The Meaning of Your Life - Essay Example

Philosophy 8th Dec., The Meaning of Your Life The question of the meaning and purpose of human life is one of themost important and controversial philosophical problems. Philosophers have varied views on this issue; some philosophers are of the view that human life has no meaning and purpose at all, while other philosophers are of the contrary opinion and argue that, life, indeed, has meaning and purpose. This paper gives an argument, in light of Susan Wolf’s and Robert Nozick’s articles on the meaning of life, to show that human life, indeed, has meaning. A critical look at these two articles shows that the meaning of life lies in exploiting one’s talents or aptitudes for the good of oneself and others; meaning of human life lies in exploiting one’s talents for the good of humanity. In her article “Meaning in Life”, Susan Wolf defends the thesis that a meaningful human life is the one that has “the basis for an affirmative answer to the needs or longings that are characteristically described as needs for meaning” (Wolf, 232). In this view, Wolf argues that a person who has lived a meaningful life should be able to feel contended with his/her life and be able to find his her life meaningful even at the moment of death. A critical look at what Wolf thinks is the nature of meaning in life shows that wolf, actually, believed that meaning in life can be found in exploiting one’s talents for the good of oneself and other people. To make this point clear, let us analyze Wolf’s argument on what constitutes meaningful life. Let us begin by looking at Wolf’s definition of a meaningful life. For Wolf, a meaningful life is the life in which one is actively engaged in projects of worth. In Wolf’s views, active engagement means to be gripped, excited, and deeply involved in something. What this means in essence is that leading a meaningful life entails enjoying your work or your daily tasks. On the contrary, Wolf thinks that meaningless life entails boredom, i.e. a person living a meaningless work doesn’t find their work interesting. Wolf, however, clarified that finding one’s work interesting or enjoyable doesn’t mean that one wouldn’t find some challenges in the work. Wolf explains that, although a person actively engaged in an activity may find some challenges in the activity, the person, however, will find some fulfilment in the activity, despite the challenges, she says, “ there is something good about the feeling of engagement: one feels (typically without thinking about it) especially alive” (Wolf, 233). In nutshell, therefore, Wolf finds the ability to find enjoyment in one’s work as one of the defining characteristic of a meaningful life. On the meaning of “the projects of worth”, Wolf explained that the projects of worth are the projects or the activities that are worthwhile and that add value to the lives of people. For instance, Wolf argued that although playing computer games is an activity that one can be actively engaged in, playing computer games, however, is not a project of worth because it does not add value to the lives of other people. Wolf went on to argue that a look at the questions that people ask about the meaning of their lives shows that what the people are actually asking about is whether or not the work or the projects that they have been involved in throughout their lives are worthwhile and add meaning to the lives of other people. In brief, therefore, Wolf argued that a meaningful life must be a life dedicated to a worthy course, and not just a life that is dedicated to destroying human life, rather than enhancing it. For Susan Wolf, therefore, meaning in life lies in living a life in which one is actively engaged in worthwhile projects. A critical look at this view shows that what Wolf means in this view is simply that worthwhile life entails exploitation of one’s talents for the good of oneself and the whole humanity. To make this point clear, let us look at what exploitation of one’s talents for the good of humanity entails. Talents refer to one’s natural aptitudes. For that reason, people who are engaged in projects that are in line with their talents are more productive and enjoy their work, although the work may be challenging. For this reason, therefore, we can say that people who work in areas that they are talented in are actively engaged in their activities. On the contrary, people who work in areas that they are not talented in find their work quite boring, although they might be earning a lot of money in work that they are doing: people who work in areas that they are not talented in, therefore, are not actively engaged in their work. Exploitation of one’s talents, on the other hand, means putting into use one’s natural aptitudes. For that reason, exploitation of one’s talents means basically serving other people. For instance, a person with a talent to teach cannot teach himself/herself, but can only teach other people. For that reason, therefore, people exploit their talents to do worthwhile service to other people. Exploitation of one’s talents, therefore, entails active engagement in one’s project or work, and it also means being engaged in worthwhile projects. This fact, therefore, shows that people who have exploited their talents well in life will find meaning in their life. Having looked at Wolf’s views on the nature of meaningful life, let us look at Robert Nozick’s views on “Philosophy and the meaning of life”, and compare Nozick’s conception of meaningful life with Wolf’s conception of the same. In his philosophical analysis of the meaning of life, Nozick argued that the meaning of life cannot lie in simple formulas such as, “The meaning of life is to seek union with God”, “the meaning of life is a full and productive life”, or, “the meaning of life is love” (Nozick, 225). This fact shows that just like Wolf, Nozick was of the view that the meaning of human life is to be found in something deeper than mere formulas. For Nozick, the meaning of human life is connected with God’s will for His people. Nozick, however, explained his view to rid it of the many misconceptions that are associated with the concept that God’s will is connected with God’s will for His people. Nozick begins his explanation of how the meaning of human life is connected with the will of God by asking whether any role assigned by God is sufficient to make human life have meaning. To this question, Nozick says that just having any role assigned to us by God does not make life meaningful. For a role to make life meaningful, the role has to make to people to feel important about what we do. In other words, a trivial role in will not make us feel important about our work and for that reason such a role will not make our lives meaningful. Nozick says the following of the nature of the role of God that can make us to find meaning in our lives, “The purpose God has for us must place us at or near the centre of things, of His intentions and goals. Moreover, merely playing some role in a central purpose of God is not sufficient – the role itself must be important