From the inception of philosophizing process of man, the question of life’s meaning has been a significant quest. For millennia, thinkers have addressed the question of what, if anything, makes a life meaningful in some form or other. The basic idea of the question of life’s meaning is depicted, to rethink the age-old question again, in this chapter by tracing the right sense of the quest under the first sub-title to avoid ambiguity and by presenting the significance of the question and basic categories of the answer.
1.1 Descriptive Definition
Before initiating the meditations on the meaning of life,
the meaning of the ‘meaning of life’ should be established. The question of
life’s meaning in this thesis is not the semantic meaning of the word ‘life’ or
any sort of definition of ‘life’ or a
description of this term’s usage. Though ‘meaning’ is the term which appears to
most naturally find its home within a linguistic context, there are additional
non-linguistic contexts in which the locution, “What is the meaning of x?” makes
perfect sense.[1] Such
a nonlinguistic sense of the meaning of life is the discussion taken into
consideration here which is radically not in the easy-to-define sense. For the
further clarification of the focus, the meaning of the term ‘meaning’ has to be
established which seems so intricate. ‘Meaning’ has multiple meanings and at
least some of the more prominent ones mitigate its usefulness in the context of
trying to formulate the intuitions driving the question of the meaning of life.
This term has different meanings as it relates to the various disciplines of
study such as medicine, science, mathematics, culture, etc. The word ‘meaning,’
as in general sense, as a noun means what is intended to be, or actually is,
expressed or indicated; signification; import; the end, purpose, or
significance of something. As a verb it means to have in mind as one's purpose
or intention; to intend for a particular purpose, destination, etc.[2]
As far as this thesis is concerned the
non-linguistic philosophical sense is taken for the quest of the meaning of
life. The quest for the meaning of life can also be expressed in different
forms, such as "Why are we here?", "What is life all
about?", and "What is the purpose of existence?" or even
"Does life exist at all?" Before inquiring the meaning of life, it should
be established with certainty that there is a meaning for life; or else there
rise another question of whether there is any meaning for life or not. Since
the meaning of our particular acts can be explained by reference to goals and
conventions, there should be a meaning of our lives as whole too. If each and
every act entails a meaning, then there should be a greater meaning for the
life as whole, and what would be the greater meaning for human life?
1.2 Big Question
What is the meaning of life? Probably it’s the ultimate
human question for which multitudinous answers have been presented; in spite
the search for the meaning is not silenced. This question of the meaning and
value of life has been debated by philosophers for centuries. 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. Consider, for instance, Aristotle on the human function,
Aquinas on the beatific vision, and Kant on the highest good. Theologians and
psychologists were also concerned about this much perplexed question. Even the laymen
think of this question when they undergo some difficulties or whenever they were
confused of the life experiences that they go through. The question whether
life has any meaning is difficult to interpret, and the more one concentrates
his critical faculty on it the more it seems to elude him. Though it seems to
be somewhat vague, it is sufficiently intelligible for us to seek to answer
intuit is less likely to be conceived in wonder than in a mood of disquietude.
It is not asked seriously in a spirit of disinterested intellectual curiosity
or grateful life-affirmation. Rather it emerges when one’s sense of the
meaningfulness of life has been deeply shaken – when one fears that life, or at
least one’s own life, is without meaning. The typical intonation of the
question may be more revealing than the words. “What can it all mean?” may have
more in common with a sigh than with a grammatical question. It’s an announcement
that the foundation of one’s sense of meaning has been undermined.[3]
The quest for the meaning of life is one of the most important questions, if
not the most important question, of human existence. This, of course, creates a
prima facie impasse, and thus, makes the quest more complicated in spite of all
its apparent significance. Philosophically, the question therefore has seemed
insurmountable to many. It is surely not the question about the semantic
meaning of the word “life,” but what then is it a question about? Is it a
question about all of existence? Is it asking for comprehensive explanation of
why the universe exists and of our place within it? And if so, is it asked with
strong teleological assumptions at the fore, such that a purely efficient,
mechanistic causal story would leave the inquirer unsatisfied? These many confusions
are indications of a deeper perplexity.[4]
Indeed, there is a profound human impulse to seek a sweeping, deep explanation,
context, or narrative through which to interpret existence, and then move
beyond localized foci by living into this universal, totalizing narrative. Some
spurn this question by supposing that there is no meaning in life at all
because of Quest’s outer shell as absurd. But the indestructible fact is that
man cannot live without meaning. At least man tries to create his own meaning
for his life. Man does each and every deed with an attempt of making that
particular deed to make it meaningful, though it may not be meaningful
according to social norm. Meaning gives the motivation for any activity.
