Photo by Arthur Mazi on Unsplash
Humanity has spent an extraordinary amount of time searching for the meaning of life.
We have consulted prophets, philosophers, mystics, poets, and occasionally people who have managed to sell an impressive number of books explaining the matter. We have constructed entire religious traditions around the question, established schools of philosophy devoted to answering it, and periodically killed one another over disagreements concerning which answer was correct.
Somewhere along the way, we decided that discovering why we exist must be among the most important things a person could accomplish.
It is a remarkable commitment to a question we have never quite agreed upon.
The proposed answers are numerous. We are here to serve God, to develop virtue, to achieve enlightenment, to find happiness, to overcome suffering, to reproduce, to accumulate knowledge, or to leave the world better than we found it. Sometimes the purpose is something we accomplish while alive. Sometimes it is a destination awaiting us after death. Occasionally, it is the discovery that there was never any purpose in the first place, which some find liberating and others find intolerable.
Douglas Adams famously proposed forty-two, an answer whose principal deficiency was that nobody had established what the ultimate question actually was.
I have increasingly come to suspect that he identified the problem more accurately than many of the people trying to solve it.
Not because the question is unimportant to those asking it; the desire to understand our existence is deeply human, and I have no particular objection to someone spending their life examining it. There are worse things to investigate, and humanity has certainly found less productive ways to occupy an afternoon.
But there is a difference between a question that is difficult to answer and one that has not been constructed well enough to allow an answer at all.
We generally recognize this distinction in other circumstances. If someone asks us to determine the best way to travel, we might reasonably ask where they intend to go. If they want to know whether something is good, we need some understanding of what it is supposed to accomplish and for whom. If they demand the correct answer without establishing what would make an answer correct, we begin to suspect that the difficulty lies somewhere other than our ability to reason.
Yet we approach the meaning of life with considerably less caution.
We assume that the question must possess an answer worthy of its grandeur, and when the available answers fail to satisfy us, we interpret the dissatisfaction as evidence of a profound and possibly inaccessible truth.
Perhaps. Or perhaps we should have examined the question before investing so much effort in the search.
Several Questions Wearing the Same Coat
The first difficulty is that we use the word meaning to describe several different things.
When someone asks why life exists, they might be asking how living organisms emerged from nonliving matter. That is a question about origins and causation, and the appropriate tools for investigating it belong largely to the natural sciences.
They might instead be asking what life is for. This assumes something closer to purpose: an objective toward which existence is directed, perhaps established by a creator, by nature, or by some principle that operates beyond the preferences of individual organisms.
Or perhaps they want to know what makes life valuable. Why should a human existence matter? What makes suffering regrettable, happiness desirable, or the destruction of a life morally significant?
And sometimes the question is intensely personal. What should I do with the years available to me? What should I care about? How do I decide whether the life I am living is one I can respect?
These questions overlap, of course, but they are not interchangeable.
An explanation of how something came into existence does not necessarily explain what it ought to do afterward. A description of its function does not establish its moral value. Something can be valuable without having been designed for a purpose, and a person can find a purpose worth pursuing without believing that purpose was assigned before they arrived.
A physician may explain why a heart beats, but the explanation will not tell us what the person possessing it should do with Tuesday afternoon.
An astronomer can describe the formation of a star without establishing whether its existence is good, just as a historian may explain why a civilization arose between two rivers without proving that its inhabitants were morally obligated to pursue whatever ambitions characterized its founders.
We ordinarily accept that these are different kinds of explanations.
For reasons I have never entirely understood, we become considerably less precise when the subject is ourselves.
We ask what life means, then proceed as though a single answer concerning origins, purpose, morality, or personal fulfillment might settle the entire matter. When someone provides an answer we dislike, we rarely stop to determine whether they were answering the same question.
We simply disagree.
This may explain some of the remarkable durability of the debate. A question capable of changing its meaning whenever an answer becomes inconvenient is extraordinarily difficult to resolve.
