philosophical essay about life

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper

Research Paper

• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

My Philosophy of Life, Essay Example

Pages: 6

Words: 1566

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

In all honesty, the subject here causes me some problems, at least at first. In simple terms, I am not at all sure that I want any type of philosophy of life. In my mind this would somehow translate to a kind of limitation, or an “outlook” that might prevent me from taking in new experience and actually learning more about what life truly means. I have known people who strongly believe in a positive viewpoint, for instance. Their life philosophies are based on seeking the good in the world around them, and I am certainly not about to argue with such beliefs. At the same time, I feel that such a way of thinking creates borders. It is a philosophy as a focus, and I do not believe that life may be so confined, or neatly fit into any such approach. In all fairness, I have the same opinion regarding those who practice philosophies of extreme caution, or who believe that life is an arena in which they are entitled to take as much as possible. Put another way, whenever I have actually heard or read of a life philosophy, my first thought is invariably that life may not nicely accommodate it. Life, as I see it, has ideas all its own and is not concerned with how anyone chooses to view it.

I am aware that, even in saying this, I am in a sense offering a philosophy anyway. I imagine that is my own dilemma, and one I should at least try to explore. I think back on my life thus far, then, and am struck by one consistent factor: it has never failed to surprise me, in ways both good and bad. Even when experience has been painful, I have sometimes been aware that I do not respond to it in a pained way. Similarly, I have gone through whole periods of my life when everything was going well, yet I have felt a sense of dissatisfaction. I know that my reactions in all ways are powerfully influenced by the world around me. I have been disappointed in not feeling happy, I know, because the circumstances were supposed to make me feel that way, and everyone around me encouraged this as natural. Still, those feelings of happiness have sometimes eluded me, just as I have been strangely empowered or happy when things have gone wrong. How can I even consider a “philosophy,” then, when I cannot even follow the course of thinking and feeling in place for the rest of the world? No matter how I move through my life, it always seems that I am not in a place where a common perception about living matches how I truly think and feel, so I tend to veer from any ideology. It is not that I disagree with them; it is that, for me, they do not fit.

This then brings me to another question: what is it that I think life is? If I can better understand that, I may be on my way to realizing that there is a philosophy for me. After all, there can be no real and consistent view of a thing without an idea of the thing itself. Unfortunately, I “hit a wall” here as well. Great minds have struggled to define life since humanity began, and each seems to have ideas as valid as those different from them. For some, it is meaningless, a kind of dream in which we act our parts to no real purpose. For others, life is a boundless opportunity to grow spiritually and expand the mind and heart to unlimited potentials. For most people, I think, life occupies more of a middle ground; it can be fantastic and enabling, just as it can be empty when no purpose is in sight. In other words, it seems that there is no incorrect view or philosophy of life because it may be, simply, anything and everything at all. Given this thinking, I am not encouraged. I am, in fact, more inclined to see any effort at capturing a philosophy an exercise in futility.

When I then allow myself to take this thinking further, however, it seems that I may be nearing the thing I see as pointless or impossible. That is, since I view life as far too unpredictable to be subject to a single approach or philosophy, I then begin to understand my own role in the entire process. I think of what I earlier said, in regard to mt feelings not following usual patterns and my tendency to react to “life” in unexpected ways. It occurs to me that I am then missing a crucial element in this scenario: myself. I think: everyone, great mind or otherwise, who has wondered about life has done so in the same way, in that the views and feelings must be created by their own life itself. We can seek to see beyond our own experience, but I must wonder at how realistic that ambition is. We are all tied to who and what we are, whether that being is expansive or not; in all cases, the individual can only define life through what the individual has experienced and is capable of perceiving from the experience. Life is the self, in a very real sense. We are not channels out outside elements in some vast, inexplicable equation; we are the equation because life is literally what we make it. This happens through actual “living” and action, and it happens equally through our perceptions.

I then begin to feel that I am nearing a truth. I am life, and life is not some external essence I must consider. At the same time, everyone and everything around me is life as well, just as validly as I am. Here, then, is where I can shape a philosophy. It is not a structure, or even a foundation. Rather, it is more an impression accepted. It is that life is a thing completely bound to myself, and in “partnership” with me. It is, most important of all, never fixed. It cannot be, because every moment changes who I am in some way, and because of this intense and purely exponential relationship with the life around me. Life will always be the moment or direction currently affecting or guiding me, and in every sense of living. When my spirit is at its strongest, life is a generous and fine thing because that is what I am giving to it, and life affirms this reality by taking what I can give. When I am small and involved with minor issues or feelings, life shrinks to a cell because I am unable then to see beyond a cell. I referred to what I know is a cliché, in that life is what we make it. This is, however, profoundly true in a literal sense. As I think this is my philosophy, I restate it as: life is what I create, which in turn reflects and creates me.

While I am content with this definition, I am as well unwilling to leave it as so lacking in structure. More exactly, while I firmly believe in the self/life reciprocity I have described, and while I believe this must be a fluid state of being, I nonetheless comprehend that even this shifting relationship places responsibilities on me. On one level, and no matter how “life and I” go on, I believe in good and evil. I believe these are actual forces or energies in the world, and I believe that my mind and my heart must always be directed to knowing and promoting good when I can. This is not necessarily virtuous on my part; I see it more as an acceptance of a reality as basic as the air we breathe. The complex process of life is endlessly open to possibilities generated by my involvement with it, but there remains in the universe, at least in my perception, these polar elements. True meaning is as powerful a thing as good, and meaning may only come when good is pursued, and I believe this because I believe that evil is emptiness. Whatever life becomes for me, then, there is a primal direction to know.

Lastly, there is as well an obligation linked to good, which is that of being expansive. I cannot expect much of life if I do not open myself to the possibilities in place when my openness meets the limitless offerings of what is outside of myself. This is that partnership in place, and when I am doing my part in giving my utmost to it. Strangely, this is not a giving related to effort; rather, it is more a willingness to accept. When I consider all of this, in fact, I find that my philosophy is more complex than I had thought. It insists on my exponential relationship with living as creating life, yet it also demands real awareness. It is open to the new, but it is observant of basic principles. It is what is known through my eyes, but it relies on my expanding my sight to make the most of it. More than anything, my philosophy of life is one that brings life right to me side, always. It holds to the conviction that, no matter how we make it happen, life is what the world around me and I shape every moment.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Research Paper Example

The Setting in the Fall of the House of Usher, Essay Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

A Life Worth Living: Albert Camus on Our Search for Meaning and Why Happiness Is Our Moral Obligation

By maria popova.

In the beautifully titled and beautifully written A Life Worth Living: Albert Camus and the Quest for Meaning ( public library ), historian Robert Zaretsky considers Camus’s lifelong quest to shed light on the absurd condition, his “yearning for a meaning or a unity to our lives,” and its timeless yet increasingly timely legacy:

If the question abides, it is because it is more than a matter of historical or biographical interest. Our pursuit of meaning, and the consequences should we come up empty-handed, are matters of eternal immediacy. […] Camus pursues the perennial prey of philosophy — the questions of who we are, where and whether we can find meaning, and what we can truly know about ourselves and the world — less with the intention of capturing them than continuing the chase.

Reflecting on the parallels between Camus and Montaigne , Zaretsky finds in this ongoing chase one crucial difference of dispositions:

Camus achieves with the Myth what the philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty claimed for Montaigne’s Essays: it places “a consciousness astonished at itself at the core of human existence.” For Camus, however, this astonishment results from our confrontation with a world that refuses to surrender meaning. It occurs when our need for meaning shatters against the indifference, immovable and absolute, of the world. As a result, absurdity is not an autonomous state; it does not exist in the world, but is instead exhaled from the abyss that divides us from a mute world.

Camus himself captured this with extraordinary elegance when he wrote in The Myth of Sisyphus :

This world in itself is not reasonable, that is all that can be said. But what is absurd is the confrontation of this irrational and wild longing for clarity whose call echoes in the human heart. The absurd depends as much on man as on the world. For the moment it is all that links them together.

To discern these echoes amid the silence of the world, Zaretsky suggests, was at the heart of Camus’s tussle with the absurd:

We must not cease in our exploration, Camus affirms, if only to hear more sharply the silence of the world. In effect, silence sounds out when human beings enter the equation. If “silences must make themselves heard,” it is because those who can hear inevitably demand it. And if the silence persists, where are we to find meaning?

This search for meaning was not only the lens through which Camus examined every dimension of life, from the existential to the immediate, but also what he saw as our greatest source of agency. In one particularly prescient diary entry from November of 1940, as WWII was gathering momentum, he writes:

Understand this: we can despair of the meaning of life in general, but not of the particular forms that it takes; we can despair of existence, for we have no power over it, but not of history, where the individual can do everything. It is individuals who are killing us today. Why should not individuals manage to give the world peace? We must simply begin without thinking of such grandiose aims.

For Camus, the question of meaning was closely related to that of happiness — something he explored with great insight in his notebooks . Zaretsky writes:

Camus observed that absurdity might ambush us on a street corner or a sun-blasted beach. But so, too, do beauty and the happiness that attends it. All too often, we know we are happy only when we no longer are.

Perhaps most importantly, Camus issued a clarion call of dissent in a culture that often conflates happiness with laziness and championed the idea that happiness is nothing less than a moral obligation. A few months before his death, Camus appeared on the TV show Gros Plan . Dressed in a trench coat, he flashed his mischievous boyish smile and proclaimed into the camera:

Today, happiness has become an eccentric activity. The proof is that we tend to hide from others when we practice it. As far as I’m concerned, I tend to think that one needs to be strong and happy in order to help those who are unfortunate.

This wasn’t a case of Camus arriving at some mythic epiphany in his old age — the cultivation of happiness and the eradication of its obstacles was his most persistent lens on meaning. More than two decades earlier, he had contemplated “the demand for happiness and the patient quest for it” in his journal, capturing with elegant simplicity the essence of the meaningful life — an ability to live with presence despite the knowledge that we are impermanent :

[We must] be happy with our friends, in harmony with the world, and earn our happiness by following a path which nevertheless leads to death.

But his most piercing point integrates the questions of happiness and meaning into the eternal quest to find ourselves and live our truth:

It is not so easy to become what one is, to rediscover one’s deepest measure.

A Life Worth Living: Albert Camus and the Quest for Meaning comes from Harvard University Press and is a remarkable read in its entirety. Complement it with Camus on happiness, unhappiness, and our self-imposed prisons , then revisit the story of his unlikely and extraordinary friendship with Nobel-winning biologist Jacques Monod.

— Published September 22, 2014 — https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/09/22/a-life-worth-living-albert-camus/ —

www.themarginalian.org

PRINT ARTICLE

Email article, filed under, albert camus books culture philosophy psychology, view full site.

The Marginalian participates in the Bookshop.org and Amazon.com affiliate programs, designed to provide a means for sites to earn commissions by linking to books. In more human terms, this means that whenever you buy a book from a link here, I receive a small percentage of its price, which goes straight back into my own colossal biblioexpenses. Privacy policy . (TLDR: You're safe — there are no nefarious "third parties" lurking on my watch or shedding crumbs of the "cookies" the rest of the internet uses.)

Life Philosophy 101 – An Introduction

Personal life philosophies are not a common subject and quality information on them can be difficult to find. They can tend to be grouped with other more prescriptive philosophies or reduced to personal slogans like bumper stickers or t-shirts.

Personal Life Philosophies are unique in that there are as many of them as there are individuals. Just as no two people are alike, no two life philosophies are the same. We each have our own basis for understanding ourselves, our lives and the world and our own aspirations for how we seek them to be.

This introduction touches on the essential knowledge that everyone should have to understand personal life philosophies, why they are essential life tools and how they can enrich your life.

Introduction to Life Philosophy Resources

These key concepts establish a common foundation of knowledge.  This foundation will be helpful as you develop and live your personal life philosophy.

Start here if you are unfamiliar with life philosophy or want a refresher. Expand each of the sections if you would like more in depth information.

Life philosophy can be a tricky subject to embrace. There are common misconceptions that can bias your understanding and lead you to avoid the whole topic.  

Understanding these misconceptions can stop them from preventing knowing and embracing your unique personal philosophy.

Just as we all have our own life philosophy; we all have our own way of learning.

If you prefer, choose the topics you want to cover in the order that works best for you.

Key Concepts about Personal Philosophies

• What is a personal philosophy?

A personal life philosophy is your unique understanding of and perspective on the world and life including how you think life should be lived and the world should be.

Why does this matter? Your personal philosophy is a way to crystalize and make real your understanding of the world and life to help you make sense of it, know what is essential, sharpen your vision and bring clarity to a complex world.

The concept of a personal philosophy is something that is unique and something that is not generally well known or widespread, at least personal philosophies that are well developed and that can bring real value to one’s life. One can wonder why this is so, especially considering the importance of one’s personal philosophy . 

In general, personal philosophies include things like your most essential truths and insights about, and highest aspirations, for life and the world. They bring value to your life both through the process of developing them and through helping make more definite thoughts and feelings that can be abstract and difficult to readily access and use in your life.

A personal philosophy encapsulates what is most essential, of great consequence, vital, enlightening and imperative. It is based upon what captures your imagination, demands your attention, comes naturally to you, incites you to action, inspires you, infuriates you, drives you or frees you to the greatest degree.

Personal philosophies are typically stated in a written form such as a set of principles or tenets and sometimes are written in an essay format, though they can take any from that you find useful.

Note: There are a series of related terms used for referring to personal philosophies including personal philosophy on life, living philosophy.  Just about every conceivable combination and variation of the words philosophy, life and personal that are used to refer to personal philosophies.  Here, the terms personal philosophy, personal life philosophy and life philosophy are used interchangeably.

• What is life philosophy?

Life philosophy is the development and application of your personal philosophy to your life.  Life philosophy includes two primary components: your personal philosophy and the ongoing act of making it real through developing and living it.

Why does this matter? Personal philosophies that cannot be or are not used in one’s life, may be interesting to contemplate and discuss over an adult beverage, but they cannot enrich your life unless you actually use them in it.

Beyond the potentially transformational experience of developing a personal philosophy, most of its value is realized through living it. A personal philosophy that is only vague concepts or even one is well formed but unused is of little value. Your personal philosophies can be of great value, but only if it is clear to you and made real in your life. Living your personal philosophy is how you realize the value of it for yourself and the world. There are a wealth of practical and enriching ways that your personal philosophy can be used in your life .

• Why should I put effort into developing my personal philosophy?

Although each of us naturally has the basis for our personal philosophy, most of us do not understand our basis in ways that help us or in ways that we can make use of. Developing your personal philosophy clarifies it for you and helps you gain active knowledge of it.

Why does this matter?   The experience of developing your personal philosophy includes connecting with what is essential to you in the world, which is a rewarding and enriching experience itself. Most importantly developing and actively knowing your personal philosophy enables you to use it in your life and realize the value it can bring .

When following a good approach for developing yours, you start to realize the value early in the process. Because of the nature of personal philosophies, you necessarily need to consider your perspective on the world and to understand your thoughts and feelings about it.  Most of us do not take the time or invest the effort into actively working to understand our perspective on the world and ourselves. Developing your personal philosophy gives you an opportunity to indulge in doing so in a way that gets around much of the challenge of being too actively introspective, or touchy-feely. With the right approach, getting in touch with your perspective on the world and yourself is rewarding, freeing and simply enjoyable. You may even find it an experience that is affirmational or transformational.

Beyond the enriching personal experience, developing your personal philosophy will clarify your unique understanding of the world and life for you and make it something that you actively know. A personal philosophy that is just thoughts and feelings floating around in your mind has about as much value as a personal desire to become Yoda. It may be an interesting thought, but it probably won’t go much further than that. Your personal philosophy needs to be clear to you and something that you actively know. Clarity is critical so that when you need to use it in your life you don’t have to sort through it to figure out how it applies. Actively knowing your personal philosophy allows you to use it in your life. Not being able to clearly remember your personal philosophy makes it difficult to use in the moment. If you have to refer back to it in some written form it probably doesn’t have the clarity needed to be a real and present part of your life. Part of developing your personal philosophy is crafting it to be clear so that you can and actively know and use it in your life in large and small ways.

The importance (value) of your personal philosophy in life.

Your personal philosophy begins to bring value to your life through the experience of developing it and continues to do so for the rest of your life. It will help you make sense of the world, understand what is meaningful to you, clarify your insights, motivate and inspire you, and help you find and maintain your direction.

What does this mean to me?  Your personal philosophy is a real-world life tool. Without it you are in many ways unequipped for life in an increasingly complex and difficult world for you as an individual.

The process of developing your personal philosophy necessarily requires being in touch with the world and yourself.  The experience of doing so in a concerted, intentional way helps you crystalize what is meaningful in the world to you.  This is one part of the reason why you should put the effort into developing your personal philosophy .

Beyond the experience of developing your personal philosophy, the real importance of a personal philosophy is that it equips you for life in a complex world in ways that can be difficult to do otherwise. Knowing and understanding your essential truths about, and aspirations for, life and the world as well as what you value and what is meaningful to you helps you with some of the most challenging aspects of life. Many of the traditional sources that people have relied upon for these answers are outdated and not relevant in today’s world. Without a personal philosophy you can be left searching for answers when challenges in life arise. Your personal philosophy helps you make sense of life and the challenges you encounter. It also helps you identify things you do that are out of sync with what you place value in and be a source of strength for changing them. It will help you fend off the constant barrage from others trying to make you do and think what they want you to. It provides a clear source of personal direction that can help with difficult or important decisions that you need to make in life. It can help you better understand your unique insights about life and the world and make the most of them. It can even inspire you to do something that is wildly aspirational that you would likely not do without the clarity, vision and meaning that your personal philosophy makes real for you. Knowing and living your personal philosophy will help you be more effective in the world and help you to contribute to realizing the things that you aspire for life and the world to be.What

Why aren't personal philosophies taught on a wider basis?

The primary purpose of education in most parts of the world is to produce individuals that are effective members of society and productive workers. Secondarily the concept of personal philosophies and the individual or “self” are relatively new (see the brief history of personal philosophies ).

Why should I care about this? A personal philosophy is something that is not needed to be a productive worker or effective member of society. It is needed if you are going to live an engaged, meaningful life that aligns with who you are and what you seek for your life and the world to be.

The value of education cannot be overstated. Knowledge is empowering. Self-knowledge, like that used in one’s personal philosophy, is an especially powerful form of knowledge. Unfortunately, self-knowledge is something that most of us must learn on our own without significant guidance or education about it. 

An important part of developing a personal philosophy is quality self-knowledge. While some education systems do seek to develop the individual, but even they do not overtly educate individuals on developing self-knowledge. The concept of personal philosophies, the self and self-knowledge are relatively new. Most education systems are based upon century old theory and have not kept up with these concepts or integrated them into their method and curriculum. Imagine if our education systems sought to help people become self-aware, develop self-knowledge and become more enlightened about life and the world, instead of just seeking to produce productive contributing members of society. 

A personal philosophy is something that can help you get beyond the narrow vision and relatively low expectations that many educational systems have for you. It can help you become more self-aware, more knowledgeable and more enlightened about life and the world.

