The meaning of life

03.09.202203.09.2022 admin 0 Comments

The meaning of life

Перевод песни The meaning of life (Offspring, the)

The meaning of life

Смысл жизни

On the way
Trying to get where I’d like to stay
I’m always feeling steered away
By someone trying to tell me
What to say and do.
I don’t want it.
I gotta go find my own way.
I gotta go make my own mistakes.
Sorry man for feeling,
Feeling the way I do.

Oh yeah, oh yeah.
Open wide and they’ll shove in
Their meaning of life.
Oh yeah, oh yeah
But not for me. I’ll do it on my own.
Oh yeah, oh yeah
Open wide and swallow their meaning of life.
I can’t make it work your way.
Thanks but no thanks.

By the way,
I know your path has been tried and so
It may seem like the way to go.
Me, I’d rather be found
Trying something new.
And the bottom line
In all of this seems to say
There’s no right and no wrong way.
Sorry if I don’t feel like
Living the way you do.

На пути
Пытаясь попасть туда, куда хочу
Я всегда чувствую, что мне пытаются навязать своё мнение
И кто-то пытается сказать мне
Что говорить и делать.
Я не хочу этого
Я хочу найти мой собственный путь.
Хочу совершать мои собственные ошибки.
Извини, парень, за чувство,
Но я это чувствую именно так.

О, да, о, да.
Открой рот пошире и они впихнут тебе
Их смысл жизни.
О, да, о, да
Но не мне. У меня есть свой.
О, да, о, да
Открой рот пошире и проглоти их смысл жизни.
Я не буду делать по-вашему.
Спасибо, но нет, спасибо.

Между прочим
Я знаю, твой путь проверенный и
Он может показаться, как правильный.
Но меня можно застать
За попытками найти что-то новое.
Подводя итог,
Я, наверное, скажу
Тут нет ни правильного ни неправильного пути.
Извини, если мне не нравится
Жить, как ты живешь.

What Is the Meaning of Life? A Guide to Living With Meaning

A wellness advocate who writes about the psychology behind confidence, happiness and well-being. Read full profile

Since the dawn of time, the question, “what is the meaning of life” has captivated humanity’s finest minds. The ultimate goal appears to be to live a meaningful life with purpose.

As diverse as the questions are, the origins of our existence, the reasons humans were “made,” the drive for personal growth, and, of course, religion, are all explored.

There is no shortage of ideas on what the “good life” is all about, what makes us happy and content, and what we can do to achieve it.

The Big Bang, the beginnings of the cosmos, and the evolution of the species to where we are today will likely be discussed by a researcher if you inquire about the purpose of our existence.

We don’t really need evolution to motivate us and keep us going in the face of adversity, do we? Much more is going on than this. It is our intellect, our self-awareness, and our aspirations, objectives, and aspirations that define who we are as people.

So, if you want to know what life is all about, study Viktor Frankl and Albert Camus, and consider your ideals, progress, community, family, and yes, reproduction, when attempting to answer this question.

What Is the Meaning of Life — Historical Perspectives

Let’s take a step back and observe what great men throughout history thought a life of purpose to be before we dissect these parts of significance.

The Greeks

Eudaimonia, which means “happiness,” “good life,” or “welfare,” was a belief held by the ancient Greeks. A life lived in eudaimonia was considered the ideal by all of the great Greek philosophers, including Socrates, Thales, Plato, and Aristotle.

“The most difficult thing in life is to know yourself.” – Thales

Self-discovery is the most difficult task in life. In other words, Thales

The meaning of this sentence has been interpreted in a variety of ways. Some people used to believe that gaining virtues was the only way to find meaning in life (such as self-control, courage, wisdom) [1]

According to Aristotle, eudaimonia requires more than a good character; it requires action and excellence. Epicurus, a well-known Greek philosopher, believed that human life should be a time of pleasure and freedom from pain and sorrow.

The Bhagwad Geeta

Ancient India’s texts were written with extraordinary intellectual acumen. The Bhagavad Gita is the most researched, analyzed, and interpreted of all the scriptures. [2]

Our separated material energies are comprised of eight elements: earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intellect, and ego.

An ancient Indian text known as the Bhagavad Gita, it is regarded as one of the most important works of Hindu philosophy in both literature and philosophy. Lord or ‘manifested one’: Bhagavad Gita is known as “the song of the Lord or the Lord Himself.”

Mahabharata (the longest Indian epic) incorporated the Bhagavad Gita as a subplot, but it is usually edited separately. The Bhagavad Gita is a section of the Mahabharata that spans 18 short chapters and approximately 700 verses.

Questions like “what is the meaning of life” are at the heart of the Bhagavad Gita. It focuses on how can one lead a spiritually meaningful life without renouncing society. What can a person do to live a moral life if they don’t want to give up their ties to friends and family?

According to popular belief, only ascetics and monks can achieve a perfect spiritual life through renunciation. The Gita, on the other hand, argues that anyone can achieve a perfect spiritual life through active devotion.

Cynicism

Cynicism was founded by Diogenes of Sinope around 380 BC as a way of life and thinking that emphasized virtue and harmony with nature, much like Stoicism later on.

Human reason, according to both schools, is capable of discerning nature’s will; however, their conclusions about what constitutes natural law differed.

The Cynics had a much more primitive view of nature, and so they lived a more solitary life as a result.

While Cynicism sees human institutions like laws and customs as artificial, Stoicism considers them to be part of the fabric of life itself and urges its adherents to uphold them. [3]

When it comes to morality, a Cynic is the antithesis of the idealist.

Diogenes, the founder of Cynicism, is one of the most intriguing characters in all of philosophy. Diogenes lived in a tub and had very little.

To him, human life should be as simple as possible, and he detested much of what “civilization” purports to provide us. A typical quote from him: “Mankind has complicated every simple gift from the gods.”

Rather, people should undergo rigorous training and live in way that is most natural to them. [4]

Stoicism

The Stoic school of thought, founded by Zeno of Citium around 300 B.C., considered the good life to be “living in agreement with nature.” [5]

At that time, people’s principal priority was to avoid a bad life. As a result, they were more likely to structure their thoughts, choices, and actions in a way that enhanced their sense of well-being.

It’s critical to remember that people didn’t always think that acquiring wealth, fame, or other aesthetically pleasing items would bring them happiness. Many people were eager to learn how to cultivate a fine soul.

The Stoics, one of the most well-known schools of thought at the time, presented persuasive answers to problematic concerns like “What do I want out of life?” through their Stoic philosophy. The Stoics proposed a way of life that dealt with the difficulties of being human.

Finally, they said: “I desire enduring enjoyment and peace of mind, which come from being a good person.” This was their ultimate response to all of these difficulties.

As an example, a person can cultivate virtues of character by prioritizing their acts over their words. In other words, if you’re doing things right, you’ll have a better life. And, yes, as you would have suspected, unpleasant behavior led to a more difficult situation.

In essence, Stoicism advocates separating good and evil and doing good while staying calm, focusing on what’s important and under our control, not wasting thoughts on what we can’t change.

Theism

Theists believed in the presence of a deity, or God, who was responsible for the creation of the cosmos. Our lives’ purpose is therefore connected with God’s goal in creating the cosmos, and it is God who gives meaning, purpose, and values to our existence.

This relates to modern-day religious studies and how and why we search for meaning beyond what is readily seen or understood. If you still want to find out answer to the query, what is the true meaning of life? then a deeper understanding of Theism would help.

According to Britannica, Theism is the belief that God is beyond human comprehension, perfect and self-sustaining, but also unusually concerned in the world and its events.

Theists use reasonable reasoning and personal experience to support their belief in God.

Theists often use one of four main kinds of evidence to support their belief in the existence of God: cosmological, ontological, teleological, or moral. The existence of evil must be reconciled with God’s omnipotence and perfection, which are core concepts of theism.

Existentialism

Philosophers like Sren Kierkegaard, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, and Jean-Paul Sartre advocated for this idea of free will in the twentieth century.

“The intuition of free will gives us the truth.” – Corliss Lamont

Rather than relying on society or religion, it is believed that each person creates their own meaning in their own life. Everyone’s reason for being is based on their own circumstances and knowledge. [6]

To put it another way, the meaning of your life is entirely up to you. Simply put, your life’s meaning is what you decide it to be.

What Creates Meaning of Your Life?

Based on the foregoing brief historical tour, it appears that the interpretation of what gives our existence value and purpose changes depending on the historical period and school of thought.

However, there are some unmistakable similarities and repeating themes. Our motivation for assuming a role larger than ourselves, such as serving God’s will or making a contribution to society. At the same time, it’s all nuanced because it’s filtered through our particular prisms, hampered by our historians’ or intellectuals’ beliefs.

Still, there are a few basic types of items that could be ideal candidates for meaning-creators in our lives:

Social

We have an innate urge to connect with others, to be a part of a group, to feel like we belong, and that someone cares about us since we are social creatures.

So, what’s the meaning of life?

Our friendships aren’t the only thing that makes life worthwhile. It’s our parents, siblings, and children. It’s all the people for whom we have feelings of love and affection and who, in turn, have feelings for us.

Achievement

Although pinning our worth only on the results of our efforts can lead to a shaky feeling of self-worth, we nevertheless want our triumphs to outnumber our failures. We want to feel like we’re making progress and achieving our objectives.

“Life is like riding a bicycle, to keep your balance, you must keep moving.” – Albert Einstein

Studies have found that achievements bring greater meaning to our everyday lives. [8]

The pull of the limelight or the desire for accolades will not be enough to justify our existence. What counts is that our efforts be acknowledged, appreciated, and acknowledged. To put it another way, we want our efforts to be meaningful and impactful.

In this podcast from The Lifehack Show, you’ll get a straightforward solution to the question of what personal success looks like:

Competence, Knowledge, and Expertise

The concept of achievement is directly tied to these purpose drivers.

“Life itself is a process of acquiring knowledge.”

Today’s self-improvement movement emphasizes becoming the best at what we do. The Japanese concepts of kaizen and shokunin are among the most well-known examples.

Kaizen is a continuous improvement process that involves learning and building experience in order to improve oneself as a way of life.

Shokunin is a Japanese word that means “craftsman.” It’s also about being proud of what we do and who we are. It’s the desire to improve on a personal and professional level.

Researched Ways That Have Given Meaning to Life (Living Meaning)

However, there are many more colors and understandings of a life well-lived than the three categories that have been mentioned already.

To help you find your own sense of purpose and fulfillment, here are some more ideas.

1. Be Aware of What Makes You Happy and Gives Your Life Meaning

This encompasses your interests, as well as your drive to interact with others, read, write, travel, and keep in shape. Even if these activities do not provide you with any ‘One’ Meaning in Your Life, they have the ability to make you pleased and joyful.

“Be happy for this moment. This moment is your life.” – Omar Khayyam

They are joyous spurs. You might think of them as mini-meanings that, over time, may help you achieve your larger goals and purposes.

However, they will continue to provide you with something to look forward to, a cause to live.

2. What Does Life Mean if Not Embraced By the Love and Existence of a Family?

In order to assure that human life will continue into the foreseeable future, evolutionary biology provides us with the fundamental cause for our existence. Isn’t it all about the survival and continuation of our families? With loved ones, life has a purpose.

“Family is not an important thing. It’s everything.” –Michael J. Fox

When it comes to what makes life worthwhile, having children and family and living it with them is frequently at or near the top of the list. When we feel like we belong, we feel like we can celebrate our triumphs with others.

3. Desire to Leave a Mark in the World

As we come to grips with the fact that our lives are finite, we naturally feel compelled to leave behind something worthwhile. The first step is to focus on one thing that is important to you and build from there.

For example, you could adopt an abandoned puppy and offer it a better existence. You can also help the environment by donating your time to a local food shelter or by beginning to sort your rubbish.

In the words of Mother Teresa:

“We can’t do anything spectacular, but we can do a lot of tiny things with a lot of heart.”

Caring is the key to a fulfilling existence.

4. Be Compassionate and Care About Yourself

What these suggestions imply is that finding methods to take care of ourselves and do things that make us happy is what brings sunshine into our lives.

You don’t need me to tell you that giving and meditation is good for your physical and mental wellbeing; they are widely documented.

Being kind, empathetic, and helpful to others is, in fact, the best way to live a long, healthy life while also reducing our levels of stress and despair.

5. Helping Others Is The Way to Add Meaning to Life

Research participants were asked about their prosocial behavior, life purpose, and level of relationship satisfaction as a way to test this hypothesis.

Prosocial behavior and meaning in life were linked, and relationship satisfaction—in other words, the quality of people’s relationships—accounted for a portion of that link.

According to this article, when we engage in prosocial actions, we fulfill our basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness when we feel good and capable (feeling close to others).

In one study, participants were given the option of giving money to a study participant of their choice, or the researchers simply told them how much money to give.

As long as participants had the option of deciding how much money they wanted to donate, they were more likely to feel satisfied with their psychological needs.

Moreover, that feeling accounted for the link between giving and well-being, which suggests that giving may improve well-being because it helps us meet our psychological needs. ”

Altruism may be especially important for strengthening our relationships and connecting us with others, according to these two studies when taken together, because it meets basic human needs.

“It comes down to this—what are you DOING that’s making a difference?”

We must participate in acts of usefulness—to help and make people happy, to build something—rather than seeking satisfaction and purpose through worldly items.

“The last thing I want is to be on my deathbed and realize there’s zero evidence that I ever existed.”

6. Connect With the World

Another influencer, Alain de Botton, the founder of the famous blog The School of Life, believes that the meaning of life comes down to three activities: [13]

“Some of our most meaningful moments are to do with instances of connection,” he writes, be it to a person, song, or a book, for instance. It takes us out of our isolation. Understanding is our ability to make sense of the world, and service is to work on improving others’ lives.

7. Use the PURE Model

Finally, Peter Wong—a Canadian existential psychologist, has proposed a model known as PURE for individuals to discover meaning in their lives. [14]

There are several options available to you that can provide you with a feeling of purpose. True, you may sometimes feel as if your acts are insignificant as if you are too insignificant to make a difference.

However, this is not the case.

It’s all about bringing out the best in you and doing good for yourself and others when it comes to meaning. As corny as it may seem, if we all commit to the objective of bettering ourselves and the world we live in, a single drop may turn into a wave.

Final Thoughts

Every action we take is influenced by our search for significance in our life. It’s the underlying cause of all of them. There’s no clear answer to the question, either.

There are several ways to establish your purpose, including forming a tribe, striving to be a better version of yourself, helping and serving others, and setting and achieving goals.

Because it’s such a broad term, defining what “purpose” really means might be difficult. It might mean a variety of things to different people.

It’s possible that, in the end, there’s no single, overarching purpose to existence. It’s possible that a mosaic approach to understanding our meaning and purpose is preferable.

Each aspect of our lives—family, friends, accomplishments, recognition—is a piece. To know if you’re satisfied with the picture you’ve created, you have to look at it as a whole.

Or, as Sadhuguru has put it,

“What is life?” I am reminding you that you are life!”

Or, perhaps, it is as Viktor Frankl said:

“The meaning of life is to give life meaning.”

And we are all free to decide for ourselves what, when, and how significant life is.

Перевод песни The meaning of life (Offspring, the)

The meaning of life

Смысл жизни

Meaning of life

The question of the meaning of life is perhaps the most fundamental «why?» in human existence. It relates to the purpose, use, value, and reason for individual existence and that of the universe.

This question has resulted in a wide range of competing answers and explanations, from scientific to philosophical and religious explanations, to explorations in literature. Science, while providing theories about the How and What of life, has been of limited value in answering questions of meaning—the Why of human existence. Philosophy and religion have been of greater relevance, as has literature. Diverse philosophical positions include essentialist, existentialist, skeptic, nihilist, pragmatist, humanist, and atheist. The essentialist position, which states that a purpose is given to our life, usually by a supreme being, closely resembles the viewpoint of the Abrahamic religions.

While philosophy approaches the question of meaning by reason and reflection, religions approach the question from the perspectives of revelation, enlightenment, and doctrine. Generally, religions have in common two most important teachings regarding the meaning of life: 1) the ethic of the reciprocity of love among fellow humans for the purpose of uniting with a Supreme Being, the provider of that ethic; and 2) spiritual formation towards an afterlife or eternal life as a continuation of physical life.

Scientific Approaches to the Meaning of Life

Science cannot possibly give a direct answer to the question of meaning. There are, strictly speaking, no scientific views on the meaning of biological life other than its observable biological function: to continue. Like a judge confronted with a conflict of interests, the honest scientist will always make the difference between his personal opinions or feelings and the extent to which science can support or undermine these beliefs. That extent is limited to the discovery of ways in which things (including human life) came into being and objectively given, observable laws and patterns that might hint at a certain origin and/or purpose forming the ground for possible meaning.

What is the origin of life?

The question «What is the origin of life?» is addressed in the sciences in the areas of cosmogeny (for the origins of the universe) and abiogenesis (for the origins of biological life). Both of these areas are quite hypothetical—cosmogeny, because no existing physical model can accurately describe the very early universe (the instant of the Big Bang), and abiogenesis, because the environment of the young earth is not known, and because the conditions and chemical processes that may have taken billions of years to produce life cannot (as of yet) be reproduced in a laboratory. It is therefore not surprising that scientists have been tempted to use available data both to support and to oppose the notion that there is a given purpose to the emergence of the cosmos.

What is the nature of life?

Toward answering «What is the nature of life (and of the universe in which we live)?,» scientists have proposed various theories or worldviews over the centuries. They include, but are not limited to, the heliocentric view by Copernicus and Galileo, through the mechanistic clockwork universe of René Descartes and Isaac Newton, to Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity, to the quantum mechanics of Heisenberg and Schrödinger in an effort to understand the universe in which we live.

Near the end of the twentieth century, equipped with insights from the gene-centered view of evolution, biologists began to suggest that in so far as there may be a primary function to life, it is the survival of genes. In this approach, success isn’t measured in terms of the survival of species, but one level deeper, in terms of the successful replication of genes over the eons, from one species to the next, and so on. Such positions do not and cannot address the issue of the presence or absence of a purposeful origin, hence meaning.

What is valuable in life?

Science may not be able to tell us what is most valuable in life in a philosophical sense, but some studies bear on related questions. Researchers in positive psychology study factors that lead to life satisfaction (and before them less rigorously in humanistic psychology), in social psychology factors that lead to infants thriving or failing to thrive, and in other areas of psychology questions of motivation, preference, and what people value. Economists have learned a great deal about what is valued in the marketplace; and sociologists examine value at a social level using theoretical constructs such as value theory, norms, anomie, etc.

What is the purpose of, or in, (one’s) life?

Natural scientists look for the purpose of life within the structure and function of life itself. This question also falls upon social scientists to answer. They attempt to do so by studying and explaining the behaviors and interactions of human beings (and every other type of animal as well). Again, science is limited to the search for elements that promote the purpose of a specific life form (individuals and societies), but these findings can only be suggestive when it comes to the overall purpose and meaning.

Analysis of teleology based on science

Teleology is a philosophical and theological study of purpose in nature. Traditional philosophy and Christian theology in particular have always had a strong tendency to affirm teleological positions, based on observation and belief. Since David Hume’s skepticism and Immanuel Kant’s agnostic conclusions in the eighteenth century, the use of teleological considerations to prove the existence of a purpose, hence a purposeful creator of the universe, has been seriously challenged. Purpose-oriented thinking is a natural human tendency which Kant already acknowledged, but that does not make it legitimate as a scientific explanation of things. In other words, teleology can be accused of amounting to wishful thinking.

The alleged «debunking» of teleology in science received a fresh impetus from advances in biological knowledge such as the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (i.e., natural selection). Best-selling author and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins puts forward his explanation based on such findings. Ironically, it is also science that has recently given a new impetus to teleological thinking by providing data strongly suggesting the impossibility of random development in the creation of the universe and the appearance of life (e.g., the «anthropic principle»).

Philosophy of the Meaning of Life

While scientific approaches to the meaning of life aim to describe relevant empirical facts about human existence, philosophers are concerned about the relationship between ideas such as the proper interpretation of empirical data. Philosophers have considered such questions as: «Is the question ‘What is the meaning of life?’ a meaningful question?»; «What does it really mean?»; and «If there are no objective values, then is life meaningless?» Some philosophical disciplines have also aimed to develop an understanding of life that explains, regardless of how we came to be here, what we should do, now that we are here.

Since the question about life’s meaning inevitably leads to the question of a possible divine origin to life, philosophy and theology are inextricably linked on this issue. Whether the answer to the question about a divine creator is yes, no, or «not applicable,» the question will come up. Nevertheless, philosophy and religion significantly differ in much of their approach to the question. Hence, they will be treated separately.

Essentialist views

Essentialist views generally start with the assumption that there is a common essence in human beings, human nature, and that this nature is the starting point for any evaluation of the meaning of life. In classic philosophy, from Plato’s idealism to Descartes’ rationalism, humans have been seen as rational beings or «rational animals.» Conforming to that inborn quality is then seen as the aim of life.

Reason, in that context, also has a strong value-oriented and ethical connotation. Philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, and many others had views about what sort of life is best (and hence most meaningful). Aristotle believed that the pursuit of happiness is the Highest Good, and that such is achievable through our uniquely human capacity to reason. The notion of the highest good as the rational aim in life can still be found in later thinkers like Kant. A strong ethical connotation can be found in the Ancient Stoics, while Epicureanism saw the meaning of life in the search for the highest pleasure or happiness.

All these views have in common the assumption that it is possible to discover, and then practice, whatever is seen as the highest good through rational insight, hence the term «philosophy»—the love of wisdom. With Plato, the wisdom to discover the true meaning of life is found in connection with the notion of the immortal soul that completes its course in earthly life once it liberates itself from the futile earthly goals. In this, Plato prefigures a theme that would be essential in Christianity, that of God-given eternal life, as well as the notion that the soul is good and the flesh evil or at least a hindrance to the fulfillment of one’s true goal. At the same time, the concept that one has to rise above deceptive appearances to reach a proper understanding of life’s meaning has links to Eastern and Far Eastern traditions.

In medieval and modern philosophy, the Platonic and Aristotelian views were incorporated in a worldview centered on the theistic concept of the Will of God as the determinant factor for the meaning of our life, which was then seen as achieving moral perfection in ways pleasing to God. Modern philosophy came to experience considerable struggle in its attempt to make this view compatible with the rational discourse of a philosophy free of any prejudice. With Kant, the given of a God and his will fell away as a possible rational certainty. Certainty concerning purpose and meaning were moved from God to the immediacy of consciousness and conscience, as epitomized in Kant’s teaching of the categorical imperative. This development would gradually lead to the later supremacy of an existentialist discussion of the meaning of life, since such a position starts with the self and its choices, rather than with a purpose given «from above.»

The emphasis on meaning as destiny, rather than choice, would one more time flourish in the early nineteenth century’s German Idealism, notably in the philosophy of Hegel where the overall purpose of history is seen as the embodiment of the Absolute Spirit in human society.

Existentialist views

Existentialist views concerning the meaning of life are based on the idea that it is only personal choices and commitments that can give any meaning to life since, for an individual, life can only be his or her life, and not an abstractly given entity. By going this route, existentialist thinkers seek to avoid the trappings of dogmatism and pursue a more genuine route. That road, however, is inevitably filled with doubt and hesitation. With the refusal of committing oneself to an externally given ideal comes the limitation of certainty to that alone which one chooses.

Presenting essentialism and existentialism as strictly divided currents would undoubtedly amount to a caricature, hence such a distinction can only be seen as defining a general trend. It is very clear, however, that philosophical thought from the mid-nineteenth century on has been strongly marked by the influence of existentialism. At the same time, the motives of dread, loss, uncertainty, and anguish in the face of an existence that needs to be constructed “out of nothing” have become predominant. These developments also need to be studied in the context of modern and contemporary historical events leading to the World Wars.

A universal existential contact with the question of meaning is found in situations of extreme distress, where all expected goals and purposes are shattered, including one’s most cherished hopes and convictions. The individual is then left with the burning question whether there still remains an even more fundamental, self-transcending meaning to existence. In many instances, such existential crises have been the starting point for a qualitative transformation of one’s perceptions.

Søren Kierkegaard invented the term «leap of faith» and argued that life is full of absurdity and the individual must make his or her own values in an indifferent world. For Kierkegaard, an individual can have a meaningful life (or at least one free of despair) if the individual relates the self in an unconditional commitment despite the inherent vulnerability of doing so in the midst our doubt. Genuine meaning is thus possible once the individual reaches the third, or religious, stage of life. Kirkegaard’s sincere commitment, far remote from any ivory tower philosophy, brings him into close contact with religious-philosophical approaches in the Far East, such as that of Buddhism, where the attainment of true meaning in life is only possible when the individual passes through several stages before reaching enlightenment that is fulfillment in itself, without any guarantee given from the outside (such as the certainty of salvation).

Although not generally categorized as an existentialist philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer offered his own bleak answer to «what is the meaning of life?» by determining one’s visible life as the reflection of one’s will and the Will (and thus life) as being an aimless, irrational, and painful drive. The essence of reality is thus seen by Schopenhauer as totally negative, the only promise of salvation, deliverance, or at least escape from suffering being found in world-denying existential attitudes such as aesthetic contemplation, sympathy for others, and asceticism.

Twentieth-century thinkers like Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre are representative of a more extreme form of existentialism where the existential approach takes place within the framework of atheism, rather than Christianity. Gabriel Marcel, on the other hand, is an example of Christian existentialism. For Paul Tillich, the meaning of life is given by one’s inevitable pursuit of some ultimate concern, whether it takes on the traditional form of religion or not. Existentialism is thus an orientation of the mind that can be filled with the greatest variety of content, leading to vastly different conclusions.

Skeptical and nihilist views

Skepticism has always been a strong undercurrent in the history of thought, as uncertainty about meaning and purpose has always existed even in the context of the strongest commitment to a certain view. Skepticism can also be called an everyday existential reality for every human being, alongside whatever commitments or certainties there may be. To some, it takes on the role of doubt to be overcome or endured. To others, it leads to a negative conclusion concerning our possibility of making any credible claim about the meaning of our life.

Skepticism in philosophy has existed since antiquity where it formed several schools of thought in Greece and in Rome. Until recent times, however, overt skepticism has remained a minority position. With the collapse of traditional certainties, skepticism has become increasingly prominent in social and cultural life. Ironically, because of its very nature of denying the possibility of certain knowledge, it is not a position that has produced major thinkers, at least not in its pure form.

The philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein and logical positivism, as well as the whole tradition of analytical philosophy represent a particular form of skepticism in that they challenge the very meaningfulness of questions like «the meaning of life,» questions that do not involve verifiable statements.

Whereas skepticism denies the possibility of certain knowledge and thus rejects any affirmative statement about the meaning of life, nihilism amounts to a flat denial of such meaning or value. Friedrich Nietzsche characterized nihilism as emptying the world and especially human existence of meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. The term nihilism itself comes from the Latin nihil, which means «nothing.»

