Editing Meaning of life (section)

===20th-century philosophy===
{{Further|20th-century philosophy}}

[[File:Bertrand Russell photo.jpg|thumb|Philosopher [[Bertrand Russell]] said: "The good life is one inspired by [[love]] and guided by [[knowledge]]."]]
The current era has seen radical changes in both formal and popular conceptions of human nature. The knowledge disclosed by modern science has effectively rewritten the relationship of humankind to the natural world. Advances in medicine and technology have freed humans from significant limitations and ailments of previous eras;<ref>For example, see [[hygiene]], [[antibiotic]]s and [[vaccination]].</ref> and philosophy—particularly following the [[linguistic turn]]—has altered how the relationships people have with themselves and each other are conceived. Questions about the meaning of life have also seen radical changes, from attempts to reevaluate human existence in biological and scientific terms (as in [[#Pragmatism|pragmatism]] and [[#Logical positivism|logical positivism]]) to efforts to meta-theorize about [[meaning-making]] as a personal, individual-driven activity ([[#Existentialism|existentialism]], [[#Secular humanism|secular humanism]]).

====Pragmatism====
[[Pragmatism]] originated in the late-19th-century US, concerning itself (mostly) with [[truth]], and positing that "only in struggling with the environment" do data, and derived theories, have meaning, and that ''consequences'', like utility and practicality, are also components of truth. Moreover, pragmatism posits that ''anything'' useful and practical is not always true, arguing that what most contributes to the most human good in the long course is true. In practice, theoretical claims must be ''practically verifiable'', i.e. one should be able to predict and test claims, and, that, ultimately, the needs of humankind should guide human intellectual inquiry.

Pragmatic philosophers suggest that the practical, useful understanding of life is more important than searching for an impractical abstract truth about life. [[William James]] argued that truth could be made, but not sought.<ref name="James">{{Cite book |author=William James |author-link=William James |title=The Meaning of Truth |publisher=Prometheus Books |date=1909 |isbn=978-1-57392-138-1}}</ref><ref name="Corti">{{Cite book |author=Walter Robert Corti |title=The Philosophy of William James |publisher=Meiner Verlag |date=1976 |isbn=978-3-7873-0352-6}}</ref> To a pragmatist, the meaning of life is discoverable only via experience.

====Theism====
{{Main|Philosophical theism}}
Theists believe God created the universe and that God had a purpose in doing so. Theists also hold the view that humans find their meaning and purpose for life in God's purpose in creating. Some theists further hold that if there were no God to give life ultimate meaning, value, and purpose, then life would be absurd.<ref name="Theistic Perspectives on the Meaning of Life">{{Cite web |title=Philosophy 446: Theistic Perspectives on the Meaning of Life |url=http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~morourke/446-phil/05%20Spring/Handouts/Philosophical/Theistic%20Perspectives-MOL.htm |access-date=2022-07-13 |website=www.webpages.uidaho.edu}}</ref>

====Existentialism====
{{Main|Meaning (existential)}}
[[File:Edvard Munch Friedrich Nietzsche Thielska 292.tif|thumb|upright|[[Edvard Munch]], ''[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]'', 1906]]
According to existentialism, each person creates the essence (meaning) of their life; life is not determined by a supernatural god or an earthly authority, one is free. As such, one's ethical prime directives are ''action'', ''freedom'', and ''decision'', thus, existentialism opposes [[rationalism]] and [[positivism (philosophy)|positivism]]. In seeking meaning to life, the existentialist looks to where people find meaning in life, in course of which using only reason as a source of meaning is insufficient; this gives rise to the emotions of [[anxiety (mood)|anxiety]] and [[angst|dread]], felt in considering one's [[free will]], and the concomitant awareness of death. According to [[Jean-Paul Sartre]], [[existence precedes essence]]; the ([[essence]]) of one's life arises ''only'' after one comes to [[existence]].

[[Søren Kierkegaard]] spoke about a "[[q:Søren Kierkegaard#Misattributed|leap]]", arguing that [[absurdism|life is full of absurdity]], and one must make his and her own values in an indifferent world. One can live meaningfully (free of despair and anxiety) in an unconditional commitment to something finite and devotes that meaningful life to the commitment, despite the vulnerability inherent to doing so.<ref name="Hall">{{Cite book |author=Amy Laura Hall |title=Kierkegaard and the Treachery of Love |publisher=Cambridge University Press |date=2002 |isbn=978-0-521-89311-4}}</ref>

[[Arthur Schopenhauer]] answered: "What is the meaning of life?" by stating that one's life reflects one's will, and that the will (life) is an aimless, irrational, and painful drive. Salvation, deliverance, and escape from suffering are in aesthetic contemplation, sympathy for others, and [[asceticism]].<ref name="Jacquette">{{Cite book |author=Dale Jacquette |title=Schopenhauer, Philosophy, and the Arts |publisher=Cambridge University Press |date=1996 |isbn=978-0-521-47388-0}}</ref><ref name="Murray">{{Cite book |author=Durno Murray |title=Nietzsche's Affirmative Morality |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |date=1999 |isbn=978-3-11-016601-9}}</ref>

