Life often takes on complex expressions which are quite hard to comprehend. Some of them refer to the nature of life and what it truly entails. Many philosophers, including the ancient ones, made an attempt to give an account of the essence of life. Some explanations appear to be plausible but others are not. That is not to say that the reasonable ones are 100% correct, they still have some gaping holes which are pointed out by their critics, but mostly they make sense. Dualism is one of the philosophical theories that make an attempt to explain the nature of reality. However, its plausibility is a matter of debate. In this paper, I will argue that Cartesian dualism provides an illogical explanation of the nature of reality as opposed to Sartre's existentialism nihilism which also attempts to explain the same concept.

Descartes Cartesian strand of dualism asserts that there are two facets of a person. There is the mental aspect which exists independently, and the body which cannot think by itself. In furtherance of the theory, he notes that the mind is an immaterial, non-extended substance that gets involved in several activities such as feeling, desiring, imagining, and rational thinking among others. The body, on the contrary, abides by the laws of nature in a mechanical way. This argument is difficult to support other than by looking at it from a religious standpoint. For example, Cartesian dualism cannot explain why a person who kicks a wall feels sharp pain at the point of contact. The theory cannot explain why it is impossible to separate the mind and body at that point so that one does not feel the pain.

Nihilism is a philosophical theory which suggests that life is meaningless. Jean-Paul Sartre, who is one of the establishers of this school of thought, points out in his existentialist theory that there are two kinds of reality beyond people's conscious experience. One is the nature of the object of consciousness and the other is the consciousness itself. The former exists independently. The latter cannot stand on its own because consciousness must always be given a definition that is related to other things. It is therefore not possible to define something that needs another thing for it to be meaningful. In an extrapolation of the theory, it is impossible to define a person because he or she has to be defined in relation to something else. That is to say a person needs an identity (defined in relation to something else) for him or her to be considered as an individual. Thus, without the identity, he or she is nothing. This theory gives a logical explanation of the nature of reality. For example, when saying something in relation to a person, an adjective is often added to describe him or her. Good, bad, kind, cruel, lazy, and beautiful among others are used in reference to the nature of people. Without these, one cannot know the true nature of an individual. In relation to the example given in the preceding paragraph, nihilists can provide a logical explanation. There is an abstraction of feelings without hitting the wall. However, after a person hits it, a meaning is given to his or her feelings followed by the feeling of pain. It is, therefore, true that the body and the mind are closely connected and life is meaningless without the relation with the objective reality as stated by the nihilists.

The above essay examines the nature of life from the dualist and nihilist perspectives. Arguing for the dualists, Descartes states the separateness of the mind and the body which proves to be illogical while explaining the nature of reality. However, Sartre, an existentialist, uses a logical argument to show that consciousness itself is meaningless because it can be defined only through reality.