Nihilism thus explores the notion of existence without meaning. Though nihilism tends toward defeatism, one can find strength and reason for celebration in the varied and unique human relationships it explores. From a nihilist point of view, morals are valueless and only hold a place in society as false ideals created by various forces. The characteristic that distinguishes nihilism from other skeptical or relativist philosophies is that, rather than merely insisting that values are subjective or even unwarranted, nihilism declares that nothing is of value, as the name implies.

Pragmatist views

Pragmatic philosophers suggest that rather than a truth about life, we should seek a useful understanding of life. William James argued that truth could be made but not sought. Thus, the meaning of life is a belief about the purpose of life that does not contradict one’s experience of a purposeful life. Roughly, this could be applied as: «The meaning of life is those purposes which cause you to value it.» To a pragmatist, the meaning of life, your life, can be discovered only through experience.

Pragmatism is a school of philosophy which originated in the United States in the late 1800s. Pragmatism is characterized by the insistence on consequences, utility and practicality as vital components of truth. Pragmatism objects to the view that human concepts and intellect represent reality, and therefore stands in opposition to both formalist and rationalist schools of philosophy. Rather, pragmatism holds that it is only in the struggle of intelligent organisms with the surrounding environment that theories and data acquire significance. Pragmatism does not hold, however, that just anything that is useful or practical should be regarded as true, or anything that helps us to survive merely in the short-term; pragmatists argue that what should be taken as true is that which most contributes to the most human good over the longest course. In practice, this means that for pragmatists, theoretical claims should be tied to verification practices—i.e., that one should be able to make predictions and test them—and that ultimately the needs of humankind should guide the path of human inquiry.

Humanistic views

Human purpose is determined by humans, completely without supernatural influence. Nor does knowledge come from supernatural sources, it flows from human observation, experimentation, and rational analysis preferably utilizing the scientific method: the nature of the universe is what we discern it to be. As are ethical values, which are derived from human needs and interests as tested by experience.

Enlightened self-interest is at the core of humanism. The most significant thing in life is the human being, and by extension, the human race and the environment in which we live. The happiness of the individual is inextricably linked to the well-being of humanity as a whole, in part because we are social animals which find meaning in relationships, and because cultural progress benefits everybody who lives in that culture.

When the world improves, life in general improves, so, while the individual desires to live well and fully, humanists feel it is important to do so in a way that will enhance the well-being of all. While the evolution of the human species is still (for the most part) a function of nature, the evolution of humanity is in our hands and it is our responsibility to progress it toward its highest ideals. In the same way, humanism itself is evolving, because humanists recognize that values and ideals, and therefore the meaning of life, are subject to change as our understanding improves.

The doctrine of humanism is set forth in the «Humanist Manifesto» and «A Secular Humanist Declaration.»

Atheistic views

Atheism in its strictest sense means the belief that no God or Supreme Being (of any type or number) exists, and by extension that neither the universe nor its inhabitants were created by such a Being. Because atheists reject supernatural explanations for the existence of life, lacking a deistic source, they commonly point to blind abiogenesis as the most likely source for the origin of life. As for the purpose of life, there is no one particular atheistic view. Some atheists argue that since there are no gods to tell us what to value, we are left to decide for ourselves. Other atheists argue that some sort of meaning can be intrinsic to life itself, so the existence or non-existence of God is irrelevant to the question (a version of Socrates’ Euthyphro dilemma). Some believe that life is nothing more than a byproduct of insensate natural forces and has no underlying meaning or grand purpose. Other atheists are indifferent towards the question, believing that talking about meaning without specifying «meaning to whom» is an incoherent or incomplete thought (this can also fit with the idea of choosing the meaning of life for oneself).

Religious Approaches to the Meaning of Life

The religious traditions of the world have offered their own doctrinal responses to the question about life’s meaning. These answers also remain independently as core statements based on the claim to be the product of revelation or enlightenment, rather than human reflection.

Abrahamic religions

Judaism

Judaism regards life as a precious gift from God; precious not only because it is a gift from God, but because, for humans, there is a uniqueness attached to that gift. Of all the creatures on Earth, humans are created in the image of God. Our lives are sacred and precious because we carry within us the divine image, and with it, unlimited potential.

While Judaism teaches about elevating yourself in spirituality, connecting to God, it also teaches that you are to love your neighbor: «Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself» (Leviticus 19:18). We are to practice it in this world Olam Hazeh to prepare ourselves for Olam Haba (the world to come).

Kabbalah takes it one step further. The Zohar states that the reason for life is to better one’s soul. The soul descends to this world and endures the trials of this life, so that it can reach a higher spiritual state upon its return to the source.

Christianity

Christians draw many of their beliefs from the Bible, and believe that loving God and one’s neighbor is the meaning of life. In order to achieve this, one would ask God for the forgiveness of one’s own sins, and one would also forgive the sins of one’s fellow humans. By forgiving and loving one’s neighbor, one can receive God into one’s heart: «But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked» (Luke 6:35). Christianity believes in an eternal afterlife, and declares that it is an unearned gift from God through the love of Jesus Christ, which is to be received or forfeited by faith (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 6:23; John 3:16-21; 3:36).

Christians believe they are being tested and purified so that they may have a place of responsibility with Jesus in the eternal Kingdom to come. What the Christian does in this life will determine his place of responsibility with Jesus in the eternal Kingdom to come. Jesus encouraged Christians to be overcomers, so that they might share in the glorious reign with him in the life to come: «To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne» (Revelation 3:21).

The Bible states that it is God «in whom we live and move and have our being» (Acts 17:28), and that to fear God is the beginning of wisdom, and to depart from evil is the beginning of understanding (Job 28:28). The Bible also says, «Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God» (1 Corinthians 10:31).

Islam

In Islam the ultimate objective of man is to seek the pleasure of Allah by living in accordance with the divine guidelines as stated in the Qur’an and the tradition of the Prophet. The Qur’an clearly states that the whole purpose behind the creation of man is for glorifying and worshipping Allah: «I only created jinn and man to worship Me» (Qur’an 51:56). Worshiping in Islam means to testify to the oneness of God in his lordship, names and attributes. Part of the divine guidelines, however, is almsgiving (zakat), one of the Five Pillars of Islam. Also regarding the ethic of reciprocity among fellow humans, the Prophet teaches that «None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.» [1] To Muslims, life was created as a test, and how well one performs on this test will determine whether one finds a final home in Jannah (Heaven) or Jahannam (Hell).

The esoteric Muslim view, generally held by Sufis, the universe exists only for God’s pleasure.

South Asian religions

Hinduism

For Hindus, the purpose of life is described by the purusharthas, the four ends of human life. These goals are, from lowest to highest importance: Kāma (sensual pleasure or love), Artha (wealth), Dharma (righteousness or morality) and Moksha (liberation from the cycle of reincarnation). Dharma connotes general moral and ethical ideas such as honesty, responsibility, respect, and care for others, which people fulfill in the course of life as a householder and contributing member of society. Those who renounce home and career practice a life of meditation and austerities to reach Moksha.

Hinduism is an extremely diverse religion. Most Hindus believe that the spirit or soul—the true «self» of every person, called the ātman—is eternal. According to the monistic/pantheistic theologies of Hinduism (such as the Advaita Vedanta school), the ātman is ultimately indistinct from Brahman, the supreme spirit. Brahman is described as «The One Without a Second»; hence these schools are called «non-dualist.» The goal of life according to the Advaita school is to realize that one’s ātman (soul) is identical to Brahman, the supreme soul. The Upanishads state that whoever becomes fully aware of the ātman as the innermost core of one’s own self, realizes their identity with Brahman and thereby reaches Moksha (liberation or freedom). [2]

Other Hindu schools, such as the dualist Dvaita Vedanta and other bhakti schools, understand Brahman as a Supreme Being who possesses personality. On these conceptions, the ātman is dependent on Brahman, and the meaning of life is to achieve Moksha through love towards God and on God’s grace.

Whether non-dualist (Advaita) or dualist (Dvaita), the bottom line is the idea that all humans are deeply interconnected with one another through the unity of the ātman and Brahman, and therefore, that they are not to injure one another but to care for one another.

Jainism

Jainism teaches that every human is responsible for his or her actions. The Jain view of karma is that every action, every word, every thought produces, besides its visible, an invisible, transcendental effect on the soul. The ethical system of Jainism promotes self-discipline above all else. By following the ascetic teachings of the Tirthankara or Jina, the 24 enlightened spiritual masters, a human can reach a point of enlightenment, where he or she attains infinite knowledge and is delivered from the cycle of reincarnation beyond the yoke of karma. That state is called Siddhashila. Although Jainism does not teach the existence of God(s), the ascetic teachings of the Tirthankara are highly developed regarding right faith, right knowledge, and right conduct. The meaning of life consists in achievement of complete enlightenment and bliss in Siddhashila by practicing them.

Jains also believe that all living beings have an eternal soul, jīva, and that all souls are equal because they all possess the potential of being liberated. So, Jainism includes strict adherence to ahimsa (or ahinsā), a form of nonviolence that goes far beyond vegetarianism. Food obtained with unnecessary cruelty is refused. Hence the universal ethic of reciprocity in Jainism: «Just as pain is not agreeable to you, it is so with others. Knowing this principle of equality treat other with respect and compassion» (Saman Suttam 150).

Buddhism

One of the central views in Buddhism is a nondual worldview, in which subject and object are the same, and the sense of doer-ship is illusionary. On this account, the meaning of life is to become enlightened as to the nature and oneness of the universe. According to the scriptures, the Buddha taught that in life there exists dukkha, which is in essence sorrow/suffering, that is caused by desire and it can be brought to cessation by following the Noble Eightfold Path. This teaching is called the Catvāry Āryasatyāni (Pali: Cattāri Ariyasaccāni ), or the «Four Noble Truths»:

Theravada Buddhism promotes the concept of Vibhajjavada (literally, «teaching of analysis»). This doctrine says that insight must come from the aspirant’s experience, critical investigation, and reasoning instead of by blind faith; however, the scriptures of the Theravadin tradition also emphasize heeding the advice of the wise, considering such advice and evaluation of one’s own experiences to be the two tests by which practices should be judged. The Theravadin goal is liberation (or freedom) from suffering, according to the Four Noble Truths. This is attained in the achievement of Nirvana, which also ends the repeated cycle of birth, old age, sickness and death.

Mahayana Buddhist schools de-emphasize the traditional Theravada ideal of the release from individual suffering (dukkha) and attainment of awakening (Nirvana). In Mahayana, the Buddha is seen as an eternal, immutable, inconceivable, omnipresent being. The fundamental principles of Mahayana doctrine are based around the possibility of universal liberation from suffering for all beings, and the existence of the transcendent Buddha-nature, which is the eternal Buddha essence present, but hidden and unrecognized, in all living beings. Important part of the Buddha-nature is compassion.

Buddha himself talks about the ethic of reciprocity: «One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter.» (Dhammapada 10:131). [3]

Sikhism

Sikhism sees life as an opportunity to understand God the Creator as well as to discover the divinity which lies in each individual. God is omnipresent (sarav viāpak) in all creation and visible everywhere to the spiritually awakened. Guru Nanak Dev stresses that God must be seen from «the inward eye,» or the «heart,» of a human being: devotees must meditate to progress towards enlightenment. In this context of the omnipresence of God, humans are to love one another, and they are not enemies to one another.

East Asian religions

Confucianism

Confucianism places the meaning of life in the context of human relationships. People’s character is formed in the given relationships to their parents, siblings, spouse, friends and social roles. There is need for discipline and education to learn the ways of harmony and success within these social contexts. The purpose of life, then, is to fulfill one’s role in society, by showing honesty, propriety, politeness, filial piety, loyalty, humaneness, benevolence, etc. in accordance with the order in the cosmos manifested by Tian (Heaven).

Confucianism deemphasizes afterlife. Even after humans pass away, they are connected with their descendants in this world through rituals deeply rooted in the virtue of filial piety that closely links different generations. The emphasis is on normal living in this world, according to the contemporary scholar of Confucianism Wei-Ming Tu, «We can realize the ultimate meaning of life in ordinary human existence.» [4]

Daoism

The Daoist cosmogony emphasizes the need for all humans and all sentient beings to return to the primordial or to rejoin with the Oneness of the Universe by way of self-correction and self realization. It is the objective for all adherents to understand and be in tune with the Dao (Way) of nature’s ebb and flow.

Within the theology of Daoism, originally all humans were beings called yuanling («original spirits») from Taiji and Tao, and the meaning in life for the adherents is to realize the temporal nature of their existence, and all adherents are expected to practice, hone and conduct their mortal lives by way of Xiuzhen (practice of the truth) and Xiushen (betterment of the self), as a preparation for spiritual transcendence here and hereafter.

The Meaning of Life in Literature

Insight into the meaning of life has been a central preoccupation of literature from ancient times. Beginning with Homer through such twentieth-century writers as Franz Kafka, authors have explored ultimate meaning through usually indirect, «representative» depictions of life. For the ancients, human life appeared within the matrix of a cosmological order. In the dramatic saga of war in Homer’s Illiad, or the great human tragedies of Greek playwrights such as Sophocles, Aeschylus, and Euripides, inexorable Fate and the machinations of the Gods are seen as overmastering the feeble means of mortals to direct their destiny.

In the Middle Ages, Dante grounded his epic Divine Comedy in an explicitly Christian context, with meaning derived from moral discernment based on the immutable laws of God. The Renaissance humanists Miguel de Cervantes and William Shakespeare influenced much later literature by more realistically portraying human life and beginning an enduring literary tradition of elevating human experience as the grounds upon which meaning may be discerned. With notable exceptions—such as satirists such as François-Marie Voltaire and Jonathan Swift, and explicitly Christian writers such as John Milton—Western literature began to examine human experience for clues to ultimate meaning. Literature became a methodology to explore meaning and to represent truth by holding up a mirror to human life.

In the nineteenth century Honoré de Balzac, considered one of the founders of literary realism, explored French society and studied human psychology in a massive series of novels and plays he collectively titled The Human Comedy. Gustave Flaubert, like Balzac, sought to realistically analyze French life and manners without imposing preconceived values upon his object of study.

Novelist Herman Melville used the quest for the White Whale in Moby-Dick not only as an explicit symbol of his quest for the truth but as a device to discover that truth. The literary method became for Melville a process of philosophic inquiry into meaning. Henry James made explicit this important role in «The Art of Fiction» when he compared the novel to fine art and insisted that the novelist’s role was exactly analogous to that of the artist or philosopher:

Realistic novelists such as Leo Tolstoy and especially Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote «novels of ideas,» recreating Russian society of the late nineteenth century with exacting verisimilitude, but also introducing characters who articulated essential questions concerning the meaning of life. These questions merged into the dramatic plot line in such novels as Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov. In the twentieth century Thomas Mann labored to grasp the calamity of the First World War in his philosophical novel The Magic Mountain. Franz Kafka, Jean Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Samuel Beckett, and other existential writers explored in literature a world where tradition, faith, and moral certitude had collapsed, leaving a void. Existential writers preeminently addressed questions of the meaning of life through studying the pain, anomie, and psychological dislocation of their fictional protagonists. In Kafka’s Metamorphosis, to take a well known example, an office functionary wakes up one morning to find himself transformed into a giant cockroach, a new fact he industriously labors to incorporate into his routine affairs.

The concept of life having a meaning has been both parodied and promulgated, usually indirectly, in popular culture as well. For example, at the end of Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life, a character is handed an envelope wherein the meaning of life is spelled out: «Well, it’s nothing very special. Uh, try to be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try to live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations.» Such tongue-in-cheek representations of meaning are less common than film and television presentations that locate the meaning of life in the subjective experience of the individual. This popular post-modern notion generally enables the individual to discover meaning to suit his or her inclinations, marginalizing what are presumed to be dated values, while somewhat inconsistently incorporating the notion of the relativity of values into an absolute principle.

Assessment

Probably the most universal teachings concerning the meaning of life, to be followed in virtually all religions in spite of much diversity of their traditions and positions, are: 1) the ethic of reciprocity among fellow humans, the «Golden Rule,» derived from an ultimate being, called God, Allah, Brahman, Taiji, or Tian; and 2) the spiritual dimension of life including an afterlife or eternal life, based on the requirement not to indulge in the external and material aspect of life. Usually, the connection of the two is that the ethic of reciprocity is a preparation in this world for the elevation of spirituality and for afterlife. It is important to note that these two constitutive elements of any religious view of meaning are common to all religious and spiritual traditions, although Jainism’s ethical teachings may not be based on any ultimate divine being and the Confucianist theory of the continual existence of ancestors together with descendants may not consider afterlife in the sense of being the other world. These two universal elements of religions are acceptable also to religious literature, the essentialist position in philosophy, and in some way to some of the existentialist position.

Scientific theories can be used to support these two elements, depending upon whether one’s perspective is religious or not. For example, the biological function of survival and continuation can be used in support of the religious doctrine of eternal life, and modern physics can be considered not to preclude some spiritual dimension of the universe. Also, when science observes the reciprocity of orderly relatedness, rather than random development, in the universe, it can support the ethic of reciprocity in the Golden Rule. Of course, if one’s perspective is not religious, then science may not be considered to support religion. Recently, however, the use of science in support of religious claims has greatly increased, and it is evidenced by the publication of many books and articles on the relationship of science and religion. The importance of scientific investigations on the origin and nature of life, and of the universe in which we live, has been increasingly recognized, because the question on the meaning of life has been acknowledged to need more than religious answers, which, without scientific support, are feared to sound irrelevant and obsolete in the age of science and technology. Thus, religion is being forced to take into account the data and systematic answers provided by science. Conversely, the role of religion has become that of offering a meaningful explanation of possible solutions suggested by science.

It is interesting to observe that humanists, who usually deny the existence of God and of afterlife, believe that it is important for all humans to love and respect one another: «Humanists acknowledge human interdependence, the need for mutual respect and the kinship of all humanity.» [6] Also, much of secular literature, even without imposing preconceived values, describes the beauty of love and respect in the midst of hatred and chaos in human life. Also, even a common sense discussion on the meaning of life can argue for the existence of eternal life, for the notion of self-destruction at one’s death would appear to make the meaning of life destroyed along with life itself. Thus, the two universal elements of religions seem not to be totally alien to us.

Christian theologian Millard J. Erickson sees God’s blessing for humans to be fruitful, multiply, and have dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:28) as «the purpose or reason for the creation of humankind.» [7] This biblical account seems to refer to the ethical aspect of the meaning of life, which is the reciprocal relationship of love involving multiplied humanity and all creation centering on God, although, seen with secular eyes, it might be rather difficult to accept the ideal of such a God-given purpose or meaning of life based on simple observation of the world situation.

Notes

References

External links

All links retrieved June 28, 2021.

General Philosophy Sources

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.

The Meaning of Life

Many major historical figures in philosophy have provided an answer to the question of what, if anything, makes life meaningful, although they typically have not put it in these terms (with such talk having arisen only in the past 250 years or so, on which see Landau 1997). Consider, for instance, Aristotle on the human function, Aquinas on the beatific vision, and Kant on the highest good. Relatedly, think about Koheleth, the presumed author of the Biblical book Ecclesiastes, describing life as “futility” and akin to “the pursuit of wind,” Nietzsche on nihilism, as well as Schopenhauer when he remarks that whenever we reach a goal we have longed for we discover “how vain and empty it is.” While these concepts have some bearing on happiness and virtue (and their opposites), they are straightforwardly construed (roughly) as accounts of which higher-order final ends, if any, a person ought to realize that would make her life significant.

Despite the venerable pedigree, it is only since the 1980s or so that a distinct field of the meaning of life has been established in Anglo-American-Australasian philosophy, on which this survey focuses, and it is only in the past 20 years that debate with real depth and intricacy has appeared. Two decades ago analytic reflection on life’s meaning was described as a “backwater” compared to that on well-being or good character, and it was possible to cite nearly all the literature in a given critical discussion of the field (Metz 2002). Neither is true any longer. Anglo-American-Australasian philosophy of life’s meaning has become vibrant, such that there is now way too much literature to be able to cite comprehensively in this survey. To obtain focus, it tends to discuss books, influential essays, and more recent works, and it leaves aside contributions from other philosophical traditions (such as the Continental or African) and from non-philosophical fields (e.g., psychology or literature). This survey’s central aim is to acquaint the reader with current analytic approaches to life’s meaning, sketching major debates and pointing out neglected topics that merit further consideration.

When the topic of the meaning of life comes up, people tend to pose one of three questions: “What are you talking about?”, “What is the meaning of life?”, and “Is life in fact meaningful?”. The analytic literature can be usefully organized according to which question it seeks to answer. This survey starts off with recent work that addresses the first, abstract (or “meta”) question regarding the sense of talk of “life’s meaning,” i.e., that aims to clarify what we have in mind when inquiring into the meaning of life (section 1). Afterward, it considers texts that provide answers to the more substantive question about the nature of meaningfulness (sections 2–3). There is in the making a sub-field of applied meaning that parallels applied ethics, in which meaningfulness is considered in the context of particular cases or specific themes. Examples include downshifting (Levy 2005), implementing genetic enhancements (Agar 2013), making achievements (Bradford 2015), getting an education (Schinkel et al. 2015), interacting with research participants (Olson 2016), automating labor (Danaher 2017), and creating children (Ferracioli 2018). In contrast, this survey focuses nearly exclusively on contemporary normative-theoretical approaches to life’s meanining, that is, attempts to capture in a single, general principle all the variegated conditions that could confer meaning on life. Finally, this survey examines fresh arguments for the nihilist view that the conditions necessary for a meaningful life do not obtain for any of us, i.e., that all our lives are meaningless (section 4).

1. The Meaning of “Meaning”

One part of philosophy of life’s meaning consists of the systematic attempt to identify what people have in mind when they think about the topic or what they mean by talk of “life’s meaning.” For many in the field, terms such as “importance” and “significance” are synonyms of “meaningfulness” and so are insufficiently revealing, but there are those who draw a distinction between meaningfulness and significance (Singer 1996, 112–18; Belliotti 2019, 145–50, 186). There is also debate about how the concept of a meaningless life relates to the ideas of a life that is absurd (Nagel 1970, 1986, 214–23; Feinberg 1980; Belliotti 2019), futile (Trisel 2002), and not worth living (Landau 2017, 12–15; Matheson 2017).

A useful way to begin to get clear about what thinking about life’s meaning involves is to specify the bearer. Which life does the inquirer have in mind? A standard distinction to draw is between the meaning “in” life, where a human person is what can exhibit meaning, and the meaning “of” life in a narrow sense, where the human species as a whole is what can be meaningful or not. There has also been a bit of recent consideration of whether animals or human infants can have meaning in their lives, with most rejecting that possibility (e.g., Wong 2008, 131, 147; Fischer 2019, 1–24), but a handful of others beginning to make a case for it (Purves and Delon 2018; Thomas 2018). Also under-explored is the issue of whether groups, such as a people or an organization, can be bearers of meaning, and, if so, under what conditions.

Most analytic philosophers have been interested in meaning in life, that is, in the meaningfulness that a person’s life could exhibit, with comparatively few these days addressing the meaning of life in the narrow sense. Even those who believe that God is or would be central to life’s meaning have lately addressed how an individual’s life might be meaningful in virtue of God more often than how the human race might be. Although some have argued that the meaningfulness of human life as such merits inquiry to no less a degree (if not more) than the meaning in a life (Seachris 2013; Tartaglia 2015; cf. Trisel 2016), a large majority of the field has instead been interested in whether their lives as individual persons (and the lives of those they care about) are meaningful and how they could become more so.

Focusing on meaning in life, it is quite common to maintain that it is conceptually something good for its own sake or, relatedly, something that provides a basic reason for action (on which see Visak 2017). There are a few who have recently suggested otherwise, maintaining that there can be neutral or even undesirable kinds of meaning in a person’s life (e.g., Mawson 2016, 90, 193; Thomas 2018, 291, 294). However, these are outliers, with most analytic philosophers, and presumably laypeople, instead wanting to know when an individual’s life exhibits a certain kind of final value (or non-instrumental reason for action).

Another claim about which there is substantial consensus is that meaningfulness is not all or nothing and instead comes in degrees, such that some periods of life are more meaningful than others and that some lives as a whole are more meaningful than others. Note that one can coherently hold the view that some people’s lives are less meaningful (or even in a certain sense less “important”) than others, or are even meaningless (unimportant), and still maintain that people have an equal standing from a moral point of view. Consider a consequentialist moral principle according to which each individual counts for one in virtue of having a capacity for a meaningful life, or a Kantian approach according to which all people have a dignity in virtue of their capacity for autonomous decision-making, where meaning is a function of the exercise of this capacity. For both moral outlooks, we could be required to help people with relatively meaningless lives.

Yet another relatively uncontroversial element of the concept of meaningfulness in respect of individual persons is that it is conceptually distinct from happiness or rightness (emphasized in Wolf 2010, 2016). First, to ask whether someone’s life is meaningful is not one and the same as asking whether her life is pleasant or she is subjectively well off. A life in an experience machine or virtual reality device would surely be a happy one, but very few take it to be a prima facie candidate for meaningfulness (Nozick 1974: 42–45). Indeed, a number would say that one’s life logically could become meaningful precisely by sacrificing one’s well-being, e.g., by helping others at the expense of one’s self-interest. Second, asking whether a person’s existence over time is meaningful is not identical to considering whether she has been morally upright; there are intuitively ways to enhance meaning that have nothing to do with right action or moral virtue, such as making a scientific discovery or becoming an excellent dancer. Now, one might argue that a life would be meaningless if, or even because, it were unhappy or immoral, but that would be to posit a synthetic, substantive relationship between the concepts, far from indicating that speaking of “meaningfulness” is analytically a matter of connoting ideas regarding happiness or rightness. The question of what (if anything) makes a person’s life meaningful is conceptually distinct from the questions of what makes a life happy or moral, although it could turn out that the best answer to the former question appeals to an answer to one of the latter questions.

Supposing, then, that talk of “meaning in life” connotes something good for its own sake that can come in degrees and that is not analytically equivalent to happiness or rightness, what else does it involve? What more can we say about this final value, by definition? Most contemporary analytic philosophers would say that the relevant value is absent from spending time in an experience machine (but see Goetz 2012 for a different view) or living akin to Sisyphus, the mythic figure doomed by the Greek gods to roll a stone up a hill for eternity (famously discussed by Albert Camus and Taylor 1970). In addition, many would say that the relevant value is typified by the classic triad of “the good, the true, and the beautiful” (or would be under certain conditions). These terms are not to be taken literally, but instead are rough catchwords for beneficent relationships (love, collegiality, morality), intellectual reflection (wisdom, education, discoveries), and creativity (particularly the arts, but also potentially things like humor or gardening).

Pressing further, is there something that the values of the good, the true, the beautiful, and any other logically possible sources of meaning involve? There is as yet no consensus in the field. One salient view is that the concept of meaning in life is a cluster or amalgam of overlapping ideas, such as fulfilling higher-order purposes, meriting substantial esteem or admiration, having a noteworthy impact, transcending one’s animal nature, making sense, or exhibiting a compelling life-story (Markus 2003; Thomson 2003; Metz 2013, 24–35; Seachris 2013, 3–4; Mawson 2016). However, there are philosophers who maintain that something much more monistic is true of the concept, so that (nearly) all thought about meaningfulness in a person’s life is essentially about a single property. Suggestions include being devoted to or in awe of qualitatively superior goods (Taylor 1989, 3–24), transcending one’s limits (Levy 2005), or making a contribution (Martela 2016).

