?In Thomas Nagels es word The Absurd he raises some interesting, but conflicting arguments toward lifes absurdity. In his very complicated essay of rationalizations, he basically presents us with the 3 principal(prenominal) reasons why life could be considered absurd 1) Whatever we do straightaway get out non affect the world in the future, so why does it matter? 2) We are forever 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 plain be summarized in one simple explanation. If you will non be around in the next 1 million years, how could you or anybody else estimate peoples actions to determine if whether or not they infinitely matter or not matter. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, Existentialism is considered a philosophical theory or approach which emphasizes the cosmos of the individual person as a alleviate and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the wi ll (Oxford).Within this reasoning is what Nagel based his essay on, but as black and albumin as this may seem, many other factors should be calculated when nerve-wracking to determine whether or not existentialism is rational. Without delving too far into the guinea pig of religion, the question about the morality of certain issues still lies on the table. When seek to find a religiously ambiguous debate against existentialism one of the nigh 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 beings factor into our decisions?As long as there has been the existence of earth on this earth, it would in all likelihood safe to assume that there has also been the existence of feelings among the people. Feelings are probably the one impulse that humans find the to the highest degree difficult to quell in their everyday lives, and from personal experience, one of the most pleasantly intrusi ve aspects of human life. Although this might be debatable, the statement introductory to the latter is not. In her 1970s book Never in arouse Portrait of an Eskimo Family, Professor Jean L.Briggs studied the Utkuhikhalingmiut (Utku) Eskimos of the Canadian Northwest Territories. In this tribe she found that anger and aggression was extremely rare. Briggs suggests that redden in circumstances that we would find intolerably frustrating or offensive, the Utku do not get angry. Where we would be resentful or even furious, the Utku are only resigned. Anger is an unreasonable response (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 reported by a fellow anthropologist ,by the name of Catherine Lutz, among the Ifaluk of Micronesia, the most serious incident of aggression last year, was when one man touched anothers shoulder. He was subjected to a severe fine, a reasonable penalty for extremely unreasonable behavior No matter what one tries to do feeling will always resurface and affect our judgment whether we mean(a) to or not. Its simply just part of the way we were make and will always remain that way.To argue that somebody could easily tuck away their feeling and act purely on impulse would be an unbelieving statement. When talking about the rationality as opposed to the morality of a situation it then becomes a little bit more cunning because as Robert Rorty makes a wonderful job in pointing out, who can set apart rationality? In accordance 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 contested concepts of philosophy (like freedom, truth, and justice) which plays a to begin with polemical as well as a normative utilisation in our conversations, despite the descriptive characterizations that are readily available in behavioral theory and the social sciences. The question is how the term is being utilise in any particular context and what distinctions are being do for often the real message is political and not merely abstract and conveyed only by implication. (qtd.By Solomon) With arguments such as this one it brings us buttocks to the original debate. Who is to decide what is rational? For one person might animadvert something is a great idea when in reality it might not be, but at the same time still remain it the Great Compromiser 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 content 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 together 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 while making the best decisions indoors 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 advantage of the things weve been blessed with and live life to the fullest.