What can be included in your personal philosophy?

Anything that you think or feel is essential to your understanding of and perspective on life and the world. 

Why is the point?   There are some things that can be helpful to include to make your unique personal philosophy more valuable in your life, but in the end, it is up to you. 

A personal philosophy is the encapsulation of one’s most essential truths about, and aspirations for, the world, life and one’s self. That said, you can choose what to include in yours. To be able to apply your personal philosophy to your life, it is helpful if one includes things that you uniquely understand about life and the world, or your truths, and how you would like to see the world be, or your aspirations. The two together create a view of what you know about the world that is most significant to you, how you think life and the world should be and your desires for them. Your personal philosophy can include anything you find essential such as what you place value in and find especially meaningful. If there are other aspects of your understanding of yourself, life or the world that you think are substantive, you should include them.

One of the key attributes of your personal philosophy is that it draws upon your unique knowledge of the world and yourself. The types of knowledge that can be used in your life philosophy are those encompassed by knowledge in a broad sense. Often the concept of knowledge is constrained to specific types of knowledge such as that which is taught through formal education or that which can be attained through science and reason. While there are no hard rules about personal philosophies, constraining yourself to narrow definitions of knowledge is limiting. Including what you know beyond your capacity for reason and the realm of scientific proof, such that which you know through emotion and intuition, helps to create a personal philosophy that captures the nature of being human. Einstein’s essay in Living Philosophies is a great example of how this is true. If you are going to apply your personal philosophy to your life, it should be substantive and not oversimplify the nature of life to the point of being of little value in it. It also should not be limited to someone else’s definition of what a life philosophy should entail, or what it should be based upon.  Too, it should not be limited to systems thought and belief that have been formalized and categorized. In many ways, personal philosophy allows you to move beyond these prescribed ways of understanding and create a perspective that is rich in meaning to you.

Including those things that are the most significant to you, especially what sets you apart from others, is one approach. For instance, we all place high value on our families, health and livelihood. These are universal and stating them as a personal philosophy, while perfectly valid, may not be very insightful about your personal truths or aspirations for life and the world. In a similar way, a personal philosophy is not necessarily about defining universal truths or answering life’s big questions such as the purpose or meaning of life. These can be included if your knowledge of them is especially significant to you. Your personal philosophy is about understanding and expressing the things that stand out to you above all others.

• What do I need to know to develop my personal philosophy?

Having a reasonably broad view of life and the world is helpful, as is being able to connect with and understanding your perspective on it. An understanding of personal philosophies is also helpful.

Why does this matter to me?   While having a broad view of life and the world is important, you can never know, feel or experience everything. When you decide to develop your personal philosophy, it is important to use your perspective on the world to the greatest extent possible. Too, your personal philosophy will likely evolve as you and the world change.

Your personal philosophy necessarily draws upon your understanding of life and the world. If you have limited experience with life and the world, it can be helpful to work to expand your perspective. Even if you have an expansive perspective on the world, being in touch with that perspective is important. You may find it helpful to spend some time reconnecting with your perspective on the world as you craft your personal philosophy. Too, you continue to learn and change throughout your life and the world continues to change at a rapid pace. An effective approach for crafting your personal philosophy should help you connect with what is essential in the world to and to understand why throughout your life.

Having a good connection with yourself is also helpful. This connection allows you to understand your perspective on the world including your thoughts and feelings about it. You may find it necessary to work to create this connection, or to reconnect with yourself if you have lost touch. One of the challenges with creating and maintaining it is the constant barrage we are under from others wanting us to think and do what they want us to. A good connection with yourself helps cut through this barrage. An effective approach for developing your personal philosophy will also help.

Like with most things that you undertake, a good understanding of what you are taking on and what is involved with accomplishing it is advisable. Having an understanding of personal philosophies and what is involved with developing one can help you successfully craft yours so that it is valuable in your life.

• Where did the concept of personal philosophies come from?

While the roots of personal philosophies, individual’s interpretations on what is important in the world, can be seen even in the earliest artwork and myths, personal philosophies per se arrived on the scene much more recently.  They appear to have come into general use within the last century or so.

Like most forms of modern thinking, the roots of personal philosophies appear to have evolved along with human thought. Prehistoric evidence for personal views on the world and what is most significant in it are likely captured in the earliest myths and paintings. These early forms of expression undoubtedly included some personal interpretation of the world for practical use. Yet, considering them to be statements of personal philosophy is a stretch at best. The first formal thinking related to personal philosophies dates back to the time of the early thinkers on human condition and the nature of the world that we live in. Religious beliefs and religions evolved from individuals’ personal understanding of the world. Confucius’s writings can be considered a good example of how this happened. Undoubtedly, many of those who have focused their life on the pursuit of philosophy necessarily include what would constitute their own philosophy on life in their work including the first recognized philosophers in the 600-500 BC period. One perspective on philosophy itself is that it can be considered the pursuit of making sense of life and the world. Beyond those who pursued philosophy per se, many great thinkers and people who have put their imprint upon the course of history have recorded their philosophical perspective behind their thinking and actions. Abraham Lincoln is a familiar, notable example, and there are many more. Yet none of these can be considered a personal philosophy per se.

Personal philosophies in the context used here, are prevalent in modern times. In 1931 a volume of Living Philosophies was published by Simon & Schuster and includes short essays about their philosophy on life from notable figures including Albert Einstein. These insightful essays capture their perspective on the world including their beliefs and ideals. Two subsequent volumes were published with essays from other notables, I Believe in 1942 and Living Philosophies in 1990. All of which are worth reading.  These essays seem to come the closest to the concept of personal philosophy as used here. Interestingly the concept of individual identity and the self appears to have come into prominence on a similar timeline, within the last century.

The rapid escalation of the challenges facing humanity in general, the shift away from traditional sources and authorities for answers to life’s important questions, the increasingly difficult global environmental and political situation and the escalating assault on our individuality through the ever-present screens we view all seem to be reasons why personal philosophies are becoming more prominent. In many ways, personal philosophies have become a vital form of empowerment for the individual actualizing their individuality.

Using your personal philosophy in your life.

There are virtually limitless ways that you can use your personal philosophy in your life.  How you do so will vary based upon where you are in life and what is happening in yours.

Your personal philosophy can be made part of your life in ways large and small. In looking at the importance (value) of your personal philosophy in life , we touched upon many of the ways your personal philosophy brings value to your life including as a source of meaning, a source of guidance for important decisions, a source of strength, a source of vision and insight, even a source of inspiration.

Through actively knowing your personal philosophy you can use it in your daily life as you make decisions and to help guide your actions to be in line with how you seek to be. It can be easy to take the path of least resistance or to succumb, even momentarily, to the toxic messaging constantly targeting you. Actively knowing your personal philosophy helps you be more intentional and fend off this and other forces working against you.

Making your personal philosophy a part of your daily life helps keep what you find essential, place value in, and draw meaning from present in your life. It also provides a reassuring sense of understanding and direction through your essential truths and aspirations.

Your life philosophy can help you better understand yourself and your perspective on just about everything and under any circumstances. Having a well-developed life philosophy also allows you to share and discuss it with others, if you choose to.  It can help them understand you and your actions.  Sharing your life philosophy or some part of it can be helpful in many situations such as when you have to explain choices that you make which are different from others or that don’t align with their expectations of you.

Your life philosophy can help you achieve a greater sense of meaning and fulfillment. Some think that it is only possible to achieve higher levels of meaning and happiness through the understanding and awareness that knowing and living a personal philosophy can provide.

Common Misconceptions About Personal Philosophies

• I don’t have or need a personal philosophy.

Short Answer : Everyone has some form of a personal philosophy. Most just have not developed it into something they actively know or use in their lives.

Each individuals’ personal philosophy, including yours, is their unique understanding of the world that is developed into a form that can be actively known and used in their life. When you consider the scope of the human experience, including what we can know and feel and how we can know and feel it, and the diversity of individuals, we all truly have our unique understanding of the world.

There is strength in diversity.  You as an empowered, self-actualized and enlightened individual build upon what it means to be human and for us to collectively be humanity. Understanding your unique knowledge and wisdom about life and the world will help you become an empowered, self-actualized and enlightened individual.

The kinds of changes that are confronting individuals and humanity require something more than for all of us to live and think the same way, or even subscribe to a defined set of philosophic and religious systems. The scales are tipped toward you becoming more like everyone else. The intentional attempt to control your thoughts and actions through messaging and artificial intelligence is invading all aspects of your life. It is an attempt to make you think and behave in ways that others seek for you to. Actively knowing your understanding of the world and your aspirations for it is not only essential for surviving in an increasingly complex and difficult world, it is key to advancing us as humanity and overcoming the crises that confront us now and in the future.

• Personal philosophies are only for big thinkers.

Short Answer : Each of us has a unique understanding of the world and the ability to define our own personal philosophy. Be wary of anyone or any entity that tries to make you think otherwise. Question their motives. 

Society puts undue importance on the personal philosophies of famous people and preserves their perspective through time disproportionally. Historically, this may have largely been a product of our ability to record and publish the thoughts of any one person. It may be no coincidence that as our ability to record our individual thinking and share it broadly the importance of the big thinkers’ thoughts is diminishing.

For some reason, we have a tendency to treat some and their thoughts effectively as idols. We often turn to those that we view as authorities for answers to life’s important questions when the reality is that they are just people and their answers are merely that, theirs. They are not better than the answers that we each have, yet we often place more value in them than our own. 

In the end, you determine your personal philosophy. If you decide to adopt a philosophy or components of a philosophy that is defined by someone else, that is your choice. The important thing is that you have explored the world enough to know what makes sense to you and works for you. Too, nothing in life is cast in stone. The world changes and we all grow and learn. As you do, your personal philosophy should as well.

But it is not only the famous who leave their marks.  Every single one of us has, I believe, a significant part to play in the scheme of things.  Some contributors that go unrecognized may nevertheless be of the utmost importance. 

– Jane Goodall in her personal philosophy within Living Philosophies 1990.

• A personal philosophy is a one sentence maxim.

Short Answer : You’re not a car and your personal philosophy shouldn’t be a bumper sticker.

Everyone likes a concise statement that captures the essence of a common experience in life. It’s also good to have simple rules in life to remind us of basic things we know. They have practical value in specific situations. That said, simple rules of life, even a collection of really good ones do not amount to a personal philosophy. 

An effective personal philosophy encompasses the scope of your unique perspective on life and the world. To be effective it needs to be able to help you make sense of a complex and dynamic world. It needs to be able to help you derive meaning from your life, understand what you value and what you seek for life and the world to be. If you truly can express your personal philosophy in one sentence, beyond likely being an amazing sentence, it would no longer be a maxim that is applicable only in specific situations. It would be a broad, robust expression of your unique perspective on the world and life including your truths about them and how you think they should be.

Like philosophy in general, personal philosophies are esoteric and don’t have practical value.

Short Answer : This misconception is completely understandable. Philosophy is generally something that can be challenging to convert to real world value. Personal philosophies are different as they are practical real-life tools.

Unfortunately, there is not a good substitute for the word “philosophy” in the English language that fully captures its meaning in the sense of being “a set of basic concepts and beliefs that are of value as guidance in practical ways.” When we hear or read the world philosophy, we most often think of one of the other meanings primarily “systems of thought” as in skepticism, pragmatism or existentialism and the famous men (typically) that professed their virtues and argued for their specific flavor as the one best perspective on the world and life. In many ways, personal philosophies are the antithesis of these systems of thought. Personal philosophies are individual perspectives meant to have meaning and value for one individual rather than general principles that apply to all. Applied practical value in life is one of the defining characteristics of personal life philosophies. If a personal philosophy is not of practical value in life, it is not much of a personal philosophy at all.

I already know my personal philosophy. I don’t need to develop it.

Short Answer : If you have and know your personal philosophy, you should be able to state it now in a clear and concise way that you can apply in your life. If not, crafting it into a clear form to you and that you actively know will help you realize real-world value from it.

• I’m just one normal person, my personal philosophy is of no value to the world.

Short Answer : Humanity is a collective of unique individuals. Who we are, what we know, what we will become and what defines us our humanity is determined by the sum total of each of us. Your individuality, including your unique understanding of and perspective on life and the world, has real implications for humanity collectively.

It can be easy to sell oneself short considering the hype and focus given to people with power, money and fame. This is exactly what you are doing if you truly think that your personal philosophy is not of consequence to the world.

At the very least, understanding your unique perspective on the world and life, will hedge off the homogeneity we are being driven toward by the systems and institutions that we have created. Systems and institutions controlled by and for the benefit of those with power, money and fame. Systems, institutions and people that want you to think and act in ways that benefit them. Dismissing the value of your personal philosophy and not developing yours is playing their game. Their game of control lets them have power over you and makes you even more susceptible to thinking and acting like they want you to as long as you are passive to it.

Your personal philosophy will lead you to a better understanding of the world. That understanding will prompt you to take some action to make it better, at least within your immediate world. Developing and knowing your personal philosophy may even lead you to do something that you never thought you would. That action may have implications beyond what you expect, and makes a substantial difference in the lives of others and the course of the world.

Be better equipped to develop and live your personal philosophy.

On Terms of Your Own:

The Pursuit of Being and Fulfillment in a Challenging World.

Navigate 101 by Topic

Key Concepts :

• The importance (value) of a personal philosophy.
• Why aren’t personal philosophies taught on a wider basis?
• What can be included in a personal philosophy?
• Using my personal philosophy in my life .

Common Misconceptions :

• Like philosophy in general, personal philosophies are esoteric and don’t have any practical value.
• I already know my personal philosophy. I don’t need to formalize it.

We’re in Yellow Springs, Ohio

Meaning and the good life

A Japanese religious community makes an unlikely home in the mountains of Colorado

Thinkers and theories

Rawls the redeemer

For John Rawls, liberalism was more than a political project: it is the best way to fashion a life that is worthy of happiness

Alexandre Lefebvre

‘Everydayness is the enemy’ – excerpts from the existentialist novel ‘The Moviegoer’

Beyond authenticity

In her final unfinished work, Hannah Arendt mounted an incisive critique of the idea that we are in search of our true selves

Samantha Rose Hill

Philosophy was once alive

I was searching for meaning and purpose so I became an academic philosopher. Reader, you might guess what happened next

Pranay Sanklecha

Learning to be happier

In order to help improve my students’ mental health, I offered a course on the science of happiness. It worked – but why?

Biography and memoir

The unique life philosophy of Abdi, born in Somalia, living in the Netherlands

Why strive? Stephen Fry reads Nick Cave’s letter on the threat of computed creativity

Beauty and aesthetics

The grit of cacti and the drumbeat of time shape a sculptor’s life philosophy

Ageing and death

Witness the pain

When loved ones are traumatically lost, bereaved families become accidental activists by turning grief into grievance

Chris Bobel

Modern life subjects us to all-consuming demands. That’s why we should reflect on what it means to step away from it all

David J Siegel

Cognition and intelligence

Are you an artistic genius?

Maybe not, but if that’s the threshold you use for creativity in your life, you are coming at the problem all wrong

James C Kaufman

Even in modern secular societies, belief in an afterlife persists. Why?

Spirituality

Trek alongside spiritual pilgrims on a treacherous journey across Pakistan

Freedom at work

There is always a demand for more jobs. But what makes a job good? For that, Immanuel Kant has an answer

The world turns vivid, strange and philosophical for one plane crash survivor

Stories and literature

Solace and saudade

In the face of an inscrutable, indifferent universe, Pessoa suggests we cultivate a certain longing for the elusive horizon

Jonardon Ganeri & Sarah Seymour

Philosophy of religion

A new paganism

Now is the time to revitalise our relationship with nature and immerse ourselves in the little wonders of the universe

Why Aristotle believed that philosophy was humanity’s highest purpose

Comparative philosophy

How to become wise

Practice is at the heart of Korean philosophy. In order to lead a good life, hone your daily rituals of self-cultivation

Kevin Cawley

Attuned to the aesthetic

The ultimate value of the world can be discovered if you are sensitive to what is beautiful

Tom Cochrane

You’re astonishing!

Life can be better appreciated when you remember how wonderfully and frighteningly unlikely it is that you exist at all

Timm Triplett

Virtues and vices

Look on the dark side

We must keep the flame of pessimism burning: it is a virtue for our deeply troubled times, when crude optimism is a vice

Mara van der Lugt

The end of travel

Driven by the need for a storied life, I relished the opportunity for endless travel. Is that a moment in time, now over?

Henry Wismayer

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. Consider, for instance, Aristotle on the human function, Aquinas on the beatific vision, and Kant on the highest good. While these concepts have some bearing on happiness and morality, they are straightforwardly construed as accounts of which final ends a person ought to realize in order to have a significant existence. Despite the venerable pedigree, it is only in the last 50 years or so that something approaching a distinct field on the meaning of life has been established in analytic philosophy, and it is only in the last 25 years that debate with real depth has appeared. Concomitant with the demise of positivism and of utilitarianism in the post-war era has been the rise of analytical enquiry into non-hedonistic conceptions of value grounded on relatively uncontroversial (but not universally shared) judgments or “intuitions,” including conceptions of meaning in life. English-speaking philosophers can be expected to continue to find life's meaning of interest as they increasingly realize that it is a distinct line of enquiry that admits of rational enquiry to no less a degree than more familiar normative categories such as well-being, right action, and distributive justice.

This survey critically discusses approaches to meaning in life that are prominent in contemporary English-speaking philosophical literature. To provide context, sometimes it mentions other texts, e.g., in Continental philosophy or from before the 20 th century. However, the central aim is to acquaint the reader with recent analytic work on life's meaning and to pose questions about it that are currently worthy of consideration.

When the topic of the meaning of life comes up, people often pose one of two questions: “So, what is the meaning of life?” and “What are you talking about?” The literature can be divided in terms of which question it seeks to answer. This discussion begins by addressing works that discuss the latter, abstract question regarding the sense of talk of “life's meaning,” i.e., that aim to clarify what we are asking when we pose the question of what, if anything, makes life meaningful. Then it considers texts that provide answers to the more substantive question. Some accounts of what makes life meaningful provide particular ways to do so, e.g., by making certain achievements (James 2005), developing moral character (Thomas 2005), or learning from relationships with family members (Velleman 2005). However, most recent discussions of meaning in life are attempts to capture in a single principle all the variegated conditions that confer meaning on life. This survey focuses heavily on the articulation and evaluation of these theories of what makes life meaningful. It concludes by examining nihilist views that the conditions necessary for meaning in life do not obtain.

1. The Meaning of “Meaning”

2.1 god-centered views, 2.2 soul-centered views, 3.1 subjectivism, 3.2 objectivism, 4. nihilism, works cited, collections, books for the general reader, other internet resources, related entries.

One part of the field on life's meaning consists of the systematic attempt to clarify what people mean when they ask in virtue of what life has meaning. This section addresses different accounts of the sense of talk of “life's meaning” (and of “significance,” “importance,” and other synonyms). A large majority of those writing on life's meaning deem talk of it centrally to indicate a positive final value that an individual's life can exhibit. So, few believe either that a meaningful life is a neutral quality or that what is of key interest is the meaning of all biological life or of the human species. Most ultimately want to know whether and how the existence of one of us over time has meaning, a certain property that is desirable for its own sake.