Recently there has been something of an “interpretive turn” in the field, one instance of which is the strong view that meaning-talk is logically about whether and how a life is intelligible within a wider frame of reference (Goldman 2018, 116–29; Seachris 2019; Thomas 2019; cf. Repp 2018). According to this approach, inquiring into life’s meaning is nothing other than seeking out sense-making information, perhaps a narrative about life or an explanation of its source and destiny. This analysis has the advantage of promising to unify a wide array of uses of the term “meaning.” However, it has the disadvantages of being unable to capture the intuitions that meaning in life is essentially good for its own sake (Landau 2017, 12–15), that it is not logically contradictory to maintain that an ineffable condition is what confers meaning on life (as per Cooper 2003, 126–42; Bennett-Hunter 2014; Waghorn 2014), and that often human actions themselves (as distinct from an interpretation of them), such as rescuing a child from a burning building, are what bear meaning.

Some thinkers have suggested that a complete analysis of the concept of life’s meaning should include what has been called “anti-matter” (Metz 2002, 805–07, 2013, 63–65, 71–73) or “anti-meaning” (Campbell and Nyholm 2015; Egerstrom 2015), conditions that reduce the meaningfulness of a life. The thought is that meaning is well represented by a bipolar scale, where there is a dimension of not merely positive conditions, but also negative ones. Gratuitous cruelty or destructiveness are prima facie candidates for actions that not merely fail to add meaning, but also subtract from any meaning one’s life might have had.

Despite the ongoing debates about how to analyze the concept of life’s meaning (or articulate the definition of the phrase “meaning in life”), the field remains in a good position to make progress on the other key questions posed above, viz., of what would make a life meaningful and whether any lives are in fact meaningful. A certain amount of common ground is provided by the point that meaningfulness at least involves a gradient final value in a person’s life that is conceptually distinct from happiness and rightness, with exemplars of it potentially being the good, the true, and the beautiful. The rest of this discussion addresses philosophical attempts to capture the nature of this value theoretically and to ascertain whether it exists in at least some of our lives.

2. Supernaturalism

Most analytic philosophers writing on meaning in life have been trying to develop and evaluate theories, i.e., fundamental and general principles, that are meant to capture all the particular ways that a life could obtain meaning. As in moral philosophy, there are recognizable “anti-theorists,” i.e., those who maintain that there is too much pluralism among meaning conditions to be able to unify them in the form of a principle (e.g., Kekes 2000; Hosseini 2015). Arguably, though, the systematic search for unity is too nascent to be able to draw a firm conclusion about whether it is available.

The theories are standardly divided on a metaphysical basis, that is, in terms of which kinds of properties are held to constitute the meaning. Supernaturalist theories are views according to which a spiritual realm is central to meaning in life. Most Western philosophers have conceived of the spiritual in terms of God or a soul as commonly understood in the Abrahamic faiths (but see Mulgan 2015 for discussion of meaning in the context of a God uninterested in us). In contrast, naturalist theories are views that the physical world as known particularly well by the scientific method is central to life’s meaning.

There is logical space for a non-naturalist theory, according to which central to meaning is an abstract property that is neither spiritual nor physical. However, only scant attention has been paid to this possibility in the recent Anglo-American-Australasian literature (Audi 2005).

It is important to note that supernaturalism, a claim that God (or a soul) would confer meaning on a life, is logically distinct from theism, the claim that God (or a soul) exists. Although most who hold supernaturalism also hold theism, one could accept the former without the latter (as Camus more or less did), committing one to the view that life is meaningless or at least lacks substantial meaning. Similarly, while most naturalists are atheists, it is not contradictory to maintain that God exists but has nothing to do with meaning in life or perhaps even detracts from it. Although these combinations of positions are logically possible, some of them might be substantively implausible. The field could benefit from discussion of the comparative attractiveness of various combinations of evaluative claims about what would make life meaningful and metaphysical claims about whether spiritual conditions exist.

Over the past 15 years or so, two different types of supernaturalism have become distinguished on a regular basis (Metz 2019). That is true not only in the literature on life’s meaning, but also in that on the related pro-theism/anti-theism debate, about whether it would be desirable for God or a soul to exist (e.g., Kahane 2011; Kraay 2018; Lougheed 2020). On the one hand, there is extreme supernaturalism, according to which spiritual conditions are necessary for any meaning in life. If neither God nor a soul exists, then, by this view, everyone’s life is meaningless. On the other hand, there is moderate supernaturalism, according to which spiritual conditions are necessary for a great or ultimate meaning in life, although not meaning in life as such. If neither God nor a soul exists, then, by this view, everyone’s life could have some meaning, or even be meaningful, but no one’s life could exhibit the most desirable meaning. For a moderate supernaturalist, God or a soul would substantially enhance meaningfulness or be a major contributory condition for it.

There are a variety of ways that great or ultimate meaning has been described, sometimes quantitatively as “infinite” (Mawson 2016), qualitatively as “deeper” (Swinburne 2016), relationally as “unlimited” (Nozick 1981, 618–19; cf. Waghorn 2014), temporally as “eternal” (Cottingham 2016), and perspectivally as “from the point of view of the universe” (Benatar 2017). There has been no reflection as yet on the crucial question of how these distinctions might bear on each another, for instance, on whether some are more basic than others or some are more valuable than others.

Cross-cutting the extreme/moderate distinction is one between God-centered theories and soul-centered ones. According to the former, some kind of connection with God (understood to be a spiritual person who is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful and who is the ground of the physical universe) constitutes meaning in life, even if one lacks a soul (construed as an immortal, spiritual substance that contains one’s identity). In contrast, by the latter, having a soul and putting it into a certain state is what makes life meaningful, even if God does not exist. Many supernaturalists of course believe that God and a soul are jointly necessary for a (greatly) meaningful existence. However, the simpler view, that only one of them is necessary, is common, and sometimes arguments proffered for the complex view fail to support it any more than the simpler one.

2.1. God-centered Views

The most influential God-based account of meaning in life has been the extreme view that one’s existence is significant if and only if one fulfills a purpose God has assigned. The familiar idea is that God has a plan for the universe and that one’s life is meaningful just to the degree that one helps God realize this plan, perhaps in a particular way that God wants one to do so. If a person failed to do what God intends her to do with her life (or if God does not even exist), then, on the current view, her life would be meaningless.

Thinkers differ over what it is about God’s purpose that might make it uniquely able to confer meaning on human lives, but the most influential argument has been that only God’s purpose could be the source of invariant moral rules (Davis 1987, 296, 304–05; Moreland 1987, 124–29; Craig 1994/2013, 161–67) or of objective values more generally (Cottingham 2005, 37–57), where a lack of such would render our lives nonsensical. According to this argument, lower goods such as animal pleasure or desire satisfaction could exist without God, but higher ones pertaining to meaning in life, particularly moral virtue, could not. However, critics point to many non-moral sources of meaning in life (e.g., Kekes 2000; Wolf 2010), with one arguing that a universal moral code is not necessary for meaning in life, even if, say, beneficent actions are (Ellin 1995, 327). In addition, there are a variety of naturalist and non-naturalist accounts of objective morality––and of value more generally––on offer these days, so that it is not clear that it must have a supernatural source in God’s will.

One recurrent objection to the idea that God’s purpose could make life meaningful is that if God had created us with a purpose in mind, then God would have degraded us and thereby undercut the possibility of us obtaining meaning from fulfilling the purpose. The objection harks back to Jean-Paul Sartre, but in the analytic literature it appears that Kurt Baier was the first to articulate it (1957/2000, 118–20; see also Murphy 1982, 14–15; Singer 1996, 29; Kahane 2011; Lougheed 2020, 121–41). Sometimes the concern is the threat of punishment God would make so that we do God’s bidding, while other times it is that the source of meaning would be constrictive and not up to us, and still other times it is that our dignity would be maligned simply by having been created with a certain end in mind (for some replies to such concerns, see Hanfling 1987, 45–46; Cottingham 2005, 37–57; Lougheed 2020, 111–21).

There is a different argument for an extreme God-based view that focuses less on God as purposive and more on God as infinite, unlimited, or ineffable, which Robert Nozick first articulated with care (Nozick 1981, 594–618; see also Bennett-Hunter 2014; Waghorn 2014). The core idea is that for a finite condition to be meaningful, it must obtain its meaning from another condition that has meaning. So, if one’s life is meaningful, it might be so in virtue of being married to a person, who is important. Being finite, the spouse must obtain his or her importance from elsewhere, perhaps from the sort of work he or she does. This work also must obtain its meaning by being related to something else that is meaningful, and so on. A regress on meaningful conditions is present, and the suggestion is that the regress can terminate only in something so all-encompassing that it need not (indeed, cannot) go beyond itself to obtain meaning from anything else. And that is God. The standard objection to this relational rationale is that a finite condition could be meaningful without obtaining its meaning from another meaningful condition. Perhaps it could be meaningful in itself, without being connected to something beyond it, or maybe it could obtain its meaning by being related to something else that is beautiful or otherwise valuable for its own sake but not meaningful (Nozick 1989, 167–68; Thomson 2003, 25–26, 48).

A serious concern for any extreme God-based view is the existence of apparent counterexamples. If we think of the stereotypical lives of Albert Einstein, Mother Teresa, and Pablo Picasso, they seem meaningful even if we suppose there is no all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good spiritual person who is the ground of the physical world (e.g., Wielenberg 2005, 31–37, 49–50; Landau 2017). Even religiously inclined philosophers have found this hard to deny these days (Quinn 2000, 58; Audi 2005; Mawson 2016, 5; Williams 2020, 132–34).

Largely for that reason, contemporary supernaturalists have tended to opt for moderation, that is, to maintain that God would greatly enhance the meaning in our lives, even if some meaning would be possible in a world without God. One approach is to invoke the relational argument to show that God is necessary, not for any meaning whatsoever, but rather for an ultimate meaning. “Limited transcendence, the transcending of our limits so as to connect with a wider context of value which itself is limited, does give our lives meaning––but a limited one. We may thirst for more” (Nozick 1981, 618). Another angle is to appeal to playing a role in God’s plan, again to claim, not that it is essential for meaning as such, but rather for “a cosmic significance. intead of a significance very limited in time and space” (Swinburne 2016, 154; see also Quinn 2000; Cottingham 2016, 131). Another rationale is that by fulfilling God’s purpose, we would meaningfully please God, a perfect person, as well as be remembered favorably by God forever (Cottingham 2016, 135; Williams 2020, 21–22, 29, 101, 108). Still another argument is that only with God could the deepest desires of human nature be satisfied (e.g., Goetz 2012; Seachris 2013, 20; Cottingham 2016, 127, 136), even if more surface desires could be satisifed without God.

In reply to such rationales for a moderate supernaturalism, there has been the suggestion that it is precisely by virtue of being alone in the universe that our lives would be particularly significant; otherwise, God’s greatness would overshadow us (Kahane 2014). There has also been the response that, with the opportunity for greater meaning from God would also come that for greater anti-meaning, so that it is not clear that a world with God would offer a net gain in respect of meaning (Metz 2019, 34–35). For example, if pleasing God would greatly enhance meaning in our lives, then presumably displeasing God would greatly reduce it and to a comparable degree. In addition, there are arguments for extreme naturalism (or its “anti-theist” cousin) mentioned below (sub-section 3.3).

2.2. Soul-centered Views

Notice that none of the above arguments for supernaturalism appeals to the prospect of eternal life (at least not explicitly). Arguments that do make such an appeal are soul-centered, holding that meaning in life mainly comes from having an immortal, spiritual substance that is contiguous with one’s body when it is alive and that will forever outlive its death. Some think of the afterlife in terms of one’s soul entering a transcendent, spiritual realm (Heaven), while others conceive of one’s soul getting reincarnated into another body on Earth. According to the extreme version, if one has a soul but fails to put it in the right state (or if one lacks a soul altogether), then one’s life is meaningless.

There are three prominent arguments for an extreme soul-based perspective. One argument, made famous by Leo Tolstoy, is the suggestion that for life to be meaningful something must be worth doing, that something is worth doing only if it will make a permanent difference to the world, and that doing so requires being immortal (see also Hanfling 1987, 22–24; Morris 1992, 26; Craig 1994). Critics most often appeal to counterexamples, suggesting for instance that it is surely worth your time and effort to help prevent people from suffering, even if you and they are mortal. Indeed, some have gone on the offensive and argued that helping people is worth the sacrifice only if and because they are mortal, for otherwise they could invariably be compensated in an afterlife (e.g., Wielenberg 2005, 91–94). Another recent and interesting criticism is that the major motivations for the claim that nothing matters now if one day it will end are incoherent (Greene 2021).

A second argument for the view that life would be meaningless without a soul is that it is necessary for justice to be done, which, in turn, is necessary for a meaningful life. Life seems nonsensical when the wicked flourish and the righteous suffer, at least supposing there is no other world in which these injustices will be rectified, whether by God or a Karmic force. Something like this argument can be found in Ecclesiastes, and it continues to be defended (e.g., Davis 1987; Craig 1994). However, even granting that an afterlife is required for perfectly just outcomes, it is far from obvious that an eternal afterlife is necessary for them, and, then, there is the suggestion that some lives, such as Mandela’s, have been meaningful precisely in virtue of encountering injustice and fighting it.

A third argument for thinking that having a soul is essential for any meaning is that it is required to have the sort of free will without which our lives would be meaningless. Immanuel Kant is known for having maintained that if we were merely physical beings, subjected to the laws of nature like everything else in the material world, then we could not act for moral reasons and hence would be unimportant. More recently, one theologian has eloquently put the point in religious terms: “The moral spirit finds the meaning of life in choice. It finds it in that which proceeds from man and remains with him as his inner essence rather than in the accidents of circumstances turns of external fortune. (W)henever a human being rubs the lamp of his moral conscience, a Spirit does appear. This Spirit is God. It is in the ‘Thou must’ of God and man’s ‘I can’ that the divine image of God in human life is contained” (Swenson 1949/2000, 27–28). Notice that, even if moral norms did not spring from God’s commands, the logic of the argument entails that one’s life could be meaningful, so long as one had the inherent ability to make the morally correct choice in any situation. That, in turn, arguably requires something non-physical about one’s self, so as to be able to overcome whichever physical laws and forces one might confront. The standard objection to this reasoning is to advance a compatibilism about having a determined physical nature and being able to act for moral reasons (e.g., Arpaly 2006; Fischer 2009, 145–77). It is also worth wondering whether, if one had to have a spiritual essence in order to make free choices, it would have to be one that never perished.

Like God-centered theorists, many soul-centered theorists these days advance a moderate view, accepting that some meaning in life would be possible without immortality, but arguing that a much greater meaning would be possible with it. Granting that Einstein, Mandela, and Picasso had somewhat meaningful lives despite not having survived the deaths of their bodies (as per, e.g., Trisel 2004; Wolf 2015, 89–140; Landau 2017), there remains a powerful thought: more is better. If a finite life with the good, the true, and the beautiful has meaning in it to some degree, then surely it would have all the more meaning if it exhibited such higher values––including a relationship with God––for an eternity (Cottingham 2016, 132–35; Mawson 2016, 2019, 52–53; Williams 2020, 112–34; cf. Benatar 2017, 35–63). One objection to this reasoning is that the infinity of meaning that would be possible with a soul would be “too big,” rendering it difficult for the moderate supernaturalist to make sense of the intution that a finite life such as Einstein’s can indeed count as meaningful by comparison (Metz 2019, 30–31; cf. Mawson 2019, 53–54). More common, though, is the objection that an eternal life would include anti-meaning of various kinds, such as boredom and repetition, discussed below in the context of extreme naturalism (sub-section 3.3).

3. Naturalism

Recall that naturalism is the view that a physical life is central to life’s meaning, that even if there is no spiritual realm, a substantially meaningful life is possible. Like supernaturalism, contemporary naturalism admits of two distinguishable variants, moderate and extreme (Metz 2019). The moderate version is that, while a genuinely meaningful life could be had in a purely physical universe as known well by science, a somewhat more meaningful life would be possible if a spiritual realm also existed. God or a soul could enhance meaning in life, although they would not be major contributors. The extreme version of naturalism is the view that it would be better in respect of life’s meaning if there were no spiritual realm. From this perspective, God or a soul would be anti-matter, i.e., would detract from the meaning available to us, making a purely physical world (even if not this particular one) preferable.

Cross-cutting the moderate/extreme distinction is that between subjectivism and objectivism, which are theoretical accounts of the nature of meaningfulness insofar as it is physical. They differ in terms of the extent to which the human mind constitutes meaning and whether there are conditions of meaning that are invariant among human beings. Subjectivists believe that there are no invariant standards of meaning because meaning is relative to the subject, i.e., depends on an individual’s pro-attitudes such as her particular desires or ends, which are not shared by everyone. Roughly, something is meaningful for a person if she strongly wants it or intends to seek it out and she gets it. Objectivists maintain, in contrast, that there are some invariant standards for meaning because meaning is at least partly mind-independent, i.e., obtains not merely in virtue of being the object of anyone’s mental states. Here, something is meaningful (partially) because of its intrinsic nature, in the sense of being independent of whether it is wanted or intended; meaning is instead (to some extent) the sort of thing that merits these reactions.

There is logical space for an orthogonal view, according to which there are invariant standards of meaningfulness constituted by what all human beings would converge on from a certain standpoint. However, it has not been much of a player in the field (Darwall 1983, 164–66).

3.1. Subjectivism

According to this version of naturalism, meaning in life varies from person to person, depending on each one’s variable pro-attitudes. Common instances are views that one’s life is more meaningful, the more one gets what one happens to want strongly, achieves one’s highly ranked goals, or does what one believes to be really important (Trisel 2002; Hooker 2008). One influential subjectivist has recently maintained that the relevant mental state is caring or loving, so that life is meaningful just to the extent that one cares about or loves something (Frankfurt 1988, 80–94, 2004). Another recent proposal is that meaningfulness consists of “an active engagement and affirmation that vivifies the person who has freely created or accepted and now promotes and nurtures the projects of her highest concern” (Belliotti 2019, 183).

Subjectivism was dominant in the middle of the twentieth century, when positivism, noncognitivism, existentialism, and Humeanism were influential (Ayer 1947; Hare 1957; Barnes 1967; Taylor 1970; Williams 1976). However, in the last quarter of the twentieth century, inference to the best explanation and reflective equilibrium became accepted forms of normative argumentation and were frequently used to defend claims about the existence and nature of objective value (or of “external reasons,” ones obtaining independently of one’s extant attitudes). As a result, subjectivism about meaning lost its dominance. Those who continue to hold subjectivism often remain suspicious of attempts to justify beliefs about objective value (e.g., Trisel 2002, 73, 79, 2004, 378–79; Frankfurt 2004, 47–48, 55–57; Wong 2008, 138–39; Evers 2017, 32, 36; Svensson 2017, 54). Theorists are moved to accept subjectivism typically because the alternatives are unpalatable; they are reasonably sure that meaning in life obtains for some people, but do not see how it could be grounded on something independent of the mind, whether it be the natural or the supernatural (or the non-natural). In contrast to these possibilities, it appears straightforward to account for what is meaningful in terms of what people find meaningful or what people want out of their lives. Wide-ranging meta-ethical debates in epistemology, metaphysics, and the philosophy of language are necessary to address this rationale for subjectivism.

There is a cluster of other, more circumscribed arguments for subjectivism, according to which this theory best explains certain intuitive features of meaning in life. For one, subjectivism seems plausible since it is reasonable to think that a meaningful life is an authentic one (Frankfurt 1988, 80–94). If a person’s life is significant insofar as she is true to herself or her deepest nature, then we have some reason to believe that meaning simply is a function of those matters for which the person cares. For another, it is uncontroversial that often meaning comes from losing oneself, i.e., in becoming absorbed in an activity or experience, as opposed to being bored by it or finding it frustrating (Frankfurt 1988, 80–94; Belliotti 2019, 162–70). Work that concentrates the mind and relationships that are engrossing seem central to meaning and to be so because of the subjective elements involved. For a third, meaning is often taken to be something that makes life worth continuing for a specific person, i.e., that gives her a reason to get out of bed in the morning, which subjectivism is thought to account for best (Williams 1976; Svensson 2017; Calhoun 2018).

Critics maintain that these arguments are vulnerable to a common objection: they neglect the role of objective value (or an external reason) in realizing oneself, losing oneself, and having a reason to live (Taylor 1989, 1992; Wolf 2010, 2015, 89–140). One is not really being true to oneself, losing oneself in a meaningful way, or having a genuine reason to live insofar as one, say, successfully maintains 3,732 hairs on one’s head (Taylor 1992, 36), cultivates one’s prowess at long-distance spitting (Wolf 2010, 104), collects a big ball of string (Wolf 2010, 104), or, well, eats one’s own excrement (Wielenberg 2005, 22). The counterexamples suggest that subjective conditions are insufficient to ground meaning in life; there seem to be certain actions, relationships, and states that are objectively valuable (but see Evers 2017, 30–32) and toward which one’s pro-attitudes ought to be oriented, if meaning is to accrue.

So say objectivists, but subjectivists feel the pull of the point and usually seek to avoid the counterexamples, lest they have to bite the bullet by accepting the meaningfulness of maintaining 3,732 hairs on one’s head and all the rest (for some who do, see Svensson 2017, 54–55; Belliotti 2019, 181–83). One important strategy is to suggest that subjectivists can avoid the counterexamples by appealing to the right sort of pro-attitude. Instead of whatever an individual happens to want, perhaps the relevant mental state is an emotional-perceptual one of seeing-as (Alexis 2011; cf. Hosseini 2015, 47–66), a “categorical” desire, that is, an intrinsic desire constitutive of one’s identity that one takes to make life worth continuing (Svensson 2017), or a judgment that one has a good reason to value something highly for its own sake (Calhoun 2018). Even here, though, objectivists will argue that it might “appear that whatever the will chooses to treat as a good reason to engage itself is, for the will, a good reason. But the will itself. craves objective reasons; and often it could not go forward unless it thought it had them” (Wiggins 1988, 136). And without any appeal to objectivity, it is perhaps likely that counterexamples would resurface.

Another subjectivist strategy by which to deal with the counterexamples is the attempt to ground meaningfulness, not on the pro-attitudes of an individual valuer, but on those of a group (Darwall 1983, 164–66; Brogaard and Smith 2005; Wong 2008). Does such an intersubjective move avoid (more of) the counterexamples? If so, does it do so more plausibly than an objective theory?

3.2. Objectivism

Objective naturalists believe that meaning in life is constituted at least in part by something physical beyond merely the fact that it is the object of a pro-attitude. Obtaining the object of some emotion, desire, or judgment is not sufficient for meaningfulness, on this view. Instead, there are certain conditions of the material world that could confer meaning on anyone’s life, not merely because they are viewed as meaningful, wanted for their own sake, or believed to be choiceworthy, but instead (at least partially) because they are inherently worthwhile or valuable in themselves.

Morality (the good), enquiry (the true), and creativity (the beautiful) are widely held instances of activities that confer meaning on life, while trimming toenails and eating snow––along with the counterexamples to subjectivism above––are not. Objectivism is widely thought to be a powerful general explanation of these particular judgments: the former are meaningful not merely because some agent (whether it is an individual, her society, or even God) cares about them or judges them to be worth doing, while the latter simply lack significance and cannot obtain it even if some agent does care about them or judge them to be worth doing. From an objective perspective, it is possible for an individual to care about the wrong thing or to be mistaken that something is worthwhile, and not merely because of something she cares about all the more or judges to be still more choiceworthy. Of course, meta-ethical debates about the existence and nature of value are again relevant to appraising this rationale.

Some objectivists think that being the object of a person’s mental states plays no constitutive role in making that person’s life meaningful, although they of course contend that it often plays an instrumental role––liking a certain activity, after all, is likely to motivate one to do it. Relatively few objectivists are “pure” in that way, although consequentialists do stand out as clear instances (e.g., Singer 1995; Smuts 2018, 75–99). Most objectivists instead try to account for the above intuitions driving subjectivism by holding that a life is more meaningful, not merely because of objective factors, but also in part because of propositional attitudes such as cognition, conation, and emotion. Particularly influential has been Susan Wolf’s hybrid view, captured by this pithy slogan: “Meaning arises when subjective attraction meets objective attractiveness” (Wolf 2015, 112; see also Kekes 1986, 2000; Wiggins 1988; Raz 2001, 10–40; Mintoff 2008; Wolf 2010, 2016; Fischer 2019, 9–23; Belshaw 2021, 160–81). This theory implies that no meaning accrues to one’s life if one believes in, is satisfied by, or cares about a project that is not truly worthwhile, or if one takes up a truly worthwhile project but fails to judge it important, be satisfied by it, or care about it. A related approach is that, while subjective attraction is not necessary for meaning, it could enhance it (e.g., Audi 2005, 344; Metz 2013, 183–84, 196–98, 220–25). For instance, a stereotypical Mother Teresa who is bored by and alienated from her substantial charity work might have a somewhat significant existence because of it, even if she would have an even more significant existence if she felt pride in it or identified with it.

There have been several attempts to capture theoretically what all objectively attractive, inherently worthwhile, or finally valuable conditions have in common insofar as they bear on meaning in a person’s life. Over the past few decades, one encounters the proposals that objectively meaningful conditions are just those that involve: positively connecting with organic unity beyond oneself (Nozick 1981, 594–619); being creative (Taylor 1987; Matheson 2018); living an emotional life (Solomon 1993; cf. Williams 2020, 56–78); promoting good consequences, such as improving the quality of life of oneself and others (Singer 1995; Audi 2005; Smuts 2018, 75–99); exercising or fostering rational nature in exceptional ways (Smith 1997, 179–221; Gewirth 1998, 177–82; Metz 2013, 222–36); progressing toward ends that can never be fully realized because one’s knowledge of them changes as one approaches them (Levy 2005); realizing goals that are transcendent for being long-lasting in duration and broad in scope (Mintoff 2008); living virtuously (May 2015, 61–138; McPherson 2020); and loving what is worth loving (Wolf 2016). There is as yet no convergence in the field on one, or even a small cluster, of these accounts.

One feature of a large majority of the above naturalist theories is that they are aggregative or additive, objectionably treating a life as a mere “container” of bits of life that are meaningful considered in isolation from other bits (Brännmark 2003, 330). It has become increasingly common for philosophers of life’s meaning, especially objectivists, to hold that life as a whole, or at least long stretches of it, can substantially affect its meaningfulness beyond the amount of meaning (if any) in its parts.