Meaning in life is a vital element that gives coherence to the person’s
worldview and a critical factor for his/her psychological and spiritual
well-being. If someone does not strive to find meaning in his life, then sooner
or later he will lose his psychological well-being. Meaninglessness causes a
situation called “existential vacuum.”[5]
Meaningfulness in life helps a person to
have a foundation set of principles that motivates and guide his choices and
behaviours. Ultimately, the searching the answer for this riddle will take the
truth seeker from fact (knowledge) through meaning (philosophy), to religion
(value).[6]
The end result is that if people are conscious of the noble reasons for their
lives, then they will gladly make the choices that lead them there. That, of
course, will produce a better, more benign world on which all of mankind can
live and thrive. Victor Frankl said that man should not ask what the meaning of
his life is, but rather must recognize that it is he who is asked. In a word,
each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for
his own life; to life he can only respond by being responsible.” In spite of
the vitality of the meaning and impossibility of meaninglessness, and the
responsibility of being meaningful, the Riddle has become more complex.
1.3 Meaning of Life: Subjective or Objective
In addition to the perplexity of the Big Question, two
conflicting viewpoints on meaning of life arise: subjective meaning of life and
objective meaning of life. The former perspective holds that there is a
specific meaning for our lives and they are common to all in its essence even
though not in execution while the latter holds that there is no specific
meaning for our lives as a common meaning even in essence since each person
determines the meaning of his/her of life.There is logical space for an inter-subjective
theory according to which there are invariant standards of meaning for human
beings that are constituted by what they would all agree upon from a certain
communal standpoint. However, this orthogonal approach is not much of a player
in the field and so it is set aside in this discussion. 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 desires,
ends, and choices. Roughly, something is meaningful for a person if she believes
it to be or seeks it out. According to this view, meaning in life varies from person
to person, depending on each one's variable mental states. Common instances are
views that one's life is more meaningful, the more one gets what one happens to
want strongly, the more one achieves one's highly ranked goals, or the more one
does what one believes to be really important. It is 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. As far as evolution is
concerned in the generation of an individual human life, only two factors
intervene: chance and the survival of the fittest. This implies that an
individual life cannot be said to have any predetermined purpose and meaning,
and if at all meaning is added to human life, that should be subjective.[7]
Subjectivism was dominant for much of the 20th century when pragmatism, positivism,
existentialism, noncognitivism, and Humeanism were quite influential. However,
in the last quarter of the 20th century, “reflective equilibrium” became a widely
accepted argumentative procedure, whereby more controversial normative claims
are justified by virtue of entailing and explaining less controversial
normative claims that do not command universal acceptance. Such a method has
been used to defend the existence of objective value, and, as a result,
subjectivism about meaning has lost its dominance.[8]
Objectivists maintain, in contrast, that there are some invariant standards for
meaning because meaning is (at least partly) mind-independent, i.e., is a real
property that exists regardless of being the object of anyone's mental states.
Here, something is meaningful (to some degree) in virtue of its intrinsic
nature, independent of whether it is believed to be meaningful or sought. They
believe that meaning is constituted (at least in part) by something independent
of the mind about which we can have correct or incorrect beliefs.[9]
Obtaining some variable pro-attitude is not sufficient for meaning, on this
view. Because one could take anything as a meaning for his/her life, and
possibly it can be even not worth of having as meaningful. Hence, there should
be a specific meaning for life which should be evidently common at least in
essence which is independent of human mind, and if such a meaning is derived
from Supreme Being it can establish justice and lead to hope of better
humanity. Even the consensus of community as the meaning of life can lead to
wrong destiny. Consensus of any sort in any given community is objective
meaning, since it is not independent of human mind. Mostly, theists believe in
objective meaning of life since they ascribe God as the author of the existence
of life on the face of the earth. Meaning of any sort suggests an author or
creator. Creator only knows the purpose of creation. Even though creation can
be used for different purpose or held from fulfilling the original purpose,
original objective meaning exists independent of creation. Therefore, for
theists, God is the only source of knowing the meaning of human existence on
earth since God Himself is the author of meaning of life. Above two are the
conflicting major viewpoints on the meaning of life if at all meaning of life
is considered. Even if one comes to the point of considering a meaning for
life, the above views lead to another absurdity. In simple categorization, atheists
believe in subjective meaning or no meaning while theists believe in objective for
life.