Beyond drawing the distinction between the life of an individual and that of a group, there has been very little discussion of life as the bearer of meaning. For instance, is the individual's life best understood biologically ( qua human) or not (person) (Flanagan 1996)?  And if an individual is loved from afar, can it affect the meaningfulness of her “life” (Brogaard and Smith 2005, 449)?

Returning to topics on which there is consensus, most writing on meaning believe that it 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 (perhaps contra Britton 1969, 192). Note that one can coherently hold the view that some people's lives are less meaningful than others, or even meaningless, and still maintain that people have an equal moral status. Consider a consequentialist view according to which each individual counts for one in virtue of having a capacity for a meaningful life (cf. Railton 1984), or a Kantian view that says that people have an intrinsic worth in virtue of their capacity for autonomous choices, where meaning is a function of the exercise of this capacity (Nozick 1974, ch. 3). On both views, morality could counsel an agent to help people with relatively meaningless lives, at least if the condition is not of their choosing.

Another uncontroversial element of the sense of “meaningfulness” is that it connotes a good that is conceptually distinct from happiness or rightness. First, to ask whether someone's life is meaningful is not one and the same as asking whether her life is happy or well off. A life in an experience or virtual reality machine could conceivably be happy but is not a prima facie candidate for meaningfulness, and, furthermore, one's life logically could become meaningful precisely by sacrificing one's welfare, e.g., by helping others at the expense of oneself. Second, asking whether a person's existence is significant is not identical to considering whether she has been morally upright; there seem to be ways to enhance meaning that have nothing to do with morality, for instance making a scientific discovery. Of course, one might argue that a life would be meaningless if (or even because) it were immoral or unhappy, particularly given Aristotelian conceptions of these disvalues. However, that is to posit a synthetic relationship between the concepts, and is far from indicating that speaking of “meaning in life” is analytically a matter of connoting ideas regarding welfare or morality, which is what I am denying here. My point is that the question of what makes a life meaningful is conceptually distinct from the question of what makes a life well off or morally upright, even if it turns out that the best answer to the question of meaning appeals to an answer to one of these other evaluative questions.

If talk about meaning in life is not by definition talk about welfare or morality, then what is it about? There is as yet no consensus in the field. One answer is that a meaningful life is one that by definition has achieved choice-worthy purposes (Nielsen 1964) or involves satisfaction upon having done so (Wohlgennant 1981). However, this analysis seems too broad for being unable to distinguish the concept of a meaningful life from that of a moral life, which could equally involve attaining worthwhile ends and feeling good upon doing so. We seem to need an account of which purposes are relevant to meaning, with some suggesting they are purposes that not only have a positive value, but also render a life coherent (Markus 2003), make it intelligible (Thomson 2003, 8-13), or transcend one's animal nature (Levy 2005), all of which connote something different from morality and also happiness.

Now, it might be that a focus on any kind of purpose is too narrow for ruling out the logical possibility that meaning could inhere in certain actions, experiences, states, or relationships that have not been adopted as ends and willed and that perhaps even could not be, e.g., being an immortal offshoot of an unconscious, spiritual force that grounds the physical universe, as in Hinduism. In addition, the above purpose-based analyses exclude as not being about life's meaning some of the most widely read texts that purport to be about it, namely, Jean-Paul Sartre's (1948) existentialist account of meaning being constituted by whatever one chooses, and Richard Taylor's (1970, ch. 18) discussion of Sisyphus being able to acquire meaning in his life merely by having his strongest desires satisfied. These are prima facie accounts of meaning in life, but do not necessarily involve the attainment of purposes that foster coherence, intelligibility or transcendence.

The latter problem also faces the alternative suggestion that talk of “life's meaning” is not necessarily about purposes, but is rather just a matter of referring to goods that are qualitatively superior, worthy of love and devotion, and appropriately awed (Taylor 1989, ch. 1). It is implausible to think that whatever choices one ends up making or whichever desires one happens to rank highly fit these criteria.

Although relatively few have addressed the question of whether there exists a single, primary sense of “life's meaning,” the inability to find one so far might suggest that none exists. In that case, it could be that the field is united in virtue of addressing certain overlapping but not equivalent ideas that have family resemblances (Metz 2001). Perhaps when one of us speaks of “meaning in life,” we have in mind one of these ideas: certain conditions that are worthy of great pride or admiration, values that warrant devotion and love, qualities that make a life intelligible, or ends apart from subjective satisfaction and moral duty that are the most choice-worthy.

As the field reflects more on the sense of “life's meaning,” it should try to ascertain whether there is more unity to it than mere family resemblance. And when doing so it should be careful to differentiate the concept of life's meaning from other, closely related ideas. For instance, the concept of a worthwhile life is not identical to that of a meaningful one (Baier 1997, ch. 5). One would not be conceptually confused to claim that a meaningless life full of animal pleasures is most (or even alone) worth living. Furthermore, talk of a “meaningless life” does not simply connote the concept of an absurd (Nagel 1970; Feinberg 1980), unreasonable (Baier 1997, ch. 5), futile (Trisel 2002), or wasted (Kamm 2003, 210-14) life.

Fortunately the field does not need an extremely precise analysis of the concept of life's meaning (or definition of the phrase “life's meaning”) in order to make progress on the substantive question of what life's meaning is. Knowing that meaningfulness analytically concerns a variable and gradient final good in a person's life that is conceptually distinct from happiness, rightness, and worthwhileness provides a certain amount of common ground. The rest of this discussion addresses attempts to theoretically capture the nature of this good. 

2. Supernaturalism

Most English speaking philosophers writing on meaning in life are 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. These theories are standardly divided on a metaphysical basis, i.e., in terms of which kinds of properties are held to constitute the meaning. Supernaturalist theories are views that meaning in life must be constituted by a certain relationship with a spiritual realm. If God or a soul does not exist, or if they exist but one fails to have the right relationship with them, then supernaturalism—or the Western version of it (on which I focus)—entails that one's life is meaningless. In contrast, naturalist theories are views that meaning can obtain in a world as known solely by science. Here, although meaning could accrue from a divine realm, certain ways of living in a purely physical universe would be sufficient for it. Note that there is logical space for a non-naturalist theory that meaning is a function of abstract properties that are neither spiritual nor physical. However, only scant attention has been paid to this possibility in the Anglo-American literature (Williams 1999; Audi 2005).

Supernaturalist thinkers in the monotheistic tradition are usefully divided into those with God-centered views and soul-centered views. The former take 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) to constitute meaning in life, even if one lacks a soul (construed as an immortal, spiritual substance). The latter deem having a soul and putting it into a certain state to be what makes life meaningful, even if God does not exist. Of course, many supernaturalists believe that certain relationships with God and a soul are jointly necessary and sufficient for a significant existence. However, the simpler view is common, and often arguments proffered for the more complex view fail to support it any more than the simpler view.

The most widely held and influential God-based account of meaning in life is that one's existence is more significant, the better 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 to the degree that one helps God realize this plan, perhaps in the particular way God wants one to do so. Fulfilling God's purpose (and doing so freely and intentionally) is the sole source of meaning, with the existence of an afterlife not necessary for it (Brown 1971; Levine 1987; Cottingham 2003). If a person failed to do what God intends him to do with his life, then, on the current view, his life would be meaningless.

“Purpose theorists” differ over what it is about God's purpose that makes it uniquely able to confer meaning on human lives. Some argue that God's purpose could be the sole source of invariant moral rules, where a lack of such would render our lives nonsensical (Craig 1994; Cottingham 2003, 2005, ch. 3). However, Euthyphro problems arguably plague this rationale; God's purpose for us must be of a particular sort for our lives to obtain meaning by fulfilling it (as is often pointed out, serving as food for intergalactic travelers won't do), which suggests that there is a standard external to God's purpose that determines what the content of God's purpose ought to be. In addition, critics argue that a universally applicable and binding moral code is not necessary for meaning in life, even if the act of helping others is. Other purpose theorists contend that having been created by God for a reason would be the only way that our lives could avoid being contingent (Craig 1994; cf. Haber 1997). But it is unclear whether God's arbitrary will would avoid contingency, or whether his non-arbitrary will would avoid contingency anymore than a deterministic physical world. Furthermore, the literature is still unclear what contingency is and why it is a deep problem. Still other purpose theorists maintain that our lives would have meaning only insofar as they were intentionally fashioned by a creator, thereby obtaining meaning of the sort that an art-object has (Gordon 1983). Here, though, freely choosing to do any particular thing would not be necessary for meaning, and everyone's life would have an equal degree of meaning, which are both counterintuitive implications. Are all these criticisms sound? Is there a promising reason for thinking that fulfilling God's (as opposed to any human's) purpose is what constitutes meaning in life?

Not only does each of these versions of the purpose theory have specific problems, but they all face this shared objection: if God assigned us a purpose, God would degrade us and hence undercut the possibility of us obtaining meaning from fulfilling the purpose (Baier 1957, 118-20; Murphy 1982, 14-15; Singer 1996, 29). This objection goes back at least to Jean-Paul Sartre (1948, p. 45), and there are many replies to it in the literature that have yet to be assessed (e.g., Hepburn 1965, 271-73; Brown 1971, 20-21; Davis 1986, 155-56; Hanfling 1987, 45-46; Moreland 1987, 129; Walker 1989; Metz 2000, 297-302; Jacquette 2001, 20-21).

Robert Nozick presents a God-centered theory that focuses less on God as purposive and more on God as infinite (Nozick 1981, ch. 6; Nozick 1989, chs. 15-16; see also Cooper 2005). The basic 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. And, being finite, the spouse must obtain his or her importance from elsewhere, perhaps from the sort of work he or she does. And this work must obtain its meaning by being related to something else that is meaningful, and so on. A regress on meaningful finite conditions is present, and the suggestion is that the regress can terminate only in something infinite, a being 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 rationale is that a finite condition could be meaningful without obtaining its meaning from another meaningful condition; perhaps it could be meaningful in itself, or obtain its meaning by being related to something beautiful, autonomous or otherwise valuable for its own sake (but not meaningful).

The purpose- and infinity-based rationales are the two most common instances of God-centered theory in the literature, and the naturalist can point out that they arguably share a common problem: a purely physical world seems able to do the job for which God is purportedly necessary. Nature seems able to ground a universal morality and the sort of final value from which meaning might spring. And other God-based views seem to suffer from this same problem. For two examples, some claim that God must exist in order for there to be a just world, where a world in which the bad do well and the good fare poorly would render our lives senseless (Craig 1994; cf. Cottingham 2003, pt. 3), and others maintain that God's remembering all of us with love is alone what would confer significance on our lives (Hartshorne 1984; Hartshorne 1996). However, the naturalist will point out that an impersonal Karmic force could justly distribute penalties and rewards in the way a retributive personal judge would, and that actually living together in loving relationships would seem to confer more meaning on life than a loving fond remembrance.

A second problem facing all God-based views 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. Even religiously inclined philosophers find this hard to deny (Quinn 2000, 58; Audi 2005), though some of them suggest that a supernatural realm is necessary for a “deep” or “ultimate” meaning (Nozick 1981, 618; Craig 1994, 42). What is the difference between a deep meaning and a shallow one? And why think a spiritual existence is necessary for the former?

At this point, the supernaturalist could usefully step back and reflect on what it might be about God that would make Him uniquely able to confer meaning in life, perhaps as follows from the perfect being theological tradition. For God to be solely responsible for any significance in our lives, God must have certain qualities that cannot be found in the natural world, these qualities must be qualitatively superior to any goods possible in a physical universe, and they must be what ground meaning in it. Here, the supernaturalist could argue that meaning depends on the existence of a perfect being, where perfection requires properties such as atemporality, simplicity and immutability that are possible only in a spiritual realm (Metz 2000; cf. Morris 1992; contra Brown 1971 and Hartshorne 1996). Perhaps meaning would come from loving a perfect being or from orienting one's life toward it in other ways such as imitating it or perhaps even fulfilling its purpose.

Although this might be a promising strategy for a God-centered theory, it faces a serious dilemma. On the one hand, in order for God to be the sole source of meaning, God must be utterly unlike us; for the more God were like us, the more reason there would be to think we could obtain meaning from ourselves, absent God. On the other hand, the more God is utterly unlike us, the less clear it is how we could obtain meaning by relating to Him. How can one love a being that cannot change? How can one imitate such a being? Could an immutable, atemporal, simple being even have purposes? Could it truly be a person? And why think an utterly perfect being is necessary for meaning? Why would not a very good but imperfect being confer some meaning?

Recall that a soul-centered theory is the view that meaning in life comes from relating in a certain way to an immortal, spiritual substance that supervenes on one's body when it is alive and that will forever outlive its death. If one lacks a soul, or if one has a soul but relates to it in the wrong way, then one's life is meaningless. There are two prominent arguments for a soul-based perspective.

The first one is often expressed by laypeople and is suggested by the work of Leo Tolstoy (1884; see also Hanfling 1987, 22-24; Morris 1992, 26; Craig 1994). Tolstoy argues that for life to be meaningful something must be worth doing, that nothing is worth doing if nothing one does will make a permanent difference to the world, and that doing so requires having an immortal, spiritual self. Many of course question whether having an infinite effect is necessary for meaning (e.g., Schmidtz 2001; Audi 2005, 354-55). Others point out that one need not be immortal in order to have an infinite effect (Levine 1987, 462), for God's eternal remembrance of one's mortal existence would be sufficient for that. 

The other major rationale for a soul-based theory of life's meaning is that a soul is necessary for perfect justice, 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 by Karma. Something like this argument can be found in the Biblical chapter Ecclesiastes , and it continues to be defended (Davis 1987; Craig 1994). However, like the previous rationale, the inferential structure of this one seems weak; even if an afterlife were required for just outcomes, it is not obvious why an eternal afterlife should be thought necessary (Perrett 1986, 220).

Work has been done to try to make the inferences of these two arguments stronger, and the basic strategy has been to appeal to the value of perfection (Metz 2003a). Perhaps the Tolstoian reason why one must live forever in order to make the relevant permanent difference is an agent-relative need to honor an infinite value, something qualitatively higher than the worth of, say, pleasure. And maybe the reason why immortality is required in order to mete out just deserts is that rewarding the virtuous requires satisfying their highest free and informed desires, one of which would be for eternal flourishing of some kind. While far from obviously sound, these arguments at least provide some reason for thinking that immortality is necessary to satisfy the major premise about what is required for meaning.

However, both arguments are still plagued by a problem facing the original versions; even if they show that meaning depends on immortality, they do not yet show that it depends on having a soul. If one has a soul, then one is by definition immortal, but it is not true that if one is immortal, then one necessarily has a soul. Perhaps being able to upload one's consciousness into an infinite succession of different bodies in an everlasting universe would count as an instance of immortality without a soul. Such a possibility would not require an individual to have an immortal spiritual substance (imagine that when in between bodies, the information constitutive of one's consciousness were temporarily stored in a computer). What reason is there to think that one must have a soul in particular for life to be significant?

The most promising reason seems to be one that takes us beyond the simple version of soul-centered theory to the more complex view that both God and a soul constitute meaning. The best justification for thinking that one must have a soul in order for one's life to be significant seems to be that significance comes from uniting with God in a spiritual realm such as Heaven, a view espoused by Thomas Aquinas, Leo Tolstoy (1884), and contemporary religious thinkers (e.g., Craig 1994). Another possibility is that meaning comes from honoring what is divine within oneself, i.e., a soul (Swenson 1949).

As with God-based views, naturalist critics offer counterexamples to the claim that a soul or immortality of any kind is necessary for meaning. Great works, whether they be moral, aesthetic, or intellectual, would seem to confer meaning on one's life regardless of whether one will live forever. Critics maintain that soul-centered theorists are seeking too high a standard for appraising the meaning of people's lives (Baier 1957, 124-29; Baier 1997, chs. 4-5; Trisel 2002; Trisel 2004); they are requiring perfection, whether it be, as above, a perfect object to honor, a perfectly just reward to enjoy, or a perfect being with which to commune. However, if indeed soul-centered theory ultimately relies on claims about meaning turning on perfection, such a view is attractive at least for being simple, and rival views have yet to specify in a principled and thoroughly defended way where to draw the line at less than perfection. What less than ideal amount of value is sufficient for a life to count as “meaningful”?

Critics of soul-based views maintain not merely that immortality is not necessary for meaning in life, but also that it is sufficient for a meaningless life. One influential argument is that an immortal life, whether spiritual or physical, could not avoid becoming boring, rendering life pointless (Williams 1973; Ellin 1995, 311-12; Belshaw 2005, 82-91). The most common reply is that immortality need not get boring (Fischer 1994; Wisnewski 2005). However, it might also be worth questioning whether boredom or a lack of positive engagement in what one is doing is truly sufficient for meaningless (Metz 2003b, 63-67). Suppose, for instance, that one volunteers to be bored so that many others will not be; perhaps this would be a meaningful sacrifice to make.

Another argument that being immortal would be sufficient to make our lives insignificant is that persons who cannot die could not exhibit certain virtues (Nussbaum 1989). For instance, they could not promote justice of any important sort, be benevolent to any significant degree, or exhibit courage of any kind that matters, since life and death issues would not be at stake. Critics reply that even if these virtues would not be possible, there are other virtues that could be. And of course it is not obvious that meaning-conferring justice, benevolence and courage would not be possible if we were immortal, perhaps if we were not always aware that we could not die or if our indestructible souls could still be harmed by virtue of intense pain, frustrated ends, and repetitive lives.

There are other, related arguments maintaining that awareness of immortality would have the effect of removing meaning from life, say, because our lives would lack a sense of preciousness and urgency (Lenman 2004) or because external rather than internal factors would then dictate their course (Wollheim 1984, 266). Note that the target here is belief in an eternal afterlife, and not immortality itself, and so I merely mention these rationales.

3. Naturalism

I now address views that even if there is no spiritual realm, meaning in life is possible, at least for many people. Among those who believe that a significant existence can be had in a world as known by science, there is debate about two things: the extent to which the human mind constitutes meaning and whether there are any standards for meaning that are invariant among human beings. Subjectivists believe that there are no invariant standards of meaning because meaning is relative to the subjective, 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. Objectivists maintain, in contrast, that there are some invariant standards of meaning because meaning is mind-independent, i.e., is a real property that exists regardless of being the object of anyone's mental states. Here, something is meaningful at least in part because of its intrinsic nature, independent of whether it is believed to be meaningful or sought. There is logical space for an intersubjective theory according to which there are invariant standards of meaning that are constituted by what all human beings would agree upon from a communal standpoint (Darwall 1983, chs. 11-12), but it is not much of a player in the field and so I set it aside in what follows.

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. Lately, one influential subjectivist has 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 1982; Frankfurt 2002; Frankfurt 2004).

Subjectivism was dominant for much of the 20 th century when pragmatism, positivism, existentialism, noncognitivism, and Humeanism were quite influential (James 1900; Ayer 1947; Sartre 1948; Barnes 1967; Taylor 1970; Hare 1972; Williams 1976; Klemke 1981). However, in the last quarter of the 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 over the past thirty years.

