Does life have any interpretation? Keep tuned in because two philosophers attempted to answer this question for you and I. Soren Kierkegaard and Albert Camus both reviewed human existence, this is of life and the continuous battle to find answers on earth. Kierkegaard, also called the "dad of existentialism" focused on the Christian faith/doctrine with regards to the existence of God. His take on religion signifies his interest for ethics and then for human beings to identify God and practice what's being preached. Camus, who critiqued Kierkegaard's writing, had a different view about this is of life in which God/trust is not the ultimate. His strong opposition to loss of life is depicted in his writing because when there is life you can find hope. Both writers argued in a different way on whether life will probably be worth living and the several solutions that may lead one towards locating a meaningful life. Many might ask why people exist. I for just one, won't deny the actual fact that I sometimes question my presence. Who are we to find out that life is meaningless? If life is meaningless, why do humans work hard to live a life a legacy? Interpretation of meaninglessness of life also is determined by the respondents' religious upbringing. Usually are not can answer my question; could it be Kierkegaard, Camus or the Universe? Life can only be meaningless if we presume it meaningless; our frame of mind alive is what makes it meaningless. Saying that life is meaningless because we are affected and perish is a subjective affirmation. Many people lay claim to be enjoying life and often will declare even in their dying bedrooms that they have lived an extremely happy life. Both Kierkegaard and Camus have offered different explanations how to deal with a meaningless life; however, they both have their pros and cons, therefore, no solution are better than the other and cannot be perfect alone.
What constitutes a meaningful life? Why is life meaningless? It's important for one to exam what life provides before deciding on whether it is meaningless or not. Periodically we feel empty and offended by the entire world, but it does not mean that it is the end in our living even though we believe that way. Camus's justification and example is right because if I belief that life is "absurd" and not worth the hassle, I would be inclined to behave in a certain way (I'll live a life of carelessness since I know that I've nothing to lose) to make myself happy. Getting rid of oneself is "unfruitful" since there is no guarantee that there is delight after life or that life will eventually become meaningful. I believe in living life 1 day at the same time; we battle to seem sensible of the world but it keeps getting difficult even as we try. This action often makes us rebel from the world (we fundamentally give up anticipation) and seek out alternatives to our problem.
We stay in a constant status of conflict with the globe. This is of life must be understood in order to feel fulfilled by the globe. Because our company is born and thrown in to the world that offers no description of existence, we are still left to avenge for ourselves. We all have a feeling or eye-sight of what we wish the entire world to appear to be, but we get disappointed that the world cannot be molded to our own individual liking. Camus compares the human attempt to understand the world however the world itself can't be understood. The feeling of breached romance amongst the entire world and human beings is what he phone calls "absurd. " We are able to equally feel satisfied when the entire world has the same opinion as we do. On the other hand, when the globe is against us and is on the contrary way, we conclude that the world is not well worth living. The planet can be unreasonable, however, it links back to you humans alongside one another, hence we miss clarity to the irrational relationship we have with the globe.
Camus described three different ways man can are in an absurd world and still find interpretation in it: the life span of Don Juan, the drama life and the conquest life. The Don Juan life is a care free life; this is a life of here and today, a life with limit and no future. The life span of Don Juan is the kind of life that the majority of society would rather live, including me. I agree with Camus because there are people whose lifestyle is 'living in as soon as. " They do not live to find answers alive but live to meet immediate desire. People living the life of Don are self focused and they hinge only on their decision and wisdom because they do not put meaning in anything. They shoot for self benefit rather than for anything else. This type of life is one that is not guided by any moral code or do. It really is a care and attention free life where people are not worried about continuous common sense by the population or feelings of guilt for incorrect actions. Imagine a global without morals or without regulation I really believe a lot of folks would find it hard to cope. Although, regulations and morals can be found, living the life of Don Juan would produce no consequences. The quantity of life concerns in this kind of life because they are conscious and know about what they do, however the levels of fulfillment they get from such action is what matters. How effective are your activities and decisions on the planet? If what I do brings me pleasure and contentment, I am inclined to do the same thing to keep to receive the same pleasure. However, I believe at some point, such life can be lonesome because everything revolves around you only and change will be difficult.
The other way of living is the life of any actor. Living a life of an actor means that one has to literarily "put on" another lifestyle each day. The actor strives to live a life for others and thus represents lives apart from his own. Living such a life makes him absurd, a life with diversity and no specific purpose. I believe living a life of an actor is a way of finding oneself and a way of looking for clarity. I also believe people who live the life of your actor will see life more meaningful sooner or later because they do realize that such life is hopeful that they might find a life they can identify with. I can see where the life of your actor can be related to Camus 'absurd reasoning. This is because when we continue steadily to live, we've anticipation that someday something changes or that you decision might trigger a meaningful life. When in question and searching for answers alive, we find ourselves contemplating whether to live on or to expire. When the feeling of emptiness and loneliness engulfs our mind, I think our instinct will be to end that anguish and save ourselves the center ache of an wicked world. However, an actor is constantly on the live and expect tomorrow.