It is also an excellent foundation for a philosophy industry.
The Destinations We Offer Ourselves
The answers people have developed deserve better than dismissal. Many represent serious attempts to understand the human condition, and some have survived thousands of years precisely because they address experiences that remain familiar regardless of the circumstances surrounding them.
Religious traditions can offer an understanding of existence in which individual lives belong to a larger order, whether that order involves divine judgment, spiritual development, or a cycle of existence extending far beyond any single lifetime; reducing them all to a promise of reward after death would be unfair to the people who have spent their lives developing them. Aristotle emphasized the activity of living well over the accumulation of pleasant experiences. The Stoics placed virtue and the quality of our judgments at the center of a good life. Buddhist traditions examine suffering and the attachments that perpetuate it, and existentialist thinkers, in different ways, challenge the assumption that a predefined purpose must precede our choices.
These are not equivalent philosophies, and their disagreements concern substantially more than terminology. Still, I find something interesting about what they offer the people who embrace them.
What they offer, if in different ways, is direction.
That direction provides a way of understanding what matters, what deserves attention, and how to approach circumstances that might otherwise feel arbitrary. It hints at a standard against which decisions can be examined, and sometimes an explanation for suffering, or at least a way to endure it without surrendering everything else.
There is genuine value in that for those who choose it.
A person whose religious faith gives them the strength to care for others through extraordinary hardship has found something important. Someone who approaches life through Stoic discipline may develop a stability that allows them to act honorably when circumstances offer little encouragement. A person who dedicates themselves to art, scholarship, raising children, or cultivating a peaceful life may discover purposes that are both demanding and deeply satisfying.
I have no compelling reason to tell any of them that their chosen direction is inadequate merely because it differs from mine.
The difficulty begins when a person moves from recognizing what gives their existence purpose to declaring what must give everyone else’s existence purpose.
It is a subtle transition, and perhaps an understandable one. When something has provided us with clarity, we are inclined to believe that others might benefit from it also. When we have built our moral lives around a particular understanding of the world, competing explanations can feel less like alternative perspectives than threats to the structure beneath our feet.
But usefulness to one person does not establish universal authority, and neither does sincerity.
I can understand why someone believes their life exists to fulfill a divine purpose without agreeing that my life necessarily shares it, as easily as I can respect a person whose highest aspiration is happiness without accepting happiness as the proper measure of my own decisions. I can recognize the appeal of peace without believing that avoiding conflict always leads to a desirable outcome.
And I can acknowledge that someone who finds no cosmic meaning in existence may still have perfectly good reasons to treat other people with compassion. The absence of an assigned purpose does not require indifference. Nor does the presence of one guarantee virtue.
Our destinations may tell us quite a lot about what we value, but they tell us considerably less about whether everyone else is supposed to arrive at the same place.
Who Appointed the Examiner?
There is another assumption hiding beneath the search, and it deserves more attention than we usually give it. Take the second of those questions, what life is for, and suppose it has an answer.
Not merely an interpretation that provides comfort or direction, but an actual, objective purpose to human existence. Suppose some intelligence, principle, or feature of reality establishes precisely what we are here to accomplish.
For the sake of argument, let us imagine that the answer could be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. What would follow from that discovery?
We would certainly have learned something extraordinary about our existence. Depending upon the nature of the answer, we might need to reconsider much of what we believe about the universe and our place within it. But would we automatically acquire an obligation to pursue the purpose we had discovered? Of this, I am less certain.
When we construct an object for a particular task, we generally describe its purpose in terms of our intentions. A hammer is designed to drive nails, a bridge is built to carry traffic across an obstacle, and a machine is built to perform some function its designer considered worthwhile.
These descriptions make sense because we are discussing objects whose purposes are established through their relationship to the people who use them, but a person is not merely an object waiting to fulfill the intentions of whoever brought them into existence.
