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

Yet other non-fiction attempt at explaining the intricacies of disembodied spirit as we know it is in the offing, and the uninformed would most likely lump this grouchy one with the rest of mediocritys spawns. How perpetu solelyy, the less ignorant would sleep together the prestige that is synonymous with the germs name, which echoes loudly of literary surmisal and Marxism, in the most acceptable and understandable terms.Terry Eagletons intervention on one of the most profound yet unanswerable questions ever to be posed in actual form could entertain gone two disparate appearances the academic, which would call on the powers of scholarly twist and intervention and the sardonic, which would debunk all trite and contrived notions about the open(a) and introduce a new concept that may border among public and fantasyor at least within the contexts of Eagletons philosophy.solely the great theorist, without presenting his work as the millenniums explicit answer to lifetime and all its means, does what he is good atanalysis, study, and intellectualism. The striking question in focus is quite applicable, as Eagleton begins, to the different persuasions available, from nomenclature to philosophy to civilization. Here is where the Eagleton style of in-depth probing takes place, and readers new and old go out always find the authors signature wit and sense of humour refreshing against the backdrop of the subjects utter seriousness and complexity.Eagleton builds his production line by citing some of the differences among people, based on their particular eras. He discussed how the issues thrown and twisted against faith and organized religion figured prominently in the modern nineteenth century, and this brought on the question about lifes heart in bigger, more insistent ways. Then we see how the great genius forms his own theory, but unaccompanied after seeing how he provides a comparison between his thinking and those that came before him.The f irst, most obvious and easiest position would be Christianity and its various interpretations, that declares God as the all-powerful, all-knowing point of reference of the solid grounds meaning and its corresponding effect on life itself, and the belief that deems the human worlds chaotic and meaningless without God. Eagleton quickly forges to dis come on this established belief, by invoking the theories and discoveries alluded to by science, and how, even without the concept of God, the universe would continue to be an entity self-directed of anything, with a symmetry and logic that defies any claim on source and end.Eagleton did not agree with the free-flowing, opinion-respecting parameters of post-modernism, either. He found the standard allusions to individualism and realms and contexts of varying interpretations as contrary to the search for meaning because meaning can only be discovered through dialogue with the world, and any pre-tense of an individual of decision th e very(prenominal) unto himself or herself does not operate logically within Eagletons study.One must validate his or her particular life meanings with what the world has already set, out of respect and value for a construct that is no longer such, but is really a defined and proven reality that can mix both beauty and logic on the homogeneous level. Upon presenting his own personal cause towards providing an answer to the stated question, Eagleton now invokes Aristotelian philosophy to concretise an aspect of the meaning. According to Aristotle, human lifes significance lies within felicitousnessyet not just untarnished pleasure.Eagleton agress with this idea, and confirms the classic philosophers opinion that happiness may only be received through virtue, wherein virtue is, more than anything, a social employ 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 nice and happ y in the Eagleton-Aristotle team-upthe author, after the initial meeting of great minds regarding the ideal integration of politics, ethics and happiness in one ideal friendship, 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 hold in out any dirty work while man goes forth to traverse the levels of happiness, is an ideal best left in history books and display presentations. Eagleton, being the trouper he is, tries to make up for Aristotles dope off by taking the latters happiness concept and nip and tuck it oneto centre on the ultimate idea of love. 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 mutu al support. This refers to space for growth, a means to being 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 tried 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 lucid writing and light touch prove that these often-lambasted elements may actually still be understood for what they are, and that love and life are indeed connectedall to provide the meaning we have long wanted to find.