For instance, a life that has lots of beneficence and otherwise intuitively meaning-conferring conditions but that is also extremely repetitive (à la the movie Groundhog Day) is less than maximally meaningful (Taylor 1987; Blumenfeld 2009). Furthermore, a life that not only avoids repetition but also ends with a substantial amount of meaningful (or otherwise desirable) parts seems to have more meaning overall than one that has the same amount of meaningful (desirable) parts but ends with few or none of them (Kamm 2013, 18–22; Dorsey 2015). Still more, a life in which its meaningless (or otherwise undesirable parts) cause its meaningful (desirable) parts to come about through a process of personal growth seems meaningful in virtue of this redemptive pattern, “good life-story,” or narrative self-expression (Taylor 1989, 48–51; Wong 2008; Fischer 2009, 145–77; Kauppinen 2012; May 2015, 61–138; Velleman 2015, 141–73). These three cases suggest that meaning can inhere in life as a whole, that is, in the relationships between its parts, and not merely in the parts considered in isolation. However, some would maintain that it is, strictly speaking, the story that is or could be told of a life that matters, not so much the life-story qua relations between events themselves (de Bres 2018).

There are pure or extreme versions of holism present in the literature, according to which the only possible bearer of meaning in life is a person’s life as a whole, and not any isolated activities, relationships, or states (Taylor 1989, 48–51; Tabensky 2003; Levinson 2004). A salient argument for this position is that judgments of the meaningfulness of a part of someone’s life are merely provisional, open to revision upon considering how they fit into a wider perspective. So, for example, it would initially appear that taking an ax away from a madman and thereby protecting innocent parties confers some meaning on one’s life, but one might well revise that judgment upon learning that the intention behind it was merely to steal an ax, not to save lives, or that the madman then took out a machine gun, causing much more harm than his ax would have. It is worth considering how far this sort of case is generalizable, and, if it can be to a substantial extent, whether that provides strong evidence that only life as a whole can exhibit meaningfulness.

Perhaps most objectivists would, at least upon reflection, accept that both the parts of a life and the whole-life relationships among the parts can exhibit meaning. Supposing there are two bearers of meaning in a life, important questions arise. One is whether a certain narrative can be meaningful even if its parts are not, while a second is whether the meaningfulness of a part increases if it is an aspect of a meaningful whole (on which see Brännmark 2003), and a third is whether there is anything revealing to say about how to make tradeoffs between the parts and whole in cases where one must choose between them (Blumenfeld 2009 appears to assign lexical priority to the whole).

3.3. Rejecting God and a Soul

Naturalists until recently had been largely concerned to show that meaning in life is possible without God or a soul; they have not spent much time considering how such spiritual conditions might enhance meaning, but have, in moderate fashion, tended to leave that possibility open (an exception is Hooker 2008). Lately, however, an extreme form of naturalism has arisen, according to which our lives would probably, if not unavoidably, have less meaning in a world with God or a soul than in one without. Although such an approach was voiced early on by Baier (1957), it is really in the past decade or so that this “anti-theist” position has become widely and intricately discussed.

One rationale, mentioned above as an objection to the view that God’s purpose constitutes meaning in life, has also been deployed to argue that the existence of God as such would necessarily reduce meaning, that is, would consist of anti-matter. It is the idea that master/servant and parent/child analogies so prominent in the monotheist religious traditions reveal something about our status in a world where there is a qualitatively higher being who has created us with certain ends in mind: our independence or dignity as adult persons would be violated (e.g., Baier 1957/2000, 118–20; Kahane 2011, 681–85; Lougheed 2020, 121–41). One interesting objection to this reasoning has been to accept that God’s existence is necessarily incompatible with the sort of meaning that would come (roughly stated) from being one’s own boss, but to argue that God would also make greater sorts of meaning available, offering a net gain to us (Mawson 2016, 110–58).

Another salient argument for thinking that God would detract from meaning in life appeals to the value of privacy (Kahane 2011, 681–85; Lougheed 2020, 55–110). God’s omniscience would unavoidably make it impossible for us to control another person’s access to the most intimate details about ourselves, which, for some, amounts to a less meaningful life than one with such control. Beyond questioning the value of our privacy in relation to God, one thought-provoking criticism has been to suggest that, if a lack of privacy really would substantially reduce meaning in our lives, then God, qua morally perfect person, would simply avoid knowing everything about us (Tooley 2018). Lacking complete knowledge of our mental states would be compatible with describing God as “omniscient,” so the criticism goes, insofar as that is plausibly understood as having as much knowledge as is morally permissible.

Turn, now, to major arguments for thinking that having a soul would reduce life’s meaning, so that if one wants a maximally meaningful life, one should prefer a purely physical world, or at least one in which people are mortal. First and foremost, there has been the argument that an immortal life could not avoid becoming boring (Williams 1973), rendering life pointless according to many subjective and objective theories. The literature on this topic has become enormous, with the central reply being that immortality need not get boring (for more recent discussions, see Fischer 2009, 79–101, 2019, 117–42; Mawson 2019, 51–52; Williams 2020, 30–41, 123–29; Belshaw 2021, 182–97). However, it might also be worth questioning whether boredom is sufficient for meaninglessness. Suppose, for instance, that one volunteers to be bored so that many others will not be bored; perhaps this would be a meaningful sacrifice to make. Being bored for an eternity would not be blissful or even satisfying, to be sure, but if it served the function of preventing others from being bored for an eternity, would it be meaningful (at least to some degree)? If, as is commonly held, sacrificing one’s life could be meaningful, why not also sacrificing one’s liveliness?

Another reason given to reject eternal life is that it would become repetitive, which would substantially drain it of meaning (Scarre 2007, 54–55; May 2009, 46–47, 64–65, 71; Smuts 2011, 142–44; cf. Blumenfeld 2009). If, as it appears, there are only a finite number of actions one could perform, relationships one could have, and states one could be in during an eternity, one would have to end up doing the same things again. Even though one’s activities might be more valuable than rolling a stone up a hill forever à la Sisyphus, the prospect of doing them over and over again forever is disheartening for many. To be sure, one might not remember having done them before and hence could avoid boredom, but for some philosophers that would make it all the worse, akin to having dementia and forgetting that one has told the same stories. Others, however, still find meaning in such a life (e.g., Belshaw 2021, 197, 205n41).

A third meaning-based argument against immortality invokes considerations of narrative. If the pattern of one’s life as a whole substantially matters, and if a proper pattern would include a beginning, a middle, and an end, it appears that a life that never ends would lack the relevant narrative structure. “Because it would drag on endlessly, it would, sooner or later, just be a string of events lacking all form. With immortality, the novel never ends. How meaningful can such a novel be?” (May 2009, 68, 72; see also Scarre 2007, 58–60). Notice that this objection is distinct from considerations of boredom and repetition (which concern novelty); even if one were stimulated and active, and even if one found a way not to repeat one’s life in the course of eternity, an immortal life would appear to lack shape. In reply, some reject the idea that a meaningful life must be akin to a novel, and intead opt for narrativity in the form of something like a string of short stories that build on each other (Fischer 2009, 145–77, 2019, 101–16). Others, though, have sought to show that eternity could still be novel-like, deeming the sort of ending that matters to be a function of what the content is and how it relates to the content that came before (e.g., Seachris 2011; Williams 2020, 112–19).

There have been additional objections to immortality as undercutting meaningfulness, but they are prima facie less powerful than the previous three in that, if sound, they arguably show that an eternal life would have a cost, but probably not one that would utterly occlude the prospect of meaning in it. For example, there have been the suggestions that eternal lives would lack a sense of preciousness and urgency (Nussbaum 1989, 339; Kass 2002, 266–67), could not exemplify virtues such as courageously risking one’s life for others (Kass 2002, 267–68; Wielenberg 2005, 91–94), and could not obtain meaning from sustaining or saving others’ lives (Nussbaum 1989, 338; Wielenberg 2005, 91–94). Note that at least the first two rationales turn substantially on the belief in immortality, not quite immortality itself: if one were immortal but forgot that one is or did not know that at all, then one could appreciate life and obtain much of the virtue of courage (and, conversely, if one were not immortal, but thought that one is, then, by the logic of these arguments, one would fail to appreciate limits and be unable to exemplify courage).

4. Nihilism

The previous two sections addressed theoretical accounts of what would confer meaning on a human person’s life. Although these theories do not imply that some people’s lives are in fact meaningful, that has been the presumption of a very large majority of those who have advanced them. Much of the procedure has been to suppose that many lives have had meaning in them and then to consider in virtue of what they have or otherwise could. However, there are nihilist (or pessimist) perspectives that question this supposition. According to nihilism (pessimism), what would make a life meaningful in principle cannot obtain for any of us.

One straightforward rationale for nihilism is the combination of extreme supernaturalism about what makes life meaningful and atheism about whether a spiritual realm exists. If you believe that God or a soul is necessary for meaning in life, and if you believe that neither is real, then you are committed to nihilism, to the denial that life can have any meaning. Athough this rationale for nihilism was prominent in the modern era (and was more or less Camus’ position), it has been on the wane in analytic philosophical circles, as extreme supernaturalism has been eclipsed by the moderate variety.

The most common rationales for nihilism these days do not appeal to supernaturalism, or at least not explicitly. One cluster of ideas appeals to what meta-ethicists call “error theory,” the view that evaluative claims (in this case about meaning in life, or about morality qua necessary for meaning) characteristically posit objectively real or universally justified values, but that such values do not exist. According to one version, value judgments often analytically include a claim to objectivity but there is no reason to think that objective values exist, as they “would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe” (Mackie 1977/1990, 38). According to a second version, life would be meaningless if there were no set of moral standards that could be fully justified to all rational enquirers, but it so happens that such standards cannot exist for persons who can always reasonably question a given claim (Murphy 1982, 12–17). According to a third, we hold certain beliefs about the objectivity and universality of morality and related values such as meaning because they were evolutionarily advantageous to our ancestors, not because they are true. Humans have been “deceived by their genes into thinking that there is a distinterested, objective morality binding upon them, which all should obey” (Ruse and Wilson 1986, 179; cf. Street 2015). One must draw on the intricate work in meta-ethics that has been underway for the past several decades in order to appraise these arguments.

In contrast to error-theoretic arguments for nihilism, there are rationales for it accepting that objective values exist but denying that our lives can ever exhibit or promote them so as to obtain meaning. One version of this approach maintains that, for our lives to matter, we must be in a position to add objective value to the world, which we are not since the objective value of the world is already infinite (Smith 2003). The key premises for this view are that every bit of space-time (or at least the stars in the physical universe) have some positive value, that these values can be added up, and that space is infinite. If the physical world at present contains an infinite degree of value, nothing we do can make a difference in terms of meaning, for infinity plus any amount of value remains infinity. One way to question this argument, beyond doubting the value of space-time or stars, is to suggest that, even if one cannot add to the value of the universe, meaning plausibly comes from being the source of certain values.

A second rationale for nihilism that accepts the existence of objective value is David Benatar’s (2006, 18–59) intriguing “asymmetry argument” for anti-natalism, the view that it is immoral to bring new people into existence because doing so would always be on balance bad for them. For Benatar, the bads of existing (e.g., pains) are real disadvantages relative to not existing, while the goods of existing (pleasures) are not real advantages relative to not existing, since there is in the latter state no one to be deprived of them. If indeed the state of not existing is no worse than that of experiencing the benefits of existence, then, since existing invariably brings harm in its wake, it follows that existing is always worse compared to not existing. Although this argument is illustrated with experiential goods and bads, it seems generalizable to non-experiential ones, including meaning in life and anti-matter. The literature on this argument has become large (for a recent collection, see Hauskeller and Hallich 2022).

Benatar (2006, 60–92, 2017, 35–63) has advanced an additional argument for nihilism, one that appeals to Thomas Nagel’s (1986, 208–32) widely discussed analysis of the extremely external standpoint that human persons can take on their lives. There exists, to use Henry Sidgwick’s influential phrase, the “point of view of the universe,” that is, the standpoint that considers a human being’s life in relation to all times and all places. When one takes up this most external standpoint and views one’s puny impact on the world, little of one’s life appears to matter. What one does in a certain society on Earth over 75 years or so just does not amount to much, when considering the billions of temporal years and billions of light-years that make up space-time. Although this reasoning grants limited kinds of meaning to human beings, from a personal, social, or human perspective, Benatar both denies that the greatest sort of meaning––a cosmic one––is available to them and contends that this makes their lives bad, hence the “nihilist” tag. Some have objected that our lives could in fact have a cosmic significance, say, if they played a role in God’s plan (Quinn 2000, 65–66; Swinburne 2016, 154), were the sole ones with a dignity in the universe (Kahane 2014), or engaged in valuable activities that could be appreciated by anyone anywhere anytime (Wolf 2016, 261–62). Others naturally maintain that cosmic significance is irrelevant to appraising a human life, with some denying that it would be a genuine source of meaning (Landau 2017, 93–99), and others accepting that it would be but maintaining that the absence of this good would not count as a bad or merit regret (discussed in Benatar 2017, 56–62; Williams 2020, 108–11).

Удовольствия, познание или долг: в чем философия предлагает поискать смысл жизни

Вопрос о смысле жизни — один из вечных вопросов философии, на который мы вряд ли когда-нибудь узнаем окончательный ответ. О нем любили поспорить и Платон с Аристотелем в V–IV веках до н. э., и современные философы в XXI веке. От них не отстают священники, писатели, физики, биологи, психологи и соседи по подъезду. За долгую историю накопилось множество разнообразных ответов на вопрос о смысле жизни — выбирайте любой!

Хотя смысл жизни — традиционный вопрос философии, исследовать его специально ученые стали только около полувека назад: тогда философия смысла жизни стала отдельным направлением. До этого философы пытались понять, что же такое счастье, нравственная жизнь, добро, справедливость и ответственность, искали определение понятиям «человек» и «бытие» и как бы между прочим отвечали на вопрос о смысле жизни. Почему этот вопрос всё время возникает снова и снова?

Люди — пока что единственные живые существа, способные на рефлексию и взгляд на самих себя со стороны. В отличие от котиков и хомячков мы в любой момент можем отвлечься от своих занятий и спросить себя, почему из множества дел мы выбрали именно это.

Как это обычно и бывает в философии, одного-единственного правильного ответа не существует, и разные философские школы предлагают свои варианты.

Учиться мудрости: жить как Сократ

Для древнегреческого философа Сократа (по крайней мере, если верить его ученику Платону) смыслом жизни является мудрость, познание и самопознание. Только они и способны сделать нас по-настоящему счастливыми, потому что учат нас не радоваться материальным вещам, а тому, как мы ими распоряжаемся. Какой смысл в деньгах, если они используются для войн и делают других несчастными? Какой смысл в золоте, если оно не приносит пользы ни нам, ни окружающим?

Сократ заметил, что даже самые хорошие вещи в руках глупого человека только сделают его более несчастным, ведь он не будет знать, как ими правильно распоряжаться.

Деньги он потеряет, здоровье разрушит, потому что не будет следить за собой, любовь упустит из-за придирок или завышенных ожиданий. Глупый человек обречен на несчастья, сколько бы он ни имел — так считал Сократ, а потому учил, что только в обретении мудрости и заключается наивысшая цель нашей жизни. Ведь умный, даже не имея ничего, найдет способы, как обернуть ситуацию в свою пользу.

«Поскольку мы все стремимся к счастью и, как оказалось, мы счастливы тогда, когда пользуемся вещами, причем пользуемся правильно, а правильность эту и благополучие дает нам знание, должно, по-видимому, всякому человеку изо всех сил стремиться стать как можно более мудрым».

— Сократ в диалоге Платона, «Евтидем»

Наслаждаться: жить моментом, как киренаики

С Сократом не соглашались его ученики, известные как школа киренаиков. Они считали, что познание субъективно — то есть истина у каждого своя, а потому мудрости учиться не надо, а лучше объявить различные радости (включая и простые телесные удовольствия вроде еды и секса) смыслом жизни.

Киренаики рассуждали так: раз будущее неизвестно, а одно и то же может разным людям (или одному человеку в разные времена) приносить и удовольствие, и страдание, нужно жить настоящим и пытаться каждый миг своей жизни сделать максимально счастливым: радоваться вкусной еде и вину, хорошей погоде и встречам с друзьями.

Неизвестно, каким окажется будущее, а жизнь происходит уже сейчас и складывается из вот таких вот отдельных моментов.

В этом и заключается смысл по-киренайски — наслаждаться жизнью и самому решать, что для тебя такое «наслаждение»: пиры и вино или интеллектуальные беседы и философия. Киренаики одобряли всё.

«Не нужно ни жалеть о прошлом, ни бояться будущего; но нужно довольствоваться только настоящим, да и то только каждым его моментом в отдельности.

Отдельное наслаждение само по себе достойно выбора. Но счастье возникает не само через себя, а через отдельные наслаждения».

— цитаты киренаиков по Лосеву, «Киренаики»

Духовно наслаждаться: жить по-эпикурейски

Взгляды киренаиков — это то, что обычно имеют ввиду, когда говорят о гедонизме: удовольствия и вседозволенность. Но не все философы готовы признать, что в простых наслаждениях и заключается смысл нашей жизни. Однако и от удовольствий отказываться они не всегда готовы. Как это совместить?

Древнегреческий философ Эпикур делил все удовольствия на «временные» и «постоянные». Первые — это те, что приходят и уходят, и после них обязательно следует страдание: например, мы были голодны, вкусно поели и получили наслаждение от еды, но спустя пару часов снова хотим есть, а значит, страдаем и опять находимся в поисках удовольствия. И так по кругу. Позже английский философ-утилитарист Джон Стюарт Милль назовет эти удовольствия «низшими» и подчеркнет, что эпикурейцы советовали воздерживаться от них.

Вместо этого Эпикур предлагал сделать смыслом своей жизни получение «постоянных» (или «высших») удовольствий — душевного покоя, благоразумия и умеренности.

Если мы достигаем душевного равновесия, оно никуда не уходит и поддерживает нас в сложные минуты, помогает видеть в жизни главное. Чтобы достичь такого состояния духа, Эпикур советовал заниматься самопознанием, изучать всё новое, не бояться богов и смерти, а также сосредоточиться на том, что в наших силах.

«Когда мы говорим, что наслаждение есть конечная цель, то мы разумеем отнюдь не наслаждения распутства или чувственности, как полагают те, кто не знают, не разделяют или плохо понимают наше учение, — нет, мы разумеем свободу от страданий тела и от смятений души. Ибо не бесконечные попойки и праздники, не наслаждение мальчиками и женщинами или рыбным столом и прочими радостями роскошного пира делают нашу жизнь сладкою, а только трезвое рассуждение, исследующее причины всякого нашего предпочтения и избегания и изгоняющее мнения, поселяющие великую тревогу в душе».

Преодолеть страдания: жить как стоики и Будда

Учение Эпикура во многом перекликается с тем, что советуют стоики и буддисты. И те и другие ищут смысл жизни в душевном покое — только он достигается не за счет поиска постоянных удовольствий, как думают эпикурейцы, а благодаря свободе от страданий. Итак, как же перестать страдать? Тут есть несколько рецептов.

Стоики считали, что мы способны преодолеть страдания, только достигнув особого состояния — апатии. И это не полное равнодушие и даже упадок сил, как принято сейчас думать, а специфическое состояние ума, которое достигается благодаря правильным суждениям и самоконтролю.

Когда мы поймем, что всё в мире делится на то, что мы можем контролировать, и на то, что не можем, а также начнем беспокоиться только о первых и не переживать о вторых, — тогда мы начнем жить стоически. Причем единственное, что мы полностью можем контролировать — это наше отношение к ситуации. Только мы сами вправе решать, переживать нам из-за плохой погоды, или вместо этого одеться теплее и сосредоточиться на своем душевном равновесии. И перестать страдать.

«Если ты огорчаешься по поводу чего-либо внешнего, то угнетает тебя не сама эта вещь, а твое суждение о ней. Но устранить последнее — в твоей власти. Если же тебя огорчает что-либо в твоем собственном настроении, то кто мешает тебе исправить свой образ мыслей? Точно так же, если ты огорчаешься по поводу того, что не делаешь чего-либо, представляющегося тебе правильным, то не лучше сделать это, нежели огорчаться?».

— Марк Аврелий, «Наедине с собою»

Философия буддизма тоже ставит свободу от страданий превыше всего. Чтобы добиться такой свободы, стоит помнить, что источник страданий — наши желания. Мы постоянно чего-то хотим и страдаем, когда этого у нас нет. Получив же, страдаем, потому что легко можем этого лишиться, а также потому, что начинаем хотеть большего (или чего-то другого). Только отказавшись от всех желаний, мы способны избавиться от страданий и достичь особого состояния — нирваны.

Впрочем, словосочетание «смысл жизни» в привычном нам значении не очень-то к буддизму применимо. Буддизм — это широкое направление философии. В нем столько разных школ и течений и такая сложная терминология, что некоторые западные философы напоминают нам: всё, что западному пониманию доступно, — это «адаптация» буддизма для нашей культуры. Конечно, это не означает, что его нужно бросить и вообще не исследовать, просто стоит всегда помнить об ограниченности нашего понимания.

Построить идеальное общество: жить по-конфуциански

Еще один любопытный вариант смысла жизни, доставшийся нам в наследие из восточной философии, — это стремление построить совершенное общество, в котором будет достигнута гармония между человеком и Небом.

Древнекитайский философ Конфуций учит, что идеальное общество можно построить, только если каждый человек будет хорошо исполнять свои обязанности и следовать своей судьбе.

Он рассматривал каждого человека как винтик в большом механизме, для слаженной работы которого важно, чтобы каждый старательно исполнял свои обязанности. Только работая сообща, исполняя свою предписанную роль и уважительно относясь друг к другу, люди способны жить в лучшем обществе. А потому и смыслом жизни Конфуций объявлял самосовершенствование и наилучшее исполнение той работы, которая тебе дана. Каждый человек, кем бы он ни был, способен учиться и совершенствовать то, что он делает: неважно, будто то уборка и готовка или управление страной.

Кроме того, Конфуций напоминает, что люди никогда не должны забывать и о других. Много внимание в конфуцианстве уделено отношениям: как быть хорошим сыном и родителем, как любить всех людей и как исполнять свой долг перед другими.

«Когда человек совершенствует то, что ему дано от природы, и использует это во благо других, он недалек от Истинного Пути. Не делайте то, что вам не нравится, по отношению к другим людям».

— Confucius, The Doctrine of the Mean

Исполнять свой долг: жить как Кант

Если идеи долга вам близки, но строить идеальный мир как-то не хочется, то спросите, в чем смысл жизни у немецкого философа XVIII века Иммануила Канта. Он посоветует добровольно следовать категорическому императиву или, проще говоря, моральному закону, который звучит так:

«Поступай так, чтобы максима твоей воли могла в то же время иметь силу принципа всеобщего законодательства».

— Иммануил Кант, «Критика практического разума»

Кант предлагает еще несколько вариаций категорического императива, но его суть такова: наш долг в том, чтобы жить и относиться к другим людям так же, как мы хотели бы, чтобы жили другие и относились к нам самим.

Проще говоря, если унижаешь других, не жалуйся, когда унижают тебя. А если хочешь, чтобы тебя любили, в первую очередь люби и уважай других.

Впрочем, Кант не поощряет эгоизм и учит, что к другим ни в коем случае нельзя относиться как к средству для достижения собственных целей: например, любить других только для того, чтобы любили тебя. Наоборот, нужно ценить каждого человека и видеть в нем личность или, как сказал бы Кант, «конечную цель». Только жизнь в согласии с моралью и может быть осмысленной.

Делать счастливыми других и быть самому счастливым: жить как утилитаристы

Однако не все философы согласны, что мораль заключается только лишь в исполнении нравственного долга. Утилитаризм учит, что действие может быть названо моральным, только когда оно приносит как можно больше счастья и пользы всем вокруг. А значит, и смысл жизни состоит в том, чтобы это счастье максимизировать и быть, таким образом, полезным обществу.

Но как этого добиться? Можно, например, мысленно подсчитывать, как много счастья принесет то или иное действие, а затем делать то, что наиболее полезно обществу.

Иногда даже во вред себе: выбирая между счастьем одного или десятерых, утилитарист предпочтет количество. А потому жизнь, наполненная смыслом, будет та, в которой человек приносит наибольшую пользу обществу и делает как можно больше людей счастливыми.

Утилитаристов за это любят покритиковать: не всё в жизни можно так легко подсчитать и сравнить, да и люди вряд ли согласятся жертвовать собой в угоду остальным.

Английский философ XIX столетия Джон Стюарт Милль возражает на это: «Счастье остальных делает счастливым и меня самого», — потому мы и совершаем добрые альтруистические поступки. Чаще всего именно они и наполняют нашу жизнь смыслом: делая счастливыми других и видя на их лицах улыбки, мы и сами становимся чуточку счастливее.

Смысла нет: жить нигилистически

Впрочем, часть философов вообще сомневается в том, что в жизни есть какой-либо смысл. Например, немецкий философ XIX столетия Фридрих Ницше напоминает, что нет никакой объективной истины, всё зависит только от нас самих, точнее, от того, с какой стороны мы смотрим на вещи. У мира нет никакого смысла, как нет одной объективной истины, и нам нужно прекратить поиски.

С ним соглашается французский философ XX столетия Альбер Камю, который тоже говорит, что жизнь абсурдна и не имеет никакого смысла, как бы мы отчаянно ни пытались его найти. Все наши попытки — всего лишь разные точки зрения, ни одна из которых не может быть окончательной.

Он сравнивает вечные попытки человека найти всему объяснение с Сизифовым трудом: мы катим камень в гору, надеясь, что в этот раз удастся закатить его на вершину, смысл найдется и всё станет ясно, — вот только камень всегда скатывается вниз, мы остаемся ни с чем и начинаем всё по новой.

Жизнь бессмысленна, но это не значит, что следует сдаться и отказываться жить. Скорее, стоит прекратить попытки искать смысл и заявить, что отсутствие смысла дает человеку огромную свободу. Можно делать всё, что хочется, и не переживать за то, что твои действия бессмысленны.

Можно, наконец, честно сказать себе: «Жизнь — это абсурд, но я буду ею наслаждаться». Не жалеть о прошлом, не переживать за будущее, просто жить.

«Всё завершается признанием глубочайшей бесполезности индивидуальной жизни. Но именно это признание придает легкость, с какой они осуществляют свое творчество, поскольку принятие абсурдности жизни позволяет полностью в нее погрузиться».

— Альбер Камю, «Миф о Сизифе»

Искать собственный смысл жизни: жить, как учат современные философы

Одной статьи не хватит, чтобы описать все возможные варианты ответов на вопрос о смысле жизни. Да и жизни тоже не хватит, чтобы прочитать всех мыслителей и узнать, в чем они находили смысл.

А потому некоторые современные философы поступили хитрее: они считают, что каждый человек должен сам найти для себя свой смысл жизни.

Не стоит ждать, пока кто-то из мудрых ответит на этот самый главный вопрос, пора брать жизнь в свои руки и искать то, что вдохновляет и наполняет серые дни смыслом.

«Мне не кажется, что жизнь в общем имеет какую-либо цель. Она просто происходит. Но у каждого конкретного человека есть своя цель».