Those who continue to hold subjectivism remain suspicious of attempts to justify beliefs about objective value (e.g., Frankfurt 2002, 250; Trisel 2002, 73, 79; Trisel 2004, 378-79). Theorists are primarily moved to accept subjectivism because the alternatives are unpalatable; they are sure that value in general and meaning in particular exists, but do not see how it could be grounded in something independent of the mind, whether it be the natural, the non-natural, or the supernatural. 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 life. Wide-ranging meta-ethical debates in epistemology, metaphysics, and the philosophy of language are necessary to address this rationale for subjectivism.

There are two other, more circumscribed arguments for subjectivism. One is that subjectivism is plausible since it is reasonable to think that a meaningful life is an authentic one (Frankfurt 1982). 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 satisfying certain desires held by the individual or realizing certain ends of hers. Another argument is that meaning intuitively comes from losing oneself, i.e., in becoming absorbed in an activity or experience (Frankfurt 1982). Work that concentrates the mind and relationships that are engrossing seem central to meaning and to be so because of the subjective element involved, that is, because of the concentration and engrossment. However, critics maintain that both of these arguments are vulnerable to a common objection: they neglect the role of objective value both in realizing oneself and in losing oneself (Taylor 1992, esp. ch. 4). One is not really being true to oneself if one intentionally harms others (Dahl 1987, 12), successfully maintains 3,732 hairs on one's head (Taylor 1992, 36), or lives in an experience machine (Nozick 1974, 42-45), and one is also not losing oneself in a meaning-conferring way if one is consumed by these things. There seem to be certain actions, relationships, states, and experiences that one ought to concentrate on or be engrossed in, if meaning is to accrue.

So says the objectivist, but many subjectivists also feel the pull of the point. Paralleling replies in the literature on well-being, subjectivists often respond by contending that no or very few individuals would desire to do such intuitively trivial things, at least after a certain idealized process of reflection (e.g., Griffin 1981). More promising, perhaps, is the attempt to ground value not in the responses of an individual, but in those of a community (Brogaard and Smith 2005) or in those of all human persons from a certain standpoint (Darwall 1983, chs. 11-12). Do these intersubjective moves avoid the counterexamples? If so, do they do so more plausibly than an objective theory?

Objective naturalists believe that meaning is constituted by something physical independent of the mind about which we can have correct or incorrect beliefs. Obtaining the object of some variable pro-attitude is not sufficient for meaning, on this view. Instead, there are certain inherently worthwhile or finally valuable conditions that confer meaning for anyone, neither merely because they are wanted, chosen, or believed to be meaningful, nor because they somehow are grounded in God.

Morality and creativity are widely held instances of actions that confer meaning on life, while trimming toenails and eating snow are not. Objectivism is thought to be the best explanation for these respective kinds of judgments: the former are actions that are meaningful regardless of whether any arbitrary agent (including God) believes them to be or seeks to engage in them, while the latter actions simply lack this kind of value and cannot obtain it if someone believes them to have it or engages in them. To obtain meaning in one's life, one ought to pursue the former actions and avoid the latter ones. Of course, meta-ethical debates about the nature of value are again relevant here.

A “pure” objectivist is someone who thinks that being the object of a person's mental states plays no role in making that person's life meaningful. Relatively few objectivists are pure, so construed. That is, a large majority of them believe that a life is more meaningful not merely because of objective factors, but also in part because of subjective ones such as cognition, affection, and emotion. Most commonly held is the hybrid view captured by Susan Wolf's pithy slogan: “Meaning arises when subjective attraction meets objective attractiveness” (Wolf 1997a, 211; see also Hepburn 1965; Kekes 1986; Wiggins 1988; Wolf 1997b; Dworkin 2000, ch. 6; Kekes 2000; Raz 2001, ch. 1; Schmidtz 2001; Wolf 2002; Brogaard and Smith 2005; Starkey 2006). 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 worthwhile, or if one takes up a worthwhile project but fails to judge it important, be satisfied by it, or care about it. Different versions of this theory will have different accounts of the appropriate mental states and of worthwhileness.

Pure objectivists will of course question whether subjective attraction plays any role in conferring meaning on life. For instance, utilitarians with respect to meaning (as opposed to morality) are pure objectivists, for they claim that certain actions confer meaning on life regardless of the agent's reactions to them. On this view, the more one benefits others, the more meaningful one's life, regardless of whether one enjoys benefiting them, believes they should be aided, works particularly hard to help them, etc. (Singer 1993, ch. 12; Singer 1995, chs. 10-11; Singer 1996, ch. 4). Midway between pure objectivism and the hybrid theory is the view that having certain propositional attitudes toward finally good activities would enhance the meaning of life without being necessary for it (Metz 2003b, 63-67; Audi 2005, 344). For instance, would a stereotypical Mother Teresa who is bored by her charity work have a significant existence because of it, even if she would have an even more significant existence if she were excited by it?

There have been several attempts to theoretically capture what all objectively attractive, inherently worthwhile, or finally valuable conditions have in common insofar as they bear on meaning. Some believe that they can all be captured as actions that are creative (Taylor 1987), while others maintain that they are all morally right or exhibit virtue (Kant 1791, pt. 2; cf. Pogge 1997). Most objectivists deem these respective aesthetic and ethical theories to be too narrow. It seems to many not only that creativity and morality are independent sources of meaning, but also that there are sources in addition to these two. For just a few examples, consider making an intellectual discovery, rearing children with love, playing music, and developing superior athletic ability.

So, in the literature one finds a variety of principles that aim to capture all these and other (apparent) objective grounds of meaning. One can read the perfectionist tradition as including objective theories of what a significant existence is, even if their proponents do not frequently use contemporary terminology to express this. Consider Aristotle's account of the good life for a human being as one that fulfills its natural purpose qua rational, Marx's vision of a distinctly human history characterized by less alienation and more autonomy, culture, and community, and Nietzsche's ideal of a being with a superlative degree of power, creativity, and complexity. More recently, some have maintained that objectively meaningful conditions are just those that: transcend the limits of the self (Nozick 1981, ch. 6; Nozick 1989, chs. 15-16); comprise human excellences (Bond 1983, chs. 6, 8); maximally promote non-hedonist goods such as friendship, beauty, and knowledge (Railton 1984); exercise or develop rational nature in exceptional ways (Hurka 1993; Gewirth 1998, ch. 5); substantially improve the quality of life of people and animals (Singer 1993, ch. 12; Singer 1995, chs. 10-11; Singer 1996, ch. 4); overcome challenges that one recognizes to be important at one's stage of history (Dworkin 2000, ch. 6); are positively oriented toward final value beyond one's animal self (Metz 2003b; Levy 2005); or constitute rewarding experiences in the life of the agent or the lives of others the agent affects (Audi 2005).

One major test of these theories is whether they capture all experiences, states, relationships, and actions that intuitively make life meaningful. The more counterexamples of apparently meaningful conditions that a principle entails lack meaning, the less justified the principle. The field lacks any consensus about which principle, if any, accounts for commonsensical judgments about meaning to an adequate, convincing degree. Indeed, some believe the search for such a principle to be pointless (Wolf 1997b, 12-13; Kekes 2000; Schmidtz 2001). Are these pluralists correct, or does the field have a good chance of discovering a single, general idea that grounds all the particular ways to acquire meaning in life?

Another important way to criticize these theories is more comprehensive: all are aggregative or additive, objectionably reducing life to a “container” of meaningful conditions (Brännmark 2003, 330). As with the growth of “organic unity” views in the context of debates about intrinsic value, it is becoming common to think that life as a whole (or at least stretches of it) can affect its meaning apart from the amount of meaning in its parts. For instance, a life that has lots of beneficent 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). Furthermore, a life that not only avoids repetition but also ends with a substantial amount of meaningful parts seems to have more meaning overall than one that has the same amount of meaningful parts but ends with few or none of them (Kamm 2003, 210-14). And a life in which its meaningless parts cause its meaningful parts to come about through a process of personal growth seems meaningful in virtue of this causal pattern or being a “good story” (Fischer 2005). Some even maintain the extreme view that the only bearer of meaning is life as a whole, so that there are strictly speaking no parts that are meaningful in themselves (Brännmark 2003; Levinson 2004). What are the ultimate bearers of meaning? What are all the fundamentally different ways (if any) that holism can affect meaning? Are they all a function of narrativity, life-stories, and artistic self-expression, or are there holistic facets of life's meaning that are not a matter of such literary concepts?

So far, I have addressed theoretical accounts of what confers meaning on life, which obviously assume that some lives are in fact meaningful. However, there are nihilistic perspectives that question this assumption.

One straightforward rationale for nihilism is the combination of supernaturalism about what makes life meaningful and atheism about whether God exists. If you believe that God or a soul is necessary for meaning in life, and if you believe that neither exists, then you are a nihilist, someone who denies that life has meaning. Albert Camus is famous for expressing this kind of perspective, suggesting that the lack of an afterlife and of a rational, divinely ordered universe undercuts the possibility of meaning (Camus 1955; cf. Ecclesiastes ).

Interestingly, the most common rationales for nihilism do not appeal to supernaturalism, at least not explicitly. The idea shared among many nihilists is that there is something inherent to the human condition that prevents meaning from arising, even if God exists. For instance, some nihilists make the Schopenhauerian claim that our lives lack meaning because we are invariably dissatisfied; either we have not yet obtained what we seek, or we have obtained it and are bored (Martin 1993). Critics tend to reply that at least a number of human lives do have the requisite amount of satisfaction required for meaning, supposing some is (Blackburn 2001, 74-77).

Other nihilists claim that life would be meaningless if there were no invariant moral rules that could be fully justified—the world would be nonsensical if, in Dostoyevskian terms, “everything were permitted”—and that such rules cannot exist for persons who can always reasonably question a given claim (Murphy 1982, ch. 1). While a number of philosophers agree that a universally binding and warranted morality is necessary for meaning in life (Kant 1791; Tännsjö 1988; Jacquette 2001, ch. 1; Cottingham 2003; Cottingham 2005, ch. 3), some do not (Margolis 1990; Ellin 1995, 325-27). Furthermore, contemporary work in meta-ethics has led many to believe that such a moral system exists.

The most influential rationale for nihilism is Thomas Nagel's invocation of the external standpoint that purportedly reveals our lives to be unimportant (Nagel 1986; cf. Dworkin 2000, ch. 6). According to Nagel, we are capable of comprehending the world from a variety of standpoints that are either internal or external. The most internal perspective would be a particular human being's desire at a given instant, with a somewhat less internal perspective being one's interests over a life-time, and an even less internal perspective being the interests of one's family or community. In contrast, the most external perspective, an encompassing standpoint utterly independent of one's particularity, would be, to use Henry Sidgwick's phrase, the “point of view of the universe,” that is, the standpoint that considers the interests of all sentient beings at all times and in all places. When one takes up this most external standpoint and views one's finite—and even downright puny—impact on the world, little of one's life appears to matter. What one does in a certain society on Earth over an approximately 70 year span just does not amount to much, when considering the billions of years and likely trillions of beings that are a part of space-time.

Very few accept the authority of the (most) external standpoint (Ellin 1995, 316-17; Blackburn 2001, 79-80; Schmidtz 2001) or the implications that Nagel believes it has for the meaning of our lives (Quinn 2000, 65-66; Singer 1993, 333-34; Wolf 1997b, 19-21). However, the field could use much more discussion of this rationale, given its persistence in human thought. It is plausible to think, with Nagel, that part of what it is to be a person is to be able to take up an external standpoint. However, what precisely is a standpoint? Must we invariably adopt one standpoint or the other, or is it possible not to take one up at all? Is there a reliable way to ascertain which standpoint is normatively more authoritative than others? These and the other questions posed in this survey still lack conclusive answers, making the field of life's meaning tantalizingly open for substantial contributions.

Bibliography

• Audi, R., 2005, “Intrinsic Value and Meaningful Life”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 331-55.
• Ayer, A. J., 1947, “The Claims of Philosophy”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 219-32.
• Baier, K., 1957, “The Meaning of Life”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 101-32.
• –––, 1997, Problems of Life and Death: A Humanist Perspective , Amherst: Prometheus Books.
• Barnes, H., 1967, An Existentialist Ethics , New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• Belshaw, C., 2005, 10 Good Questions about Life and Death , Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Blackburn, S., 2001, Being Good , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Bond, E. J., 1983, Reason and Value , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Brännmark, J., 2003, “Leading Lives”, Philosophical Papers , 32: 321-43.
• Britton, K., 1969, Philosophy and the Meaning of Life , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Brogaard, B. and Smith, B., 2005, “On Luck, Responsibility, and the Meaning of Life”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 443-58.
• Brown, D., 1971, “Process Philosophy and the Question of Life's Meaning”, Religious Studies , 7: 13-29.
• Camus, A., 1955, The Myth of Sisyphus , J. O'Brian (tr.), London: H. Hamilton.
• Cooper, D., 2005, “Life and Meaning”, Ratio , 18: 125-37.
• Cottingham, J., 2003, On the Meaning of Life , London: Routledge.
• –––, 2005, The Spiritual Dimension: Religion, Philosophy and Human Value , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Craig, W., 1994, “The Absurdity of Life Without God”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 40-56.
• Dahl, N., 1987, “Morality and the Meaning of Life”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 17: 1-22.
• Darwall, S., 1983, Impartial Reason , Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Davis, W., 1986, “The Creation of Meaning”, Philosophy Today , 30: 151-67.
• –––, 1987, “The Meaning of Life”, Metaphilosophy , 18: 288-305.
• Dworkin, R., 2000, Sovereign Virtue , Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Ellin, J., 1995. Morality and the Meaning of Life , Ft. Worth, Tex.: Harcourt Brace.
• Feinberg, J., 1980, “Absurd Self-Fulfillment,” repr. in Freedom and Fulfillment: Philosophical Essays , Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992: 297-330.
• Fischer, J. M., 1994, “Why Immortality is Not So Bad”, International Journal of Philosophical Studies , 2: 257-70.
• –––, 2005, “Free Will, Death, and Immortality: The Role of Narrative”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 379-403.
• Flaganan, O., 1996, Self-Expressions: Mind, Morals, and the Meaning of Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Frankfurt, H., 1982, “The Importance of What We Care About”, Synthese , 53: 257-72.
• –––, 2002, “Reply to Susan Wolf”, in The Contours of Agency: Essays on Themes from Harry Frankfurt , S. Buss and L. Overton (eds.), Cambridge: The MIT Press: 245-52.
• –––, 2004, The Reasons of Love , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Gewirth, A., 1998, Self-Fulfillment , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Gordon, J., 1983, “Is the Existence of God Relevant to the Meaning of Life?” The Modern Schoolman , 60: 227-46.
• Griffin, J., 1981, “On Life's Being Valuable”, Dialectics and Humanism , 8: 51-62.
• Haber, J., 1997, “Contingency and the Meaning of Life”, Philosophical Writings , 5: 32-44.
• Hanfling, O., 1987, The Quest for Meaning , New York: Basil Blackwell Inc.
• Hare, R. M., 1957, “Nothing Matters”, repr. in Applications of Moral Philosophy , London: Macmillan, 1972: 32-47.
• Hartshorne, C., 1984, “God and the Meaning of Life”, in Boston University Studies in Philosophy and Religion, Volume 6: On Nature , L. Rouner (ed.), Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press: 154-68.
• –––, 1996, “The Meaning of Life”, Process Studies , 25: 10-18.
• Hepburn, R., 1965, “Questions About the Meaning of Life”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 261-76.
• Hurka, T., 1993, Perfectionism , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Jacquette, D., 2001, Six Philosophical Appetizers , Boston: McGraw-Hill.
• James, L., 2005, “Achievement and the Meaningfulness of Life”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 429-42.
• James, W., 1900, “What Makes a Life Significant?” in On Some of Life's Ideals , New York: Henry Holt and Company: 49-94.
• Kamm, F. M., 2003, “Rescuing Ivan Ilych: How We Live and How We Die”, Ethics , 113: 202-33.
• Kant, I., 1791, Critique of Judgment .
• Kekes, J., 1986, “The Informed Will and the Meaning of Life”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 47: 75-90.
• –––, 2000, “The Meaning of Life”, in Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Volume 24; Life and Death: Metaphysics and Ethics , P. French and H. Wettstein (eds.), Malden: Blackwell Publishers: 17-34.
• Klemke, E. D., 1981, “Living Without Appeal”, in The Meaning of Life, E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press.
• Lenman, J., 1995, “Immortality: A Letter”, Cogito , 9: 164-69.
• Levine, M., 1987, “What Does Death Have to Do with the Meaning of Life?” Religious Studies , 23: 457-65.
• Levinson, J., 2004, “Intrinsic Value and the Notion of a Life”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 62: 319-29.
• Levy, N., 2005, “Downshifting and Meaning in Life”, Ratio , 18: 176-89.
• Margolis, J., 1990, “Moral Realism and the Meaning of Life”, The Philosophical Forum , 22: 19-48.
• Markus, A., 2003, “Assessing Views of Life, A Subjective Affair?” Religious Studies , 39: 125-43.
• Martin, R., 1993, “A Fast Car and a Good Woman”, in The Experience of Philosophy, 2 nd Ed. , D. Kolak and R. Martin (eds.), Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company: 589-95.
• Metz, T., 2000, “Could God's Purpose Be the Source of Life's Meaning?” Religious Studies , 36: 293-313.
• –––, 2001, “The Concept of a Meaningful Life”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 38: 137-53.
• –––, 2003a, “The Immortality Requirement for Life's Meaning”, Ratio , 16: 161-177.
• –––, 2003b, “Utilitarianism and the Meaning of Life”, Utilitas , 15: 50-70.
• Moreland, J. P., 1987, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity , Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House.
• Morris, T., 1992, Making Sense of It All: Pascal and the Meaning of Life , Grand Rapids: Willliam B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Murphy, J., 1982, Evolution, Morality, and the Meaning of Life , Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Nagel, T., 1970, “The Absurd”, Journal of Philosophy , 68: 716-27.
• –––, 1986, The View from Nowhere , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Nielsen, K., 1964, “Linguistic Philosophy and ‘The Meaning of Life’”, rev. ed. in The Meaning of Life, E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 1981: 177-204.
• Nozick, R., 1974, Anarchy, State and Utopia , New York: Basic Books.
• –––, 1981, Philosophical Explanations , Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1989, The Examined Life , New York: Simon & Schuster.
• Nussbaum, M., 1989, “Mortal Immortals: Lucretius on Death and the Voice of Nature,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 50: 303-51.
• Perrett, R., 1986, “Regarding Immortality”, Religious Studies , 22: 219-33.
• Pogge, T., 1997, “Kant on Ends and the Meaning of Life”, in Reclaiming the History of Ethics: Essays for John Rawls , A. Reath et al. (eds.), New York: Cambridge University Press: 361-87.
• Quinn, P., 2000, “How Christianity Secures Life's Meanings”, in The Meaning of Life in the World Religions , J. Runzo and N. Martin (eds.), Oxford: Oneworld Publications: 53-68.
• Railton, P., 1984, “Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality”, repr. in Consequentialism and Its Critics , S. Sheffler (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 1988: 93-133.
• Raz, J., 2001, Value, Respect, and Attachment , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sartre, J-P., 1948, Existentialism is a Humanism , P. Mairet (tr.), London: Methuen & Co.
• Schmidtz, D., 2001, “The Meanings of Life”, in Boston University Studies in Philosophy and Religion, Volume 22; If I Should Die: Life, Death, and Immortality , L. Rouner (ed.), Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press: 170-88.
• Singer, I., 1996, Meaning in Life, Volume 1: The Creation of Value , Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Singer, P., 1993, Practical Ethics, 2 nd Ed ., New York: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1995, How are We to Live? Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books.
• Starkey, C., 2006, “Meaning and Affect”, The Pluralist , 1: 88-103.
• Swenson, D., 1949, “The Dignity of Human Life”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 21-30.
• Tännsjö, T., 1988, “The Moral Significance of Moral Realism”, The Southern Journal of Philosophy , 26: 247-61.
• Taylor, C., 1989, Sources of the Self , Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1992, The Ethics of Authenticity , Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Taylor, R., 1970, Good and Evil , New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.
• –––, 1987, “Time and Life's Meaning”, The Review of Metaphysics , 40: 675-86.
• Thomas, L., 2005, “Morality and a Meaningful Life”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 405-27.
• Thomson, G., 2003, On the Meaning of Life , South Melbourne, Wadsworth.
• Tolstoy, L., 1884, A Confession .
• Trisel, B.A., 2002, “Futility and the Meaning of Life Debate”, Sorites , 70-84.
• –––, 2004, “Human Extinction and the Value of Our Efforts”, The Philosophical Forum , 35: 371-91.
• Velleman, J.D., 2005, “Family History”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 357-78.
• Walker, L., 1989, “Religion and the Meaning of Life and Death”, in Philosophy: The Quest for Truth , L. Pojman (ed.), Belmont, Cal.: Wadsworth Publishing Co: 167-71.
• Wiggins, D., 1988, “Truth, Invention, and the Meaning of Life”, rev. ed. in Essays on Moral Realism , G. Sayre-McCord (ed.), Ithaca: Cornell University Press: 127-65.
• Williams, B., 1973, “The Makropulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality”, in Problems of the Self , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 82-100.
• –––, 1976, “Persons, Character and Morality”, in The Identities of Persons , A. O. Rorty (ed.), Berkeley: University of California Press: 197-216.
• Williams, G., 1999, “Kant and the Question of Meaning”, The Philosophical Forum , 30: 115-31.
• Wisnewski, J. J., 2005, “Is the Immortal Life Worth Living?” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion , 58: 27-36.
• Wohlgennant, R., 1981, “Has the Question about the Meaning of Life Any Meaning?” repr. in Life and Meaning: A Reader , O. Hanfling (ed.), Cambridge: Basic Blackwell Inc., 1987: 34-38.
• Wolf, S., 1997a, “Happiness and Meaning: Two Aspects of the Good Life”, Social Philosophy and Policy , 14: 207-25.
• –––, 1997b, “Meaningful Lives in a Meaningless World”, Quaestiones Infinitae , Volume 19 , Utrecht: Utrecht University: 1-22.
• –––, 2002, “The True, the Good, and the Lovable: Frankfurt's Avoidance of Objectivity”, in The Contours of Agency: Essays on Themes from Harry Frankfurt , S. Buss and L. Overton (eds.), Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press: 227-44.
• Wollheim, R., 1984, The Thread of Life , Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Benatar, D., (ed.), 2004, Life, Death & Meaning: Key Philosophical Readings on the Big Questions , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
• Chalmers, R. C. and Irving, J., (eds.), 1965, The Meaning of Life in Five Great Religions , Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.
• Davidson, R., (ed.), 1962, The Search for Meaning in Life: Readings in Philosophy , New York: Holt.
• Hanfling, O., (ed.), 1987, Life and Meaning: A Reader , Cambridge: Basic Blackwell Inc.
• Heinegg, P., (ed.), 2003, Mortalism: Readings on the Meaning of Life , Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
• Klemke, E. D., (ed.), 1981, The Meaning of Life, New York: Oxford University Press.
• Klemke, E. D., (ed.), 2000, The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Macnamara, M., (ed.), 1977, Meaning in Life , Cape Town: AD Donker.
• Metz, T., (ed.), 2005, Special Issue: Meaning in Life, Philosophical Papers , 34.
• Rouner, L., (ed.), 2001, Boston University Studies in Philosophy and Religion, Volume 22; If I Should Die: Life, Death, and Immortality , Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Runzo, J. and Martin, N., (eds.), 2000, The Meaning of Life in the World Religions , Oxford: Oneworld Publications.
• Sanders, S. and Cheney, D., (eds.), 1980, The Meaning of Life: Questions, Answers, and Analysis , Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
• Baggini, J., 2004, What's It All About?: Philosophy and the Meaning of Life , London: Granta Books.
• Belliotti, R., 2001, What Is the Meaning of Life? Amsterdam: Rodopi.
• Martin, M., 2002, Atheism, Morality, and Meaning , Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
• Moorhead, H., (ed.), 1988, The Meaning of Life , Chicago: Chicago Review Press.
• Young, J., 2003, The Death of God and the Meaning of Life , New York, Routledge.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

