The Meaning of Life
Introduction
What is the meaning of life? My answer is that it is the wrong question to ask. I'll explain why later on. I'll also try to restate the question in a different form and then try to answer it. For the moment, however, it is enough to say that the answer to the bad question is that life has no meaning. This leads to the notion of the "absurd". For, often the denial that life has meaning, purpose or significance is expressed by saying that life is absurd or even that the universe is absurd. This notion of absurdity has arisen quite frequently in 20th century literature, for example in the writings of Camus, Sartre, Ionesco and Beckett. In order to explore this notion of absurdity it is convenient to begin with some interesting observations made by the American philosopher Thomas Nagel.The absurd
What might be meant by saying that life is absurd? In general, Nagel suggests, a situation or state of affairs is absurd when there is a discrepancy between reality and our pretensions, hopes or aspirations. For example, you declare your love over the telephone but it turns out that on the other end there is only a recorded message. The reality of the situation renders your action ridiculous, futile or "absurd". There is a clash between reality and your hope. Can Nagel's notion of absurdity explain why there might be a deep philosophical sense in which our lives are absurd? As he asks, is there "some respect in which reality and pretension inevitably clash for us all?" He gives the following answer:"We cannot live human lives without energy and attention, nor without making choices which show that we are taking some things more seriously than others. Yet we have always available a point of view outside the particular form of our lives, from which the seriousness appears gratuitous. These two inescapable viewpoints collide in us, and that is what makes life absurd. It is absurd because we ignore the doubts that we know cannot be settled, continuing to live with nearly undiminished seriousness in spite of them." (p. 14)There are two key elements in Nagel's analysis of absurdity: seriousness and doubt, absurdity arising out of the clash between the two. It is clear that we take ourselves and our lives seriously. A lot of the time we are very involved in our lives with our family and friends, studies, jobs, hobbies, sports, holidays, ourselves, our sex life and so on. That is to say that normally we are busy getting on with our lives. Now, if we were mice, cats, dogs or cows then getting on with our lives is all we'd do. However, being humans, we do more than just get on with our lives we examine and think about our lives, wonder about the significance of them, criticize them and generally call them into question. As Nagel points out, we can adopt an external viewpoint on our lives, and when we do this the seriousness and intensity with which we live our lives is held up to scrutiny. Adopting this viewpoint we ask, "What is the point of it all?" or "What is the meaning of life?" According to Nagel, herein lies the absurdity of our lives. For not only are we seriously involved with living our lives, but we almost simultaneously hold our lives up to question in a way which can never really satisfactorily be resolved. Thus:
" when we take this [external] view and recognize what we do as arbitrary, it does not disengage us from life, and therein lies our absurdity: not in the fact that such an external view can be taken of us, but in the fact that we ourselves can take it, without ceasing to be the persons whose ultimate concerns are so coolly regarded." (p. 15)So if Nagel is right, the absurdity of our lives arises out of the conflict in us between being, on the one hand, enthusiastic participators in our lives and, on the other hand, detached (and rather critical) observers of our lives. Has Nagel convinced us that life is absurd? I have my doubts. Nagel has offered an interesting and plausible account of how it is that our lives may seem to us, on occasion, to be absurd. We do raise questions about the significance, meaning and purpose of our lives and we never really satisfactorily answer these questions. But can these questions be answered? Nagel thinks not. For him absurdity is inescapable and just something we have to learn to live with. However, to point to the conflict in us between the two viewpoints serious involvement and external doubt is not sufficient to show that life is absurd. As mentioned above, it at most explains why we might be inclined to believe that life is absurd. If the external doubt concerning the point of our lives can be resolved, then we have no reason to think that life is absurd. I'll return to Nagel later on and suggest that there are some grounds for optimism about resolving this doubt.
"What is the meaning of life?"