1.4 Naturalistic Meaning
Most of the writings on meaning of life these days are by
naturalists in the sense that they believe that a significant existence is
possible in a purely physical universe or a world as known by science. Naturalists
view that meaning does not depend on objective value of any sort, instead
favouring the notion that meaning comes from intrinsically worthwhile
activities that one loves, is emotionally tied to or finds meaningful.[10]
Discussing the meaning of life, in naturalism, is a defining characteristic of
being human and meaning should be pragmatic in nature. Naturalism also actually
leaves us with that pesky problem of meaning. Since chance and survival of the
fittest are the reason for the existence of the human race on earth in
naturalistic ideology, any specific meaning for life is not possible. If that
is the case, what would be the need for any subjective meaning even? Some
naturalists even argue that our need for cognitive meaning is an unintentional
side effect (an evolutionary spandrel) of our cognitive, problem-solving,
time-projecting brains as the beginning to scientifically understand why our
brains need meaning and how our brains produce meaning.[11]
As defined by philosopher Paul Draper, naturalism is "the hypothesis that
the natural world is a closed system" in the sense that "nothing that
is not a part of the natural world affects it." More simply, it is the
denial of the existence of supernatural causes. In rejecting the reality of
supernatural events, forces, or entities, naturalism is the antithesis of
supernaturalism. Naturalistic meaning of life is determined by the following
naturalistic principles:
(1) There is no God and no deity;
there are only us, the material world, and the ecosystem surrounding us. There
is no soul and super nature, everything, including ourselves, are made
of materials.
(2) Things happen, not because of
God’s wish and design, but because of the underline natural principles and the randomness
embedded in those principles.
(3) There is an end to everything, from
the Cosmo to our individual life. The values
of things are not in their everlasting eternality. The values of things reside in their
duration, in the process.
(4) Our value systems and
appreciation of things should shift from the infinity and eternality,
which do not
exist, to the
transient moments which happen
all around us.
(5)
There are three cornerstones for our humanist
principles: science, which tells us how things work; evolution, which tells us
where we came from, and why
we are the
way we are;
happiness principle, which tells
us how we should conduct our life.
(6) The purpose of life is to
pursue happiness during our life. A good life is a happy and exciting life. The
ultimate measure of life’s success is the happiness in our life.
(7)Things do not have meanings, good
or bad, we give them the meaning.[12]
Such principles are the premises for the concept of
naturalistic meaning of life for they constitute the understanding of the
reality for the naturalists. Hence, no room for Supernatural Source to give any
objective meaning for the existence of humanity as a whole exists. The meaning
of life in a naturalistic sense is to work towards the remediation and
reconciling of social ills and conflicts, to help create a peaceful,
cohesive and tranquil social environment and world-state. To
help others realize and
attain their highest potential possible.
Nevertheless, meaning in the naturalistic point of view can
be easily selfish or
immoral since there is no set worth living style as
meaningful. Anyone can consider
any worthless thing as meaning for his/her life, and that
cannot be questioned by
anyone according to the naturalistic ideology which proposes
relativistic meaning of
life.