afterlife | death | ethics: ancient | existentialism | friendship | love | perfectionism, in moral and political philosophy | value: intrinsic vs. extrinsic | well-being

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section The Meaning of Life

Introduction, introductory works.

• General Overviews
• Anthologies
• Precursors to the Contemporary Debate
• The Meaning of “Meaning”
• God-based Theories
• Soul-based Theories
• Subjectivism
• Intersubjectivism
• Objectivism
• Non-Naturalism

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Anti-Natalism
• God and Possible Worlds
• Philosophy of Boredom
• Philosophy of Religion
• The Problem of Evil

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Alfred North Whitehead
• Feminist Aesthetics and Feminist Philosophy of Art
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

The Meaning of Life by Thaddeus Metz LAST REVIEWED: 10 May 2010 LAST MODIFIED: 10 May 2010 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0070

For millennia, thinkers have addressed the question of what, if anything, makes a life meaningful in some form or other. This article concentrates nearly exclusively on approaches to the question taken by analytic philosophers in the postwar era, by and large omitting reference to prewar Anglo-American works, texts from other traditions such as Continental or African philosophy, and writings from nonphilosophical but related fields such as religion and psychology. Much of the contemporary analytic discussion has sought to articulate and evaluate theories of meaning in life, i.e., general and fundamental principles of what all meaningful conditions have in common as distinct from meaningless ones. This entry accordingly focuses largely on these theories, which are distinguished according to the kind of property that is held to constitute meaning in life (see Supernaturalism , Naturalism , and Non-Naturalism ).

These texts are more introductory or have been written in a way that would likely be accessible to those not thoroughly trained in analytic philosophy. Baggini 2004 and Eagleton 2007 are pitched at a very wide, popular audience; Thomson 2003 and Belshaw 2005 would be best for undergraduate philosophy majors; and Belliotti 2001 , Martin 2002 , and Cottingham 2003 are probably most apt for those with some kind of university education or other intellectual development, not necessarily in Anglo-American philosophy.

Baggini, Julian. What’s It All About? Philosophy and the Meaning of Life . London: Granta, 2004.

Defends the view that meaning in life is largely a function of love; addresses approaches or maxims (e.g., Carpe diem ) more than it does principles.

Belliotti, Raymond Angelo. What Is the Meaning of Human Life? Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2001.

A thoughtful treatment of a variety of issues; defends an objective naturalist approach to meaning in the context of critical discussion of classic thinkers such as Aristotle, Nietzsche, and Schopenhauer.

Belshaw, Christopher. Ten Good Questions about Life and Death . Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005.

Engagingly written, analytic treatments of several key “life and death” issues, many of which bear on meaningfulness, which the author cashes out objectively in terms of relationships and projects.

Cottingham, John. On the Meaning of Life . Thinking in Action. London: Routledge, 2003.

An elegantly written book that defends an Aristotelian, God-based (but not soul-based) approach to meaning in life.

Eagleton, Terry. The Meaning of Life: A Very Short Introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

A light and lively essay on a variety of facets of the question of life’s meaning, often addressing linguistic and literary themes. Rejects subjective or “postmodern” approaches to meaning in favor of a need for harmonious or loving relationships.

Martin, Michael. Atheism, Morality, and Meaning . Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2002.

A vigorous defense of a naturalist approach to morality, in the first half of the book, and to meaning, in the second. Very critical of Christian approaches to both.

Thomson, Garrett. On the Meaning of Life . London: Thompson/Wadsworth, 2003.

Argues that nine common views on meaning in life (e.g., that an infinite being is necessary for meaning or that meaning is exhausted by happiness) are flawed. Emphasizes that meaning must reside largely in activities we engage in, lest our lives be reduced to “tools” for the sake of ends beyond us.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Philosophy »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• A Priori Knowledge
• Abduction and Explanatory Reasoning
• Abstract Objects
• Addams, Jane
• Adorno, Theodor
• Aesthetic Hedonism
• Aesthetics, Analytic Approaches to
• Aesthetics, Continental
• Aesthetics, Environmental
• Aesthetics, History of
• African Philosophy, Contemporary
• Alexander, Samuel
• Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
• Anarchism, Philosophical
• Animal Rights
• Anscombe, G. E. M.
• Anthropic Principle, The
• Applied Ethics
• Aquinas, Thomas
• Argument Mapping
• Art and Emotion
• Art and Knowledge
• Art and Morality
• Astell, Mary
• Aurelius, Marcus
• Austin, J. L.
• Bacon, Francis
• Bayesianism
• Bergson, Henri
• Berkeley, George
• Biology, Philosophy of
• Bolzano, Bernard
• Boredom, Philosophy of
• British Idealism
• Buber, Martin
• Buddhist Philosophy
• Burge, Tyler
• Business Ethics
• Camus, Albert
• Canterbury, Anselm of
• Carnap, Rudolf
• Cavendish, Margaret
• Chemistry, Philosophy of
• Childhood, Philosophy of
• Chinese Philosophy
• Cognitive Ability
• Cognitive Phenomenology
• Cognitive Science, Philosophy of
• Coherentism
• Communitarianism
• Computational Science
• Computer Science, Philosophy of
• Computer Simulations
• Comte, Auguste
• Conceptual Role Semantics
• Conditionals
• Confirmation
• Connectionism
• Consciousness
• Constructive Empiricism
• Contemporary Hylomorphism
• Contextualism
• Contrastivism
• Cook Wilson, John
• Cosmology, Philosophy of
• Critical Theory
• Culture and Cognition
• Daoism and Philosophy
• Davidson, Donald
• de Beauvoir, Simone
• de Montaigne, Michel
• Decision Theory
• Deleuze, Gilles
• Derrida, Jacques
• Descartes, René
• Descartes, René: Sensory Representations
• Descriptions
• Dewey, John
• Dialetheism
• Disagreement, Epistemology of
• Disjunctivism
• Dispositions
• Divine Command Theory
• Doing and Allowing
• du Châtelet, Emilie
• Dummett, Michael
• Dutch Book Arguments
• Early Modern Philosophy, 1600-1750
• Eastern Orthodox Philosophical Thought
• Education, Philosophy of
• Engineering, Philosophy and Ethics of
• Environmental Philosophy
• Epistemic Basing Relation
• Epistemic Defeat
• Epistemic Injustice
• Epistemic Justification
• Epistemic Philosophy of Logic
• Epistemology
• Epistemology and Active Externalism
• Epistemology, Bayesian
• Epistemology, Feminist
• Epistemology, Internalism and Externalism in
• Epistemology, Moral
• Epistemology of Education
• Ethical Consequentialism
• Ethical Deontology
• Ethical Intuitionism
• Eugenics and Philosophy
• Events, The Philosophy of
• Evidence-Based Medicine, Philosophy of
• Evidential Support Relation In Epistemology, The
• Evolutionary Debunking Arguments in Ethics
• Evolutionary Epistemology
• Experimental Philosophy
• Explanations of Religion
• Extended Mind Thesis, The
• Externalism and Internalism in the Philosophy of Mind
• Faith, Conceptions of
• Feminist Philosophy
• Feyerabend, Paul
• Fichte, Johann Gottlieb
• Fictionalism
• Fictionalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics
• Film, Philosophy of
• Foot, Philippa
• Foreknowledge
• Forgiveness
• Formal Epistemology
• Foucault, Michel
• Frege, Gottlob
• Gadamer, Hans-Georg
• Geometry, Epistemology of
• God, Arguments for the Existence of
• God, The Existence and Attributes of
• Grice, Paul
• Habermas, Jürgen
• Hart, H. L. A.
• Heaven and Hell
• Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Aesthetics
• Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Metaphysics
• Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Philosophy of History
• Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Philosophy of Politics
• Heidegger, Martin: Early Works
• Hermeneutics
• Higher Education, Philosophy of
• History, Philosophy of
• Hobbes, Thomas
• Horkheimer, Max
• Human Rights
• Hume, David: Aesthetics
• Hume, David: Moral and Political Philosophy
• Husserl, Edmund
• Idealizations in Science
• Identity in Physics
• Imagination
• Imagination and Belief
• Immanuel Kant: Political and Legal Philosophy
• Impossible Worlds
• Incommensurability in Science
• Indian Philosophy
• Indispensability of Mathematics
• Inductive Reasoning
• Instruments in Science
• Intellectual Humility
• Intentionality, Collective
• James, William
• Japanese Philosophy
• Kant and the Laws of Nature
• Kant, Immanuel: Aesthetics and Teleology
• Kant, Immanuel: Ethics
• Kant, Immanuel: Theoretical Philosophy
• Kierkegaard, Søren
• Knowledge-first Epistemology
• Knowledge-How
• Kristeva, Julia
• Kuhn, Thomas S.
• Lacan, Jacques
• Lakatos, Imre
• Langer, Susanne
• Language of Thought
• Language, Philosophy of
• Latin American Philosophy
• Laws of Nature
• Legal Epistemology
• Legal Philosophy
• Legal Positivism
• Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm
• Levinas, Emmanuel
• Lewis, C. I.
• Literature, Philosophy of
• Locke, John
• Locke, John: Identity, Persons, and Personal Identity
• Lottery and Preface Paradoxes, The
• Machiavelli, Niccolò
• Martin Heidegger: Later Works
• Martin Heidegger: Middle Works
• Material Constitution
• Mathematical Explanation
• Mathematical Pluralism
• Mathematical Structuralism
• Mathematics, Ontology of
• Mathematics, Philosophy of
• Mathematics, Visual Thinking in
• McDowell, John
• McTaggart, John
• Meaning of Life, The
• Mechanisms in Science
• Medically Assisted Dying
• Medicine, Contemporary Philosophy of
• Medieval Logic
• Medieval Philosophy
• Mental Causation
• Merleau-Ponty, Maurice
• Meta-epistemological Skepticism
• Metaepistemology
• Metametaphysics
• Metaphilosophy
• Metaphysical Grounding
• Metaphysics, Contemporary
• Metaphysics, Feminist
• Midgley, Mary
• Mill, John Stuart
• Mind, Metaphysics of
• Modal Epistemology
• Models and Theories in Science
• Montesquieu
• Moore, G. E.
• Moral Contractualism
• Moral Naturalism and Nonnaturalism
• Moral Responsibility
• Multiculturalism
• Murdoch, Iris
• Music, Analytic Philosophy of
• Nationalism
• Natural Kinds
• Naturalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics
• Naïve Realism
• Neo-Confucianism
• Neuroscience, Philosophy of
• Nietzsche, Friedrich
• Nonexistent Objects
• Normative Ethics
• Normative Foundations, Philosophy of Law:
• Normativity and Social Explanation
• Objectivity
• Occasionalism
• Ontological Dependence
• Ontology of Art
• Ordinary Objects
• Other Minds
• Panpsychism
• Particularism in Ethics
• Pascal, Blaise
• Paternalism
• Peirce, Charles Sanders
• Perception, Cognition, Action
• Perception, The Problem of
• Perfectionism
• Persistence
• Personal Identity
• Phenomenal Concepts
• Phenomenal Conservatism
• Phenomenology
• Philosophy for Children
• Photography, Analytic Philosophy of
• Physicalism
• Physicalism and Metaphysical Naturalism
• Physics, Experiments in
• Political Epistemology
• Political Obligation
• Political Philosophy
• Popper, Karl
• Pornography and Objectification, Analytic Approaches to
• Practical Knowledge
• Practical Moral Skepticism
• Practical Reason
• Probabilistic Representations of Belief
• Probability, Interpretations of
• Problem of Divine Hiddenness, The
• Problem of Evil, The
• Propositions
• Psychology, Philosophy of
• Quine, W. V. O.
• Racist Jokes
• Rationalism
• Rationality
• Rawls, John: Moral and Political Philosophy
• Realism and Anti-Realism
• Realization
• Reasons in Epistemology
• Reductionism in Biology
• Reference, Theory of
• Reid, Thomas
• Reliabilism
• Religion, Philosophy of
• Religious Belief, Epistemology of
• Religious Experience
• Religious Pluralism
• Ricoeur, Paul
• Risk, Philosophy of
• Rorty, Richard
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques
• Rule-Following
• Russell, Bertrand
• Ryle, Gilbert
• Sartre, Jean-Paul
• Schopenhauer, Arthur
• Science and Religion
• Science, Theoretical Virtues in
• Scientific Explanation
• Scientific Progress
• Scientific Realism
• Scientific Representation
• Scientific Revolutions
• Scotus, Duns
• Self-Knowledge
• Sellars, Wilfrid
• Semantic Externalism
• Semantic Minimalism
• Senses, The
• Sensitivity Principle in Epistemology
• Shepherd, Mary
• Singular Thought
• Situated Cognition
• Situationism and Virtue Theory
• Skepticism, Contemporary
• Skepticism, History of
• Slurs, Pejoratives, and Hate Speech
• Smith, Adam: Moral and Political Philosophy
• Social Aspects of Scientific Knowledge
• Social Epistemology
• Social Identity
• Sounds and Auditory Perception
• Space and Time
• Speech Acts
• Spinoza, Baruch
• Stebbing, Susan
• Strawson, P. F.
• Structural Realism
• Supererogation
• Supervenience
• Tarski, Alfred
• Technology, Philosophy of
• Testimony, Epistemology of
• Theoretical Terms in Science
• Thomas Aquinas' Philosophy of Religion
• Thought Experiments
• Time and Tense
• Time Travel
• Transcendental Arguments
• Truth and the Aim of Belief
• Truthmaking
• Turing Test
• Two-Dimensional Semantics
• Understanding
• Uniqueness and Permissiveness in Epistemology
• Utilitarianism
• Value of Knowledge
• Vienna Circle
• Virtue Epistemology
• Virtue Ethics
• Virtues, Epistemic
• Virtues, Intellectual
• Voluntarism, Doxastic
• Weakness of Will
• Weil, Simone
• William of Ockham
• Williams, Bernard
• Wittgenstein, Ludwig: Early Works
• Wittgenstein, Ludwig: Later Works
• Wittgenstein, Ludwig: Middle Works
• Wollstonecraft, Mary
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [185.80.149.115]
• 185.80.149.115

The Meaning of Life: Philosophical Approaches Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

The meaning of life is one of the questions that have attracted the attention of many philosophers as well as writers. Two different views on this issue are expressed by Richard Taylor and Susan Wolf.