A parent may have expectations for a child, and they may have made considerable sacrifices to provide that child with opportunities. Their hopes may be both sincere and admirable, but none of this gives them unlimited authority to determine what the child must become.
The child may choose a different profession, adopt different beliefs, or pursue a life the parent never imagined. We generally recognize that their capacity to make those decisions is part of what it means to respect them as a person.
Kant’s insistence that rational beings possess dignity and should not be treated merely as instruments of another’s purposes offers one way to understand the distinction. His broader philosophy places demanding constraints upon individual choice, certainly, but those constraints are not reducible to the preferences of whoever happens to possess greater power.
The analogy, though, remains imperfect. A theologian might reasonably argue that divine purpose derives its authority from perfect goodness rather than from the mere fact of creation. If that claim can be established, it deserves consideration on those terms.
But that is precisely the distinction I want to preserve. The existence of a purpose and the legitimacy of its authority are separate questions.
If some external purpose is genuinely good, we should be able to examine what makes it good. If it asks us to harm others, abandon commitments, or surrender our judgment, we should be permitted to ask why. If obedience is required, the grounds for that requirement deserve consideration beyond the assertion that someone more powerful has issued instructions.
Otherwise, we have not discovered the meaning of life so much as identified someone claiming jurisdiction over it.
There is a further problem, and it concerns notice. We recognize certain obligations even when nobody has explicitly explained them to us, and ignorance alone does not necessarily relieve us of responsibility. But it is difficult to justify condemning someone for violating a requirement they had no reasonable means of discovering. Whatever authority an undisclosed purpose might possess, the authority to condemn people for failing to guess it should not be among them.
This is where my own understanding departs from the premise of the search. Even if there is some ultimate purpose awaiting discovery, I do not understand why its existence should automatically invalidate the purposes I have already chosen.
If I spend my life loving people, building things, learning, making mistakes, and attempting to leave circumstances better than I found them, I do not see why an unfamiliar instruction delivered at the end should make those choices less meaningful.
It might still reveal that I was wrong about something important. I would want to understand that, but I would be reluctant to accept that my entire existence had been improperly conducted merely because I had failed to pursue an objective nobody had established I was obligated to adopt.
That seems less like a failure of living than a rather serious problem with the instructions.
The Peculiar Expectation of a Return
There is another way the search for meaning can shape our lives, and it is easier to overlook because it usually presents itself as something reasonable.
Put simply, we want our efforts to amount to something.
We endure hardship, develop abilities, sacrifice opportunities, make commitments, and spend years pursuing objectives that may never materialize. It is natural to hope that these investments will produce something worthwhile.
Sometimes the expected return is tangible. We work to provide security, study to acquire knowledge, or practice a skill because becoming capable allows us to accomplish things we could not otherwise do. At other times, the return becomes something more abstract.
We want happiness to justify the effort. Peace to make the struggle worthwhile. Recognition to confirm that our accomplishments mattered. Spiritual reward to compensate for suffering that seems otherwise unfair.
There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting any of these things.
I would prefer happiness to misery under most ordinary circumstances, and I have no particular desire to suffer unnecessarily. Recognition can be important, especially when its absence leads others to misunderstand the responsibilities someone has carried. Peace is likewise valuable, and there are certainly occasions when perseverance without some prospect of improvement becomes difficult to defend.
But I think we can become so accustomed to evaluating our choices by what they eventually provide that we begin applying the same logic to existence itself.
What will I receive for having lived?
What outcome will make the difficult parts worthwhile?
Where is the return on everything I endured?
These are understandable questions, especially when life has demanded considerably more than someone believes they should have been asked to give. Yet there is something troubling about the assumption that existence must eventually compensate us for experiencing it.
A life devoted to love does not necessarily culminate in a happy ending. A principled person may suffer for maintaining their principles. Someone who spends decades building something worthwhile may watch it disappear before they do. Knowledge does not guarantee wisdom, and wisdom provides no assurance that circumstances will become pleasant.
