Unmeaning

Articles on “the meaning of life” tend to avoid defining their terms clearly, and this tends to make them less than useful. Professor Brooks’ “The Meaning of Life Is Surprisingly Simple” falls into this trap, although not in the way one might think. About midway through the piece Professor Brooks notes that psychologists Frank Martela and Michael F. Steger defined meaning as being made up of Coherence, Purpose and Significance. Fair enough. But in their paper, they are quite clear on the fact that they were looking at meaning in life, as opposed to the more philosophical question about the meaning of life.

And so when Professor Brooks exhorts readers to “Go find the meaning of life!” and then says “People who believe that they know their life’s meaning enjoy greater well-being than those who don’t,” as far as Professors Martela and Steger are concerned, he’s referring to two different endeavors, the first philosophical, and the second psychological. And I think that this is something of an important distinction, because one can be an existential nihilist, and believe that there is no meaning of life, and this is the very reason why one should look for meaning in life. And so the statement “All of this advice relies on one very strong assumption—that life actually has meaning,” isn’t necessarily so. Life, and an individual’s life, are not synonyms.

The other reason why I think that the distinction between the meaning of life and meaning in life (or the meaning of one’s own life) is important is that the psychological question allows for individual answers. According to Professor Brooks:

For example, Christians believe that life is significant because God loves us; that our purpose is to love and serve God and other people; and that God has a coherent plan for our lives, whether it is clear to us or not.

But a follower of Shinto, or a Hindu, would have been taught a completely different outlook on things. Their answers to the questions of Coherence, Purpose and Significance would (if not should) likely be completely different. On the scale of a meaning of life, to the degree that their answers are mutually exclusive with those of Professor Brooks’ hypothetical Christian, then one or another party (if not both) must be mistaken. But if those answers are personal, then everyone is free to find whatever ones best suit them. The Christian and the Hindu may find different meaning in life, and understand the facets of that meaning differently. And I note the phrasing that Professor Brooks used; it’s much more universal than finding meaning in life would lead one to. I suspect that this comes from attempting to make the facets that Professors Martela and Steger identified fit the broader philosophical question that they had declined to engage with.

Professors Martela and Steger note: “In order to live in the world as reflective beings, humans seem to need three things: they need to comprehend the world around them, they need to find direction for their actions, and they need to find worth in their lives.” I will confess that I don’t understand what they mean by “reflective beings.” As I understand it, I am perfectly capable of reflection, despite not feeling (or presumably, having satisfied) their three needs. I’m unclear on why living in the world as a reflective being and having found meaning in one’s life should be synonymous. But their broader point is one that I find tends to pop up a lot in discussion of meaning – the idea that there is a certain, better, way to live, and that meaning will come out of that. A “meaningful life” and “a life without meaning,” aren’t just different, they exist on a value hierarchy. And I think that sometimes, attempting to support those value judgements becomes the point. Maybe that’s why clear definitions are sometimes scarce, because objective language and subjective valuations don’t always work well together.