According to Richard Taylor, a person can subjectively determine whether his/her life is meaningful. In this case, perceived enjoyment and satisfaction can be the main criteria that an individual should consider. In contrast, Susan Wolf disagrees with this statement and calls for a more objective interpretation of meaningfulness. So, it is necessary to compare and evaluate these approaches.

Richard Taylor believes that a certain activity can be called meaningful if a person finds it satisfying or engaging. Additionally, an individual should focus on his/her subjective experiences in order to evaluate the quality of his/her life. In order to illustrate this argument, the author refers to the famous myth of Sisyphus, who perpetually rolls a stone up the hill. To a great extent, this myth symbolizes meaningless and endless labor, which does not bring any results.

However, this interpretation can change dramatically if one assumes that Sisyphus finds this activity satisfying or desirable in any way (Taylor 323). Additionally, the author urges the readers to remember that in many cases, people’s lives can be compared to the labor of Sisyphus. For example, one can speak about people who designed and constructed ancient temples or palaces that eventually turned into ruins (Taylor 332). It is rather difficult to suppose that they perceived their lives as something meaningless.

More likely, they assumed that they created paragons of beauty, and the meaningfulness of their actions could hardly be questioned. In this way, the author wants to show that the source of meaning lies within the individual perception of a person. These are the main details that can be distinguished.

In turn, Susan Wolf adopts a different approach to this question. According to her, a person’s life can be called meaningful if he/she actively and successfully engages in projects that promote “positive values” (Wolf 8). In this context, the word “project” can be described as any goal-directed behavior (Wolf 8). In turn, the word

“positive” implies that a certain value is recognized and accepted by other people (Wolf 10). In other words, the activities of a person should bring certain benefits to other people.

Therefore, unlike Richard Taylor, Susan Wolf believes that one should look for a more objective evaluation of a person’s life. Additionally, according to her interpretation, meaningfulness does not necessarily imply that an individual is happy. Moreover, in many cases, his/her actions can be questioned from an ethical viewpoint. These are the main elements of her approach.

Overall, I tend to support Richard Taylor’s views on this issue. In my opinion, the meaningfulness of a person’s life should be based on subjective interpretation. At first, it is important to mention that in many cases, a person can suffer from frustration and depression provided that his/her behavior does not reach the accepted standards of success. This is one of the problems that originate from Susan Wolf’s approach. Admittedly, people should be engaged in activities that promote the welfare of other individuals.

In this way, a person can make his/her life much more fulfilling. Nevertheless, it is not permissible to set the standards of meaningfulness. The approach developed by Susan Wolf is based on the premise that a person can accurately estimate the effects of his/her actions. This task is critical for determining if a certain activity promotes positive values. However, sometimes, a person cannot easily do it. Furthermore, other people may fail to appreciate the value of a person’s work.

For example, the attempts to develop non-Euclidian geometry were deemed to be useless at the least at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Furthermore, mathematicians engaged in such activities were often regarded as insane because very few people could see the implications of their work (Restivo 103). If they tried to follow the line of reasoning proposed by Susan Wolf, they would have come to the conclusion that their life and work had been meaningless.

However, later, it turned out that hyperbolic geometry could benefit various areas of science, especially physics. Apart from that, the approach adopted by Susan Wolf does not include such a notion as happiness, which seems to be critical for the meaningfulness of any life. This is another reason why Richard Taylor’s interpretation seems to be more plausible. Finally, such a notion as success is often subjective, and it is difficult to measure it.

On the whole, this discussion shows that there are different approaches to the questions about the meaning of life. It is more appropriate to consider the subjective interpretation of this issue because this approach helps a person discover happiness. Admittedly, other people may not agree with this subjective assessment.

However, this evaluation has to be accepted if a person’s activities do not adversely affect the lives of other individuals. In contrast, Susan Wolf’s approach implies that there are certain objective standards. However, there are many cases when these standards are not applicable. These are the main aspects that can be singled out.

Works Cited

Restivo, Sal. Red, Black, and Objective: Science, Sociology, and Anarchism , New York: Ashgate Publishin, 2011. Print.

Taylor, Richard. Good and Evil , New York: Prometheus Books, 2000. Print.

Wolf, Susan. “The Meaning of Lives.” Philosophy UMass . Web.

• The Effects of the Environment on Human Beliefs and Actions
• Socrates' Views on Life
• The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus: The Philosophy of Absurdism
• Resistance in Bilal: A New Breed of Hero and in the Myth of Sisyphus
• Meaning in Life by Susan Wolf: Essay Reflection
• Human Behavior and the Best Principles to Follow
• Creating the Meaning of Life
• A Choice of Life and the Price of Being Different
• Individual Perspective on Responsibility
• Loss of Species and Its Impact on the Human Spirit
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, May 2). The Meaning of Life: Philosophical Approaches. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-meaning-of-life-philosophical-approaches/

"The Meaning of Life: Philosophical Approaches." IvyPanda , 2 May 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/the-meaning-of-life-philosophical-approaches/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'The Meaning of Life: Philosophical Approaches'. 2 May.

IvyPanda . 2020. "The Meaning of Life: Philosophical Approaches." May 2, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-meaning-of-life-philosophical-approaches/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Meaning of Life: Philosophical Approaches." May 2, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-meaning-of-life-philosophical-approaches/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Meaning of Life: Philosophical Approaches." May 2, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-meaning-of-life-philosophical-approaches/.

What's the meaning of life?

There have been moments in philosophy that placed a deal of emphasis on questions like this. We can think of French existentialists like Sartre and Camus that seem to be very sensitive to concerns about the futility of existence.

Currently, academic philosophers in the English speaking world are not prone to take this question seriously on its own terms. At least this is what Professor of Philosophy Kieran Setiya argues in this  Aeon article .

Many philosophers nowadays think of the question as confused or misguided. Or they try to explain what individuals can do to make their lives meaningful. But that does not, for Setiya, offer the same existential solace as explaining what makes life itself valuable.

Why has this question been overlooked by contemporary Western philosophers, and how can we make any headway on this behemoth endeavor of finding an answer?

Check out Professor Setiya's article:  https://aeon.co/ideas/philosophers-should-be-keener-to-talk-about-the-meaning-of-life

Image by  Peggy und Marco Lachmann-Anke  from  Pixabay  

Related Shows

• Existentialism

Camus and the Absurd

Nihilism and meaning.

• Meaning of Life

Finding Meaning in a Material World

Simone de beauvoir, blog archive, comments (3).

Wednesday, June 13, 2018 -- 2:26 PM

I hope I am able to navigate the CAPTCHA test for this one. It gets more difficult with the passing of time. I am not a robot, though I understand there are many. So, we'll see. The meaning of life has puzzled philosophers. And ordinary people. Whether or not life is meaningful is not so hard, as I have illustrated before this post. But, here it is, more succinctly put than in my previous ruminations, and reduced to something more quintessential than meaning, this being happiness. Now, you can ruminate all you wish, but here it is: HAPPINESS IS KNOWING WHO YOU ARE; WHERE YOU ARE; AND, WHAT TO DO. This, my philosophical brethren, is equivalent to meaning, by any measure you choose to assign. Check it out, and go back to go, do not collect 200 dollars...

Log in or register to post comments

Saturday, June 23, 2018 -- 8:45 PM

The meaning of life is to live. =

Friday, March 15, 2024 -- 9:32 PM

It explores humanity's eternal quest for existential understanding. Delving into diverse perspectives and profound inquiries, this used used gps survey equipment discourse navigates the complexities of existence, offering insights and reflections on the fundamental questions that have shaped philosophical thought throughout history.

• Create new account
• Request new password

Home — Essay Samples — Philosophy — Philosophy of Life — What Makes A Life Worth Living: A Philosophy of Life

What Makes a Life Worth Living: a Philosophy of Life

• Categories: Meaning of Life Philosophy of Life

About this sample

Words: 670 |

Published: Aug 14, 2023

Words: 670 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

The difference between philosophy and sophistry, socrates’s account of philosophical life.

• Famakinwa, J. (2012). IS THE UNEXAMINED LIFE WORTH LIVING OR NOT? Think, 11(31), 97-103. doi:10.1017/S1477175612000073
• Goodreads. (n.d.). Life worth living quotes (14 quotes). Goodreads. Retrieved December 3, 2021, from https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/life-worth-living.
• Vocabulary.com. (n.d.)., https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary.
• Mitchell, H.B. (2019), Roots of Wisdom: A Tapestry of Philosophical Traditions , Eighth Edition, © 2019, 2015, 2011 Cengage Learning, ISBN: 978-1-337-55980-5
• Timmons, G. (2019, September 9). Socrates. Biography.com. Retrieved December 3, 2021, from https://www.biography.com/scholar/socrates.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Philosophy

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 502 words

2 pages / 1128 words

1 pages / 657 words

1 pages / 1313 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Philosophy of Life

Escapism is a phenomenon deeply ingrained in human nature, offering a respite from the complexities and challenges of everyday life. The desire to retreat into alternate realities, whether through literature, entertainment, or [...]

The Christian worldview is rooted in the belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God and serves as the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice. Within this framework, there are certain essential beliefs known [...]

Life is a precious and fragile gift that we often take for granted in the hustle and bustle of our daily routines. It is easy to get caught up in the challenges and stresses of life, but it is essential to remember that each day [...]

C.S. Lewis' book "A Grief Observed" is a profound exploration of the author's experience with grief and loss following the death of his wife, Joy Davidman. The book, which was originally published under a pseudonym, offers [...]

Idealism is philosophical system. In philosophy, idealism is a long-established tradition. The roots of idealism are embedded deep down in history of philosophy, stretched from beginning and extended to present. Idealism can be [...]

In this paper I shall briefly define what induction is and attempt to explain David Hume’s problem of induction through examining the thre most common problems of induction, which are, the problem of the uniformity of nature, [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Your complimentary articles

You’ve read one of your four complimentary articles for this month.

You can read four articles free per month. To have complete access to the thousands of philosophy articles on this site, please

Question of the Month

What is the meaning of life, the following answers to this central philosophical question each win a random book. sorry if your answer doesn’t appear: we received enough to fill twelve pages….

Why are we here? Do we serve a greater purpose beyond the pleasure or satisfaction we get from our daily activities – however mundane or heroic they may be? Is the meaning of life internal to life, to be found inherently in life’s many activities, or is it external, to be found in a realm somehow outside of life, but to which life leads? In the internal view it’s the satisfaction and happiness we gain from our actions that justify life. This does not necessarily imply a selfish code of conduct. The external interpretation commonly makes the claim that there is a realm to which life leads after death. Our life on earth is evaluated by a supernatural being some call God, who will assign to us some reward or punishment after death. The meaning of our life, its purpose and justification, is to fulfill the expectations of God, and then to receive our final reward. But within the internal view of meaning, we can argue that meaning is best found in activities that benefit others, the community, or the Earth as a whole. It’s just that the reward for these activities has to be found here, in the satisfactions that they afford within this life, instead of in some external spirit realm.

An interesting way to contrast the internal and external views is to imagine walking through a beautiful landscape. Your purpose in walking may be just to get somewhere else – you may think there’s a better place off in the distance. In this case the meaning of your journey through the landscape is external to the experience of the landscape itself. On the other hand, you may be intensely interested in what the landscape holds. It may be a forest, or it may contain farms, villages. You may stop along the way, study, learn, converse, with little thought about why you are doing these things other than the pleasure they give you. You may stop to help someone who is sick: in fact, you may stay many years, and found a hospital. What then is the meaning of your journey? Is it satisfying or worthwhile only if you have satisfied an external purpose – only if it gets you somewhere else? Why, indeed, cannot the satisfactions and pleasures of the landscape, and of your deeds, be enough?

Greg Studen, Novelty, Ohio

A problem with this question is that it is not clear what sort of answer is being looked for. One common rephrasing is “What is it that makes life worth living?”. There are any number of subjective answers to this question. Think of all the reasons why you are glad you are alive (assuming you are), and there is the meaning of your life. Some have attempted to answer this question in a more objective way: that is to have an idea of what constitutes the good life . It seems reasonable to say that some ways of living are not conducive to human flourishing. However, I am not convinced that there is one right way to live. To suggest that there is demonstrates not so much arrogance as a lack of imagination.

Another way of rephrasing the question is “What is the purpose of life?” Again we all have our own subjective purposes but some would like to think there is a higher purpose provided for us, perhaps by a creator. It is a matter of debate whether this would make life a thing of greater value or turn us into the equivalent of rats in a laboratory experiment. Gloster’s statement in King Lear comes to mind: “As flies to wanton boys we are to the gods – they kill us for their sport.” But why does there have to be a purpose to life separate from those purposes generated within it? The idea that life needs no external justification has been described movingly by Richard Taylor. Our efforts may ultimately come to nothing but “the day was sufficient to itself, and so was the life.” ( Good and Evil , 1970) In the “why are we here?” sense of the question there is no answer. It would be wrong, however, to conclude that life is meaningless. Life is meaningful to humans, therefore it has meaning.

Rebecca Linton, Leicester

When the question is in the singular we search for that which ties all values together in one unity, traditionally called ‘the good’. Current consideration of the good demands a recognition of the survival crises which confront mankind. The threats of nuclear war, environmental poisoning and other possible disasters make it necessary for us to get it right. For if Hannah Arendt was correct concerning the ‘banality of evil’ which affected so many Nazi converts and contaminated the German population by extension, we may agree with her that both Western rational philosophy and Christian teaching let the side down badly in the 20th century.

If we then turn away from Plato’s philosophy, balanced in justice, courage, moderation and wisdom; from Jewish justice and Christian self-denial; if we recognize Kant’s failure to convince populations to keep his three universal principles, then shall we look to the moral relativism of the Western secular minds which admired Nietzsche? Stalin’s purges of his own constituents in the USSR tainted this relativist approach to the search for the good. Besides, if nothing is absolute, but things have value only relative to other things, how do we get a consensus on the best or the worst? What makes your social mores superior to mine – and why should I not seek to destroy your way? We must also reject any hermit, monastic, sect or other loner criteria for the good life. Isolation will not lead to any long-term harmony or peace in the Global Village.

If with Nietzsche we ponder on the need for power in one’s life, but turn in the opposite direction from his ‘superman’ ideal, we will come to some form of the Golden Rule [‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’]. However, we must know this as an experiential reality. There is life-changing power in putting oneself in the place of the other person and feeling for and with them. We call this feeling empathy .

Persons who concentrate on empathy should develop emotional intelligence. When intellectual intelligence does not stand in the way of this kind of personal growth, but contributes to it, we can call this balance maturity . Surely the goal or meaning of human life is therefore none other than finding oneself becoming a mature adult free to make one’s own decisions, yet wanting everyone in the world to have this same advantage. This is good!

Ernie Johns, Owen Sound, Ontario

‘Meaning’ is a word referring to what we have in mind as ‘signification’, and it relates to intention and purpose. ‘Life’ is applied to the state of being alive; conscious existence. Mind, consciousness, words and what they signify, are thus the focus for the answer to the question. What seems inescapable is that there is no meaning associated with life other than that acquired by our consciousness, inherited via genes, developed and given content through memes (units of culture). The meanings we believe life to have are then culturally and individually diverse. They may be imposed through hegemony; religious or secular, benign or malign; or identified through deliberate choice, where this is available. The range is vast and diverse; from straightforward to highly complex. Meaning for one person may entail supporting a football team; for another, climbing higher and higher mountains; for another, being a parent; for another, being moved by music, poetry, literature, dance or painting; for another the pursuit of truth through philosophy; for another through religious devotions, etc. But characteristic of all these examples is a consciousness that is positively and constructively absorbed, engaged, involved, fascinated, enhanced and fulfilled. I would exclude negative and destructive desires; for example of a brutal dictator who may find torturing others absorbing and engaging and thus meaningful. Such cases would be too perverse and morally repugnant to regard as anything other than pathological.

The meaning of life for individuals may diminish or fade as a consequence of decline or difficult or tragic circumstances. Here it might, sadly, be difficult to see any meaning of life at all. The meaning is also likely to change from one phase of life to another, due to personal development, new interests, contexts, commitments and maturity.

Colin Brookes, Woodhouse Eaves, Leicestershire

It is clearly internet shopping, franchised fast food and surgically-enhanced boobs. No, this is not true. I think the only answer is to strip back every layer of the physical world, every learnt piece of knowledge, almost everything that seems important in our modern lives. All that’s left is simply existence. Life is existence: it seems ‘good’ to be part of life. But really that’s your lot! We should just be thankful that our lifespan is longer than, say, a spider, or your household mog.

Our over-evolved human minds want more, but unfortunately there is nothing more. And if there is some deity or malignant devil, then you can be sure they’ve hidden any meaning pretty well and we won’t see it in our mortal lives. So, enjoy yourself; be nice to people, if you like; but there’s no more meaning than someone with surgically-enhanced boobs, shopping on the net while eating a Big Mac.

Simon Maltman, By email

To ask ‘What is the meaning of life?’ is a poor choice of words and leads to obfuscation rather than clarity. Why so?

To phrase the question in this fashion implies that meaning is something that inheres in an object or experience – that it is a quality which is as discernible as the height of a door or the solidity of matter. That is not what meaning is like. It is not a feature of a particular thing, but rather the relationship between a perceiver and a thing, a subject and an object, and so requires both. There is no one meaning of, say, a poem, because meaning is generated by it being read and thought about by a subject. As subjects differ so does the meaning: different people evaluate ideas and concepts in different ways, as can be seen from ethical dilemmas. But it would be wrong to say that all these meanings are completely different, as there are similarities between individuals, not least because we belong to the same species and are constructed and programmed in basically the same way. We all have feelings of fear, attachment, insecurity and passion, etc.

So to speak of ‘the meaning of life’, is an error. It would be more correct to refer to the ‘meanings of life’, but as there are currently around six billion humans on Earth, and new psychological and cultural variations coming into being all the time, to list and describe all of these meanings would be a nigh on impossible task.

To ‘find meaning in life’ is a better way of approaching the issue, ie, whilst there is no single meaning of life, every person can live their life in a way which brings them as much fulfilment and contentment as possible. To use utilitarian language, the best that one can hope for is a life which contains as great an excess of pleasure over pain as possible, or alternatively, a life in which as least time as possible is devoted to activities which do not stimulate, or which do nothing to promote the goals one has set for oneself.

Steve Else, Swadlincote, Derbyshire

The meaning of life is not being dead.

Tim Bale, London

The question is tricky because of its hidden premise that life has meaning per se . A perfectly rational if discomforting position is given by Nietzsche, that someone in the midst of living is not in a position to discern whether it has meaning or not, and since we cannot step outside of the process of living to assess it, this is therefore not a question that bears attention.