None of those possibilities tells us whether the choices themselves were worthwhile; they tell us only that outcomes are not obligated to cooperate with our intentions.
If I act honorably because I expect honor to produce happiness, what happens when it does not? If I protect someone because I anticipate gratitude, what becomes of the decision when gratitude never arrives? If I build something because I want it to endure, have I wasted my time when something better eventually replaces it?
Perhaps some pursuits are worth reconsidering when their expected returns repeatedly fail to appear. But perhaps others were never transactions in the first place.
And maybe the insistence that life must eventually provide some grand compensation is another way of assigning it an obligation we have no reason to believe it accepted.
The Things We Decide to Keep
I have never been particularly convinced that life possesses a singular meaning.
I have no special access to the intentions of the universe, assuming intentions belong anywhere in the discussion, and I would be suspicious of anyone who claimed to have settled the matter so completely that further consideration was unnecessary. I simply have not found the proposition especially useful.
What I have found useful is the last of those four questions, the personal one: what to do with the years available to me. Most of the good in my life has been anything but mysterious and unexplainable, and very little of my answer to that question began as philosophy.
There are things I care about, people I love, principles I have spent years developing, and a considerable number of things I would like to learn or build before I am finished.
Some of these commitments began as responses to circumstances. Others arose from curiosity, affection, admiration, frustration, or the discovery that something I understood could be improved.
Over time, those decisions accumulated into something resembling a direction.
I did not begin learning difficult things because I believed technical competence was humanity’s highest aspiration. Much of my work, learning, and advancement began with something far smaller: something modest I wanted for someone I loved. Knowledge made certain problems easier to solve, and those capabilities eventually opened possibilities I hadn’t originally imagined. Somewhere along the way, learning and creating became satisfying in their own right.
I enjoy building things, and making things and people more capable, even knowing that most people will never understand what it cost or how it works, much less appreciate it. That has never seemed like a reason to stop.
The same pattern appears in relationships.
We do not necessarily begin loving someone because we have concluded that love represents the proper philosophical objective. We encounter a person, come to value their presence, and gradually discover that their well-being has become part of how we understand our own choices.
Sometimes that attachment asks very little of us; at other times it asks considerably more than we would have agreed to in advance. I have stood between someone I loved and something that was hurting them, knowing it would land on me instead. I did not weigh that decision against a theory of altruism, and I would make it again.
And sometimes loving someone requires us to establish limits that would make little sense if love were simply a promise to accommodate every request. I have loved someone, kept the good memories of them, and still decided they could not come through my door, because the risk would not have been mine alone to accept. Choices have weight precisely because both of those things can be true at once.
Some of those decisions were uncomfortable, inconvenient, or personally expensive, and I made them because I believed they were consistent with the person I wanted to become. I have also made decisions I later regretted, and discovered that some of my convictions were less complete than I had imagined. I expect both experiences to continue.
What matters to me is not that every choice confirms some predetermined destination. It is that the choices remain subject to examination, and that I am willing to accept what they reveal about me.
There is something appealing about imagining that our lives follow a path laid out in advance. It gives setbacks a place in a larger story, and it allows us to believe that sufficiently patient effort will eventually reveal why everything happened.
But I am not sure the world owes us that sort of narrative coherence.
Some experiences are simply unfortunate, and some opportunities exist because someone else made a mistake. Some painful events shape us without becoming justified by whatever we subsequently accomplish.
There are parts of my history I hated while I was living them. I can acknowledge that they influenced the person I am becoming without concluding that every part of it was necessary or good, and I can recognize that the person I hope to become may change as I learn more.
This does not trouble me as much as it once might have.
A chosen direction is not necessarily a fixed destination. It can be an ongoing relationship between what we value, what we understand, and what we are prepared to do with that understanding.
I value fairness, even when maintaining it means accepting an outcome I would not have preferred. I have little appetite for acquiring prestige merely to possess it, though I recognize that authority and recognition can sometimes make worthwhile work possible. I care about what my decisions cost other people, and I try not to assign those costs casually.