or central one” (Nozick, 226). What this means in essence is that the will of God for His people must be such that the people engages in activities that make them to feel important about themselves. This view is, actually, similar to Wolf’s view that meaningful life is the life in which one is actively engaged in projects of worth. For one to feel important about themselves, they must find the projects that they are engaged in interesting and enjoyable. Nozick also explains that the will of God should be more than an important role in an important purpose of God. Nozick says, “…the role itself should be positive, perhaps exalted” , he goes on to say, “The role should focus on the aspects of us that we prize or are proud of, and it should use these in reasons why we prize them” (Nozuck, 227). The point that these two quotations express in nutshell is the view that the will of God should be such that it involves an important and worthwhile activity that makes the people to feel important about themselves. This fact shows that Nozick and Wolf are agreed on the nature of the human activities can add meaning to people’s lives. Wolf argues that human beings should be engaged in worthwhile projects so as to find meaning in life, and Nozick argues that human beings should be engaged in important roles that central in God’s overall plan of His people. A critical look at Nozick’s conception of the nature of meaningful life shows that Nozick, actually, was of the view that meaningful life entails exploitation of one’s natural aptitudes for the benefit of humanity. The following fact brings this point out clearly. For Nozick, as we have just seen, God’s will for His people must entail roles that make people feel important about themselves. What this means in essence is that God’s roles role for His people must be in conformity with the talents that He has endowed them with. Exploiting and exercising one’s talents actually make’s one to feel important about himself/herself. What this means is that Nozick conceives as God’s will is nothing other than the talents that God has endowed His people with; doing God’s will as Nozick conceives it is nothing other than exploiting and putting into use one’s talents. Exploitation of one’s talents for the good of the people, also, involves engaging in an important activity or projects that contributes positively to the lives of other people. When Nozick, therefore, says that God’s will for His people must entail doing an important task that is significant in God’s overall plan for his, what he simply means is that exploitation of one’s talents for the good of other people will make human life meaningful. The point that Nozick wants to pass across in this argument is that God’s will for His people is always in conformity with the talents that He has endowed His people with. This fact, therefore, further confirms the important point doing God’s will entails using one’s talents to serve humanity. In nutshell, therefore, Wolf and Nozick conceived the meaning of human life as nothing other than exploiting one’s talents for the good of other people. Although Wolf and Nozick used different approaches and theories to pass across their point, a critical look at their arguments shows that the two scholars are actually agreed on what constitutes and what is the nature of meaningful life. Having looked at the meaning of human life according to Wolf and Nozick, let us compare this view with a counter argument that can be advanced against the Wolf’ and Nozick’s conception of the meaning of human life. The following is the argument that can be offered to oppose Wolf’s and Nozick’s argument on the meaning of human life. From a relativism point of view, it can be argued that the meaning of human life is purely relative, and that there is absolutely no standard thing that adds meaning to human life. Relativists would contend that the meaning of human life is subjective and for that reason different people have different understandings of what makes life meaningful. The following two examples can be cited to show that the meaning of human life is subjective. To begin with, while Wold and Nozick think that the meaning of human life lies in exploitation of ones’s talents for the good of other people, there are people who would the contrary view and live differently, and yet they find meaning in their lives. The psychopaths, for instance, find the meaning of their lives in causing pain and suffering to other people. This view, therefore, shows that the meaning of human life is relative and subjective, and not objective as Wolf and Nozick claims. Secondly, some people think that the meaning of life lies in living a particular lifestyle. Aristotle, for instance, was of the view that meaningful life lies in living an intellectual life of contemplation. For Aristotle, a truly happy and meaningful life is the life in which one seeks wisdom, through contemplation, and lives according to the dictates of right reason. This fact shows that the meaning of life is subjective. From the subjectivism point of view, therefore, the meaning of human life is purely relative and subjective. This view contrasts the Wolf’s and the Nozick’s conception of the meaning and purpose of human life. To the subjectivism arguments, I would offer the following counter argument. On the claim that the psychopaths find the meaning of life on causing harm to people, instead of exploiting their talents to enhance people’s lives, I would argue that pschopathy is a psychological and social disorder and for that reason their condition cannot be used as a refutation of Wolf’s and Nozick’s conceptions of the meaning of human life. To the claim that some people like Aristotle are of the view that meaningful life lives in leading a particular lifestyle, I would contend that these kind of people are not, after all, wrong. The only problem with these kind of people is that they think that exploitation of their talents is the only way to find meaning in life, these people fail to realize that other people have equally important talents. Aristotle, for instance, thought that his intellectual talent was the best talent, and for that reason he thought that intellectual contemplation is the best way to find meaning in life. In conclusion, a critical look at Wolf’s and Nozick’s conceptions of the meaning of human life shows that, the two philosophers and the same view of what constitutes and the nature of the meaning of human life. Wolf and Nozick were agreed that the meaning of human life is found in actualizing one’s potential for the good of all people. This view cannot be vitiated by the relativism claim that the meaning of human life is purely relative and subjective. This is because there are absolutely no facts to prove that the meaning of human life is subjective. Wolf and Nozick, therefore, are right in their conceptions of the meaning of human life. Works Cited Aristotle on Contemplation. Web. Nozick, R. “Philosophy and the Meaning of Life”. From the Text used in Class. Wolf, S. “Meaning in Life”. From the Text used in Class. Read More