For [[Friedrich Nietzsche]], life is worth living only if there are goals inspiring one to live. Accordingly, he saw nihilism ("all that happens is meaningless") as without goals. He stated that asceticism denies one's living in the world; stated that values are not objective facts, that are rationally necessary, universally binding commitments: our evaluations are interpretations, and not reflections of the world, as it is, in itself, and, therefore, [[perspectivism|all ideations take place from a particular perspective]].<ref name="Reginster"/>

====Absurdism====
{{Main|Absurdism}}
{{Quote box |quote="... in spite of or in defiance of the whole of existence he wills to be himself with it, to take it along, almost defying his torment. For to hope in the possibility of help, not to speak of help by virtue of the absurd, that for God all things are possible—no, that he will not do. And as for seeking help from any other—no, that he will not do for all the world; rather than seek the help he would prefer to be himself—with all the tortures of hell if so it must be."|source=[[Søren Kierkegaard]], ''[[The Sickness Unto Death]]''<ref name="KierkegaardSuD">{{Cite book|last=Kierkegaard|first=Søren|author-link=Søren Kierkegaard|title=The Sickness Unto Death|url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.189042|publisher=Princeton University Press|date=1941|isbn=978-1-4486-7502-9}}</ref> |width=30% |align=right}}
In absurdist philosophy, the Absurd arises out of the fundamental disharmony between the individual's search for meaning and the apparent meaninglessness of the universe. As beings looking for meaning in a meaningless world, humans have three ways of resolving the dilemma. Kierkegaard and Camus describe the solutions in their works, ''[[The Sickness Unto Death]]'' (1849) and ''[[The Myth of Sisyphus]]'' (1942):
* [[Suicide]] (or, "escaping existence"): a solution in which a person simply ends one's own life. Both Kierkegaard and Camus dismiss the viability of this option.
* [[Religious]] belief in a [[transcendence (religion)|transcendent]] realm or being: a solution in which one believes in the existence of a reality that is beyond the Absurd, and, as such, has meaning. Kierkegaard stated that a belief in anything beyond the Absurd requires a non-rational but perhaps necessary religious acceptance in such an intangible and empirically unprovable thing (now commonly referred to as a "[[leap of faith]]"). However, Camus regarded this solution as "philosophical suicide".
* Acceptance of the Absurd: a solution in which one accepts and even embraces the Absurd and continues to live in spite of it. Camus endorsed this solution (notably in his 1947 allegorical novel ''The Plague'' or ''La Peste''), while Kierkegaard regarded this solution as "demoniac madness": "''He rages most of all at the thought that eternity might get it into its head to take his misery from him!''"<ref>{{Cite book |last=Kierkegaard |first=Søren |author-link=Søren Kierkegaard |title=The Sickness Unto Death |url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.189042 |publisher=Princeton University Press |date=1941 |isbn=978-1-4486-7502-9}}, Part I, Ch. 3.</ref>

====Secular humanism====
{{Further|Secular humanism}}
[[File:HumanismSymbol.svg|left|thumb|upright|The "[[Happy Human]]" symbol representing secular humanism]]

Per secular humanism, the [[Human|human species]] came to be by reproducing successive generations in a progression of [[Evolution|unguided evolution]] as an integral expression of [[nature]], which is self-existing.<ref name="humanifesto1">{{cite web|title=Humanist Manifesto I |url=http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html |work=American Humanist Association |date=1933 |access-date=26 July 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070730070437/http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html |archive-date=30 July 2007 }}</ref><ref name="humanifesto2">{{cite web |title=Humanist Manifesto II |work=American Humanist Association |date=1973 |url=http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto2.html |access-date=1 August 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070809102124/http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto2.html |archive-date=9 August 2007 }}</ref> Human knowledge comes from human observation, experimentation, and rational analysis (the [[scientific method]]), and not from supernatural sources; the nature of the [[universe]] is what people discern it to be.<ref name=humanifesto1/> Likewise, "[[intrinsic value (ethics)|values]] and realities" are determined "by means of intelligent inquiry"<ref name=humanifesto1/> and "are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience", that is, by [[critical thinking|critical intelligence]].<ref name="humanifesto3">{{cite web|title=Humanist Manifesto III |work=American Humanist Association |date=2003 |url=http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.php |access-date=1 August 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070809103515/http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.php |archive-date=9 August 2007 }}</ref><ref name="CDSH">{{cite web |title=A Secular Humanist Declaration |work=Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism (now the Council for Secular Humanism) |date=1980 |url=http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=declaration |access-date=1 August 2007 |archive-date=17 August 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080817084107/http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=declaration |url-status=dead }}</ref> "As far as we know, the total personality is [a function] of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context."<ref name=humanifesto2/>