None of these preferences is evidence that the universe intended me to live this way. They are, however, reasons I can give for many of the decisions I make.
That seems sufficient to me.
There is a difference between saying that my life has no purpose and saying that I do not believe its purpose was assigned by something outside me.
The first would be a description I do not recognize, but the second is much closer to the truth.
I have spent years deciding which things deserve my attention, which commitments I am willing to preserve, and which versions of myself I would rather not become. The process is unfinished, and I suspect it always will be.
But I do not regard that incompleteness as evidence that something essential is missing; I regard it as part of being alive.
The Freedom to Be Wrong
There is an obvious objection to this position, and it has earned more than a convenient dismissal:
If we are free to choose what gives our lives meaning, what prevents someone from choosing a purpose that is cruel, exploitative, or destructive?
Suppose a person decides that accumulating power is the only thing that matters, and another dedicates themselves to personal pleasure without regard for the people harmed along the way. What if a third finds profound satisfaction in humiliating others?
Have they not also chosen what makes their lives meaningful? In a descriptive sense, perhaps they have.
A person can organize their existence around almost anything; history provides no shortage of examples of people who pursued terrible objectives with extraordinary dedication. But I do not believe choosing a purpose makes that purpose morally legitimate.
The distinction matters because meaning and ethics answer different questions.
The purpose someone chooses concerns what they intend to do with their existence, and what they consider worth pursuing. Ethics concerns what they are justified in doing, including what they may demand from other people and what obligations arise from sharing a world with them. These questions can influence one another without becoming the same question.
The fact that someone sincerely values an objective tells us something about their motivations, but it does not establish their right to pursue it at someone else’s expense.
A person may find meaning in domination, but that does not entitle them to dominate. Someone may believe their happiness requires another person’s submission. Their belief does not create an obligation for the other person to comply.
I can respect another individual’s authority to choose the direction of their life without surrendering my ability to judge the consequences of their choices.
In fact, respecting that authority requires recognizing it in everyone else.
If I insist that my life belongs to me in a meaningful sense, I should also be reluctant to treat another person’s life as something I am free to organize around my preferences. Their existence does not become an instrument of mine merely because I have developed a philosophy that would make using them convenient.
Of course, that proposition still requires moral justification; choosing one’s purpose does not, by itself, establish why other people deserve respect. But if I believe my life is mine to direct, I should be prepared to explain why that same consideration would not extend to someone else. A person might insist that their own interests deserve greater authority, but that assertion requires justification beyond their preference for it. The person who finds meaning in domination has not escaped the question of legitimacy merely by choosing domination as their purpose. A purpose that depends upon denying everyone else the same freedom requires a moral defense of that denial, not simply an appeal to the freedom of its author.
Arguments concerning harm, fairness, dignity, consent, and the conditions of shared existence still have work to do, and I do not think the absence of a cosmic purpose makes them disappear. Nor do I think the existence of one would relieve us of the need to examine them.
There is a second objection, and it concerns not what people choose but whether they are able to choose at all. We speak rather casually about choosing our lives, as though everyone begins with comparable circumstances and an unrestricted collection of possibilities.
They do not.
Some people inherit security, education, affection, and room to make mistakes. Others inherit obligations, deprivation, coercion, illness, or dangers that leave very little freedom for philosophical experimentation. Our choices matter, but so do the conditions under which those choices become available.
A person struggling to survive may have neither the opportunity nor the luxury to construct an elaborate account of what gives their existence purpose. But their inability to articulate one does not make their life less valuable. Neither does it make the person who has enjoyed greater freedom inherently wiser for having used that freedom to develop a more elaborate philosophy.
I think it is important to preserve that distinction. If meaning is elective, the capacity to choose must not become another standard by which we judge people who have been denied reasonable choices.
Our purposes must also remain open to correction.