However, if we choose to ignore the difficulties of evaluating a condition while inside it, perhaps one has to ask the prior question, what is the meaning of meaning ? Is ‘meaning’ given by the greater cosmos? Or do we in our freedom construct the category ‘meaning’ and then fill in the contours and colours? Is meaning always identical with purpose? I might decide to dedicate my life to answering this particular question, granting myself an autonomously devised purpose. But is this identical with the meaning of my life? Or can I live a meaningless life with purpose? Or shall meaning be defined by purpose? Some metaphysics offer exactly this corollary – that in pursuing one’s proper good, and thus one’s meaning, one is pursuing one’s telos or purpose. The point of these two very brief summaries of approaches to the question is to show the hazards in this construction of the question.

Karen Zoppa, The University of Winnipeg

One thing one can hardly fail to notice about life is that it is self-perpetuating. Palaeontology tells us that life has been perpetuating itself for billions of years. What is the secret of this stunning success? Through natural selection, life forms adapt to their environment, and in the process they acquire, one might say they become , knowledge about that environment, the world in which they live and of which they are part. As Konrad Lorenz put it, “Life itself is a process of acquiring knowledge.” According to this interpretation of evolution, the very essence of life (its meaning?) is the pursuit of knowledge : knowledge about the real world that is constantly tested against that world. What works and is in that sense ‘true’, is perpetuated. Life is tried and proven knowledge that has withstood the test of geological time. From this perspective, adopting the pursuit of knowledge as a possible meaning of one’s life seems, literally, a natural choice. The history of science and philosophy is full of examples of people who have done just that, and in doing so they have helped human beings to earn the self-given title of Homo sapiens – man of knowledge.

Axel Winter, Wynnum, Queensland

Life is a stage and we are the actors, said William Shakespeare, possibly recognizing that life quite automatically tells a story just as any play tells a story. But we are more than just actors; we are the playwright too, creating new script with our imaginations as we act in the ongoing play. Life is therefore storytelling. So the meaning of life is like the meaning of ‘the play’ in principle: not a single play with its plot and underlying values and information, but the meaning behind the reason for there being plays with playwright, stage, actors, props, audience, and theatre. The purpose of the play is self-expression , the playwright’s effort to tell a story. Life, a grand play written with mankind’s grand imagination, has this same purpose.

But besides being the playwright, you are the audience too, the recipient of the playwrights’ messages. As playwright, actor, and audience you are an heir to both growth and self-expression. Your potential for acquiring knowledge and applying it creatively is unlimited. These two concepts may be housed under one roof: Liberty. Liberty is the freedom to think and to create. “Give me liberty or give me death,” said Patrick Henry, for without liberty life has no meaningful purpose. But with liberty life is a joy. Therefore liberty is the meaning of life.

Ronald Bacci, Napa, CA

The meaning of life is understood according to the beliefs that people adhere to. However, all human belief systems are accurate or inaccurate to varying degrees in their description of the world. Moreover, belief systems change over time: from generation to generation; from culture to culture; and era to era. Beliefs that are held today, even by large segments of the population, did not exist yesterday and may not exist tomorrow. Belief systems, be they religious or secular, are therefore arbitrary. If the meaning of life is wanted, a meaning that will transcend the test of time or the particulars of individual beliefs, then an effort to arrive at a truly objective determination must be made. So in order to eliminate the arbitrary, belief systems must be set aside. Otherwise, the meaning of life could not be determined.

Objectively however, life has no meaning because meaning or significance cannot be obtained without reference to some (arbitrary) belief system. Absent a subjective belief system to lend significance to life, one is left with the ‘stuff’ of life, which, however offers no testimony as to its meaning. Without beliefs to draw meaning from, life has no meaning, but is merely a thing ; a set of facts that, in and of themselves, are silent as to what they mean. Life consists of a series of occurrences in an infinite now, divorced of meaning except for what may be ascribed by constructed belief systems. Without such beliefs, for many the meaning of life is nothing .

Surely, however, life means something . And indeed it does when an individual willfully directs his/her consciousness at an aspect of life, deriving from it an individual interpretation, and then giving this interpretation creative expression. Thus the meaning in the act of giving creative expression to what may be ephemeral insights. Stated another way, the meaning of life is an individual’s acts of creation . What, exactly is created, be it artistic or scientific, may speak to the masses, or to nobody, and may differ from individual to individual. The meaning of life, however, is not the thing created, but the creative act itself ; namely, that of willfully imposing an interpretation onto the stuff of life, and projecting a creative expression from it.

Raul Casso, Laredo, Texas

Rather than prattle on and then discover that I am merely deciding what ‘meaning’ means, I will start out with the assumption that by ‘meaning’ we mean ‘purpose.’ And because I fear that ‘purpose’ implies a Creator, I will say ‘best purpose.’ So what is the best purpose for which I can live my life? The best purpose for which I can live my life is, refusing all the easy ways to destroy. This is not as simple as it sounds. Refusing to destroy life – to murder – wouldn’t just depend on our lack of homicidal impulses, but also on our willingness to devote our time to finding out which companies have murdered union uprisers; to finding out whether animals are killed out of need or greed or ease; to finding the best way to refuse to fund military murder, if we find our military to be murdering rather than merely protecting. Refusing to destroy resources, to destroy loves, to destroy rights, turns out to be a full-time job. Oh sure, we can get cocky and say “Well, oughtn’t we destroy injustice? Or bigotry? Or hatred?” But we would be only fooling ourselves. They’re all already negatives: to destroy injustice, bigotry, and hatred is to refuse the destruction of justice, understanding, and love. So, it turns out, we finally say “Yes” to life, when we come out with a resounding, throat-wrecking “NO!”

Carrie Snider, By email

I propose that the knowledge we have now accumulated about life discloses quite emphatically that we are entirely a function of certain basic laws as they operate in the probably unique conditions prevailing here on Earth.

The behaviour of the most elementary forms of matter we know, subatomic particles, seems to be guided by four fundamental forces, of which electromagnetism is probably the most significant here, in that through the attraction and repulsion of charged particles it allows an almost infinite variation of bonding: it allows atoms to form molecules, up the chain to the molecules of enormous length and complexity we call as nucleic acids, and proteins. All these are involved in a constant interaction with surrounding chemicals through constant exchanges of energy. From these behaviour patterns we can deduce certain prime drives or purposes of basic matter, namely:

1. Combination (bonding).

2. Survival of the combination, and of any resulting organism.

3. Extension of the organism, usually by means of replication.

4. Acquisition of energy.

Since these basic drives motivate everything that we’re made of, all the energy, molecules and chemistry that form our bodies, our brains and nervous systems, then whatever we think, say and do is a function of the operation of those basic laws Therefore everything we think, say and do will be directed towards our survival, our replication and our demand for energy to fuel these basic drives. All our emotions and our rational thinking, our loves and hates, our art, science and engineering are refinements of these basic drives. The underlying drive for bonding inspires our need for interaction with other organisms, particularly other human beings, as we seek ever wider and stronger links conducive to our better survival. Protection and extension of our organic integrity necessitates our dependence on and interaction with everything on Earth.

Our consciousness is also necessarily a function of these basic drives, and when the chemistry of our cells can no longer operate due to disease, ageing or trauma, we lose consciousness and die. Since I believe we are nothing more than physics and chemistry, death terminates our life once and for all. There is no God, there is no eternal life. But optimistically, there is the joy of realising that we have the power of nature within us, and that by co-operating with our fellow man, by nurturing the resources of the world, by fighting disease, starvation, poverty and environmental degradation, we can all conspire to improve life and celebrate not only its survival on this planet, but also its proliferation. So the purpose of life is just that: to involve all living things in the common purpose of promoting and enjoying what we are – a wondrous expression of the laws of Nature, the power of the Universe.

Peter F. Searle, Topsham, Devon

“What is the meaning of life?” is hard to get a solid grip on. One possible translation of it is “What does it all mean?” One might spend a lifetime trying to answer such a heady question. Answering it requires providing an account of the ultimate nature of the world, our minds, value and how all these natures interrelate. I’d prefer to offer a rather simplistic answer to a possible interpretation of our question. When someone asks “What is the meaning of life?,” they may mean “What makes life meaningful?” This is a question I believe one can get a grip on without developing a systematic philosophy.

The answer I propose is actually an old one. What makes a human life have meaning or significance is not the mere living of a life, but reflecting on the living of a life.

Even the most reflective among us get caught up in pursuing ends and goals. We want to become fitter; we want to read more books; we want to make more money. These goal-oriented pursuits are not meaningful or significant in themselves. What makes a life filled with them either significant or insignificant is reflecting on why one pursues those goals. This is second-order reflection; reflection on why one lives the way one does. But it puts one in a position to say that one’s life has meaning or does not.

One discovers this meaning or significance by evaluating one’s life and meditating on it; by taking a step back from the everyday and thinking about one’s life in a different way. If one doesn’t do this, then one’s life has no meaning or significance. And that isn’t because one has the wrong sorts of goals or ends, but rather has failed to take up the right sort of reflective perspective on one’s life. This comes close to Socrates’ famous saying that the unexamined life is not worth living. I would venture to say that the unexamined life has no meaning.

Casey Woodling, Gainesville, FL

For the sake of argument, let’s restrict the scope of the discussion to the human species, and narrow down the choices to

1) There is no meaning of life, we simply exist;

2) To search for the meaning of life; and

3) To share an intimate connection with humankind: the notion of love.

Humans are animals with an instinct for survival. At a basic level, this survival requires food, drink, rest and procreation. In this way, the meaning of life could be to continue the process of evolution. This is manifested in the modern world as the daily grind.

Humans also have the opportunity and responsibility of consciousness. With our intellect comes curiosity, combined with the means to understand complex problems. Most humans have, at some point, contemplated the meaning of life. Some make it a life’s work to explore this topic. For them and those like them, the question may be the answer.

Humans are a social species. We typically seek out the opposite sex to procreate. Besides the biological urge or desire, there is an interest in understanding others. We might simply gain pleasure in connecting with someone in an intimate way. Whatever the specific motivation, there is something that we crave, and that is to love and be loved.

The meaning of life may never be definitively known. The meaning of life may be different for each individual and/or each species. The truth of the meaning of life is likely in the eye of the beholder. There were three choices given at the beginning of this essay, and for me, the answer is all of the above.

Jason Hucsek, San Antonio, TX

Next Question of the Month

The next question is: What Is The Nature Of Reality? Answers should be less than 400 words. Subject lines or envelopes should be marked ‘Question Of The Month’. You will be edited.

Advertisement

This site uses cookies to recognize users and allow us to analyse site usage. By continuing to browse the site with cookies enabled in your browser, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our privacy policy . X

How Can I Apply Philosophy in My Life?

What are the benefits of philosophy? It can be applied to many areas of life, including personal development, problem-solving, and leadership. Philosophical questions help us define and understand our values. They can also guide us in making decisions that affect the world around us. For example, if we’re aiming to get out of bed at 8 a.m. every day, we’ll be more likely to arrive on time at work and show respect for our colleagues. Having a definite philosophy helps us to identify our values.

Philosophical questions

What is the meaning of life? What does it entail? Can we live a normal life without lying? Can we make the most of every moment of our lives? What are the simplest ways to make the most of these moments? These are the most common philosophical questions and answers. But there are a few more questions that we can apply in our daily lives. Here are some of them. The first one is a simple one: why do we eat and drink?

First of all, it’s important to understand that philosophical questions and answers are different from the kinds of questions that we ask in our daily lives. These questions are a special type of doubt, and they occur when we are not able to make sense of something. They are perplexing, puzzling, or enigmatic. Some philosophers refer to these questions as “aberrations” or “ambiguous” questions.

A list of philosophical questions will spark intellectual discussion and will be a great starting point for a conversation. These questions will touch on a variety of areas in philosophy, and will be relevant to a wide range of individuals. The list is aimed at the general public. It can be printed in either PDF or image format, and will make a great conversation starter. And you can even share it with friends and family.

The study of people relates to the study of their environment and behavior. Friedrich Nietzsche studied different cultures and their behavior, and he was genuinely puzzled by the failure of humans to recognize their own values. Nietzsche sought to answer questions about human nature and the questions that they raise. For example, is there a good or evil side to humanity? Why is it so important to understand these questions and why we act the way we do?

The second question concerns the concept of time . What is time, and is it objective or subjective? Can one quantify the duration of a period of time? What is consciousness? How can we tell if our feelings are truly genuine? What is our purpose in life? These are just some of the questions that are posed in the philosophy of life . There are many other philosophical questions you can ask yourself, but these three are the most important ones.

Personal philosophies

The pursuit of a personal philosophy is a lifelong commitment. They aim to change oneself and society in profound ways. By exploring the meaning and purpose of life, and the legitimate place we have in it, we can achieve radical change. However, establishing a personal philosophy does not mean you have to abandon your old beliefs or values. The goal of a personal philosophy is to help you define the most important aspects of your life , as well as the core values that guide your decisions.

In a nutshell, a personal philosophy is a set of guiding principles, or values that define your way of thinking, acting, and buying. Some people think of their personal philosophies as a set of filters for their daily lives, others view them as paths to travel, and others simply think of them as whispers in the back of their mind. Whatever way you define your personal philosophy, it is a good place to start.

While creating a personal philosophy is a lifelong endeavor, it should be considered an ongoing one. It is essential to keep changing it, as life changes and new experiences take place. You should be aware of what your personal philosophy statement means to you and be open to re-evaluate it as you go along. You do not need to make it perfect the first time, because it will evolve as you grow and change.

Problem-solving skills

It is not uncommon to face problems in your daily life. In fact, it is the very nature of problem-solving to face challenges and develop logical solutions. Problem solving requires knowledge, skills, and information. Often, the most effective solutions arise from collaborative efforts. To be a successful problem solver, you must be able to motivate others to find solutions to problems and implement them. Luckily, many of the most difficult problems are actually quite simple and can be solved by practicing problem-solving skills.

The process of problem solving involves analyzing information and figuring out how it relates to one another. Problems are situations causing discomfort or distress, called troubles. A predicament is a difficult situation, and circumstances are the facts surrounding a situation. These facts are used to make a decision. A good problem solver will consider all of the information and apply critical thinking skills to their life.

Some problem-solving skills can be useful for philosophy in life , as well. Critical reasoning, for example, involves understanding the key issues and assessing evidence. Creative thinking, on the other hand, focuses on developing innovative solutions and identifying new perspectives on an issue. Critical thinking is beneficial in all aspects of life , and can be applied to many different fields. People who have a passion for philosophy often develop problem-solving skills in their careers.

Philosophical study improves critical thinking skills. Philosophy majors learn how to formulate good questions , distinguish between those that are worthwhile and those that are not. Furthermore, they develop an understanding of the origins of common intellectual vocabulary. Additionally, they learn how to connect the various people of different cultures and times. Through this, philosophy majors can see how humanity connects all aspects of life. This, in turn, enhances their ability to cope with change in their career and personal lives.

Developing an open mind

The virtue of open-mindedness has many facets. In philosophy, it involves critical receptivity to new ideas and beliefs, even those that are at odds with one’s own beliefs. Open-mindedness is a virtue that is particularly important in the present era, as the vicious poles of dogmatism and postmodern doubt over claims of absolute truth threaten to undermine both Christian practice and the health of our communities.

Having an open mind means bridging disciplinary cultures and seeking common sources. For example, the Pyrrhonian skepticism of Sextus may have influenced Nagarjuna’s Middle Way. A philosophy student’s open mind requires that they examine philosophical texts from many different traditions to find common threads in different approaches. While the practice of critical thinking requires a critical attitude, open-mindedness can benefit many disciplines.

Philosophers emphasize the virtue of open-mindedness when analyzing various philosophical positions. One definition of open-mindedness, according to philosopher Jason Baehr, involves an individual’s willingness to transcend his or her default cognitive viewpoint, weighing the merits of different viewpoints, and listening to other people’s views. Baehr suggests that open-mindedness is an important goal in learning, and this virtue is also affected by personality. Psychologists use the five-factor model to predict and understand the relationships among various personality types.

While philosophical inquiry involves rigorous reasoning, one must also remain open-minded and humble. This is because philosophical inquiry demands humility and a willingness to change beliefs. The skeptic, on the other hand, is unwilling to admit that he may be wrong. He may be adamant about his own beliefs, yet he still maintains his own convictions. This requires a willingness to accept the possibility that we might be mistaken.

Similar Posts

Roman Philosophy

Despite the lack of religion in ancient Rome, thoughtful and practical people looked to Roman philosophy for guidance. Instead of idolizing the gods, they celebrated moral exemplars in their own tradition. Despite this lack of faith, Romans were sentimental about their heritage and celebrated the achievements of their ancestors. Ultimately, the Romans considered the world…

3 Philosophy Questions You Should Ask Yourself

There is no single answer to this question, but there are countless possible answers. For example, you may believe that a God exists or that there is no god. Regardless of your beliefs, you may have a different definition of good and evil. If you are unsure about what to believe, consider these three philosophical…

What is Plato’s Greatest Contribution to Education?

The ideas and concepts of Plato have a resemblance to modern educational principles. Plato advocated “education for all” and did not believe that talent is genetic. Instead, he believed that talent can be found in any child. Therefore, he argued that gifted children should be trained by the state. His hope was that such training…

Philosophy in Rome – Stoicism, Posidonius, and Chrysippus

The ancient Romans heavily influenced Greek and Hellenistic philosophy. However, during the Roman period, many unique philosophical schools emerged. Let’s take a look at three such thinkers. Stoicism and Posidonius Stoicism The first major works on Stoicism in Rome are written in the second century BC. The Stoics’ aims and philosophies were influenced by the…

3 Facts You May Not Know About Plato

When you think of Plato, what are 3 facts you may not know about him? A philosopher, a mathematician, and aristocrat, these men may not be the first to spring to mind. But these men did have a lot in common. Read on to discover more about the Greek philosopher. We are only a fraction…

Philosophical Ideas in Simple Words Essay

In a philosophical paper, you must clearly define the main concepts of the topic. You should also define the key terms you use. Avoid using thesaurus and synonyms for variety’s sake. Thesaurus entries may differ in meaning, and you should avoid using them to replace key terms. Moreover, do not use thesaurus when you are…

1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology

Philosophy, One Thousand Words at a Time

How to Write a Philosophical Essay

Authors: The Editors of 1000-Word Philosophy [1] Category: Student Resources Word Count: 998

If you want to convince someone of a philosophical thesis, such as that God exists , that abortion is morally acceptable , or that we have free will , you can write a philosophy essay. [2]

Philosophy essays are different from essays in many other fields, but with planning and practice, anyone can write a good one. This essay provides some basic instructions. [3]

1. Planning

Typically, your purpose in writing an essay will be to argue for a certain thesis, i.e., to support a conclusion about a philosophical claim, argument, or theory. [4] You may also be asked to carefully explain someone else’s essay or argument. [5]

To begin, select a topic. Most instructors will be happy to discuss your topic with you before you start writing. Sometimes instructors give specific prompts with topics to choose from.

