Dominic, I have read McGinn, Nagel and Strawson and while commending their skill at philosophical argument, the PoV (point of view) from which they argue is disconnected, and hence, their arguments are very weak. I prefer the pragmatic stances of C. S. Peirce, W. James and A. N. Whitehead, where there is a footprint in logic and practical/applied science. The "mystery" of life does not have as much emotional allure, when there are effective process models on which to hang one's PoV. A worldview is only as good as its capability in dealing with the work to be done. Anti-realism, nominalism and the pragmatism of Rorty lack the red-meat of efficacious approaches in parsing and utilizing the empirical patterns of reality. Making decisions based-on these self-same patterns - which the human mind has evolved to detect from biological, intellectual and social purposes - do achieve goals. In a court of law - you ARE morally responsible. In living your life you must assign meaning to make logical choices and would be considered a "fish" if you claimed to behave as if you had no free-will. As an effete stance in life within an academic safe haven - a claim of philosophical reasoning enabling one to sit outside of the pragmatic "facts-of-life" - is just not environmentally involved enough for me. In the real world of blood, sweat and tears -- it's just not very viable.