LINK 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 highly ranked purposes a person ought to realize that would make her life significant (if any would).
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 literature on life's meaning composed by those working in the analytic tradition (on which this entry focuses) 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&rdquo
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).
6
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
16 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.The answer is 42... Douglas Adams defined this in his books. 42 is ascii code and 42 stands for the * which is short for whatever you want it to mean....
Lizard_of_Ahaz
Level 9
Mar 18, 2023
0
If you don't include all the other animals in an answer to "what is life" then you're not paying attention. We are animals, mammals and just because we believe we are more intelligent, schooled, or whatever our arrogance happens to be, life for us has the same meaning as life for a mosquito, dog, rat, cat whatever.
K9JetLee999
Level 5
Feb 3, 2023
0
One can simply say that the purpose to life is to breed and multiple. It just happens that some animals find it more enjoyable to do other things along the way. Lots of animals play, some are curious, and a few seem to find pleasure in just being. Humans have a complex brain that is highly creative - we seem to think having that means more to life.
Beowulfsfriend
Level 9
Jan 31, 2023
2
The notion that there is a Universal meaning to life is absurd.
Alienbeing
Level 8
Jan 31, 2023
0
Very good. Here for what they are worth, ( Not much.) are my views, which all end in a joke.
When we realize that there are no big, god given, purposes in life, demanding our obedience. And the many completely contradictory purposes, offered by the many different religions, prove that to be so. Then we can easily see, that wanting any big purpose at all, is merely a vanity and narcissism. The failings which are the weakness that all religion feed off. For if you build up the vanities of people, then they will, obey you, pay you, and praise you, for as long as you keep flattering and confirming those vanities, over and over again.
Yet atheists often say in reply to the theist's question. “What is the purpose of life, if there is no god ?” That, by being none religious, we are free to choose our own purposes. Though admittedly they must by definition be small personal ones, for a transcendent purpose is just another god, meaning that in the deepest sense, atheism, agnosticism and deism are inevitably, by their nature, mainly philosophies of humility.
Yet here for fun is the irony. Suppose for one second, hypothetically, for arguments sake, that there is a creator, an intelligence behind the universe, though one who has not revealed any purpose to us yet, perhaps a deist creator at most. Then what can we discern, if anything, is most likely to be pleasing to it, if pleasing it has any value at all ? Well after the usual if doubtful, givens, such as, be kind, the only thing I think that seems likely, is that we should appreciate its creation as much as possible, down to the smallest detail. Valuing and treasuring all that we are given. And what are we doing when we create our own small purposes, whether, we climb mountains, garden, paint pictures, entertain our pets, make a coffee for a friend or help in a charity shop, if not appreciating that creation, or nature, down to the smallest detail, and valuing it enough to care for it ? Practical environmentalism. Perhaps therefore being an atheist could after all, be the most pleasing of all things to the hypothetical creator.
Now forget the hypothetical creator, since it has now done its job, and what are you left with ? That the small things are the biggest things there are, because they demand the greatest appreciation of you, and it is when you turn your back on the idea of great purpose that you come nearest to your greatest purpose. And when you forget god that you are most likely to please god. So you see that in the end, my deepest thoughts lead to an ironic joke. Nice joke perhaps ? Yes, but I was also never more serious.
And is this my original philosophy ? No, I don't think so, for at the very least the Greek philosopher Epicurus more than twenty centuries ago wrote. “Bring me a pot of cheese and I will feast.” And. “Don't over think it.”
Fernapple
Level 9
Jan 30, 2023
3
The question is invariably wrong. Life should be written and understood in it's real context to include all life not just one, arrogant species. The meaning of LIFE is to evolve and individual humans evolve through knowledge and learning. Once one scrapes away all the hubris the answer becomes clear.
jackjr
Level 7
Jan 30, 2023
4
Meaning of life. What ever works.
For me, simplified, simplified and simplified by mean of work and love. Work is love made visible.
Castlepaloma
Level 8
Jan 30, 2023
1
I really don't concern myself with "the meaning of life." I just try to get through it without causing harm to myself or others, and to have a little fun along the way.
Flyingsaucesir
Level 8
Jan 30, 2023
4
Meaning is something that we as human beings attribute to life and not something that life inherently possesses. Life existed on earth long before the appearance of human beings and I daresay it would continue without us.
As for Aristotle he said that women have more teeth than men but it never occurred to him to look into his wife’s mouth to verify whether or not such statement was true.
"Life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced." Soren Kierkegaard. He is considered to be the first existentialist philosopher.
Voltaire: “Animals have these advantages over man: they never hear the clock strike, they die without any idea of death, they have no theologians to instruct them, their last moments are not disturbed by unwelcome and unpleasant ceremonies, their funerals cost them nothing, and no one starts lawsuits over their wills.”
The excessive analysis of Antione in Sarte's La Nausea ends up in a philosophical cul-de-sac in his search for meaning.
Albert Camus considered life to be absurd and preferred life despite it's absurdity until his tragic death in 1960 in a car accident.
ASTRALMAX
Level 8
Jan 30, 2023
5
The only real advantage of human over all animals is their abstract or imagination creative thinking vs their downside of its destruction. When I make a natural medicine from my urban farming. Either doesn't work or try the next remedy with no side effects if use small to larger doses. With Pharma try one or many different medications and have many different side effect, from mild to death. It would harm my soul, if I had harmed anyone.
Philosophy is just someone's opinion.
It really doesn't mean anything.
Life has whatever meaning I decide it does. Only applicable to me.
I detest the whole "purpose-driven life" thing. I think it's absurd for anyone to insist that our lives must have meaning or purpose.
KKGator
Level 9
Jan 30, 2023
8
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.