The last way of life as identified by Camus, is the life span of an Conquest. The conquest life is directed towards reaching an goal, an goal he is aware is unattainable, yet he battles. Individuals who live this life know full well that the end result will not be fruitful, yet that have difficulty gives their life interpretation. The 'flesh' represents life and being alive will probably be worth more than the struggle. Conqueror are people who are aware of their advantages and constraints, they remain constantly on that durability that will do for them to survive the globe. They are not worried about being the best; they come to mind about maintaining the achievements they now have by being regular in their activities.
Kierkegaard's view is different from Camus because his view focuses more on religion and on the idea that God's lifetime conquers all problems. He expressed this notion through his meaning of the "knight of beliefs" and his romantic relationship with God. The knight of trust believes in God which the ultimate interpretation of life is established when we create a romance with God; however, he does indeed violate the moral regulation with regard to the higher being. But even when we have confidence in God, periodically we become confused with the problem accessible and we feel unfulfilled. However, for Kierkegaard, the knight of beliefs believes that with God, all things are possible; thus whenever we sacrifice the material things we have and follow God, we live guaranteed greater opportunity in life. Kierkegaard's beliefs will vary from Camus Don Juan because Camus' will not believe in God and Don's life is not bound by any moral code.
His Knight of beliefs is depicted in the life span of Abraham the kid of David. Abraham was advised by God to sacrifice his only kid Isaac; he adopted through with this step to murder his only kid. This step Kierkegaard calls faith because Abraham was ready to sacrifice his only much loved son due to the fact "God said so" and this action will make him develop a romantic relationship with God. The knight of faith operates religiously in God's will and trust becomes the ultimate even though a moral legislation has been violated. You will find individuals whose ultimate goal is to pursue God's will whatever the moral law is; the higher moral legislations is what is of importance to them.
Kierkegaard thinks that faith is the sole meaningful/existential way of life, but if this is the case, Abraham, who's considered the knight of faith, violated the moral legislation. He violated the moral legislation because of his will to sacrifice his kid merely to be nearer to God. Whenever we are faced with the decision of the ethical vs. the religious, our love for religious beliefs is higher than our love for the ethical. Abraham chose faith because his beliefs in God was superior to his allegiance to the honest life. I believe in religious beliefs and I am often affected by it when making decisions, but I have made a decision to violate any moral legislation. I counter Kierkegaard's notion because by Abraham prepared to sacrifice his son, he might be recognised incorrectly as a murderer or a believer. Some might say that he's both, but if you assume that Abraham is a believer, you also believe that it is okay to kill with regard to God. If we say that he is a murderer, then trust does not are present and the average person does not exist as well. If this is the case, then your ethical life-style (the common) not the spiritual is the satisfactory life-style.
The way we live our life now speaks our feature. In any situation, I believe I have a purpose in life. The type of life I choose to reside, either the life span as explained by Camus or by Kierkegaard, defines who I am. This is where I agree with both Camus and Kierkegaard's philosophical view of life and human being frame of mind. They are both right when they said frame of mind forms one's life. The meaning of life is defined by the action and the frame of mind we've towards it. But what if the choices we make are not good enough? Does indeed which means that that life will be meaningless? No, but if we aren't open to change, then we have been trapped inside our own sole world of meaninglessness. We have an option to make each day we live alive and the sort of attitude we want to embrace for your day. Making an awful decision or living a rouged life will definitely expose me to numerous consequences based on my decision. In virtually any given day on the planet, I think that life makes up about 10% of what happens to me and the other 90% will depend on how I respond to that situation.
I talk about both Camus' and Kierkegaard's school of thought of life. The spiritual life of the Knight of beliefs is what I practice in my daily life with the exemption of violating the moral legislations like Abraham does. Most of us have freedom to make our very own life selections, if that choice is the life detailed by Camus, we live it with interest and if it is the life defined by Kierkegaard, we also accept it. Humans have preconceived notion of what they believe to be "happy living. " Our inventor however; according to people who have confidence in God has programs for all of us. He considers our stay on earth as non permanent and so must i. What Camus explains as death is known as transition to better places by those that have confidence in the existence of God. We have only one life to reside in and I really believe in making the planet an improved place no subject how long it might take.