— Бертран Рассел, «Кто такой агностик?»

И вот эту самую свою цель и нужно найти, а затем жить так, чтобы ее достичь. Впрочем, философы предупреждают: зацикливаться на будущем так же опасно, как и надеяться на то, что ответ на вопрос о смысле жизни можно узнать, прочитав один лишь учебник.

«Привычка надеяться на будущее и думать, что оно придает смысл тому, что происходит сейчас, очень опасна. Не будет никакого смысла в целом, если нет смысла в его частях. Не нужно думать, что жизнь — это мелодрама, в которой главный герой или героиня мучаются и страдают, а потом обретают счастье. Я живу сейчас, и это мой день, потом у моего сына будет свой день, а затем его сын придет на его место».

— Бертран Рассел, The Conquest of Happiness

В конце концов, это правда: научиться жизни можно, только начав непосредственно жить. Это страшно. Непонятно, как это всё делается, но у нас нет другого пути. К жизни не прилагается никакой готовой и проверенной инструкции. А если бы она была, то жить было бы слишком скучно.

Зато можно придумать инструкцию по сбору своего смысла жизни — что мы и сделали.

The Meaning of Life According to Different Philosophies

Can the meaning of life be told in a word? Maybe it is naive, but there is nothing wrong with wanting a simple answer to an apparently simple question: why live? Here we visualized the most prominent philosophies that tackled this question over the past 5000 years.

All philosophies on the meaning of life seem to fall into one of the four groups:

The philosophies of the East and West also follow a pattern: Easterners think in terms of “we”, the community, while Westerners think in terms of “I”, the individual.

Then there is a question of what is a philosophy. Ideologies and religions are often mistaken for philosophies and vice versa. Take Daoism, for example, Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines it as a philosophy. But the Cambridge Dictionary defines it as a religion. All belief systems that are definitely religions fall under “theism” in this infographic.

We follow the history of philosophy chronologically. Roughly, all philosophies follow this pattern: first, people appeal to God and supernatural forces, then they look for meaning within the community, later they look at the individual person, and finally, they look at humanity as a whole. We start with Natural Pantheism, humanity’s first attempt to explain its existence.

Natural Pantheism

Dates back to prehistoric times
Pantheism is the belief that God is in everything, that all things together comprise an all-encompassing god. The meaning of life is in living in harmony with all that there is.
Pantheism is an ancient idea that was formalized as a separate philosophy in Ethics by the Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) in 1675.

Theism

Dates back to prehistoric times
Theism is the proposition that God or a Supreme Being exists. The meaning of life is then prescribed by the God that one believes in.
Theism dates back to the dawn of humanity where it was practiced in its various forms depending on what a group of humans believed their god to be like.

Daoism

Circa 5th Century BC
Daoism offers people a painless way of finding life’s meaning through Wu Wei (無爲) “action without intention” or “naturalness”. Such action leads to finding the Dao, which is “the way”. And yet, “the way” cannot be understood through any explanation or action. The Dao reveals itself only when a person simply is.
The Dao De Jing (aka Tao Te Ching) by Chinese philosopher Lao Zi (lived c. 6th – 4th century BC) is the primary source on Daoism.

Determinism

Circa 6th Century BC
Determinism is the idea that all events happen as a result of previously existing causes. Since nothing can be changed in a pre-determined world, a person cannot have free will. The meaning of life, is there is one, is also pre-determined, and we cannot do anything to understand it.
The idea of determinism is ancient, reviving in the mathematics of the 18th. One of its well-known representatives is the French philosopher and mathematician Rene Descartes (1596-1650).

Confucianism

Circa 5th Century BC
Chinese philosopher Confucius (551-479 BC) tells us to cultivate virtue called Ren (仁) which is an altruistic sort of feeling one experiences when taking care of one’s children and parents. One of many ways Confucius explained virtue is this:

Now the man of perfect virtue, wishing to be established himself, seeks also to establish others; wishing to be enlarged himself, he seeks also to enlarge others. To be able to judge of others by what is nigh in ourselves – this may be called the art of virtue.

(Analects 6:30)
The primary source on Confucianism is The Analects of Confucius.

Mohism

Appeared around 5th Century BC
The Mohists propose the concept of “inclusive love” jian ai, a kind of impartial care for fellow human beings that includes everyone in society. The meaning of life is in following the model called Fa (法) in which one’s psychological state of care and the beneficial behavior that results from it are two sides of the same coin.
The source of Mohism is Mozi, a compilation of 71 books written by the Chinese philosopher Mozi (c. 470 – 391 BC).

Solipsism

Appeared around 5th Century BC
Solipsism is a theory that one can only be certain about one thing: one’s mind to exist. Solipsism was first recorded by the Greek sophist, Gorgias (483-375) who is reported to have said:

The meaning of life according to solipsism can only be known by one’s mind and not in relation to other beings.
Some psychologists believe newborns to be initially solipsistic. Infants cry in the absence of parents nearby because they believe that when not visible, the parents stop existing. Eventually, children learn from observing others to reject solipsism.

Cynicism

Appeared around 4th Century BC
The Cynics attempt to offer people the possibility of happiness and freedom from suffering in the age of uncertainty. The meaning of life is mental lucidity and self-sufficiency (eudaimonia). To achieve self-sufficiency, a person must become free from external influences – such as wealth, fame, and power.
There is no central authority on Cynicism or any official doctrine. Yet, it was an influential tradition in Ancient Greece.

Hedonism

Appeared around 4th Century BC
Hedonism offers us a life based on seeking pleasure and avoiding suffering. Simple pleasures like eating, dancing, and playing music are meaningful in themselves.
Hedonism is an ancient idea that was later formulated by the Greek philosopher Democritus (c. 460 – 370 B.C.).

Platonism

Appeared around 4th Century BC
For the Greek philosopher Plato (c. 428 – c. 347 BC), the meaning of life is the pursuit of knowledge. In his book Apology, Plato quotes his teacher Socrates (c. 470 – 399 BC) saying that “the unexamined life is not worth living”. In a nutshell, Platonism is the idea that there exist such things as “pure forms” which are abstractions. An abstration is something that neither exists in space nor time. It is completely non-physical and yet it is knowable. Knowledge of “pure forms” is the meaning of life. Daunting as it sounds, there is a shortcut of sorts. According to Plato, we are all born with all knowledge inside us but we have to recall it or rediscover it, which is a concept called anamnesis.
Plato’s most influential work is The Republic published around 375 BC.

Legalism (Chinese)

Appeared around 4th Century BC
The Legalists believed that humans are inherently selfish and cannot be trusted to behave morally. A strong government system can steer humans to continue behaving in their selfish ways while the system as a whole benefits from their work. The meaning of life is then in the acquisition of skills that make a person’s work valuable to the state which in turn benefits society.
The earliest Legalist text is The Book of Lord Shang ( 商君書) written by the politician who raised Qin dynasty to its leading position in Asia.

Epicureanism

Appeared around 4th Century BC
The Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270 BC) was a materialist ancient Greek philosopher who offered that the meaning of life was in achieving sustainable pleasure which leads to a state of tranquility and freedom from fear (ataraxia).
What sort of pleasures are meaningful? Mental, not physical, because mental pleasures exist in the past, the present, and the future, while physical pleasures are fleeting.
The poem On the Nature of Things (De rerum nature) compiles the core arguments and theories of Epicureanism.

Quietism

Appeared around 3rd Century BC
Quietists believe that philosophy as such has no answers to offer. Instead, its role is in pointing out linguistic confusions in the questions presented to philosophers. Thus, the question of the meaning of life assumes that we understand the meaning of the words “meaning” and “life”. Any attempt to pin down the meaning of either word reveals the meaninglessness of the question and thus the meaning of life cannot be understood by asking such a question.
Elements of Quietism are found in both Eastern and Western philosophies with Daoism known for its reluctance to use language and Greek Pyrrhonism embracing non-verbal “suspension of judgment” (epoché).

Aristotelianism

Circa 3rd Century BC
The Greek philosopher Aristotle (385-322 BC) reminds us that no one lives a good life in order to achieve some other goal. Being a good person in itself is sufficient. Virtue is the goal. There is no list of virtues because we all know what they are. For example, it is a virtue to have friends. We do not need to be taught that. Virtue and the rules of ethics are not a theoretical concept according to Aristotle. A human being knows what is good.
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is the best known work on his thinking.

Stoicism

Circa 3rd Century BC
The Stoics (c. 334 – c. 262 BC) want you to be free from desire for pleasure or fear of pain. Eschew emotion. How does one become dispassionate? Only through wisdom can one be free to act justly. A wise person becomes a sage through rational action that does not violate the laws of nature.
Hellenistic philosopher Zeno of Citium (c. 334 – 264 BC) founded the Stoic school of philosophy in Athens about 300 BC. The only complete Stoic works we have are by Seneca, Epictetus, and the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (121–180), whose diary Meditations records his progress on self-transformation toward becoming a sage.

Modern Humanism

Circa the late 1300s
Humanism points out that humans themselves are responsible for the fate of humans in this world. Thus, promoting and helping other humans is the meaning of life.

Subjectivism

Circa the early 1600s
According to Subjectivists, the meaning of life varies by individual, depending on one’s mental state. The more a person achieves their own goals that are set by themselves, the more meaningful their life is. Subjectivists reject that there may be objective values in life that one should achieve despite subjective goals.
Subjectivism is attributed to Rene Descartes and his thought experiment “I think, therefore, I exist.”

Liberalism

Appeared in 1689
The Liberalists trust that a person is naturally free to choose what to do without permission from any other person. Anyone attempting to limit freedoms must first prove that it is necessary. The meaning of life is then in protecting individual liberties against the political coercion that may or may not be justified.
English philosopher and physician John Locke’s (1632-1704) work Two Treatises of Government is the foundational text of liberal ideology.

Kantianism

Appeared in 1785
Kantianism proposes that every human action should be judged according to a universal maxim, or principle. If an action violates a principle then a person failed their duty toward humans. For example, if people followed the maxim kill anyone you dislike, when applied universally, it would lead to the end of humanity. So, the meaning of life is in fulfilling your duty to follow universal principles.
The origin of Kantianism is German philosopher Emmanuel Kant’s(1724-1804) book The Critique of Pure Reason.

Nihilism

Appeared in 1862
Nihilism, also called Pessimism, is the belief that nothing can make life meaningful. The Nihilists see something inherent about humans that prevents us from finding meaning in life. It can be the human tendency for being dissatisfied or always seeking something or being bored once it is found.
The origin of Nihilism is ancient but among philosophers, German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) concept “Will to Power” is most often associated with it.

Pragmatism

Circa the 1870s
Unlike many other schools of philosophy, the Pragmatists have no official creed. In general, their views suggest that rather than truth about life, we should seek a useful understanding of life.
The American philosopher and psychologist William James (1842-1910), one of pragmatism’s main figures argued that truth could be made but not sought. Is life worth living? James answered, “Maybe.” The answer depends on what you do with your life. The meaning of life is then doing the thing that most contributes to the most human good over the longest course – that is bringing maximum value to humanity.
There is hardly a main source of the Pragmatism doctrine, but William James is one of its most prolific authors. His book William James on Habit, Will, Truth, and the Meaning of Life covers the subject.

Logical Empiricism

Circa the 1920s
Also called logical positivism, the idea of logical positivism is that anything that the only type of knowledge available to us is facts – scientifically verifiable and observable. Anything else is meaningless. The meaning of life can then only be derived from one’s actual experience. We cannot know if life has a meaning beyond what we can see.
Although the logical positivists did not have a leader, The Vienna Circle is the movement’s most influential group.

Existentialism

Circa the 1940s
The existentialists think that we all begin life with “existential angst”, a feeling of anxiety about the apparent meaningless of our lives. To find meaning in life, a person has to decide on their own values and then take action to live according to them.
The first existentialist text is German philosopher Martin Heidegger’s(1889-1976) work Being and Time (1927), which is an exploration of the “being that we ourselves are”.

Absurdism

Appeared in 1942
Absurdists ask, “Why would you even ask such a useless question?” The question destined to fail because of the conflict between the human mind that desperately seeks meaning and a world where everything falls short of having a finite, immutable meaning. Looking for meaning in life is a Sysipean task – the more you search for one, the less you understand it. Sysiphus became a symbol of life’s meaninglessness because in Greek mythology he was punished for his misdeeds by being forced to roll an immense boulder up a hill only for it to tumble back every time he neared the summit. This went on for eternity.
The absurdist French philosopher Albert Camus (1913-1960) proposed that people should embrace the absurdity of our existence and then proceed to wilfully live their lives.
The defining work on absurdism is Albert Camus’s work The Myth of Sisyphus

What’s Next for the Meaning of Life?

You might have noticed that this whole time, philosophers assumed we are talking about the meaning of human life. What about animal life? Or maybe life as in all events that happen in the universe? If extraterrestrial life exists, does our definition of life’s meaning include them?

Acknowledgments

This article is inspired by Metz, Thaddeus, “The Meaning of Life”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL.

Thanks to Daniel Action for validating the research for this article and proofreading the drafts. Thanks to Igor Pikovets for reviewing the drafts, and to Mark Vital for collaborating on information design of the graphic.

Why I wrote this

As an infographic designer (or visual writer) I’m on a quest to reduce wordy textual knowledge to its concise visual form. Reductionism is a tool, not the goal. Ideally, a philosopher should write this article with my help in the visualization department. I hope the next version of this infographic will be made in collaboration with a philosophy expert. Until then, please treat this infographic as a proof of concept for visualization on a popular topic with an academic foundation.

Meaning of Life VS. Purpose of Life (the Difference!)

What is the meaning of life? We are terrified by the question and at the same time, madly thrilled by it.

It’s an age-old, primordial question at the heart of all humanity.

What’s the point of going through all this fuss? Why were we born? Why do we die? WHY does everything exist anyway?

If you’ve come to this page, you’re likely at a crossroads in life. You might feel lost and completely without a clue as to what your true calling is.

Perhaps you’ve searched for years, but nothing quite “fit” or seemed right. Or perhaps, you’ve only begun the search recently and feel completely stranded, overwhelmed, and demoralized.

Deep down, you want to make your life mean something. You want to dedicate your time to doing what you love. But HOW?

WHERE do you start?

Wanting to know what the meaning of life is can be compared to opening a humungous can of worms: question after question comes spilling out. Pretty soon, we’re curled up in the fetal position choking on a huge existential crisis grub.

Sound macabre? That’s not half of it.

Wondering “what is the meaning of life?” is often at the core of dark and dreary human experiences such as the Dark Night of the Soul, identity crisis, and existential depression.

Sometimes, the more we search for answers, the more they evade us, leaving us feeling hopelessly lost and like victims of life.

In this article, I plan to help you move through these complex and frustrating emotions (to the best of my ability) so that you can feel empowered again. By the end of this article you should:

The Major Difference Between Life Meaning and Life Purpose

People from all walks of life share an innate drive for meaning, direction, and purpose. This drive to understand our life purpose seems as important to our psychological growth as eating is to our biological survival.

You probably use them interchangeably – and have heard others do likewise – but meaning and purpose are not the same things.

It’s important to make clear distinctions here because otherwise our “what is the meaning of life?” exploration will become tremendously convoluted very quickly.

Here’s how I distinguish the two:

Life meaning is of the mind – it’s a philosophy, idea, or belief we ascribe to our lives. It’s subjective. It’s something you create.

Life purpose is innate – it’s “programmed” into everything at a core level. It’s objective. It’s something you fulfill.

Does that make sense?

When talking about the meaning of life we often confuse and mix up the subjective and objective (or personal and impersonal). Hence why it can feel like our brains have been put through a blender when even considering the topic.

Again, to clarify:

Meaning is subjective. It comes from the mind. It is dependent on your personal tastes, desires, goals, and dreams.

Purpose, on the other hand, is from Spirit. It is programmed into us. It is within our very cells. It is written into each and every destiny. We’ll explore this distinction a little more later.

But first, to go more in-depth into this topic, what is the meaning of life? And what does that mean for you? Let’s explore that next:

What is the MEANING of Life?

So … what is the meaning of life?

To put it simply, meaning itself is very personal and varied. It’s something that emerges from your soul as a deep calling.

For one person, their meaning in life may be to raise kids, for another, their meaning may be to create a charity, or breed horses, or become a world-renown artist, or live off the grid, and so on.

Your meaning can be fixed or it can change.

Ultimately, your core essence (i.e., your heart and soul) will know what your true meaning in life is.

To find your meaning, you’ll need to do some soul searching. You’ll need to understand yourself, your gifts and weaknesses, your passions, and your interests.

This process of soul searching is an exciting process – but it can also be frustrating and disheartening if the voice of your soul is getting drowned out by the stress of daily life.

We’ll explore how to find your meaning in life a little later.

What is the PURPOSE of Life?

Our soul’s purpose, seen energetically, is already there, within us.

As I mentioned above, while your meaning of life is subjective, your purpose in life is more objective.

In other words, it’s not something you have to create or find. Instead, your purpose is something you realize or tune into.

Because it’s already there, because it’s already intrinsic and innate to who you are, there’s no need to go chasing anything.

Isn’t that kind of a relief?

If you’re still in doubt, let me explain further.

You might be wondering, “so what is this innate purpose of life?”

In an earthly sense, your purpose is the same as everything you see around you: to grow, change, and expand.

Just look at the plants, animals, and trees; they all go through cycles of metamorphosis. The planets also go through cycles, as do the seasons. And the Universe is expanding every moment! You too are destined to go through these cycles of expansion.

Those skeptical about the spiritual dimension of life would shout a hearty, “yes!” But I’m not an atheist. I don’t have a mechanistic outlook nor do I believe that this is “all” there is.

Why reduce the complexity of life in that way? I have personally experienced the spiritual dimension of reality many times, and that is enough for me. And so too have millions since the dawn of time.

However, as the spiritual purpose of life is immaterial, it’s more open to interpretation. (Hence why there are thousands of spiritual movements and religious ideas in the world.)

Personally, I believe that our purpose in life is to mature or expand on ALL levels: the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual.

The spiritual awakening process is an expression of that maturation process: our souls are expanding and growing just like the galaxies. And like pregnancy or childbirth, this growth can be a painful process. But it’s part of life’s purpose.

As professor of cultural anthropology and religious studies, Bonnie Glass-Coffin writes,

As I have come to realize through my life’s journey, the purpose of our human embodiment is, actually, to grow a soul. Like the making of a body during nine months of gestation, soul-making is also a process. For, although we are born with it, our soul continues to develop with every life experience. Our sufferings are simply the secretions that add to its luster—like a pearl inside an oyster. Making soul is the process of a lifetime, or several lifetimes. Mystics, saints, and shamans of ages past and of today, from places far and near, refer to this eternal sojourn in many ways, yet whatever terms are used implies a conscious engagement with our true potential as divine partners in creation. This is what it means to “grow a soul.” This is what it means to commune with our essential nature.

On a metaphysical level, the question can be asked, “What are we maturing toward?” What is the point of all this hassle?

This is a complex topic, but in a nutshell, to summarize many spiritual and religious ideas, our metaphysical purpose is to unite with our True Nature or to become one with the Divine.

Ancient spiritual traditions all throughout the world affirm this conclusion and have referred to such a culmination by many names: Enlightenment, Illumination, Self-Realization, Heaven, Oneness, Nirvana, Bliss, Wholeness, Moksha, non-dual awareness, Buddhahood, and so on.

How do we get there?

That’s a topic for a whole other article. But there’s a multitude of spiritual and religious paths that will suit you based on your mental/emotional/spiritual level of maturity.

Meditation is a common and recommended path. Inner work is another powerful practice that we heavily focus on within this website. It is a non-dogmatic practice that can be integrated into any belief system. The healing and inner transformation it can produce are quite amazing.

How to Find Your Meaning in Life (7 Paths)

Life has no meaning. Each of us has meaning and we bring it to life. It is a waste to be asking the question when you are the answer.

So far we’ve established the clear difference between what is the meaning vs. purpose of life.

As we’ve seen, meaning is subjective, it is highly personal, it is something your soul feels called to do or create.

To find your meaning in life, you need to learn how to find yourself. You’ll need to do some soul searching.

If you have no idea how to do that, here are some simple pathways:

1. Think back to what you loved doing as a child

Your inner child is your original self, the first version of “you” that entered the world. S/he holds a tremendous amount of wisdom that is just waiting to be accessed.

As children, we didn’t carry the same level of baggage, social conditioning, or fears that we now lug around everywhere. We were free spirits. As such, reconnecting with your inner child is a powerful way of finding your meaning in life.

When you were a child, you were attracted to the things that brought you the most joy. This joy is often the secret key you need to uncover your authentic life path.

Reflect on what you loved doing the most as a child – what activities did you always gravitate toward?

Perhaps you liked to read a lot, construct things, dress up your dolls, care for your toys, climb trees, talk to your pets, pretend you were a police officer, construct imaginary realms, and so on.

Take some time to carefully think about what you most enjoyed doing. Get a journal and make some notes. Look for the activities you did for the longest amount of time and most consistently.

The answer may not slap you in the face immediately, but think about what was the heart and core of the activity you did. What quality were you attracted to the most?

2. Explore your personality (by taking tests)

I know this suggestion may sound banal, but free personality tests are a wonderful way of getting to know yourself. Plus, they’re fun! Not only do you get to learn about your strengths and weaknesses, but you’re growing in self-understanding in a matter of minutes.

Not all free tests online are created equal. As our whole website is dedicated to the pursuit of self-awareness and self-knowledge, you’ll find some unique tests in our free tests area.

As always, take these tests with “a grain of salt.” Gather what you need and leave the rest. You never quite know what unique things may be revealed about yourself and how this may guide your life onwards!

3. Expand your mental horizons

We all have a “circle of competence” – a phrase coined by tycoons Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger. What this means is that we all have some things that we’re really knowledgeable about, and other things we aren’t.

Expanding your mental horizons means widening your circle of competence. This could mean exploring a topic you know literally nothing about. Also, this could mean delving into an area that you’ve always been secretly curious about but have stopped yourself from exploring (for one reason or another).

Take a moment to think about what you would like to learn about if you were given a chance. What thought first pops into your mind? Whatever that thought is reveals the place you need to go next.

Even if you feel silly, be an explorer. Soul searching isn’t always convenient or comfortable – instead, it is often wildly unexpected and can be supremely illuminating, particularly if you’re wanting to find your meaning in life.

4. Think about what life has taught you

We are each given a set of experiences in life. The experiences are neutral. They have no meaning. It is how we interpret the experiences that gives them meaning. The interpretations of experiences shape our beliefs and theories about the world. Our beliefs and theories, in turn, determine what we observe in the world to confirm our beliefs, which, in turn, reinforce our interpretations.

Ultimately, answering “what is the meaning of life?” comes down to how you think about and interpret life. Do you ever think about the experiences you’ve had? Do you ever give them a higher meaning? If not, it’s time to do that.

One of the most powerful ways to find your meaning is to reflect on the entire timeline of your life. What have been your major highs and lows? What successes and tragedies have befallen you? And most of all, what have they TAUGHT you?

If you can answer this single question “what have all your experiences in life taught you?” and take a higher perspective, you might just find your meaning in life.

For example, if you believe all your experiences have taught you to surrender and let go, you might become interested in studying Zen Buddhism and make that your meaning in life. If you’ve learned that all your experiences have taught you the importance of sticking to your truth, you might become an advocate for something.

Make sense? It’s a simple but powerful soul searching technique.

5. Visualize yourself on your death bed

“Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?” the poet Mary Oliver once wrote.

This activity may at first appear morbid, but it holds within it the seed of true insight. When death is upon us, everything becomes clear, crystalline, precious. There’s no time to waste and the choices we’ve made in life dance before our eyes.

For this activity, you’ll need to set aside five or ten minutes. Get into a quiet and dark room. You may even like to wear a sleeping mask or blindfold so your vision becomes pitch black. If you want to put yourself into an even deeper mindset, you can play some funereal or ethereal music quietly in the background. (And just in case you feel too uncomfortable, ensure someone is in the house with you.)

Now, once you’re ready, imagine you’re lying on your death bed. You are reflecting on all that you’ve done in your life. When you think of your biggest achievements, what comes to mind? What are you the happiest to have done, practiced, or committed to? Don’t be modest here. Think about something simply amazing you have done. What is that?

If nothing comes to mind, you can always return to this activity later (perhaps in the early morning or late at night). Once you’re ready to stop the visualization, feel into your body, stretch your legs and arms, and take off the blindfold. Consider journaling about your experience – it will be extremely valuable to remember and reflect upon this visualization.

6. Practice inner work

Why is it that we struggle to find the meaning of our lives? One reason is that we are emotionally or psychologically blocked.

We might suffer from self-doubt, low self-worth, or general self-destructive tendencies. We might be trapped within the pits of an existential crisis, a toxic relationship, an addiction, or mental health issue.

We may have even experienced a spiritual awakening so strong that our life seems to be melting around us – and we don’t know how to put back the pieces of ourselves.

One way to create inner harmony, balance, and wholeness is through a practice known as inner work. Inner work is the mental, emotional and spiritual practice of exploring your inner self. It is about gaining self-knowledge, learning how to love yourself, working through your core beliefs, and maturing (or individuating) as a human being.

For anyone soul searching, inner work is a vital practice. It can be all too easy to skim across the surface of life without going deeper. But whatever is buried within you will eventually rise to the surface, sooner or later. Inner work is about exploring and working with the different facets of our inner selves.

The three major types of inner work that I recommend are self-love, inner child work, and shadow work.

7. Think about what type of meaning you need right now

Austrian psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl once wrote about meaning:

For the meaning of life differs from man to man, from day to day and from hour to hour. What matters, therefore, is not the meaning of life in general but rather the specific meaning of a person’s life at a given moment.

There is a quote by the German philosopher Nietzsche saying that “if a man finds a WHY he can bear with almost any HOW” – and it’s true. It was humankind that built the Auschwitz gas ovens, it was also humankind who marched into them with their heads held high and a prayer song on their lips.

As Frankl pointed out, meaning is not some solid rigid thing, but it is fluid and changeable. We need to focus on finding our meaning of life right now.

In my perspective, there are three types of meaning in life:

The first is meaning in accomplishment or achievements, where we feel fulfillment in completing tasks, goals, and dreams.

The second is the meaning we find in values such as the loyalty we feel toward a noble cause or the compassion a mother feels toward her child.

Finally, the third is meaning in suffering, where we embrace a specific attitude to empower us within certain circumstances, e.g., “This pain I feel from the loss of my job will teach me what I truly want from life.”

Above I have just defined three types of meaning:

Think about where you’re currently at in life. What type of meaning do you need the most? Reflect on the most painful feelings you experience on a regular basis – this will be the way to find what type of meaning you need.

For instance, if you suffer from feelings of boredom, fatigue or listlessness you may need to find the first type of meaning (achievement/accomplishments).

If you suffer from feelings of general unhappiness, loneliness or a specific yearning for something, you may need the second type of meaning (values).

And if you are going through an intensely painful period in life that is characterized by anxiety, depression, grief, hopelessness, and other strong forms of emotions, you may need the third type of meaning (attitude/belief about suffering).