An objective that once seemed worthwhile may eventually demand sacrifices we can no longer justify. A belief that helped us survive one period of life may become destructive when carried unchanged into another. We may discover that our understanding of someone else was incomplete, or that a principle we regarded as fair has consequences we failed to consider.
Changing direction does not necessarily mean the original journey was meaningless; sometimes it means we have learned enough to choose differently.
The freedom to construct a meaningful life includes the freedom to recognize that parts of what we constructed were wrong.
Anything less begins to resemble another predetermined destiny, except that this time we have appointed ourselves as the authority nobody is permitted to question.
The Questions Beneath the Question
Calling the search for life’s meaning defective risks dismissing something much more serious than an imprecise philosophical inquiry.
People do not always ask about meaning because they are interested in metaphysics. Sometimes they ask because they have lost someone they loved, or because the work they spent decades pursuing has disappeared. Other times, it may be because they have achieved everything they believed they wanted and discovered that the achievement feels strangely empty.
Sometimes they are suffering, and the question is less an intellectual curiosity than a desperate attempt to understand why they should continue enduring it.
Those are not foolish concerns.
Someone asking whether their life is worth continuing does not need a lecture on the ambiguity of the word meaning. They need to be heard, taken seriously, and perhaps helped to find possibilities their circumstances have made difficult to see.
The philosophical problem may be poorly defined while the human need beneath it remains entirely legitimate, and this is where the distinction becomes useful rather than merely clever.
If someone asks what the meaning of life is, we might learn more by asking what they are actually searching for. Are they asking whether suffering serves some purpose? Whether the things they’ve done have mattered? Whether something remains worth experiencing? Those questions deserve consideration on their own terms, rather than being buried beneath an expectation that one grand revelation must settle them all.
Some may depend upon moral reasoning, personal experience, faith, or possibilities that have not yet arrived. Some may remain unanswered.
But uncertainty about the universe’s intentions, assuming it possesses any, does not mean the life already in progress is incomplete. We can have reasons for what we do without possessing an explanation for why existence itself is here.
That seems considerably more useful than spending our remaining years attempting to interpret an assignment nobody has demonstrated was ever issued.
No Answer Required
I do not know why life exists in any ultimate sense.
Perhaps there is some purpose beyond our understanding, or maybe the universe contains an order that would make our lives appear entirely different if we could perceive it. Perhaps the religious traditions that have attempted to describe such an order have recognized something important, even if they disagree about its nature.
Or perhaps life is simply one of the things the universe does under the right circumstances, and we are unusually elaborate arrangements of matter capable of being surprised by our own presence.
I have no particular need to declare the matter settled. What I find less compelling is the assumption that I must resolve it before the things I care about can matter.
I know that there are people whose lives I want to see improve. There are things I would like to understand, abilities I would like to develop, and circumstances I would prefer to leave better than I found them. There are principles I believe deserve preservation, and others I may eventually discover need correction.
I have chosen to pursue those things because I consider them worthwhile.
Not because I expect happiness to arrive as compensation, or because I believe the universe is maintaining a record of my accomplishments. And certainly not because I anticipate some final moment in which an authority will explain that I correctly fulfilled the purpose of my existence.
I may never know the full consequences of what I choose to do. Some of what I build will disappear, and some of the people I care about will continue along paths I cannot follow. I will make mistakes, misunderstand things, and occasionally discover that my best intentions produced consequences I would rather have avoided.
That is part of the experience I am trying to navigate, not evidence that I have failed to discover the rules.
And if there is some grander purpose waiting beyond the limits of my understanding, I hope I would be willing to examine it with the same curiosity I try to bring to everything else.
But I would expect it to withstand a few questions of its own. Until then, I have a life to live, and I have found no shortage of things worth doing with it.
Somewhere near the beginning of many of them, there was someone I loved who deserved better. That was never a grand enough reason to answer the meaning of life, and I am increasingly comfortable with the possibility that no reason was ever supposed to.
The question, after all, was defective.
Leave a Reply