	Nagel suggests that humans are “absurd” due to having a conspicuous discrepancy between their pretensions and their realities. Nagel states that the best way to deal with “absurdity” is to adopt a sense of “irony,” meaning that we should continue to live our lives the way we currently do despite the fact that there is nothing that warrants us to do so. Nagel’s conclusion at first glance seems to raise more questions than it answers. For someone looking for an answer to the question of meaning in life, Nagel’s philosophy initially seems to state that there is not one. However, it is important to look all of the premises of an argument and the premises themselves to understand exactly what philosophers are trying to say instead of dismissing their conclusions due to disagreeing with them. Nagel states that humans are self-conscious creatures and our actions give us a starting point to reason from. Since we can reason about our actions, we take them seriously. However, we cannot take our reasons seriously in a noncircular way, and using a circular argument to defend a premise is meaningless. Therefore, life becomes “absurd” because it is invested with a seriousness (in the activities that humans engage in) that do not have justification. Because humans are rational creatures, it is impossible to stop rationalizing about activities that one partakes in. This leads to the conclusion that one should take a position of “irony,” where one continues living as they should although there is nothing that warrants doing this. 
	If one were to only look at Nagel’s conclusion, then they would likely dismiss “irony” as a serious response to living a meaningful life. Rationalization would tend to push the idea that if there is nothing that warrants taking life seriously, then there is no reason for one to look for an answer to meaning in life or engage in other activities that they cannot justify. Taking Nagel’s conclusion without the premises that lead up to his conclusion seem to make life trivial. Although there are other reasons that Nagel’s account for meaning in life do not provide a full answer, his seemingly unintuitive conclusion should not be grounds to dismiss his entire argument. The premises that lead up to the conclusion provide insight on what exactly a meaningful life should and should not include and also provide the opportunity for alternate accounts of meaning to answer the questions that Nagel’s conclusion does not answer.
	This course did not contain a key to the answer for meaning in life. However, this course did give me the skills necessary to analyze arguments fully and effectively instead of just taking the conclusion of the argument as the only component of the argument. This course also allowed me to gain a greater understanding of the philosophical practices used to answer questions that cannot be answered by other disciplines. It is important to note that philosophy is not a body of knowledge, like the sciences. This means that philosophy is constantly under revision by anybody who wishes to add thoughtful intellectual discussion to the conversation. This course, however, did give the methods necessary for analyzing philosophical arguments and the ability to use premises in the arguments to help answer the question of meaning in life, regardless of the fact that there is not a uniform consensus answer to the question currently. Reading work done by philosophers done in the field gives insight to new ideas that one might not have thought of before, which can allow one to use these insights to form opinions about what is necessary for a meaningful life. The lack of a consensus answer to the question of meaning in life does not make life meaningless.