Or hell, maybe you need all three types of meaning – that’s okay too! Be true to yourself and listen to your needs.

In Conclusion

I’ll leave you with a quote from the Book of Awakening by Mark Nepo,

The Spiritual Awakening Process eBook:

It takes six million grains of pollen to seed one peony, and salmon need a lifetime of swimming to find their way home, so we mustn’t be alarmed or discouraged when it takes us years to find love or years to understand our calling in life.

There is no race here. You will find your meaning in your own time. And remember, your meaning can stay the same or it can change as you mature. There is no black and white manual of rules here.

Very few people just wake up one day and shout “WOOHOO! I finally know my indisputable life purpose!” It’s more like a messy awkward food party, where you eat one thing and throw it away until you find something that finally tastes really nice.

You may have come to this article wanting a definitive answer to the notorious “what is the meaning of life?” question. But the thing is, your meaning is of your own creation.

Your meaning springs from the depths of your heart and soul. To hear it, you need to find ways of going inwards and of listening carefully. I sincerely hope the above activities will help you to do that.

Tell me, after reading this article, what are your feelings or thoughts? Do you need any clarification? Perhaps you wish to share your own experience? Please share below!

More Spiritual Calling

About Aletheia

Aletheia is a prolific psychospiritual writer, author, and spiritual mentor whose work has touched the lives of millions worldwide. As a survivor of fundamentalist religious abuse, her mission is to help others find love, strength, and inner light in even the darkest places. She is the author of hundreds of popular articles, as well as numerous books and journals on the topics of Self-Love, Spiritual Awakening, and more. [Read More]

Support Our Work

We spend hundreds of hours every month writing, editing and managing this website. If you have found any comfort, support or guidance in our work, please consider donating:

Custom Amount:

Reader Interactions

(114) Comments

Want to share your thoughts? Cancel reply

Stephan Sears

April 16, 2022 at 9:48 am

Excellent article. I really enjoyed reading the difference between meaning and purpose. Thank you again for everything you are doing. Love, Stephan

Anagha

January 31, 2022 at 10:56 pm

A Great Article!!This gave me so much clarity!Thank You so much!!lots of love!

Yvonne Marie forster

December 24, 2021 at 4:32 pm

Wow blown away by this article such clarity within it….need yet to finish it…. but just wanted to say a heartfelt thankyou.

Aletheia Luna

January 21, 2022 at 2:40 pm

Thank you Yvonne, that’s very kind of you to stop by and share that. ♡

Caitlin Prusik

December 24, 2021 at 12:35 am

I had a moment of clarity (and questioning) while reading this. When I read the part about the Universe expanding it hit me. If the Universe is a collection of all existence- all physical, spiritual, and energetic things- and if our bodies house our Spirit, but once released from the defined constraints of our physical form at the time of death, and it is free to go anywhere and everywhere, wouldn’t it make sense that the Universe expands with every Spirit that is returned from the physical existence?

Aletheia Luna

January 21, 2022 at 2:41 pm

Maybe? Who can really know, it’s a Mystery, and that’s the fun of it 🙂

John Ambrose

December 14, 2021 at 10:39 am

What does *Wilderness “even conjure up for you?
Negative Narrative
In this sense when younger it meant breaking with stuffy Victorian values and closed-minded attitudes found in the late fifties to early sixties. The wilderness was seen as a reactionary place where young men were reprimanded and classed as starting down the criminal path and were often sent to reform schools, then technical college, and then onto stints in the Military as Army, Navy, or Airforce just to iron out the “bad” wrinkles. While young girls found cavorting with these prodigious types and getting themselves into the pudding club often were controlled by their local Parish Priest, sent to work with the Nuns to reform and silently have children away from the screams and cries of the perfect and wholesome establishment. So freedom was a controlled narrative and to find your happy wilderness meant escaping any way possible from boring old-fashioned ways and values and finding ease from inner discomforts, abuses. labeling and strictures that choked out freedom of expression.
Positive Narrative
Many just gave up trying in these post-war times, just following like sheep in parental footsteps, working hard labor jobs to get Australia up and running while conforming to set values in relationships and swallowing all that was given them as normal and accepted. With the Hills Hoyst in the back yard and the Holden in the drive and 2.5 kids to feed many found it, tough love, just to survive. However many were dabbling with alcohol and drugs on the sly which opened their minds to other possibilities. So by the Sixties with everything swinging to the new sounds and new ways of thinking people escaped in droves. Marriages dissolved, and women discovered for perhaps the first time that they had a voice, a style, and freedom of their own. Which of course was frowned upon by the misogyny in the male arena. This change of consciousness was the driving force that aided people to discover that out of the wilderness of repression, depression, and hard work, a new Australia was forming. One less outer and harsh and one more inner and gentler in approach to life.

Aletheia Luna

December 14, 2021 at 2:00 pm

Thank you for sharing these unique reflections of yours in response to our weekly newsletter guidance message, John. I was born in the early 1990’s, so I appreciate knowing what came before and how that enriches my understanding of the Now (as an Australian).

San

December 14, 2021 at 2:17 am

The best explanation of meaning & purpose I have ever read. Thankyou. Many blessings

Aletheia Luna

December 14, 2021 at 2:01 pm

Wow, I am so happy to hear that San!! I’m so glad this exploration and explanation resonated with you. 🙂

December 14, 2021 at 12:59 am

From your article, one can get that some souls come to see what it feels like to live in situations that are called negative by the ego – like having no friends, no love life, not enough money, and all these stuff that everyone wants to have in life. This gives you even more depression, personally for me, as I start to think that my soul purpose is to be lonely all my life…. I did all these things mentioned in the text and did huge personal development, so probably my purpose is to feel depressed about it all.

Aletheia Luna

December 14, 2021 at 2:04 pm

“I did all these things mentioned in the text and did huge personal development”– I’m sorry to hear that you feel depressed M. In my perspective, we don’t just “do” personal development like it’s an item to mark off our to-do list; it’s an ongoing journey. Have you ever read “Man’s Search For Meaning” by Viktor Frankl? I think that book may help to uplift and inspire you in reframing what you’re going through.

Brad

December 13, 2021 at 12:15 pm

The purpose of life is to live it the meaning comes from all the experiences we have while living it. I think some take too much time looking for these things and then miss out on those little everyday experiences that can create them.

Aletheia Luna

December 14, 2021 at 2:05 pm

Thanks for sharing this perspective Brad. 🙂

John Ambrose

December 13, 2021 at 12:01 pm

Our life is for a short human existence within the narrow bandwidth of our perceptual field. For a short number of years, most of us follow the groove of Live, Consume, Work then Die. Very few get to follow their heart’s desire and direct our energies to focus on and find our chief life’s purpose. We begin to find it’s all just an ever-changing number of cycles that we que into and surf to the best of our ability. A trial and error approach to schooling, parenting, learning about business or college, and then University till we reach the mature cycle and glean some sense of life’s meaning.
Out of this cosmic chaos with its multitude of energies all clammering for attention we emerge. We are subjected to a certain genre, circumstance, parenthood, culture, skin color, belief system, with codes of behavior and conduct and lifestyle which keeps the wilder side of our nature under wraps till later life. Out of this human creole or porridge, the inner soul expects us to muddle through until certain physical, mental, and emotional traits are formed. Activated in form, connected, and established learning in knowledge and interest. Or an emotional awakening of talents to be explored which with our concepts and raw self-belief set to ignite our pathway to passion to the Enth Degree until it has growth learning and meaning in mind and soul.

paul

December 13, 2021 at 5:50 am

Around the time of 1961 ( I was 5 ) outside at the side of my house. I either had a conversation with myself or an angel that was not visible to me. I or the angel said that I would be protected thru my life and that someday I would see something special happen in the world. That is all that I remember from that conversation/message. I have never had the feeling yet in my life that the special something from that message has happened. I can think of many times in my life where I should or could have died from life choices and accidents and yet I`m still here and maybe even spared by God thru his angels. I know that sounds weird but just last week I believe I was spared from being run over by a car while doing a food run on my bicycle. I went to ground only and no pain the next day ( amazing for 66 ). At 22 a hitchhiker and I were half run over in my MGB from behind by semi transport truck on a major CDN highway at 4 a.m. We were spit out after 50 meters and not run completely over. He walked and I broke my neck…but no one died. Those are just 2 examples of many in my life. That story may have something to do with my life purpose and maybe I`m being divinely helped/pushed there as well. From what I`ve seen and experienced thus far in my life here on Earth that conversation may have been real and I`m not crazy for remembering it. We will see.

Aletheia Luna

December 14, 2021 at 2:16 pm

Amazing Paul, these do sound like miracles. Have you ever tried journaling about the experience? That might help you to go deeper if you’re looking for answers. 🙂

Laura mckernan

December 13, 2021 at 4:38 am

Aletheia Luna

December 14, 2021 at 2:14 pm

Hi Laura, I hear you. It can be difficult choosing to take a leap into the unknown or follow the path we’re already familiar with. Ultimately the choice is yours – may you be at peace with whatever decision you make. ♡

Kevin

December 13, 2021 at 3:36 am

This missive found me today as my dog died in my arms. I am a Buddhist by training, 40+ years, and your gentle reminder helps me cope with the loss of my most living companion. Your work reaches my soul, and this of countless others. Please continue your excellent work, for all of our sake.

Aletheia Luna

December 14, 2021 at 2:13 pm

My heart goes out to you Kevin, the loss of a dog is something I know too well (I see them as living embodiments of Unconditional Love, really as Bodhisattvas). Sending lots of love ♥

Imelda

December 13, 2021 at 3:19 am

That is actually one of the simple comprehensive heart warming meaningful explanations on the complexity of life I have ever read. Well done guys, I love the manner and way it was peppered with mind expanding quotes from highly regarded writers. I’m in awe……. Which so rarely happens.

Laura mckernan

December 13, 2021 at 4:34 am

Aletheia Luna

December 14, 2021 at 2:11 pm

I’m grateful that you found this exploration meaningful and expansive Imelda (and Laura). These articles do take a lot of life force energy to prepare, synthesize, write, edit, format, research, and more. Much love. ♡

Michael Needhamham

December 13, 2021 at 2:03 am

Nice article. The answer to our purpose being to reunite is not satisfying because we left unity specifically to experience separation. My understanding is that our purpose is to live out (collectively) all possibilities. Individually we choose a life plan for each incarnation. Our purpose is to live out our chosen plan and enjoy our unique human experience which is also God’s experience.
Thanks for your devotion to our expansion.

Aletheia Luna

December 14, 2021 at 2:10 pm

Thanks for sharing this perspective Michael, I really like the “living out all possibilities” angle. What you describe sounds a lot like the ‘soul contracts’ idea. I appreciate you sharing here!

Ellyn Williams

December 13, 2021 at 1:53 am

I love reading your articles. They have helped me a number of ways. Thank you and don’t stop writing, please. ☮️☯️

Aletheia Luna

December 14, 2021 at 2:07 pm

Thank you for your affirming and uplifting words Ellyn. I’m so glad these articles have helped you (that is one of my strongest meanings of life after all!) ❤

Suz

December 13, 2021 at 1:37 am

Very well timed for where I am in my journey. The potential for Meaning being fluid matches my experience and a revelation I came to in the last 12+ months. That whatever your meaning in this moment is, is what you need to know/see also resonates.
I hadn’t considered looking back at what my life has taught me. Thank you. I can see the value in that and am looking forward to actively doing just that 😀
And the deathbed exercise is one I will do to see what comes up.
I really like having this to add to what I am doing and to my tool set going forward.
Thank you 😀

Aletheia Luna

December 14, 2021 at 2:07 pm

It’s a pleasure to help Suz. ♡

Anon

August 24, 2020 at 6:47 am

Truly & timely appreciated

Very well researched and composed

I’ve heard this motivational type dialogue before, I really appreciate an enlightened viewpoint in our constantly changing times

Keep up the great work *insert emoji thumbs up here*

Aletheia Luna

What is the meaning of life?

Try to find your own meaning of life in this article.

Have you ever asked yourself what is the meaning of life?

Nobody can really answer this question, as well as such questions as: What is love?”, “What is happiness?” etc.

Psychologists think that when people start thinking and talking too much about their meaning of life, it is a first sign that they are not completely satisfied with their lives.

However, the ability to think and analyze is a factor that distinguishes a human from an animal.

We are not interested in living only for satisfaction of our physical instincts.

This peculiarity became the main purpose why people started to seek the true meaning of life.

People who lose their meaning of life and cannot find their vocation are doomed to failure.

You can disagree with this and tell me that not everybody seeks the meaning of life.

Many people live without even thinking of it, and they do perfectly well! I can prove you that it is not exactly so.

At some point of life everybody starts thinking WHY he lives in this world and tries to answer himself this question.

He/she can be satisfied with the answer for some period of time or even for the whole life.

This is how the life goes…

Let’s analyze some typical answers to this question and, maybe, you will find the answer for yourself in this list as well.

What is the meaning of life: what does it consist in?

To be always healthy and attractive is my true meaning of life!

It means to go in for sports, to take care of myself and to stay always young!

My meaning of life consists in receiving as many positive emotions and impressions as possible!

We have only one life to live, so we have to live it to the fullest!

It may sound a bit selfish, but it is my life, so why cannot I be happy with it?

«The meaning of life is to find your gift, the purpose of life is to give it away.»
Pablo Picasso.

My meaning of life consists in self-realization.

I see my meaning of life in serving my relatives and friends.

There is no such thing as the meaning of life!

Stop thinking about it and simply live your life!

As you can see, I found many examples how people see their meaning of life.

You can choose the variant you like best of all.

However, you have to analyze your choice and to think whether you have chosen the right way of living your life and whether you are ready to find your true meaning of life.

Let’s consider our period of life when we go to school or study at the university.

You won’t cram a piece of story from the textbook without any aim, will you?

If you try to learn it, you must have a reason for it.

You do this for a good mark, or in order to acquire new knowledge, or to pass the subject.

You will receive the result of your learning in any case.

You will be able to realize the meaning of your efforts only in the end of your way, e.g. when you take an exam in order to pass the subject.

What is the last stage of our life?

Obviously, it is death!

Somebody has done more in his life than others; some people have lived their life in kindness while other people have lived it in anger; somebody has fully dedicated himself to his family; maybe, somebody has tried everything in his life – nevertheless, death will make us all equal.

I see my meaning of life in self-development.

We can compare our planet Earth to the study at school or at the university, where everybody must learn something new, acquire some knowledge and constantly practise his skills.

My main goal in life is to discover my potential and to realize it in my life.

My meaning of life is the ability to live my life the best I can.

When I reach its final stage, I want to be able to turn the last page of my life, to smile and to say:

“If I had the possibility to return into my past and change my life, I would not probably change anything! I always made my own choices in life, and I always was the master of my own life! It doesn’t matter whether my choices were right or not, I always managed to find the way out of any situation! The best possible choice for me is my own choice! I don’t have any regrets; I know that I have lived my life to the fullest!”

Here is what Dale Carnegie wrote in his famous book “How to Stop Worrying and Start Living”:

Be the best of whatever you are.

If you can’t be a pine on the top of the hill.
Be a scrub in the valley — but be
The best little scrub by the side of the rill;
Be a bush, if you can’t be a tree.
If you can’t be a bush, be a bit of the grass.
If you can’t be a muskie, then just be a bass-
But the liveliest bass in the lake!
We can’t all be captains, we’ve got to be crew.
There’s something for all of us here.
There’s big work to do and there’s lesser to do
And the task we must do is the near.
If you can’t be a highway, then just be a trail,
If you can’t be the sun, be a star;
It isn’t by the size that you win or you fail-
Be the best of whatever you are!”

The Meaning of Life

What is the meaning of life? Sooner or later this question is bound to crop up in a thinking mind. Here is a comprehensive answer by Sadhguru that addresses the very fundamentals from which the quest for meaning arises.

Question: Sadhguru, what is the meaning of life?

Only because you are a life and you are alive right now, all these accessories mean something. Only because you are alive, your job, your car, your home, your relationships mean something. What you wear, what you speak, what you are associated with, everything means something only because you are alive. The most fundamental thing is that you are life. But your psychological drama has become bigger than the life process. Europe made this big mistake which the entire world has taken up. Somehow, we started celebrating thought more than life, to such a point that someone dared to say, “I think, so I exist.”

Your thought is like software. Depending on what kind of data you have taken in, that is the kind of thoughts you have. You are a life that carries that software, not a product of that software. But today, your thought has become bigger than everything else. That is why you ask me, “What is life?” I am reminding you that you are life. Why the hell should you ask me about life? If you want to ask me what the weather in India is, we can discuss it, it is a relevant conversation. But if you ask me, “What is the meaning of life” when you yourself are life, then we have to tell you a story. I am calling it a story because if I speak anything that is not yet in your experience, as far as you are concerned, it is a story. If you like the story, you will believe it. If you do not like the story, you will disbelieve it. But if you believe it, will it become real? If you disbelieve it, will it become real? Both ways you do not get to truth.

Why Make Conclusions?

Why is it that you cannot at least be straight that, “What I know, I know; what I do not know, I do not know”? Whatever we do not know, we want to make it up because we have not realized the tremendous nature of “I do not know.” If you can joyfully, consciously, stay in “I do not know,” knowing is not far away. It is in the very nature of human intelligence that you cannot live with “I do not know.” The longing to know and seeking to know will be continuously on within you. You will see that your intelligence will find a way to know as much as you can.

Then what is the problem in seeing “I do not know”? Simply because you live in a society where knowledge is valued, but seeking is not valued. Knowledge is just an accumulation of a few things and largely conclusions that you have made. Even so-called science keeps changing its opinion about everything every two years. This is because you are endlessly moving from one conclusion to another conclusion. Religious people are just staying with one conclusion, scientists are moving from one conclusion to another conclusion, which seems like an evolution and it is to some extent.

Fundamentally why is there such a big need to conclude about everything? When you ask, “What is the meaning of life?” you want to conclude what life is about. The conclusion for your life, the last scene of your life is the same – for both you and me. The moment you seek conclusions, unknowingly you seek death. This is all that has happened to you from your childhood till now. When you had no conclusions, you looked at everything with great wonder and involvement. But today because you have conclusions, “Oh that’s a tree, this is a butterfly, this is this, that is that,” everything is dismissed with conclusion after conclusion.

Experience of Life

When you ask about the meaning of life, you must understand that you are only trying to draw a conclusion so that you can sleep well tonight – because without a conclusion, your intelligence bothers you. If you know how to be joyfully confused, it is very nice because your intelligence is active. The moment you conclude, the moment you believe, your intelligence goes to sleep. But when you do not know, you look at everything with absolute involvement.

Is it not important that you are involved with life? Is there some other way to know life? If you are not involved with the food that you are eating, would you really know what this food is like? For most people, it is only the first mouthful with which they are involved. After that, they are just gulping it down, without even tasting anything. So it is only in the initial childhood phase that most people experience life. After that, for everything they have an explanation and a conclusion.

The more you conclude, the less you can experience. We know everything, but we do not experience anything. Meaning is meaningful only to the psychological structure of who you are. Your mind wants meaning. The nature of this life is that if you live here for a million years, it will still excite you, and you can still be involved. The closer and closer you look at it, the more it will confound you. The life in you is not looking for meaning; it needs exuberance of experience. First you create that, then all these questions will evaporate. Without that, you can go on asking questions because you are standing on the platform of your mind which is in the quest for meaning.

Editor’s note: Read more about Sadhguru’s personal journey on the spiritual path in More Than A Life.

Текст песни The Meaning of Life

Перевод песни The Meaning of Life

The Meaning of Life

On the way trying
To get where I’d like to say,
I’m always feeling steered away
By someone trying to tell me
What to say and do,
I don’t want it!
I gotta go find my own way,
I gotta go make my own mistakes,
Sorry, man, for feeling,
Feeling the way I do.

Chorus:
Oh yeah, oh yeah,
Open wide and they’ll shove in
Their meaning of life,
Oh yeah, oh yeah,
But not for me, I’ll do it on my own.
Oh yeah, oh yeah,
Open wide and swallow
Their meaning of life.
I can’t make it work your way,
Thanks, but no, thanks!

By the way I know:
Your path has been tried and so
It may seem like the way to go.
Me, I’d rather be found
Trying something new,
And the bottom line
In all of this seems to say:
There’s no right and wrong way,
Sorry if I don’t feel like
Living the way you do.

The Meaning of Life

Я на пути туда, куда выбрал сам,
А то ведь постоянно чувствую,
Что меня направляет не туда
Кто-то, кто пытается мне навязать
Какие-то слова и действия,
А я так больше не хочу!
Мне надо найти собственный путь,
Надо понаделать собственных ошибок,
Прости, друг, за это,
Но я чувствую именно так.

Припев:
О да, о да,
Открой рот пошире, и они
Впихнут в тебя свой смысл жизни,
О да, о да,
Но со мной такое не пройдет,
У меня смысл будет свой,
О да, о да,
Открой рот пошире
И глотай чужой смысл жизни.
Не получится у меня по вашим схемам,
Спасибо, но нет, спасибо!

Между прочим, я все понимаю:
Вы видите проверенную дорогу
И кажется, что это нужный путь.
Но меня вы скорее застанете
За экспериментами с чем-то новым,
И, подводя черту, скажу вот что:
Нет верных и неверных путей,
Простите, но я просто не хочу
Жить так, как живете вы.

Meaning of life

The meaning of life constitutes a philosophical question concerning the purpose and significance of life or existence in general. This concept can be expressed through a variety of related questions, such as «Why are we here?», «What is life all about?», and «What is the meaning of it all?» It has been the subject of much philosophical, scientific, and theological speculation throughout history. There have been a large number of theories to these questions from many different cultural and ideological backgrounds.

The meaning of life is deeply mixed with the philosophical and religious conceptions of existence, social ties, consciousness, and happiness, and touches many other issues, such as symbolic meaning, ontology, value, purpose, ethics, good and evil, free will, conceptions of God, the existence of God, the soul, and the afterlife. Scientific contributions focus more on describing related empirical facts about the universe; they largely shift the question from «why?» to «how?» and provide context and parameters for meaningful conversations on such topics. Science also provides its own recommendations for the pursuit of well-being and a related conception of morality. An alternative, humanistic (rather than religious) approach is the question «What is the meaning of my life?» The value of the question pertaining to the purpose of life may coincide with the achievement of ultimate reality, or a feeling of oneness, or a feeling of sacredness.

Questions

Questions about the meaning of life have been expressed in a broad variety of ways, including the following:

These questions have resulted in a wide range of competing answers and arguments, from scientific theories, to philosophical, theological, and spiritual explanations.

Western philosophical perspectives

The philosophical perspectives on the meaning of life are those ideologies which explain life in terms of ideals or abstractions defined by humans.

Ancient Greek philosophy

Platonism

Plato was one of the earliest, most influential philosophers to date—mostly for realism about the existence of universals. In the Theory of Forms, universals do not physically exist, like objects, but as ghostly, heavenly forms. In The Republic, the Socrates character’s dialogue describes the Form of the Good. The Idea of the Good is ekgonos (offspring) of the Good, the ideal, perfect nature of goodness, hence an absolute measure of justice.

In Platonism, the meaning of life is in attaining the highest form of knowledge, which is the Idea (Form) of the Good, from which all good and just things derive utility and value. Human beings are duty-bound to pursue the good, but no one can succeed in that pursuit without philosophical reasoning, which allows for true knowledge.

Aristotelianism

Aristotle, an apprentice of Plato, was another early and influential philosopher, who argued that ethical knowledge is not certain knowledge (like metaphysics and epistemology), but is general knowledge. Because it is not a theoretical discipline, a person had to study and practice in order to become «good», thus if the person were to become virtuous, he could not simply study what virtue is, he had to be virtuous, via virtuous activities. To do this, Aristotle established what is virtuous:

Yet, if action A is done towards achieving goal B, then goal B also would have a goal, goal C, and goal C also would have a goal, and so would continue this pattern, until something stopped its infinite regression. Aristotle’s solution is the Highest Good, which is desirable for its own sake, it is its own goal. The Highest Good is not desirable for the sake of achieving some other good, and all other «goods» desirable for its sake. This involves achieving eudaemonia, usually translated as «happiness», «well-being», «flourishing», and «excellence».

Cynicism

In the Hellenistic period, the Cynic philosophers said that the purpose of life is living a life of Virtue that agrees with Nature. Happiness depends upon being self-sufficient and master of one’s mental attitude; suffering is consequence of false judgments of value, which cause negative emotions and a concomitant vicious character.

The Cynical life rejects conventional desires for wealth, power, health, and fame, by being free of the possessions acquired in pursuing the conventional. [ 21 ] [ 22 ] As reasoning creatures, people could achieve happiness via rigorous training, by living in a way natural to human beings. The world equally belongs to everyone, so suffering is caused by false judgments of what is valuable and what is worthless per the customs and conventions of society.

Cyrenaicism

Cyrenaicism, founded by Aristippus of Cyrene, was an early Socratic school that emphasized only one side of Socrates’s teachings—that happiness is one of the ends of moral action and that pleasure is the supreme good; thus a hedonistic world view, wherein bodily gratification is more intense than mental pleasure. Cyrenaics prefer immediate gratification to the long-term gain of delayed gratification; denial is unpleasant unhappiness. [ 23 ] [ 24 ]

Epicureanism

The Epicurean meaning of life rejects immortality and mysticism; there is a soul, but it is as mortal as the body. There is no afterlife, yet, one need not fear death, because «Death is nothing to us; for that which is dissolved, is without sensation, and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us.» [ 26 ]

Stoicism

Stoicism teaches that living according to reason and virtue is to be in harmony with the universe’s divine order, entailed by one’s recognition of the universal logos (reason), an essential value of all people. The meaning of life is «freedom from suffering» through apatheia (Gr: απαθεια), that is, being objective, having «clear judgement», not indifference.

Stoicism’s prime directives are virtue, reason, and natural law, abided to develop personal self-control and mental fortitude as means of overcoming destructive emotions. The Stoic does not seek to extinguish emotions, only to avoid emotional troubles, by developing clear judgement and inner calm through diligently practiced logic, reflection, and concentration.

The Stoic ethical foundation is that «good lies in the state of the soul», itself, exemplified in wisdom and self-control, thus improving one’s spiritual well-being: «Virtue consists in a will which is in agreement with Nature.» [ 26 ] The principle applies to one’s personal relations thus: «to be free from anger, envy, and jealousy». [ 26 ]

Enlightenment philosophy

The Enlightenment and the colonial era both changed the nature of European philosophy and exported it worldwide. Devotion and subservience to God were largely replaced by notions of inalienable natural rights and the potentialities of reason, and universal ideals of love and compassion gave way to civic notions of freedom, equality, and citizenship. The meaning of life changed as well, focusing less on humankind’s relationship to God and more on the relationship between individuals and their society. This era is filled with theories that equate meaningful existence with the social order.