1.5 Supernaturalistic Meaning
While naturalism suggests to no specific and ultimate
purpose for human existence, presumably people will consider more satisfactory
a meaning like that of theistic religions or supernaturalism, for which human
life exists in virtue of the fact that it has been created by God and its
ultimate purpose and meaning is to contribute to God’s design. As far as
supernaturalism is concerned for the expectation of providing an ultimate
meaning of life, the basic premise which the very existence of God has to be
primarily established, or else life would have no meaning. For instance, Wittgenstein
claims that “to believe in God means to see that life has a meaning” and “to
understand the question about the meaning of life. “Similarly, Dummett claims that
only “religious faith gives a meaning to our life. “Among countless others, historic
representatives of supernaturalism in the Near-Eastern ancient world and in subsequent
Western history are Qoheleth, Jesus, Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, Edwards, Pascal,
and Tolstoy.[13] Meaning
in life requires the existence of some supernatural realm or supernatural
beings. That is to say: meaning has only been thought possible if there is a
supernatural realm in which we can achieve eternal salvation, or from which a
divine being bestows meaning upon our mortal human lives. With their rejection
of supernaturalism, and its associated religious doctrines, naturalists are forced
to abandon this conception of meaning. The classic example coming from Christian
theology which argues that meaning is a function of both God (a supernatural
being) and everlasting life in heaven (a supernatural realm).Hence, God is the
basis for anything that might be called meaningfulness in life. Supernaturalism
in general is the claim that life is meaningless if the only world that exists
is the one known by physics. Meaning in life must come from a spiritual realm that
one relates to in the appropriate way. Roughly, supernaturalism maintains that God’s
existence, along with “appropriately relating” to God, is both necessary and sufficient
for securing a meaningful life, although different accounts can be given as to
the nature of this relationship. A supernaturalist theory[14]
implies that the relevant purpose beyond one’s pleasure as such to seek out is
a relationship with a spiritual realm, or that such a relationship is the
relevant way to transcend one’s animal nature or to make one’s life worthy of
great pride or admiration. But this objection from naturalists assumes without
justification that human life has a purpose and meaning only if it is part of
God’s design, specifically, only if it contributes to that design. Such
assumption raises the question: In what sense has God’s design an ultimate purpose
and meaning? This end up in the dilemma: Either God’s design has an ultimate
purpose and meaning as it is part of an even higher design, or it has an ultimate
purpose and meaning in itself. Both horns of this dilemma present difficulties.[15]
Still the supernaturalist position can be plausibly viewed as possessing three
distinct yet related dimensions: metaphysical, epistemological, and
relational-axiological. Metaphysically, it is argued that God’s existence is
necessary in order to ground a meaningful life because, for example, conditions
necessary for securing a meaningful existence like objective value are most
plausibly anchored in an entity like God. In addition to the metaphysical
dimension, supernaturalism often requires, at some level, orthodoxy (right
belief) and orthopraxy (right practice), although much debate exists on the
details. God’s existence may be a necessary condition for securing a meaningful
life, but it is generally thought that one must additionally relate to God in some
relevant way in the epistemological and axiological dimensions.[16]
[1] IEP,
"Meaning of Life: Contemporary Analytic Perspectives," http://www.iep.utm.edu/mean-ana/ (accessed
on 2 December, 2014).
[2] Dictionary.com,
“Meaning,” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meaning(accessed on 2
December, 2014).
[3] Jeffrey
Gordon, "The Question of the Meaning of Life: Answerable or
Unanswerable?"
https://philosophynow.org/issues/73/The_Question_of_the_Meaning_of_Life_Answerable_or_
Unanswerable (accessed on 2 December, 2014).
[4] IEP,
"Meaning of Life”
[5] George Kleftaras and Evangelia
Psarra,"Meaning in Life, Psychological Well-Being and Depressive Symptomatology:
A Comparative Study" http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2012.34048 (accessed
on 2 December, 2014).
[6] Bob Hurt, "The Meaning, Value,
and Purpose of Life"http://bobhurt.com/articles/philosophy%20-%20Meaning,%20Value,%20and%20Purpose%20of%20Life.pdf
(accessed on 2 December, 2014).
[7] Carlo Cellucc, "Knowledge and
the Meaning of Human Life," http://www.naturalism.org/Knowledge%20and%20the%20meaning%20of%20life.pdf
(accessed on 6 December, 2014).
[8] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
"The Meaning of Life," http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life-meaning/#toc
(accessed on 6 December, 2014).
[9] Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Meaning of Life"
[10] Thaddeus
Metz, “New Developments in the Meaning of Life,” www.centenary.edu/attachments/.../metznewdevelopments.pdf
(accessed on 6 December, 2014).
[11] Todds Hammer, “Naturalism and the
Meaning of Life,” https://toddshammer.wordpress.com/2007/05/11/naturalism-and-the-meaning-of-life/
(accessed on 6 December, 2014).
[12] Wangqiu, “The Secular Humanist
Principle,” http://purpose-of-life-1.blogspot.in/2008/12/secular-humanist-principle.html
(accessed on 6 December, 2014).
[13] Cellucc,
"Knowledge and the Meaning of Human Life"
[14] In addition to God-based
supernaturalist theories, there are soul-based theories, where meaning in life
is thought to be a function, not so much of God, but rather of having an
indestructible soul whereby immortality is possible.
[15] Thaddeus Metz, Meaning in Life
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 79.
[16]Cellucc,
"Knowledge and the Meaning of Human Life"
No comments:
Post a Comment