Warning: There is a brief mention of suicide in the last section of this paper, and more extensive discussions in the Camus and Tolstoy readings. Camus, Tolstoy and Nagel all reject suicide as an appropriate reaction to the absurdity of life, albeit for different reasons.
DQ1. In Section I, Nagel dismisses (very quickly) various common reasons for thinking life is absurd that he thinks are bad reasons. They are:
Other writers, such as Tolstoy and Camus, have found these reasons compelling. Why does Nagel dismiss these reasons? Is he right to do so?
DQ2. One of the paper's central arguments can be found at the end of Section II, on p. 720 (or p. 15 of the reprint in "Mortal Questions"). Nagel argues that when we view our lives from an objective point of view ("sub specie aeternitatis"), our aims and pursuits seem to us to be contingent, specific and arbitrary. He also suggests that they can’t be justified "without circularity".
The argument here is frustratingly brief. Can you reconstruct the argument? Do you think it is a good argument? Why or why not? Are the claims Nagel makes true of all human lives, or just some?
(Optional) DQ3. In Section III, Nagel pithily criticises the idea that finding a "larger purpose" might make one's life meaningful and non-absurd. He argues "any such larger purpose can be put in doubt in the same way that the aims of an individual life can be, and for the same reasons". What does he mean by this? Are you convinced?
(Optional) DQ4. In Section VI, Nagel considers various ways of escaping the sense that life is absurd:
He rejects all three, arguing that we can instead "approach our absurd lives with irony instead of heroism or despair." What does he mean by this, and how does he argue for this fourth possibility? Does he provide good reasons for rejecting the other three options?