Classical liberalism

Classical liberalism is a set of ideas that arose in the 17th and 18th centuries, out of conflicts between a growing, wealthy, propertied class and the established aristocratic and religious orders that dominated Europe. Liberalism cast humans as beings with inalienable natural rights (including the right to retain the wealth generated by one’s own work), and sought out means to balance rights across society. Broadly speaking, it considers individual liberty to be the most important goal, [ 27 ] because only through ensured liberty are the other inherent rights protected.

There are many forms and derivations of liberalism, but their central conceptions of the meaning of life trace back to three main ideas. Early thinkers such as John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Adam Smith saw humankind beginning in the state of nature, then finding meaning for existence through labor and property, and using social contracts to create an environment that supports those efforts.

Kantianism

Kantianism is a philosophy based on the ethical, epistemological, and metaphysical works of Immanuel Kant. Kant is known for his deontological theory where there is a single moral obligation, the «Categorical Imperative», derived from the concept of duty. Kantians believe all actions are performed in accordance with some underlying maxim or principle, and for actions to be ethical, they must adhere to the categorical imperative.

Simply put, the test is that one must universalize the maxim (imagine that all people acted in this way) and then see if it would still be possible to perform the maxim in the world without contradiction. In Groundwork, Kant gives the example of a person who seeks to borrow money without intending to pay it back. This is a contradiction because if it were a universal action, no person would lend money anymore as he knows that he will never be paid back. The maxim of this action, says Kant, results in a contradiction in conceivability (and thus contradicts perfect duty).

Kant also denied that the consequences of an act in any way contribute to the moral worth of that act, his reasoning being that the physical world is outside one’s full control and thus one cannot be held accountable for the events that occur in it.

19th century philosophy

Utilitarianism

The origins of utilitarianism can be traced back as far as Epicurus, but, as a school of thought, it is credited to Jeremy Bentham, [ 28 ] who found that «nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure», then, from that moral insight, deriving the Rule of Utility: «that the good is whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people». He defined the meaning of life as the «greatest happiness principle».

Jeremy Bentham’s foremost proponent was James Mill, a significant philosopher in his day, and father of John Stuart Mill. The younger Mill was educated per Bentham’s principles, including transcribing and summarizing much of his father’s work. [ 29 ]

Nihilism

Nihilism suggests that life is without objective meaning.

Friedrich Nietzsche characterized nihilism as emptying the world, and especially human existence, of meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, and essential value; succinctly, nihilism is the process of «the devaluing of the highest values». [ 30 ] Seeing the nihilist as a natural result of the idea that God is dead, and insisting it was something to overcome, his questioning of the nihilist’s life-negating values returned meaning to the Earth. [ 31 ]

To Martin Heidegger, nihilism is the movement whereby «being» is forgotten, and is transformed into value, in other words, the reduction of being to exchange value. [ 30 ] Heidegger, in accordance with Nietzsche, saw in the so-called «death of God» a potential source for nihilism:

If God, as the supra-sensory ground and goal, of all reality, is dead; if the supra-sensory world of the Ideas has suffered the loss of its obligatory, and above it, its vitalizing and up-building power, then nothing more remains to which Man can cling, and by which he can orient himself. [ 32 ]

The French philosopher Albert Camus asserts that the absurdity of the human condition is that people search for external values and meaning in a world which has none, and is indifferent to them. Camus writes of value-nihilists such as Meursault, [ 33 ] but also of values in a nihilistic world, that people can instead strive to be «heroic nihilists», living with dignity in the face of absurdity, living with «secular saintliness», fraternal solidarity, and rebelling against and transcending the world’s indifference. [ 34 ]

20th century philosophy

The current era has seen radical changes in conceptions of human nature. Modern science has effectively rewritten the relationship of humankind to the natural world, advances in medicine and technology have freed us from the limitations and ailments of previous eras, and philosophy—particularly following the linguistic turn—altered how the relationships people have with themselves and each other is conceived. Questions about the meaning of life have seen equally radical changes, from attempts to reevaluate human existence in biological and scientific terms (as in pragmatism and logical positivism), to efforts to meta-theorize about meaning-making as an activity (existentialism, secular humanism).

Pragmatism

Pragmatism, originated in the late-19th-century U.S., to concern itself (mostly) with truth, positing that «only in struggling with the environment» do data, and derived theories, have meaning, and that consequences, like utility and practicality, are also components of truth. Moreover, pragmatism posits that anything useful and practical is not always true, arguing that what most contributes to the most human good in the long course is true. In practice, theoretical claims must be practically verifiable, i.e. one should be able to predict and test claims, and, that, ultimately, the needs of mankind should guide human intellectual inquiry.

Pragmatic philosophers suggest that the practical, useful understanding of life is more important than searching for an impractical abstract truth about life. William James argued that truth could be made, but not sought. [ 35 ] [ 36 ] To a pragmatist, the meaning of life is discoverable only via experience.

Existentialism

Each man and each woman creates the essence (meaning) of his and her life; life is not determined by a supernatural god or an earthly authority, one is free. As such, one’s ethical prime directives are action, freedom, and decision, thus, existentialism opposes rationalism and positivism. In seeking meaning to life, the existentialist looks to where people find meaning in life, in course of which using only reason as a source of meaning is insufficient; the insufficiency gives rise to the emotions of anxiety and dread, felt in facing one’s radical freedom, and the concomitant awareness of death. To the existentialist, existence precedes essence; the (essence) of one’s life arises only after one comes to existence.

Søren Kierkegaard coined the term «leap of faith», arguing that life is full of absurdity, and one must make his and her own values in an indifferent world. One can live meaningfully (free of despair and anxiety) in an unconditional commitment to something finite, and devotes that meaningful life to the commitment, despite the vulnerability inherent to doing so. [ 37 ]

Arthur Schopenhauer answered: «What is the meaning of life?» by determining that one’s life reflects one’s will, and that the will (life) is an aimless, irrational, and painful drive. Salvation, deliverance, and escape from suffering are in aesthetic contemplation, sympathy for others, and asceticism. [ 38 ] [ 39 ]

For Friedrich Nietzsche, life is worth living only if there are goals inspiring one to live. Accordingly, he saw nihilism («all that happens is meaningless») as without goals. He discredited asceticism, because it denies one’s living in the world; denied that values are objective facts, that are rationally necessary, universally binding commitments: Our evaluations are interpretations, and not reflections of the world, as it is, in itself, and, therefore, all ideations take place from a particular perspective. [ 31 ]

Absurdism

«. in spite of or in defiance of the whole of existence he wills to be himself with it, to take it along, almost defying his torment. For to hope in the possibility of help, not to speak of help by virtue of the absurd, that for God all things are possible – no, that he will not do. And as for seeking help from any other – no, that he will not do for all the world; rather than seek help he would prefer to be himself – with all the tortures of hell, if so it must be.«

In absurdist philosophy, the Absurd arises out of the fundamental disharmony between the individual’s search for meaning and the apparent meaninglessness of the universe. As beings looking for meaning in a meaningless world, humans have three ways of resolving the dilemma. Kierkegaard and Camus describe the solutions in their works, The Sickness Unto Death (1849) and The Myth of Sisyphus (1942):

Secular humanism

Per secular humanism, the human race came to be by reproducing in a progression of unguided evolution as an integral part of nature, which is self-existing. [ 42 ] [ 43 ] Knowledge does not come from supernatural sources, but from human observation, experimentation, and rational analysis (the scientific method): the nature of the universe is what people discern it to be. [ 42 ] Likewise, «values and realities» are determined «by means of intelligent inquiry» [ 42 ] and «are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience», that is, by critical intelligence. [ 44 ] [ 45 ] «As far as we know, the total personality is [a function] of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context.» [ 43 ]

People determine human purpose, without supernatural influence; it is the human personality (general sense) that is the purpose of a human being’s life; humanism seeks to develop and fulfill: [ 42 ] «Humanism affirms our ability, and responsibility, to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity». [ 44 ] Humanism aims to promote enlightened self-interest and the common good for all people. It is based on the premises that the happiness of the individual person is inextricably linked to the well-being of humanity, as a whole, in part, because humans are social animals, who find meaning in personal relations, and because cultural progress benefits everybody living in the culture. [ 43 ] [ 44 ]

The philosophical sub-genres posthumanism and transhumanism (sometimes used synonymously) are extensions of humanistic values. One should seek the advancement of humanity and of all life to the greatest degree feasible, to reconcile Renaissance humanism with the 21st century’s technoscientific culture, thus, every living creature has the right to determine its personal and social «meaning of life». [ 46 ]

From a humanistic-psychotherapeutic point of view, the question of the meaning of life could also be reinterpreted as «What is the meaning of my life?» [ 47 ] Instead of becoming focused on cosmic or religious questions about overarching purpose, this approach suggests that the question is intensely personal. There are many therapeutic responses to this question, for example Viktor Frankl argues for «Dereflection», which largely translates as ceasing to endlessly reflect on the self, instead of engaging in life. On the whole, the therapeutic response is that the question of meaning of life evaporates if one is fully engaged in life. The question then morphs into more specific worries such as «What delusions am I under?», «What is blocking my ability to enjoy things?», «Why do I neglect loved-ones?». See also: Existential Therapy and Irvin Yalom

Logical positivism

Logical positivists ask: «What is the meaning of life?», «What is the meaning in asking?» [ 48 ] [ 49 ] and «If there are no objective values, then, is life meaningless?» [ 50 ] Ludwig Wittgenstein and the logical positivists said: [ citation needed ] «Expressed in language, the question is meaningless»; because, in life the statement the «meaning of x», usually denotes the consequences of x, or the significance of x, or what is notable about x, etc., thus, when the meaning of life concept equals «x», in the statement the «meaning of x», the statement becomes recursive, and, therefore, nonsensical, or it might refer to the fact that biological life is essential to having a meaning in life.

The things (people, events) in the life of a person can have meaning (importance) as parts of a whole, but a discrete meaning of (the) life, itself, aside from those things, cannot be discerned. A person’s life has meaning (for himself, others) as the life events resulting from his achievements, legacy, family, etc., but, to say that life, itself, has meaning, is a misuse of language, since any note of significance, or of consequence, is relevant only in life (to the living), so rendering the statement erroneous. Bertrand Russell wrote that although he found that his distaste for torture was not like his distaste for broccoli, he found no satisfactory, empirical method of proving this: [ 26 ]

Postmodernism

Postmodernist thought—broadly speaking—sees human nature as constructed by language, or by structures and institutions of human society. Unlike other forms of philosophy, postmodernism rarely seeks out a priori or innate meanings in human existence, but instead focuses on analyzing or critiquing given meanings in order to rationalize or reconstruct them. Anything resembling a «meaning of life», in postmodernist terms, can only be understood within a social and linguistic framework, and must be pursued as an escape from the power structures that are already embedded in all forms of speech and interaction. As a rule, postmodernists see awareness of the constraints of language as necessary to escaping those constraints, but different theorists take different views on the nature of this process: from radical reconstruction of meaning by individuals (as in deconstructionism) to theories in which individuals are primarily extensions of language and society, without real autonomy (as in poststructuralism). In general, postmodernism seeks meaning by looking at the underlying structures that create or impose meaning, rather than the epiphenomenal appearances of the world.

Evolutionary psychology

Evolutionary psychology holds that the ultimate meaning of life is to seek the fulfillment of the human instincts, and that all actions in life are results of instincts and in particular reproductive needs.

Naturalistic pantheism

According to naturalistic pantheism, the meaning of life is to care for and look after nature and the environment.

Eglis Observation

The physicist David Egli proposes an Observation that there are only two possibilities for the meaning of life:

The first case leads to Absurdism, meaning that nothing makes sense at all, because coincidences never make sense. This would mean that every life of every human being is senseless. Also things like love or preserving human life or a good conscience.

In the second case, the question remains of what nature this God is in order to speculate what the meaning of life could be. If this God is a person, it implies, that the meaning of life is, what this God intends it to be. In this case it is also natural to suppose that all life came into existence by intention of that God. It then is quite obvious, that the meaning of life must have something to do with this God, or that even He himself is the meaning of life. But still the question of the character of that God remains. The first conclusion could be that God is a devil because of all the terrible things in this world. But there are also things in this world only a loving and holy God would create like love, forgiveness, mercy, grace, joy, beauty, nature. Suppose God is evil, then the meaning of live would be to be evil. It is quite natural to conclude that this can’t be the meaning of life, and if it would be, life would not be worth living, and therefore the conclusion is that God is perfectly good and there is absolutely no evil in the character of God, because otherwise God would still be evil. But if God is absolutely good, why does He expose man to evil, or what is the meaning of this life where both the good and the evil coexist? Obviously if God is perfectly good, then the evil cannot be the final thing, but still the evil is here, why? If we think further, even we ourselves are evil, because we all do evil things everyday. So if we are evil and God is perfectly good, it is obvious that God wants to deliver us from evil, but there must be a purpose in creating us evil first. If God is perfectly good, He wants us to love him. But love is based on free will. A robot cannot have true love. Therefore love cannot exist, if there is not the possibility for hatred. Even our love will be proven the most, if we love in spite of evil. Like the love of Jesus for God and mankind in spite of his crucifixion. It seems natural, that the meaning of life is to choose. Either choose evil or either choose love and good. In this case the meaning of life is to choose the good in spite of evil. If God is perfectly good, then the good is actually God. This means the sense of life is to choose God in spite of evil. This also explains the purpose of evil. The purpose of evil is to prove and mature our love and our mercy.

East Asian philosophy

Mohism

Confucianism

Confucianism recognizes human nature in accordance with the need for discipline and education. Because mankind is driven by both positive and negative influences, Confucianists see a goal in achieving virtue through strong relationships and reasoning as well as minimizing the negative. This emphasis on normal living is seen in the Confucianist scholar Tu Wei-Ming’s quote, «we can realize the ultimate meaning of life in ordinary human existence.» [ 53 ]

Legalism

The Legalists believed that finding the purpose of life was a meaningless effort. To the Legalists, only practical knowledge was valuable, especially as it related to the function and performance of the state.

Religious perspectives

The religious perspectives on the meaning of life are those ideologies which explain life in terms of an implicit purpose not defined by humans.

Western and Middle Eastern religions

Christianity

Though Christianity has its roots in Judaism, and shares much of the latter faith’s ontology, its central beliefs derive from the teachings of Jesus Christ, as presented in the New Testament. Life’s purpose in Christianity is to seek divine salvation through the grace of God and intercession of Christ. (cf. John 11:26) The New Testament speaks of God wanting to have a relationship with humans both in this life and the life to come, which can happen only if one’s sins are forgiven (John 3:16–21; 2 Peter 3:9).

In the Christian view, humankind was made in the Image of God and perfect, but the Fall of Man caused the progeny of the first Parents to inherit Original Sin. The sacrifice of Christ’s passion, death and resurrection provide the means for transcending that impure state (Romans 6:23). The means for doing so varies between different groups of Christians, but all rely on belief in Jesus, his work on the cross and his resurrection as the fundamental starting point for a relationship with God. Faith in God is found in Ephesians 2:8–9 – » [8] For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; [9] not as a result of works, that no one should boast.» (New American Standard Bible; 1973). People are justified by belief in the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus’ death on the cross. The Gospel maintains that through this belief, the barrier that sin has created between man and God is destroyed, and allows God to change people and instill in them a new heart after His own will, and the ability to do it. This is what the term reborn or saved almost always refers to. This places Christianity in stark contrast to other religions which claim that believers are justified with God through adherence to guidelines or law given to us by God.

In the Westminster Shorter Catechism, the first question is: «What is the chief end of Man?», that is, «What is Man’s main purpose?». The answer is: «Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy him forever». God requires one to obey the revealed moral law saying: «love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself». [ 55 ] The Baltimore Catechism answers the question «Why did God make you?» by saying «God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in heaven.» [ 56 ]

The Apostle Paul also answers this question in his speech on the Areopagus in Athens: «And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.» [ 57 ]

Islam

In Islam, man’s ultimate life objective is to worship the creator Allah by abiding by the Divine guidelines revealed in the Qur’an and the Tradition of the Prophet. Earthly life is merely a test, determining one’s afterlife, either in Jannat (paradise) or in Jahannam (Hell).

For Allah’s satisfaction, via the Qur’an, all Muslims must believe in God, His revelations, His angels, His messengers, and in the «Day of Judgment». [ 58 ] The Qur’an describes the purpose of creation as follows: «Blessed be he in whose hand is the kingdom, he is powerful over all things, who created death and life that he might examine which of you is best in deeds, and he is the almighty, the forgiving» (Qur’an 67:1–2) and «And I (Allâh) created not the jinn and mankind except that they should be obedient (to Allah).» (Qur’an 51:56). Obedience testifies to the oneness of God in His lordship, His names, and His attributes. Terrenal life is a test; how one acts (behaves) determines whether one’s soul goes to Jannat (Heaven) or to Jahannam (Hell). [ 59 ] [ citation needed ]

The Five Pillars of Islam are duties incumbent to every Muslim; they are: Shahadah (profession of faith); Salah (ritual prayer); Zakah (charity); Sawm (fasting during Ramadan), and Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). [ 60 ] They derive from the Hadith works, notably of Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.

Beliefs differ among the Kalam. The Sunni concept of pre-destination is divine decree; [ 61 ] likewise, the Shi’a concept of pre-destination is divine justice; in the esoteric view of the Sufis, the universe exists only for God’s pleasure; Creation is a grand game, wherein Allah is the greatest prize.

Bahá’í Faith

The Bahá’í Faith emphasizes the unity of humanity. [ 62 ] To Bahá’ís, the purpose of life is focused on spiritual growth and service to humanity. Human beings are viewed as intrinsically spiritual beings. People’s lives in this material world provide extended opportunities to grow, to develop divine qualities and virtues, and the prophets were sent by God to facilitate this. [ 63 ] [ 64 ]

Judaism

In the Judaic world view, the meaning of life is to elevate life, both in this world (‘Olam HaZeh) and in the world to come (‘Olam HaBa). The most important way to elevate life is through the observance of «mitzvot» (divine commandments in the Torah), of which the most significant are to serve the One God of Israel and to prepare for the world to come. In Judaism God is not effected or benefited through worship, but a person benefits when drawing close to God through prayer and service of the heart, by bringing out their own intrinsic holiness and divine nature. Among other crucial values in the Torah is pursuit of justice, compassion, peace, kindness, hard work, prosperity, humility, and education. [ 65 ] [ 66 ] The «Olam Haba» [ 67 ] thought is about elevating oneself spiritually, connecting to God in preparing for «Olam Haba»; Jewish thought is to use «Olam Hazeh» (this world) to elevate oneself. [ 68 ] «Al shlosha devarim,» a well-known Mishnah from Pirkei Avot, relates to one of the first scholars of the Oral Law, Simeon the Righteous, the saying that «the world stands on three things: on torah, on worship, and on acts of loving kindness.» This concept further explains the Jewish mentality towards the meaning of it all.

Judaism’s most important feature is the worship of a single, incomprehensible, transcendent, one, indivisible, Being of absolute existence, who created the universe and governs it. Closeness with the one God of Israel, and adherence to the laws revealed in the Torah for the benefit of the world, is the central concept of Judaism. Per traditional Judaism, God established a covenant with the Jewish people, at Mount Sinai, revealing his laws and commandments in the Torah. In Rabbinic Judaism, the Torah comprises the written Pentateuch (Torah) and the oral law tradition (later transcribed as sacred writing).

Kabbalistically, the meaning of life is to connect with the One God. Kaballah posits that there only God exists, though «Klipot» (shells) separate the holiness of God, therefore, the meaning of life is to remove those shells and connect to God.

Zoroastrianism

Zoroastrianism is the religion and philosophy named after its prophet Zoroaster, which is believed to have influenced the beliefs of Judaism and its descendant religions. [ 69 ] Zoroastrians believe in a universe created by a transcendental God, Ahura Mazda, to whom all worship is ultimately directed. Azhura Mazda’s creation is asha, truth and order, and it is in conflict with its antithesis, druj, falsehood and disorder. (See also Zoroastrian eschatology).

Since humanity possesses free will, people must be responsible for their moral choices. By using free will, people must take an active role in the universal conflict, with good thoughts, good words and good deeds to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

South Asian religions

Hindu philosophies

Hinduism is a religious category including many beliefs and traditions. Since Hinduism was the way of expressed meaningful living for quite a long time immemorial, when there was no need for naming this as a separate religion, Hindu doctrines are supplementary and complementary in nature, generally non-exclusive, suggestive and tolerant in content. [ 70 ] Most believe that the ātman (spirit, soul)—the person’s true self—is eternal. [ 71 ] In part, this stems from Hindu beliefs that spiritual development occurs across many lifetimes, and goals should match the state of development of the individual. There are four possible aims to human life, known as the purusharthas (ordered from least to greatest): Kāma (wish, desire, love and sensual pleasure), Artha (wealth, prosperity, glory), Dharma (righteousness, duty, morality, virtue, ethics, encompassing notions such as ahimsa (non-violence) and satya (truth)) and Moksha (liberation, i.e. liberation from Saṃsāra, the cycle of reincarnation). [ 72 ] [ 73 ] [ 74 ]

In all schools of Hinduism, the meaning of life is tied up in the concepts of karma (causal action), sansara (the cycle of birth and rebirth), and moksha (liberation). Existence is conceived as the progression of the ātman (similar to the western concept of a soul) across numerous lifetimes, and its ultimate progression towards liberation from karma. Particular goals for life are generally subsumed under broader yogas (practices) or dharma (correct living) which are intended to create more favorable reincarnations, though they are generally positive acts in this life as well. Traditional schools of Hinduism often worship Devas which are manifestations of Ishvara (a personal or chosen God); these Devas are taken as ideal forms to be identified with, as a form of spiritual improvement.

Advaita and Dvaita Hinduism

Later schools reinterpreted the vedas to focus on Brahman, «The One Without a Second», [ 75 ] as a central God-like figure.

In monist Advaita Vedanta, ātman is ultimately indistinguishable from Brahman, and the goal of life is to know or realize that one’s ātman (soul) is identical to Brahman. [ 76 ] To the Upanishads, whoever becomes fully aware of the ātman, as one’s core of self, realizes identity with Brahman, and, thereby, achieves Moksha (liberation, freedom). [ 71 ] [ 77 ] [ 78 ]

Dualist Dvaita Vedanta and other bhakti schools have a dualist interpretation. Brahman is seen as a supreme being with a personality and manifest qualities. The ātman depends upon Brahman for its existence; the meaning of life is achieving Moksha through love of God and upon His grace. [ 77 ]

Vaishnavism

Vaishnavism is a branch of Hinduism in which the principal belief is the identification of Vishnu or Narayana as the one supreme God. This belief contrasts with the Krishna-centered traditions, such as Vallabha, Nimbaraka and Gaudiya, in which Krishna is considered to be the One and only Supreme God and the source of all avataras. [ 79 ]

Vaishnava theology includes the central beliefs of Hinduism such as monotheism, reincarnation, samsara, karma, and the various Yoga systems, but with a particular emphasis on devotion (bhakti) to Vishnu through the process of Bhakti yoga, often including singing Vishnu’s name’s (bhajan), meditating upon his form (dharana) and performing deity worship (puja). The practices of deity worship are primarily based on texts such as Pañcaratra and various Samhitas. [ 80 ]

One popular school of thought, Gaudiya Vaishnavism, teaches the concept of Achintya Bheda Abheda. In this, Krishna is worshipped as the single true God, and all living entities are eternal parts and the Supreme Personality of the Godhead Krishna. Thus the constitutional position of a living entity is to serve the Lord with love and devotion. The purpose of human life especially is to think beyond the animalistic way of eating, sleeping, mating and defending and engage the higher intelligence to revive the lost relationship with Krishna.

Jainism

Jainism is a religion originating in ancient India, its ethical system promotes self-discipline above all else. Through following the ascetic teachings of Jina, a human achieves enlightenment (perfect knowledge). Jainism divides the universe into living and non-living beings. Only when the non-living become attached to the living does suffering result. Therefore, happiness is the result of self-conquest and freedom from external objects. The meaning of life may then be said to be to use the physical body to achieve self-realization and bliss. [ 81 ]

Jains believe that every human is responsible for his or her actions and all living beings have an eternal soul, jiva. Jains believe all souls are equal because they all possess the potential of being liberated and attaining Moksha. The Jain view of karma is that every action, every word, every thought produces, besides its visible, an invisible, transcendental effect on the soul.

Jainism includes strict adherence to ahimsa (or ahinsā), a form of nonviolence that goes far beyond vegetarianism. Jains refuse food obtained with unnecessary cruelty. Many practice a lifestyle similar to veganism due to the violence of modern dairy farms, and others exclude root vegetables from their diets in order to preserve the lives of the plants from which they eat. [ 82 ]

Buddhism

Early Buddhism

Buddhism is a nondual doctrine, in which subject, object, and action are all viewed as illusory. Buddhists believe that life is inherent with suffering or frustration. This does not imply that there is no pleasure in life, but rather that pleasure alone does not lend itself to lasting happiness. True suffering is caused by attachment to objects material or non-material, which in turn causes one to be born again and again in the cycle of existence. The Buddhist sūtras and tantras do not speak about «the meaning of life» or «the purpose of life», but about the potential of human life to end suffering through detaching oneself from cravings and conceptual attachments. Suffering can be overcome through human activity, simply by removing the cause of suffering. Attaining and perfecting dispassion is a process of many levels that ultimately results in the state of Nirvana. Nirvana means freedom from both suffering and rebirth. [ 83 ]

Theravada Buddhism is generally considered to be close to the early Buddhist practice. It promotes the concept of Vibhajjavada (Pali), literally «Teaching of Analysis», which says that insight must come from the aspirant’s experience, critical investigation, and reasoning instead of by blind faith. However, the Theravadin tradition also emphasizes heeding the advice of the wise, considering such advice and evaluation of one’s own experiences to be the two tests by which practices should be judged. The Theravadin goal is liberation (or freedom) from suffering, according to the Four Noble Truths. This is attained in the achievement of Nirvana, or Unbinding which also ends the repeated cycle of birth, old age, sickness and death.

Mahayana Buddhism

Mahayana Buddhist schools de-emphasize the traditional view (still practiced in Theravada) of the release from individual Suffering (Dukkha) and attainment of Awakening (Nirvana). In Mahayana, the Buddha is seen as an eternal, immutable, inconceivable, omnipresent being. The fundamental principles of Mahayana doctrine are based on the possibility of universal liberation from suffering for all beings, and the existence of the transcendent Buddha-nature, which is the eternal Buddha essence present, but hidden and unrecognised, in all living beings. [ citation needed ]

Philosophical schools of Mahayana Buddhism, such as Chan/Zen and the vajrayana Tibetan and Shingon schools, explicitly teach that bodhisattvas should refrain from full liberation, allowing themselves to be reincarnated into the world until all beings achieve enlightenment. Devotional schools such as Pure Land Buddhism seek the aid of celestial buddhas—individuals who have spent lifetimes [ citation needed ] accumulating positive karma, and use that accumulation to aid all.

