A Review of Terry Eagleton’s The Meaning of Life Essay

Yet a nonher(prenominal) non-fiction attempt at explaining the intricacies of life as we know it is in the offing, and the unknowing would close to likely lump this particular one with the rest of second-raters spawns. However, the less ignorant would recognize the prestige that is synonymous with the beginnings name, which echoes loudly of literary theory and Marxism, in the most welcome and understandable terms.Terry Eagletons discourse on one of the most profound up to now unanswerable call into questions ever to be posed in actual form could have gone two disparate ship bureau the academic, which would c tot anyy on the powers of scholarly influence and intervention and the sardonic, which would debunk all trite and contrived notions about the national and introduce a natural fantasy that may border between reality and fantasyor at least within the contexts of Eagletons philosophy.But the great theorist, without presenting his nominate as the millenniums definitive ans wer to life and all its meanings, does what he is good atanalysis, study, and intellectualism. The big question in tenseness is quite applicable, as Eagleton begins, to the different persuasions available, from language to philosophy to civilization. Here is where the Eagleton expression of in-depth probing takes place, and readers new and old will always find the origins signature wit and humour refreshing against the backdrop of the subjects utter seriousness and complexity.Eagleton builds his argument by citing some of the differences among people, establish on their particular eras. He discussed how the issues thr avow against faith and organized trust figured prominently in the late nineteenth century, and this brought on the question about lifes meaning in bigger, more instant ways. Then we see how the great mind forms his own theory, but save after seeing how he provides a comparison between his intellection and those that came before him.The first, most obvious and ea siest target would be Christianity and its various interpretations, that declares immortal as the all-powerful, all-knowing source of the worlds meaning and its gibe effect on life itself, and the tenet that deems the world chaotic and insignificant without God. Eagleton quickly forges to disprove this established belief, by invoking the theories and discoveries alluded to by science, and how, crimson without the concept of God, the universe would continue to be an entity independent of anything, with a symmetry and logic that defies any claim on source and end.Eagleton did not agree with the free-flowing, imprint- respecting parameters of post-modernism, either. He found the standard allusions to individualism and realms and contexts of varying interpretations as contrary to the hunt for meaning be vitrine meaning can whole be discovered through dialogue with the world, and any pre-tense of an individual of finding the same unto himself or herself does not operate logically within Eagletons study.One must affirm his or her particular life meanings with what the world has already set, out of respect and value for a manufacture that is no longer such, but is very a define and proven reality that can mix both(prenominal) beauty and logic on the same level. Upon presenting his own personal cause towards providing an answer to the stated question, Eagleton now invokes Aristotelian philosophy to concretise an face of the meaning. According to Aristotle, human lifes significance lies within contentmentyet not just mere pleasure.Eagleton agress with this idea, and confirms the classic philosophers opinion that happiness may only be received through rectitude, wherein virtue is, more than anything, a social practice and not a way of thinking. Therefore, happiness, which is the purpose of life, is also its practical and realisable version. However, all is not completely keen and happy in the Eagleton-Aristotle team-upthe author, after the initial meet ing of great minds regarding the ensample integration of politics, ethics and happiness in one ideal society, admonishes the classicists expressed elements of a society necessary to attain happiness.That Aristotle defined this as one complete with women and slaves earmarked to carry out any bothersome work while man goes forth to traverse the levels of happiness, is an ideal go around left in history books and pageant presentations. Eagleton, being the trouper he is, tries to make up for Aristotles slip by taking the latter(prenominal)s happiness concept and raising it oneto centre on the ultimate idea of jockey. Not erotic love, no, but that among fellow men, and even enemies. As with Aristotles original happiness idea, Eagletons love construct is a lifestyle, a practical way of giving meaning to life.He goes further by adding the presence of another individual in the equation, with whom love may be realized through mutual support. This refers to space for growth, a means to b eing ones best. And, being one of Marxs greatest disciples, Eagleton qualifies this concept by requiring the individuals be equals for real reciprocity, for the absence of such will render this adjudged purpose and meaning of life futile. The book ends with Eagletons inspired way of comparing life with jazz music, where improvisation is key, yet function as a whole.Thus, the author promises the answers to be found in this precise situationhappiness being individual and collective, which can only be realised through love. If any other writer time-tested to use the same words and the same concepts to give his or her own interpretation, everything would sound fake, and probably even absurd. But Terry Eagletons liquid writing and light touch prove that these often-lambasted elements may actually stable be understood for what they are, and that love and life are indeed machine-accessibleall to provide the meaning we have long wanted to find.