What's wrong with this question? Two things. The first one concerns the use of the word "meaning". When this word is used in relation to language it involves the relation between language and the world. It has to do with what the words and sentences in our language are about the things we talk about. So what has this got to with the meaning of life? To talk about the meaning of life encourages us, as with meaning in a language, to wonder what life is about. It encourages the notion that there is a "transcendent" meaning or significance attached to a human life. That is, it encourages the idea that that there is a certain something, which exists outside of or beyond human life and which, gives it meaning. This is analogous to that connection which exists between words and things and which gives words their meaning. In this vein we search for the "certain something" which might give life its meaning. Whether or not there is such a "certain something" (I doubt it), I think it is a mistake to ask about the significance of our lives in such a way that requires a certain type of answer an answer which makes reference to something outside of human life. The question we begin with should be more open. So that is one reason why I suggest we forget about meaning.The second thing wrong with the question "What is the meaning of life?" is in the use of "the". Why should there be only one thing that gives life significance? There may indeed be lots of things. But to ask for the meaning of life is already to exclude this possibility. This is the second reason why the question about the meaning of life is the wrong one to ask.
The right question to ask
Don't ask for the meaning of life. Here is a better question: What makes a human life worth living? This question is better in at least two respects. Firstly, it doesn't force us to look outside of or beyond human life for the answer, though it may turn out that the best answer has this form. It may be that what makes life worth living is transcendent, but then maybe not. Secondly, the question does not presume that there is only one thing which makes life worth living there may be lots of them. Of course, it may turn out that there is only one thing that makes life worth living, but our question doesn't force that answer on us.It is important to recognize here that the question "What makes a human life worth living?" is not a moral question. It is not asking for a list of human virtues such as courage, honesty, wisdom, benevolence and so on. It is asking for those things (if any there be) which, when present in a life, will be such that the person living that life will regard it as worth living. Moral virtues such as honesty and courage are those which human beings should aspire to given that they are live together reasonably harmoniously. As the philosopher John Mackie said, the virtues are what is necessary for human flourishing. However, the point of asking the question "What makes a human life worth living?" is to try and discover what exactly are the essential ingredients of human flourishing. Of course, the question may be unanswerable. For instance, a pessimist may say that life is simply not worth living, so there is no list of things which could make it worth living. Another slightly less pessimistic view might be that there is no general answer to the question there are no features of life which will in general make a life worth living. The best we could come up with are things which some people (but not others) will regard as making their life worth living. In any case, whether or not the search is successful, it is not a search for those features which make up a life which is in some sense morally good. I am not a pessimist and think that a certain type of general answer to the question can be given.
An attempt to answer the question
What are some of the things which make a human life worth living? The following list is not meant to be complete. The point is not to try and list all the things which make life worth living it is enough to know that there are some.- Close personal relationships family, friends and so on.
- Interesting and satisfying work. This may take the form of paid job, farming or establishing a commune.
- Creative pursuits and leisure listening to or playing music, reading novels or building a house.
- Involvement in social or political reform standing for council or working to free political prisoners.
- Involvement in physical activity swimming, running, mountaineering or competitive sport.
- I'm doing it until I can save enough money to go overseas.
- I love it it's what I've always wanted to do.
I suggest that items listed in (1) (5) (but not only these) can similarly be justified intrinsically. Listening to or playing music, raising families or being with friends, writing a poem or going surfing are justified (if they need to be) intrinsically. You can ask "What is the point of going surfing?" if you like. The answer is that there is no point, or at least no further point. These sorts of activities contain their point, reason, purpose or significance within themselves. They are simply worth doing for their own sake. If you find an activity enjoyable, interesting, fulfilling or satisfying, then what further point is needed? That is justification enough. A life containing activities which are intrinsically worthwhile is worth living and hence not absurd.
That finally is the response to Nagel. Remember that, for Nagel, the permanent possibility of viewing our lives from an external point is the source of the ultimate absurdity of our lives. Thus you might enjoy surfing every weekend but it is open for you to ask, "What ultimately is the point of it?" It seems to me that activities which are intrinsically justified are worthwhile for their own sake and need not have a point.
Perhaps this will not satisfy everybody. Some will still hanker after a deeper point, significance, purpose or "meaning" "What is the meaning of life?" will still be asked. At this stage the comment made by the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein is apt. He said that anyone asking for the meaning of life does not really care about the answer, but is just telling you that his life isn't going very well at the moment.