It’s generally best to select a topic that you’re interested in; you’ll put more energy into writing it. Your topic will determine what kind of research or preparation you need to do before writing, although in undergraduate philosophy courses, you usually don’t need to do outside research. [6]

Essays that defend or attack entire theories tend to be longer, and are more difficult to write convincingly, than essays that defend or attack particular arguments or objections: narrower is usually better than broader.

After selecting a topic, complete these steps:

• Ensure that you understand the relevant issues and arguments. Usually, it’s enough to carefully read and take notes on the assigned readings on your essay’s topic.
• Choose an initial thesis. Generally, you should choose a thesis that’s interesting, but not extremely controversial. [7] You don’t have to choose a thesis that you agree with, but it can help. (As you plan and write, you may decide to revise your thesis. This may require revising the rest of your essay, but sometimes that’s necessary, if you realize you want to defend a different thesis than the one you initially chose.)
• Ensure that your thesis is a philosophical thesis. Natural-scientific or social-scientific claims, such as that global warming is occurring or that people like to hang out with their friends , are not philosophical theses. [8] Philosophical theses are typically defended using careful reasoning, and not primarily by citing scientific observations.

Instructors will usually not ask you to come up with some argument that no philosopher has discovered before. But if your essay ignores what the assigned readings say, that suggests that you haven’t learned from those readings.

2. Structure

Develop an outline, rather than immediately launching into writing the whole essay; this helps with organizing the sections of your essay.

Your structure will probably look something like the following, but follow your assignment’s directions carefully. [9]

2.1. Introduction and Thesis

Write a short introductory paragraph that includes your thesis statement (e.g., “I will argue that eating meat is morally wrong”). The thesis statement is not a preview nor a plan; it’s not “I will consider whether eating meat is morally wrong.”

If your thesis statement is difficult to condense into one sentence, then it’s likely that you’re trying to argue for more than one thesis. [10]

2.2. Arguments

Include at least one paragraph that presents and explains an argument. It should be totally clear what reasons or evidence you’re offering to support your thesis.

In most essays for philosophy courses, you only need one central argument for your thesis. It’s better to present one argument and defend it well than present many arguments in superficial and incomplete ways.

2.3. Objection

Unless the essay must be extremely short, raise an objection to your argument. [11] Be clear exactly which part of the other argument (a premise, or the form) is being questioned or denied and why. [12]

It’s usually best to choose either one of the most common or one of the best objections. Imagine what a smart person who disagreed with you would say in response to your arguments, and respond to them.

Offer your own reply to any objections you considered. If you don’t have a convincing reply to the objection, you might want to go back and change your thesis to something more defensible.

2.5. Additional Objections and Replies

If you have space, you might consider and respond to the second-best or second-most-common objection to your argument, and so on.

2.6. Conclusion

To conclude, offer a paragraph summarizing what you did. Don’t include any new or controversial claims here, and don’t claim that you did more than you actually accomplished. There should be no surprises at the end of a philosophy essay.

Make your writing extremely clear and straightforward. Use simple sentences and don’t worry if they seem boring: this improves readability. [13] Every sentence should contribute in an obvious way towards supporting your thesis. If a claim might be confusing, state it in more than one way and then choose the best version.

To check for readability, you might read the essay aloud to an audience. Don’t try to make your writing entertaining: in philosophy, clear arguments are fun in themselves.

Concerning objections, treat those who disagree with you charitably. Make it seem as if you think they’re smart, careful, and nice, which is why you are responding to them.

Your readers, if they’re typical philosophers, will be looking for any possible way to object to what you say. Try to make your arguments “airtight.”

4. Citations

If your instructor tells you to use a certain citation style, use it. No citation style is universally accepted in philosophy. [14]

You usually don’t need to directly quote anyone. [15] You can paraphrase other authors; where you do, cite them.

Don’t plagiarize . [16] Most institutions impose severe penalties for academic dishonesty.

5. Conclusion

A well-written philosophy essay can help people gain a new perspective on some important issue; it might even change their minds. [17] And engaging in the process of writing a philosophical essay is one of the best ways to develop, understand, test, and sometimes change, your own philosophical views. They are well worth the time and effort.

[1] Primary author: Thomas Metcalf. Contributing authors: Chelsea Haramia, Dan Lowe, Nathan Nobis, Kristin Seemuth Whaley.

[2] You can also do some kind of oral presentation, either “live” in person or recorded on video. An effective presentation, however, requires the type of planning and preparation that’s needed to develop an effective philosophy paper: indeed, you may have to first write a paper and then use it as something like a script for your presentation. Some parts of the paper, e.g., section headings, statements of arguments, key quotes, and so on, you may want to use as visual aids in your presentation to help your audience better follow along and understand.

[3] Many of these recommendations are, however, based on the material in Horban (1993), Huemer (n.d.), Pryor (n.d.), and Rippon (2008). There is very little published research to cite about the claims in this essay, because these claims are typically justified by instructors’ experience, not, say, controlled experiments on different approaches to teaching philosophical writing. Therefore, the guidance offered here has been vetted by many professional philosophers with a collective hundreds of hours of undergraduate teaching experience and further collective hundreds of hours of taking philosophy courses. The editors of 1000-Word Philosophy also collectively have thousands of hours of experience in writing philosophy essays.

[4] For more about the areas of philosophy, see What is Philosophy? by Thomas Metcalf.

[5] For an explanation of what is meant by an “argument” in philosophy, see Arguments: Why Do You Believe What You Believe? by Thomas Metcalf.

[6] Outside research is sometimes discouraged, and even prohibited, for philosophy papers in introductory courses because a common goal of a philosophy paper is not to report on a number of views on a philosophical issue—so philosophy papers usually are not “research reports”—but to rather engage a specific argument or claim or theory, in a more narrow and focused way, and show that you understand the issue and have engaged in critically. If a paper engages in too much reporting of outside research, that can get in the way of this critical evaluation task.

[7] There are two reasons to avoid extremely controversial theses. First, such theses are usually more difficult to defend adequately. Second, you might offend your instructor, who might (fairly or not) give you a worse grade. So, for example, you might argue that abortion is usually permissible, or usually wrong, but you probably shouldn’t argue that anyone who has ever said the word ‘abortion’ should be tortured to death, and you probably shouldn’t argue that anyone who’s ever pregnant should immediately be forced to abort the pregnancy, because both of these claims are extremely implausible and so it’s very unlikely that good arguments could be developed for them. But theses that are controversial without being implausible can be interesting for both you and the instructor, depending on how you develop and defend your argument or arguments for that thesis.

[8] Whether a thesis is philosophical mostly depends on whether it is a lot like theses that have been defended in important works of philosophy. That means it would be a thesis about metaphysics, epistemology, value theory, logic, history of philosophy, or something therein. For more information, see Philosophy and Its Contrast with Science and What is Philosophy? both by Thomas Metcalf.

[9] Also, read the grading rubric, if it’s available. If your course uses an online learning environment, such as Canvas, Moodle, or Schoology, then the rubric will often be visible as attached to the assignment itself. The rubric is a breakdown of the different requirements of the essay and how each is weighted and evaluated by the instructor. So, for example, if some requirement has a relatively high weight, you should put more effort into doing a good job. Similarly, some requirement might explicitly mention some step for the assignment that you need to complete in order to get full credit.

[10] In some academic fields, a “thesis” or “thesis statement” is considered both your conclusion and a statement of the basic support you will give for that conclusion. In philosophy, your thesis is usually just that conclusion: e..g, “Eating meat is wrong,” “God exists,” “Nobody has free will,” and so on: the support given for that conclusion is the support for your thesis.

[11] To be especially clear, this should be an objection to the argument given for your thesis or conclusion, not an objection to your thesis or conclusion itself. This is because you don’t want to give an argument and then have an objection that does not engage that argument, but instead engages something else, since that won’t help your reader or audience better understand and evaluate that argument.

[12] For more information about premises, forms, and objections, see Arguments: Why do You Believe What You Believe? by Thomas Metcalf.

[13] For a philosophical argument in favor of clear philosophical writing, and guidance on producing such writing, see Fischer and Nobis (2019).

[14] The most common styles in philosophy are APA (Purdue Online Writing Lab, n.d.a) and Chicago (Purdue Online Writing Lab, n.d.b.).

[15] You might choose to directly quote someone when it’s very important that the reader know that the quoted author actually said what you claim they said. For example, if you’re discussing some author who made some startling claim, you can directly quote them to show that they really said that. You might also directly quote someone when they presented some information or argument in a very concise, well-stated way, such that paraphrasing it would take up more space than simply quoting them would.

[16] Plagiarism, in general, occurs when someone submits written or spoken work that is largely copied, in style, substance, or both, from some other author’s work, and does not attribute it to that author. However, your institution or instructor may define “plagiarism” somewhat differently, so you should check with their definitions. When in doubt, check with your instructor first.

[17] These are instructions for relatively short, introductory-level philosophy essays. For more guidance, there are many useful philosophy-writing guides online to consult, e.g.: Horban (1993); Huemer (n.d.); Pryor (n.d.); Rippon (2008); Weinberg (2019).

Fischer, Bob and Nobis, Nathan. (2019, June 4). Why writing better will make you a better person. The Chronicle of Higher Education . 

Horban, Peter. (1993). Writing a philosophy paper. Simon Fraser University Department of Philosophy . 

Huemer, Michael. (N.d.). A guide to writing. Owl232.net .

Pryor, Jim. (N.d.). Guidelines on writing a philosophy paper. Jimpryor.net .

Purdue Online Writing Lab. (N.d.a.). General format. Purdue Online Writing Lab . 

Purdue Online Writing Lab. (N.d.b.). General format. Purdue Online Writing Lab .

Rippon, Simon. (2008). A brief guide to writing the philosophy paper. Harvard College Writing Center .

Weinberg, Justin. (2019, January 15). How to write a philosophy paper: Online guides. Daily Nous .

Related Essays

Arguments: Why do You Believe What You Believe? by Thomas Metcalf

Philosophy and its Contrast with Science by Thomas Metcalf

What is Philosophy? By Thomas Metcalf

Translation

Pdf download.

Download this essay in PDF . 

Follow 1000-Word Philosophy on  Facebook  and  Twitter  and subscribe to receive email notifications of new essays at  1000WordPhilosophy.com .

Share this:.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

A Plus Topper

Improve your Grades

Philosophy of Life Essay | Schools of Philosophy An Essay and Philosophers Through the Ages

October 30, 2021 by Prasanna

Philosophy Of Life Essay: Philosophy is a study into the fundamental truths regarding the nature of existence. It is a critical examination of how we know what we know, and what it means for us to be alive. One very important notion to keep in mind when reflecting on the philosophy of life is this: Knowledge is a process, rather than a thing. This essay will explore some basic questions that arise from the philosophy of life, including: What does it mean to be human? How can we know anything about other people? What does it mean to act morally?

The philosophy of life has many perspectives, but most of the prominent views have been discussed by philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. These philosophers put forth different perspectives on how one ought to live their lives- and contributing an immense amount of knowledge which has shaped the way societies function today.

You can also find more  Essay Writing articles on events, persons, sports, technology and many more.

Philosophers Through the Ages

The philosophy of life is a set of principles that determine how one sees themselves, the world, and their place in it. Philosophers derive most of these principles by asking very basic questions about the world, such as “What is the meaning of life? Is there a God? What is consciousness or the soul?” Following are a few world-famous philosophers who have shaped modern societies.

Confucius (c. 551 BCE – c. 479 BCE)

Confucius was a Chinese philosopher who lived from 551 BCE to 479 BCE. He founded a philosophy known as Confucianism. His philosophy is based on the idea that society should be ruled by moral law and justice, and that everyone should know their place in society to create stability.

Socrates (c. 470 BCE – c. 399 BCE)

Socrates was a famous philosopher in Ancient Greece. He is also considered one of the founders of Western philosophy. The philosophical school, which is named after him, has had a tremendous impact on all subsequent Western thinkers. Socrates’ method of inquiry, known as the Socratic Method, involves cross-examining people in order to make them question themselves and to draw out hidden contradictions in their beliefs. Socrates believed that knowledge can be attained through critical thinking and reasoning. However, he is most famous for his dialectic method of inquiry, which he largely applied to the examination of key moral concepts such as the Good and Justice.

Plato (c. 428 BCE – c. 348 BCE)

Plato believed that there was a perfect reality which he called the “Forms”. He believed that the Forms were more real than the physical world, and could only be accessed by one’s soul. This led him to be an idealist in his philosophy on life.

Aristotle (c. 384 BCE – c. 322 BCE)

Aristotle was one of the first thinkers to study life, and he believed that happiness (eudaimonia) was achieved by living a life of virtue, or acting in accordance to what is honorable or good. He has also been credited with giving the world both the idea of deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Other contributions include his ideas on empirical science, logic, physics, biology, zoology, metaphysics and ethics.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 – 1900)

Friedrich Nietzsche was a philosopher who wrote extensively on subjects such as religion, morality, culture and science. Nietzsche’s philosophical style is often described as “poetic,” which typically involves a lot of figurative language and metaphors. Nietzsche’s philosophy is considered to have been influenced by the philosophers Schopenhauer and Wagner. He was also influenced by the French philosophers Montaigne and Rousseau, the English philosophers Bacon and Hobbes, Kant, Schiller’s aesthetics, Goethe’s romanticism, Wagner’s operas.

The Four Tenets of Philosophy

Philosophy is divided into four tenets: metaphysics, which deals with being or existence; epistemology which deals with knowledge; ethics which deals with values; logic which deals with the meaning of statements.

• Metaphysics – Metaphysics is a broad branch of philosophy that seeks to explore the true nature of reality by examining concepts such as existence, identity, time and space. In particular, metaphysicians examine the concepts of physicality and physical existence. They look at what they can claim to be true in a world that is only observable through our senses and the instruments we use to sense it with.
• Epistemology – Epistemology is the study of knowledge. There are two schools of thought on how we come to know things: Empiricism and Rationalism. These two schools of thought have a lot to say about what kind of knowledge we can hope to gain from experience, and how that relates to the world around us. In other words, questions like “How do we know what we know?”, “What do people mean when they say X, Y, Z?”, and “What can’t we know?” are derived from epistemology.
• Ethics – Ethics is the philosophical study of principles, such as morality and justice. The term derives from the Greek word ēthikos which means “relating to one’s character” or “moral”. There’s a huge debate in the field of ethics over what is and isn’t moral. It can be difficult to draw a line between what is right and wrong, but different philosophers have come up with different ethical codes that try to help guide us in making those decisions.
• Logic – Logic is one of the most important aspects of philosophy. Logic is the process of deriving conclusions from true premises, and it can be used to support or reject a premise. The formal structure of a line of reasoning, as opposed to its content, is called its “logical form” or “syllogism”.

Schools of Philosophy

There are many different philosophies that philosophers have studied over the years. Below is a list of well-known schools of philosophy. Please note, this list is not exhaustive.

Hedonism is a school of thought that claims that the only intrinsic good is pleasure. Hedonists believe that all other things, such as wealth, health and even love are not intrinsically good. They believe that pleasure should be pursued for its own sake, without worrying about consequences.

Eudaemonism

Eudaemonism is a type of ethical theory that is based on the premise that humans have a natural disposition for happiness and well-being, and they should guide their actions accordingly. Eudaemonists argue happiness must be the ultimate goal of human action, since this will result in virtue.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy which advocates that the best action is the one that maximizes utility. This means that an action is moral if it creates the most happiness for the most number of people or produces the least unhappiness for the least number of people.

Existentialism

Existentialism is a system of thought that holds that the individual’s existence precedes society and that each person should act according to her own conscience. Existentialism is grounded in the belief that existence comes first and foremost, and thus can be seen as an objective starting point for individuals.

Nihilism is a philosophical belief that all meaning and morality are baseless. Nihilists also believe in “nothing” and consider all of existence to be pointless. This position is considered to be one of the most extreme forms of skepticism, since it involves believing that nothing can be known or communicated. Nihilists do not believe in any objective moral truths, and they believe that any meaning in life is just a matter of perspective.

Stoicism is a school of philosophy that originated in Ancient Greece. The teachings of the Stoics are centered around the idea that humans should live with reason and virtue. They believed that happiness stems from what takes place in one’s mind, rather than what takes place externally. They also taught the idea of “apatheia,” which is a state of freedom from emotion. This school of philosophy flourished in the Roman Empire until about 200 AD.

Marxism is an economic and social philosophy with a focus on social equality. Marx’s influence has been felt in many fields of study, including economics, political science, law, history, sociology, anthropology and philosophy. It is considered to be one of the most influential ideologies of the twentieth century.

Logical Positivism

Logical positivism is a philosophy that argues that the only facts worth knowing are those which can be verified by sense experience. This is a radical break from traditional philosophy, as it does not take into account things like “truth” or “good”. This philosophy was created in the 20th century and was popularized by Vienna Circle philosophers such as Rudolf Carnap, Otto Neurath and Hans Hahn.

Taoism is a philosophy of Chinese origin that emphasizes living in harmony with the Tao (also romanized as Dao). The term itself can be translated as “the way” or “the path”, and often implies the principle of Yin and Yang in nature. Taoism has a long history within China, stretching back more than 2500 years, but it was only recognized by Western society as a philosophical tradition in the 20th century.

Rationalism

Rationalism is the philosophical position that inferences about the world should be drawn from reason and logical deduction rather than from empirical evidence. In other words, it is a method of inquiry and a philosophical movement which asserts the primacy of the mental authority of fundamental concepts and abstractions, especially as opposed to sensory experience and concrete realities. However, thinkers in the rationalist tradition have disagreed over what these inferences are supposed to accomplish.

Conclusion on Philosophy Of Life Essay

Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, society, mind, and language—and how they relate to one another. There are different views on what philosophy is. Some say that it is just a meticulous recording of arguments or thoughts that have been made by others on these topics. Others say that it is a system for deciding questions about truth, knowledge, values and life’s meaning.

FAQ’s on Philosophy of Life

Question 1. What is a good philosophy of life?

Answer: A good philosophy of life can be a variety of things, but there are a few commonalities among the different philosophies. The basic tenets of a good philosophy are that it should have some sort of morality, purpose, and meaning. It should also be coherent, practical, and constructive.

Question 2. Why is philosophy so important?

Answer: Philosophy is a branch of knowledge that seeks to answer questions about other branches of knowledge. It is a discipline that studies what it means to know or feel, and what is the nature of reality. Philosophers ask questions about how we should live our lives, whether there are moral truths, and how we can know anything at all.

Question 3. What is philosophy? Give an Example.

Answer: Philosophy is thought or discussion concerned with the fundamental nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. There are many different philosophies (schools of philosophy) that exist today. One such school of philosophy is determinism, which posits that every event has a cause and the result of an event is inevitable.

• Picture Dictionary
• English Speech
• English Slogans
• English Letter Writing
• English Essay Writing
• English Textbook Answers
• Types of Certificates
• ICSE Solutions
• Selina ICSE Solutions
• ML Aggarwal Solutions
• HSSLive Plus One
• HSSLive Plus Two
• Kerala SSLC
• Distance Education