I’d like to know if there has been anyone that has taken my point of view on this so I can read him.

Some kind of relativism based on the belief that everything follows the physical laws of the universe; so everything we understand as special, such as the models that we have based our society upon and which we seek in life (becoming the president of my country is meaningful for my life), the notion of “creativity” as a separate reality where the potentially existing exists, and the thought that meditation or drugs can alter reality when in fact what is altering is our perception of it, is nonexistent; they are just a result of our inherent desire to create such alternate reality that would give us some kind of purpose.

Our brain follows the physical and chemical laws of the universe and so everything it produces can’t escape them, either. And based on that, whatever we choose to do with our lives will only matter to us as an individual. We as a species are only the result of the development of such laws throughout millions of years; in the grand scheme of the universe we are just meaningless. When adopting the point of view of the universe, we realize that only when we understand its purpose and its cause, will we be able to understand our own, as we are just a product of it.

Searching a bit on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and apart from Camus (as he just proposed the notion of the absurd and said to embrace it and continue living enjoying the empirical life) and Sartre (which to my knowledge proposes something contrary to what I said), I found in the entry for meaning of life the last paragraph about Thomas Nigel, who seems to say just this; but it’s the first time I read about him and I don’t know if he’s a relevant author in Philosophy.

  • This seems very broad. Also, I am not sure what you are asking. If you pick say Camus or Nagel, whom you mentioned, and ask a single question relevant to your concerns this might limit the scope. Welcome. – Frank Hubeny Jul 3 '19 at 0:51
  • @FrankHubeny You’re probably right in that maybe it is too broad. I’m not very well versed in philosophy. What I am trying to find is some kind of relativism based on the thoughts I described, if there is any. Based on what I have read (mainly in the SEP) existentialist authors also just base their views on just a human-only perspective if that makes sense. I haven’t found much philosophy that tried to take a broader view of the universe, just that excerpt from Thomas Nagel. But I don’t know him and I’m not familiarized with his work. – Tinucci Jul 3 '19 at 1:02
  • you could look into anti constructivism? this question and i suppose others like it philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/43707/… – user38026 Jul 3 '19 at 1:26
  • The first paragraph sounds very much like fatalism with a Stoic kind of response of acquiescence that separates what we can and can not control, the former being personal and internal. "Where then do I look for good and evil? Not to uncontrollable externals, but within myself to the choices that are my own", Epictetus. Aside from existentialists, you can look at Modern Stoicism. – Conifold Jul 3 '19 at 5:58
  • The initial characterisation stands at odds with the universe having a purpose, which is teleological thought and thus beyond natural necessity. In a sense, you have demonstrated the limited scope of such a view with that glitch. Recent works of Daniel Dennett should be of help for you. – Philip Klöcking Jul 3 '19 at 9:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.