Sikhism

The monotheistic Sikh religion was founded by Guru Nanak Dev, the term «sikh» means student, which denotes that followers will lead their lives forever learning. This system of religious philosophy and expression has been traditionally known as the Gurmat (literally «the counsel of the gurus») or the Sikh Dharma. The followers of Sikhism are ordained to follow the teachings of the ten Sikh Gurus, or enlightened leaders, as well as the holy scripture entitled the Gurū Granth Sāhib, which includes selected works of many philosophers from diverse socio-economic and religious backgrounds.

The Sikh Gurus say that salvation can be obtained by following various spiritual paths, so Sikhs do not have a monopoly on salvation: «The Lord dwells in every heart, and every heart has its own way to reach Him.» [ 84 ] Sikhs believe that all people are equally important before God. [ 85 ] Sikhs balance their moral and spiritual values with the quest for knowledge, and they aim to promote a life of peace and equality but also of positive action. [ 86 ]

A key distinctive feature of Sikhism is a non-anthropomorphic concept of God, to the extent that one can interpret God as the Universe itself (pantheism). Sikhism thus sees life as an opportunity to understand this God as well as to discover the divinity which lies in each individual. While a full understanding of God is beyond human beings, [ 87 ] Nanak described God as not wholly unknowable, and stressed that God must be seen from «the inward eye», or the «heart», of a human being: devotees must meditate to progress towards enlightenment. Nanak emphasized the revelation through meditation, as its rigorous application permits the existence of communication between God and human beings. [ 87 ]

East Asian religions

Taoism

Taoist cosmogony emphasizes the need for all sentient beings and all man to return to the primordial or to rejoin with the Oneness of the Universe by way of self cultivation and self realization. All adherents should understand and be in tune with the ultimate truth.

Shinto

Shinto is the native religion of Japan. Shinto means «the path of the kami», but more specifically, it can be taken to mean «the divine crossroad where the kami chooses his way». The «divine» crossroad signifies that all the universe is divine spirit. This foundation of free will, choosing one’s way, means that life is a creative process.

Shinto wants life to live, not to die. Shinto sees death as pollution and regards life as the realm where the divine spirit seeks to purify itself by rightful self-development. Shinto wants individual human life to be prolonged forever on earth as a victory of the divine spirit in preserving its objective personality in its highest forms. The presence of evil in the world, as conceived by Shinto, does not stultify the divine nature by imposing on divinity responsibility for being able to relieve human suffering while refusing to do so. The sufferings of life are the sufferings of the divine spirit in search of progress in the objective world. [ 89 ]

New religions

There are many new religious movements in East Asia, and some with millions of followers: Chondogyo, Tenrikyo, Cao Đài, and Seicho-No-Ie. New religions typically have unique explanations for the meaning of life. For example, in Tenrikyo, one is expected to live a Joyous Life by participating in practices that create happiness for oneself and others.

Scientific inquiry and perspectives

Members of the scientific community and philosophy-of-science communities believe that science may be able to provide some context, and set some parameters for conversations on topics related to meaning in life. This includes offering insights from the science of happiness or studies of death anxiety. This also means providing context for, and understanding of life itself through explorations of the theories related to the big bang, abiogenesis and evolution.

Psychological significance and value in life

Science may or may not be able to tell us what is of essential value in life (and various materialist philosophies such as dialectical materialism challenge the very idea of an absolute value or meaning of life), but some studies definitely bear on aspects of the question: researchers in positive psychology (and, earlier and less rigorously, in humanistic psychology) study factors that lead to life satisfaction, [ 90 ] full engagement in activities, [ 91 ] making a fuller contribution by utilizing one’s personal strengths, [ 92 ] and meaning based on investing in something larger than the self. [ 93 ]

One value system suggested by social psychologists, broadly called Terror Management Theory, states that all human meaning is derived out of a fundamental fear of death, whereby values are selected when they allow us to escape the mental reminder of death.

Sociology examines value at a social level using theoretical constructs such as value theory, norms, anomie, etc.

Origin and nature of biological life

The exact mechanisms of abiogenesis are unknown: notable theories include the RNA world hypothesis (RNA-based replicators) and the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics). The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life but the process by which different lifeforms have developed throughout history via genetic mutation and natural selection. [ 94 ] At the end of the 20th century, based upon insight gleaned from the gene-centered view of evolution, biologists George C. Williams, Richard Dawkins, David Haig, among others, conclude that if there is a primary function to life, it is the replication of DNA and the survival of one’s genes. [ 95 ] [ 96 ]

However, though scientists have intensively studied life on Earth, defining life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge. [ 97 ] [ 98 ] Physically, one may say that life «feeds on negative entropy» [ 99 ] [ 100 ] which refers to the process by which living entities decrease their internal entropy at the expense of some form of energy taken in from the environment. [ 101 ] [ 102 ] Biologists generally agree that lifeforms are self-organizing systems regulating the internal environment as to maintain this organized state, metabolism serves to provide energy, and reproduction causes life to continue over a span of multiple generations. Typically, organisms are responsive to stimuli and genetic information tends to change from generation to generation resulting in adaptation through evolution, these characteristics optimizing the chances of survival for the individual organism and its descendants respectively. [ 103 ]

Non-cellular replicating agents, notably viruses, are generally not considered to be organisms because they are incapable of «independent» reproduction or metabolism. This controversy is problematic, though, since some parasites and endosymbionts are also incapable of independent life. Astrobiology studies the possibility of different forms of life on other worlds, such as replicating structures made from materials other than DNA.

Origins and ultimate fate of the universe

Though the Big Bang model was met with much skepticism when first introduced, partially because it appears to contradict some models of the religious concept of creation, it has become well-supported by several independent observations. [ 104 ] However, current physics can only describe the early universe from 10 −43 seconds after the Big Bang (where zero time corresponds to infinite temperature); a theory of quantum gravity would be required to go further back in time. Nevertheless, many physicists have speculated about what would have preceded this limit, and how the universe came into being. [ 105 ] Some physicists think that the Big Bang occurred coincidentally, and when considering the anthropic principle, it is most often interpreted as implying the existence of a multiverse. [ 106 ]

The ultimate fate of the universe, and implicitly humanity, is hypothesized as one in which biological life will eventually become unsustainable, be it through a Big Freeze, Big Rip, or Big Crunch. However, there are conceivable ways in which these fates can be avoided, as it may be possible given sufficiently advanced technology to survive indefinitely by directing the flow of energy on a cosmic scale and altering the fate of the universe. [ 105 ] [ page needed ]

Scientific questions about the mind

The true nature and origin of consciousness and the mind itself are also widely debated in science. The explanatory gap is generally equated with the hard problem of consciousness, and the question of free will is also considered to be of fundamental importance. These subjects are mostly addressed in the fields of cognitive science, neuroscience (e.g. the neuroscience of free will) and philosophy of mind, though some evolutionary biologists and theoretical physicists have also made several allusions to the subject. [ 107 ] [ 108 ]

Reductionistic and eliminative materialistic approaches, for example the Multiple Drafts Model, hold that consciousness can be wholly explained by neuroscience through the workings of the brain and its neurons, thus adhering to biological naturalism. [ 108 ] [ 109 ] [ 110 ]

On the other hand, some scientists, like Andrei Linde, have considered that consciousness, like spacetime, might have its own intrinsic degrees of freedom, and that one’s perceptions may be as real as (or even more real than) material objects. [ 111 ] Hypotheses of consciousness and spacetime explain consciousness in describing a «space of conscious elements», [ 111 ] often encompassing a number of extra dimensions. [ 112 ] Electromagnetic theories of consciousness solve the binding problem of consciousness in saying that the electromagnetic field generated by the brain is the actual carrier of conscious experience, there is however disagreement about the implementations of such a theory relating to other workings of the mind. [ 113 ] [ 114 ] Quantum mind theories use quantum theory in explaining certain properties of the mind. Explaining the process of free will through quantum phenomena is a popular alternative to determinism, such postulations may variously relate free will to quantum fluctuations, [ 115 ] quantum amplification, [ 116 ] quantum potential [ 115 ] and quantum probability. [ 117 ]

Based on the premises of non-materialistic explanations of the mind, some have suggested the existence of a cosmic consciousness, asserting that consciousness is actually the «ground of all being». [ 15 ] [ 116 ] [ 118 ] Proponents of this view cite accounts of paranormal phenomena, primarily extrasensory perceptions and psychic powers, as evidence for an incorporeal higher consciousness. In hopes of proving the existence of these phenomena, parapsychologists have orchestrated various experiments. Meta-analyses of these experiments indicate that the effect size (though very small) has been relatively consistent, resulting in an overall statistical significance. [ 119 ] [ 120 ] [ 121 ] Although some critical analysts feel that parapsychological study is scientific, they are not satisfied with its experimental results. [ 122 ] [ 123 ] Skeptical reviewers contend that apparently successful results are more likely due to sloppy procedures, poorly trained researchers, or methodological flaws than to actual effects. [ 124 ] [ 125 ] [ 126 ] [ 127 ]

In popular culture

The mystery of life and its meaning is an often recurring subject in popular culture, featured in entertainment media and various forms of art.

In Douglas Adams’ popular comedy book, movie, television, and radio series The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything is given the numeric solution «42», after seven and a half million years of calculation by a giant supercomputer called Deep Thought. When this answer is met with confusion and anger from humanity, Deep Thought explains that «I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you’ve never actually known what the question is.» [ 5 ] [ 7 ] [ 11 ] [ 128 ] In the continuation of the book, the question is proposed to be the song of Bob Dylan «How many roads must a man walk down, before you can call him a man.». The book later states that the question is 6×9 which of course does not equal 42 and does in fact answer 54. Coincidentally, in the genealogy of Jesus from Matthew 1 in the Christian Bible states that there were 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus.

In Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life, there are several allusions to the meaning of life. At the end of the film, a character played by Michael Palin is handed an envelope containing «the meaning of life», which he opens and reads out to the audience: «Well, it’s nothing very special. Uh, try to be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try to live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations.» [ 129 ] [ 130 ] [ 131 ] Many other Python sketches and songs are also existential in nature, questioning the importance we place on life («Always Look on the Bright Side of Life») and other meaning-of-life related questioning. John Cleese also had his sit-com character Basil Fawlty contemplating the futility of his own existence in Fawlty Towers.

In The Simpsons episode «Homer the Heretic», a representation of God agrees to tell Homer what the meaning of life is, but the show’s credits begin to roll just as he starts to say what it is. [ 132 ]

Popular views

«What is the meaning of life?» is a question many people ask themselves at some point during their lives, most in the context «What is the purpose of life?» [ 4 ] Here are some of the life goals people choose, and some of their beliefs on what the purpose of life is:

Mark Manson

Life Advice That Doesn’t Suck

MM.net

Nothing Found

Sorry, but nothing matched your search terms. Please try again with different keywords.

The Meaning of Life Is a Ham Sandwich

It’s the ultimate question. The question that you and I and everyone has lain awake at night thinking about: What is the meaning of life?

Y ou know the question. It’s the ultimate question. The question that you and I and everyone have lain awake at night thinking about. The question that brings equal parts wonder and terror to our feeble minds. Why are we here? What is the point of it all? What is the meaning of life?

Well, fortunately, I figured it out while I was at the gym this morning. I’m pretty sure it’s a ham sandwich. And no, I’m not saying that just because I’m hungry. There’s an explanation here. I’m going to explain it, clickbait titles and all, in, oh, the next eight minutes or so.

First off, before we can even appropriately ask “What is the meaning of life?” we must first settle something more subtle and something more important. Namely, what is meaning?

What Is Meaning?

What is meaning? That may strike you as terribly navel-gazey and ultra-philosophical. And if that’s the case, I invite you to think about ham sandwiches for a moment, and just stick with me for a minute. Because it’s important.

What does it mean for something to mean something? As humans, we have a constant need to attach meaning to everything that happens in our lives.

Look, a guy climbed a rock looking for meaning!

My mom hugs me, that must mean that she loves me. My boss complimented me, that must mean I do good work. It’s going to be sunny tomorrow, that must mean I can wear my super-cool SpongeBob tank top to school.

Meaning is the association that we draw between two experiences or events in our minds. X happens, then Y happens, so we assume that means X causes Y. Z happens, and we get really bummed out and feel awful, therefore we assume that Z sucks.

Our brains invent meaning the way dogs shit—they do it gleefully and not even realizing that they’re ruining the carpet. Our brains invent meaning as a way to explain all the crazy shit that is going on in the world around us. This is important, as it helps us predict and control our lives.

But let’s be real: Meaning is an arbitrary mental construct.

Fifty people can watch the exact same event and draw fifty different meanings from said event. That’s why there’s so much arguing in politics. That’s why eyewitnesses are so unreliable in court. That’s why your friends are sometimes the biggest assholes—because that meaning you just shared, to them, meant something completely different.

Types of Meaning in Life

Our brains slap together two different types of meaning:

Cause/Effect Meaning: You kick the ball, the ball moves. You tell your friend his hair is ugly, your friend slaps you in the face. You do X, and with reliable certainty, Y will result.

We all need Cause/Effect meaning to survive. It helps us predict the future and learn from the past. Cause/Effect meaning primarily involves the logical parts of our brain. Science, for instance, is the constant search of more and more Cause/Effect Meaning.

Better/Worse Meaning: Eating is better than starving. Making money is better than being broke. Sharing is better than stealing. Better/Worse meaning has to do with the nature of our values—what we perceive to be most important and useful in our lives.

Better/Worse meaning relies mostly on the emotional parts of our brains. Generally what makes us feel good is what we immediately assume to be “good” or “better.”

Both forms of meaning evolved in our brains to help us survive. For thousands of years, humans needed to remember where certain food could be found, how various animals would respond when hunted, how weather patterns change and how to read the terrain. They also needed to know what would gain them acceptance within their tribe, what would curry favor from friends and earn approval from that sexy guy/gal in the loin cloth over yonder.

So in that sense, meaning is nature’s tool for motivation. It’s how evolution made sure we got shit done. Meaning drives all of our actions. 1 When there is great meaning attached to something, like our child is sick and starving, we will go to insane lengths to make things right. People will often even go as far as giving up their lives for some grand sense of meaning (see: religion, every war ever). Meaning is that effective at moving people.

Meaning is nature’s tool for motivation.

Conversely, when we feel we lack meaning in our lives, when shit just doesn’t seem to matter, when there’s no clarity on how or why things happen to us, we do nothing. We sit on the couch and twiddle our thumbs and watch lame reruns while complaining on the internet about lame reruns.

But here’s the kicker (and I swear I’m going to get to the ham sandwich):

Meaning is a resource that we must cultivate in our lives.

Meaning is not something that exists outside of ourselves. It is not some cosmic universal truth waiting to be discovered. It is not some grand ‘eureka’ moment that will change our lives forever.

Meaning requires action. Meaning is something that we must continually find and nurture. Consistently.

Man’s great search for the meaning of life usually ends like this.

Meaning is like the water of our psychological health. Without it, our hearts and minds will shrivel and die. And like water, meaning flows through us—what is important today is not what was important years ago, and what is important tomorrow will not be the same as what is important today. Meaning must be sought out and replenished frequently.

How to Find Meaning in Your Life

In a very real sense, the meaning of life is therefore to create meaning.

So how does one create meaning? Two ways:

Solve Problems. The bigger the problem, the more meaning one will feel. The more work you do towards that problem, also the more meaning you will feel. Solving problems basically means finding ways to make the world a slightly better place. Can be as simple as fixing up your aging mother’s dilapidated house. Or as complex as working on the new great breakthrough in physics.

The point here is not to be picky. It’s easy, when we start thinking of how insignificant we are on a cosmic scale of the universe, to start thinking there’s no point in doing anything unless we’re going to save the world or something. This is just a distraction. There are tons of small, everyday problems going on around you that need your attention. Start giving it.

Help Others. This is the biggie. As humans, we’re wired to thrive on our relationships. Studies show that our overall well-being is deeply tied to the quality of our relationships, 2 and the best way to build healthy relationships is through helping others. In fact, some studies have even found that giving stuff away makes us happier than giving stuff to ourselves. 3 Go figure.

As such, it seems to be a “hack” in our brains that helping out other people gives us a greater sense of meaning and purpose. Just the fact you can say to yourself, “If I died, then someone is better off because I lived,” creates that sense of meaning that can propel you forward.

Find meaning in your life by solving problems and helping others.

The Trap of Setting Goals

A lot of people find meaning through setting goals for themselves. They want the corner office, the big car, the fancy-pants shoes. It gives them a reason to wake up in the morning, a reason to bust their ass at work. It gives them something that makes them feel important and something to look forward to every day.

But goals are a double-edged sword. You have to be careful.

Goals are good tools for building motivation. The problem is that, by themselves, they are arbitrary and empty.

Unless there’s a why behind the goal full of meaning, the goal itself will provide little long-term happiness or satisfaction.

Ever seen star athletes flounder after retirement? Or a guy who finally made his millions become deeply miserable because he doesn’t know what else to do with his life?

Goals are dangerous because the meaning they provide when you’re working towards them is the meaning that is taken away once you achieve them.

This is why all the superficial stuff like make a billion dollars, or own a Rolls Royce, or get your face plastered on the cover of a magazine all lead to a type of happiness that is shallow and short-lived—because the meaning is shallow and short-lived.

There has to be a deeper reason for your goals. Otherwise, the goals themselves will be empty and worthless in the long run.

Some athletes handle retirement well. Others end up on Dancing with the Stars.

Notice that it’s the athletes who aspire to be the best at their sport for some greater reason—to build a charity, to start a business, to transition into another career—who handle retirement the best. Notice it’s the millionaires who spent their life working towards a deeper cause that remain content once all of their goals are checked off the checklist.

But some goals don’t even have to be big and sexy.

Take a ham sandwich. I sat down to write this article hungry. That’s a problem in my life. And I promised myself I’d pump out this draft before going and making myself a sandwich. That gave this hour some extra meaning.

And you know what? Maybe my wife’s hungry and I can make her one too. You know, make the world a better place and all that shit while I’m at it.

So what’s the meaning of life? Well, for me, right now, it’s a ham sandwich. What will yours be?

How to Know Who You Really Are

It’s sometimes hard to know where we fit into such a complicated world and who we are in it. I’ve put together a 49-page ebook that will help you dig down to the core of who you are by exploring your personal values.

You’ll also get my monthly newsletter, lovingly called Mindfuck Monthly. You can opt out at any time. See my privacy policy.

What is the Meaning of Life?

There is a question that lies behind every man and woman’s daily thoughts and activities. One of the great equalizers of human kind is that we all, regardless of race, creed, color, or nation, wonder what our lives mean. The inherent desire to question our world and all that exists within it is the most significant difference between humans and animals. Reflecting on our evolution from tribal hunters and gatherers to high tech creatures of leisure, we cannot escape the most basic of questions. What is life?

Ancient Wisdom

The search for life’s meaning is not new. Ancient Greek philosophers spent their lifetimes contemplating this very question. During the 5th century BC, noted philosopher Socrates declared “The unexamined life is not worth living.” This simple quote is not just influential to a philosophical mind, it suggests something deeper and more complex. It is a mandate that compels humanity to examine life’s essence. Socrates influences us by linking meaning to life and placing a heavy weight to his words. He does not just suggest that there might be meaning to live, he insists that it must be contemplated, examined. To not do so reduces our species to something less. The teachings of Socrates influences the way we think to this day.

Prior to Socrates, the teachings of Confucius in China were held in high regard. Confucius is credited with having said “By three methods we may learn wisdom: first by reflection, which is noblest; second by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.” In this wisdom, he held that reflection is the purest way to obtain wisdom. Once more, philosophical teaching that implores us to think about our very existence. This is, in fact, a very common piece of advice among those philosophers of all ancient cultures. It is such a fundamental concept that it would be examined by more modern philosophers and spiritualists throughout history.

While their advice to contemplate our lives seems simple, their true intent and meaning is easily lost in the modern world. What is this idea of a meaningful life? Philosophers both ancient and modern promote an examined life, but who determines the definition of a meaningful life? What is the ultimate goal of self contemplation? We see that the question very rapidly becomes a rabbit hole through which we must travel without benefit of chart, map or guide. The quest for life’s meaning is open ended and vague. In point of fact, it creates even more questions. Am I living a meaningful life? To whom am I beholden in answering this question?

At its most basic this complex question is, in essence, an attempt to validate our own existence. Seemingly this question seeks approval. In modern western culture, much value is placed on a person’s ability to gain wealth, respect, power and prestige. There is a great respect and regard for positions in politics, religion, medicine and education. While greed may be a part of this validation, it is not always so. Much value is also placed on social or personal achievement. In many circles, life’s meaning is found in one’s profession or career. Some view the value of creating and providing for a family as meaningful. How do we decide what part of life dictates its meaning. Is the material aspect of life more important than the social and spiritual? Or vice versa.

There is another possibility. It is possible that we may not really understand what Socrates meant by examining life. The idea seems straight forward and material. However, if we view this question in a broader sense, we may be able to find a simpler answer. Perhaps we tend to over think the purpose of our existence. It is possible that Socrates, Confucius and others were not quite understood. It’s important to consider that the meaning of life is of a singular nature. That is to say that it is only a dilemma for the self. Each individual person must decide what value their life holds. As with art, life’s meaning is in the eye of the beholder.

A Material Life

The most basic of life motivators is survival. The urge to survive drives us in most of our endeavors. The most basic of needs are sought out. Food, water and shelter. Life’s necessities are important of course, but they do not provide much meaning to life. As our species became more sophisticated, we were able to manipulate nature’s resources to suit our needs. For many people in modernized countries survival is not an issue. That fact leads to a more recreational life style. Non-essential possessions are desired and a sense of importance is placed on what and how many possessions we have. To obtain those possessions we must find occupations that can provide the means to achieve wealth. Thus, prestige, power and social rank begin to manifest themselves as our defining points. On the surface a materialistic life may seem shallow and short sighted, however, there are valuable aspects of this life that can define us in a positive way. A social or economic position might be reached due to our hard work ethic, our desire to finish tasks or a genuine desire to do our best at every task. But while important, these traits don’t provide a meaning of life.

A Spiritual Life

Religion has traditionally been a major force in humanity’s search for meaning. It has provided a very important aspect to this question. It establishes a theory that there is an existence beyond the material world. Throughout history many people have been drawn to the belief of a hereafter due in no small part to the fear of death and a presumed finality. The belief in an afterlife is reassuring, however, it also takes the burden off of the individual in defining his or her existence. Without that burden, focus is shifted from examining the nature of life to speculating the nature of gods and heavens. Spirituality is vastly important in defining one’s existence but it is also just a starting point. It would be too simplistic to say ‘I exist because I was made by a higher power’. Even if that is true, there is so much more to examine.

The Ego

For all the wisdom of ancient and modern thinkers, our truths exclusively lie within ourselves. Ultimately we determine our own morals, ethics, spirituality and indeed the meaning of our lives. To discover that meaning we must follow the wisdom of our philosophers, both spiritual and non. It is our own responsibility to find that answer. Education and meditation are powerful tools in the journey to self introspection. We can enlighten ourselves through reading and contemplating our lives each day. However, even these two tools can run counter to the very question we are asking.

The Secret Meaning of Life

We look around our world and wonder why. Life on this planet can be taken for granted when a species like ours achieves an advanced existence in which we have no want for food, water or shelter. Fight or flight mechanisms are no longer of use and they become dusty and unused. Life in our modern world seems easy, yet in reality it is very fragile and very special. To examine life is to become more humble and amazed at how grand and complex life really is.

The meaning of life is a well kept secret in a glass jar. It stares back at us in the mirror. It surrounds us on our way to work. It sits quietly in the palm of our hand. When we pass each other on the street, life’s meaning looks into our eyes. We touch it, feel it, smell it and sense it every day but we do not realize what it is. We talk about life, and we meditate about it’s meaning. We read books to find the answer. We ask those in high regard ‘what is the meaning of life?’. The secret is that there is no secret.

Whether we’ve been granted a gift from above or won an evolutionary game of chance, we are in possession of a very special and wondrous thing. We are alive. Life itself is where we find meaning. Decades of meditation, while spiritually rewarding, is not living. Spending years with our noses in books, searching, is educationally gratifying but not living. The meaning of life is to be found in our every day human experiences. If we spend our lifetimes wringing our hands, wondering, theorizing and seeking life’s meaning, we miss the point entirely.

The meaning of life is self defined. We must live our lives to their fullest extent with the utmost passion and reverence. We create the parameters of our lives each day by establishing our own moralities, ethics and spiritualities. Life’s purpose, our purpose, is defined by the way we treat ourselves and each other. By the way we connect with the rest of the life that surrounds us. When we achieve that connection, we discover the meaning of life in a most amazing way. There is a sensation of peace when we see what is already before us. The meaning of life is simply to live.

Thank you for this page. I am love positive and hopeful acts that make for an ideal world.

Источники:

The meaning of life

Перевод песни The meaning of life (Offspring, the)

The meaning of life

Смысл жизни

What Is the Meaning of Life? A Guide to Living With Meaning

Table of Contents

What Is the Meaning of Life — Historical Perspectives

The Greeks

The Bhagwad Geeta

Cynicism

Stoicism

Theism

Existentialism

What Creates Meaning of Your Life?

Social

Achievement

Competence, Knowledge, and Expertise

Researched Ways That Have Given Meaning to Life (Living Meaning)

1. Be Aware of What Makes You Happy and Gives Your Life Meaning

2. What Does Life Mean if Not Embraced By the Love and Existence of a Family?

3. Desire to Leave a Mark in the World

4. Be Compassionate and Care About Yourself

5. Helping Others Is The Way to Add Meaning to Life

6. Connect With the World

7. Use the PURE Model

Final Thoughts

Перевод песни The meaning of life (Offspring, the)

The meaning of life

Смысл жизни

Meaning of life

Contents

Scientific Approaches to the Meaning of Life

What is the origin of life?

What is the nature of life?

What is valuable in life?

What is the purpose of, or in, (one’s) life?

Analysis of teleology based on science

Philosophy of the Meaning of Life

Essentialist views

Existentialist views

Skeptical and nihilist views

Pragmatist views

Humanistic views

Atheistic views

Religious Approaches to the Meaning of Life

Abrahamic religions

Judaism

Christianity

Islam

South Asian religions

Hinduism

Jainism

Buddhism

Sikhism

East Asian religions

Confucianism

Daoism

The Meaning of Life in Literature

Assessment

Notes

References

External links

General Philosophy Sources

Credits

The Meaning of Life

1. The Meaning of “Meaning”

2. Supernaturalism

2.1. God-centered Views

2.2. Soul-centered Views

3. Naturalism

3.1. Subjectivism

3.2. Objectivism

3.3. Rejecting God and a Soul

4. Nihilism

Удовольствия, познание или долг: в чем философия предлагает поискать смысл жизни

Учиться мудрости: жить как Сократ

Сократ заметил, что даже самые хорошие вещи в руках глупого человека только сделают его более несчастным, ведь он не будет знать, как ими правильно распоряжаться.

— Сократ в диалоге Платона, «Евтидем»

Наслаждаться: жить моментом, как киренаики

— цитаты киренаиков по Лосеву, «Киренаики»