Thomas Nagel
The Absurd
Even if someone wished to supply a further justification for pursuing all the things in life that are commonly regarded as self justifying, that justification would have to end somewhere too. If nothing can justify unless it is justified in terms of something outside itself, which is also justified, then an infinite regress results, and no chain of justification can be complete. Moreover, if a finite chain of reasons cannot justify anything, what could be accomplished by an infinite chain, each link of which must be justified by something outside itself?
On what basis do you justify what you do? Is it derived from someone or something "outside yourself"? Someone or something that you are able to subsume your Self in? God's will? A spiritual path? A political ideology? A philosophy of life? Nature?
Or does everything simply revolve around "me, myself and I"? Your own selfish wants and needs. Where everyone else basically becomes just a means to an end. Yours.
What I focus on here, however, is not what your answer might be, but how each of us as individuals come to acquire one particular answer and not another. Existentially. And then the consequences of answers that come into conflict.
Also, the extent to which you are able to demonstrate that your answer is not merely something that you believe "in your head", but something you are able to demonstrate further by providing evidence that all rational men and women are obligated to share in that answer.
Since justifications must come to an end somewhere, nothing is gained by denying that they end where they appear to, within life or by trying to subsume the multiple, often trivial ordinary justifications of action under a single, controlling life scheme.
Of course, everything is gained for those able to convince themselves of this "single, controlling life scheme". That's why the overwhelming preponderance of us have one. To believe that there is no definitive justification for the things we do is something that can, at times, seem almost hard-wired biologically in us to reject. It's to imagine a dog eat dog, survival of the fittest, law of the jungle, might makes right world. A Mad Max dystopia. An Anton Chigurh flip of the coin.
But philosophers of course are still inclined to keep all of this "up in the clouds":
We can be satisfied more easily than that. In fact, through its misrepresentation of the process of justification, the argument makes a vacuous demand. It insists that the reasons available within life are incomplete, but suggests thereby that all reasons that come to an end are incomplete. This makes it impossible to supply any reasons at all. The standard arguments for absurdity appear therefore to fail as arguments. Yet I believe they attempt to express something that is difficult to state, but fundamentally correct.
What we need to do instead is to take abstract speculation of this sort out into the nitty gritty world of actual human interactions. In particular, when those interactions come to revolve around conflicting goods.
You have your reasons for doing what you do. I have mine.
Given a particular context, let's talk about them.
https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195600