People determine human purpose without supernatural influence; it is the human personality (general sense) that is the purpose of a human being's life which [[Secular humanism|humanism]] seeks to develop and fulfill:<ref name= humanifesto1/> "Humanism affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity".<ref name=humanifesto3/> Humanism aims to promote [[enlightened self-interest]] and the [[common good]] for all people. It is based on the premises that the [[happiness]] of the individual person is inextricably linked to the well-being of all humanity, in part because humans are social animals who find meaning in [[interpersonal relationship|personal relations]] and because cultural progress benefits everybody living in the [[culture]].<ref name= humanifesto2/><ref name=humanifesto3/>

The philosophical subgenres [[posthumanism]] and [[transhumanism]] (sometimes used synonymously) are extensions of humanistic values. One should seek the advancement of [[Human|humanity]] and of [[biocentrism (ethics)|all life]] to the greatest degree feasible and seek to reconcile [[Renaissance humanism]] with the 21st century's [[technoscientific]] culture. In this light, every living creature has the right to determine its personal and social "meaning of life".<ref>{{cite web |author=Nick Bostrom |title=Transhumanist Values |work=[[Oxford University]] |date=2005 |url=http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/values.html |access-date=28 July 2007 |author-link=Nick Bostrom |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070701062134/http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/values.html |archive-date=1 July 2007 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

From a [[Secular humanism|humanism]]-psychotherapeutic point of view, the question of the meaning of life could be reinterpreted as "What is the meaning of ''my'' life?"<ref>Irvin Yalom, ''Existential Psychotherapy'', 1980.</ref> This approach emphasizes that the question is personal—and avoids focusing on cosmic or religious questions about overarching purpose. There are many therapeutic responses to this question. For example, [[Viktor Frankl]] argues for "Dereflection", which translates largely as to cease endlessly reflecting on the self; instead, engage in life. On the whole, the therapeutic response is that the question itself—what is the meaning of life?—evaporates when one is fully engaged in life. (The question then morphs into more specific worries such as "What delusions am I under?"; "What is blocking my ability to enjoy things?"; "Why do I neglect loved-ones?".)<ref>See also: [[Existential therapy]] and [[Irvin D. Yalom]].</ref>

====Logical positivism====
[[Logical positivists]] ask: "What is the meaning of life?", "What is the meaning in asking?"<ref>{{Cite book |author=Richard Taylor |author-link=Richard Taylor (philosopher) |title=Good and Evil |chapter= Chapter 5: The Meaning of Life |publisher=Macmillan Publishing Company |year=1970 |isbn=978-0-02-616690-4}}</ref><ref>Wohlgennant, Rudolph. (1981). "Has the Question about the Meaning of Life any Meaning?" (Chapter 4). In E. Morscher, ed., ''Philosophie als Wissenschaft''.</ref> and "If there are no objective values, then, is life meaningless?"<ref>{{Cite book |last=McNaughton |first=David |date=August 1988 |title=Moral Vision: An Introduction to Ethics |chapter=Section 1.5: Moral Freedom and the Meaning of Life |publisher=Oxford: Blackwell Publishing |isbn=978-0-631-15945-2}}</ref> [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]] and the [[logical positivists]] said:{{Citation needed|date=December 2009}} "Expressed in language, the question is meaningless"; because, ''in'' life the statement the "meaning of x", usually denotes the ''consequences'' of x, or the ''significance'' of x, or ''what is notable'' about x, etc., thus, when the meaning of life concept equals "x", in the statement the "meaning of x", the statement becomes [[recursion|recursive]], and, therefore, nonsensical, or it might refer to the fact that biological life is essential to having a meaning in life.

The things (people, events) in the life of a person can have meaning (importance) as parts of a whole, but a discrete meaning of (the) life, itself, aside from those things, cannot be discerned. A person's life has meaning (for themselves, others) as the life events resulting from their achievements, legacy, family, etc., but, to say that life, itself, has meaning, is a misuse of language, since any note of significance, or of consequence, is relevant only ''in'' life (to the living), so rendering the statement erroneous. [[Bertrand Russell]] wrote that although he found that his distaste for torture was not like his distaste for broccoli, he found no satisfactory, empirical method of proving this:<ref name="Russel"/>
<blockquote>When we try to be definite, as to what we mean when we say that this or that is "the Good," we find ourselves involved in very great difficulties. Bentham's creed, that pleasure is the Good, roused furious opposition, and was said to be a pig's philosophy. Neither he nor his opponents could advance any argument. In a scientific question, evidence can be adduced on both sides, and, in the end, one side is seen to have the better case—or, if this does not happen, the question is left undecided. But in a question, as to whether this, or that, is the ultimate Good, there is no evidence, either way; each disputant can only appeal to his own emotions, and employ such rhetorical devices as shall arouse similar emotions in others ... Questions as to "values"—that is to say, as to what is good or bad on its own account, independently of its effects—lie outside the domain of science, as the defenders of religion emphatically assert. I think that, in this, they are right, but, I draw the further conclusion, which they do not draw, that questions as to "values" lie wholly outside the domain of knowledge. That is to say, when we assert that this, or that, has "value", we are giving expression to our own emotions, not to a fact, which would still be true if our personal feelings were different.<ref>{{Citation |first=Bertrand |last=Russell |author-link=Bertrand Russell |date=1961 |title=Science and Ethics |url=http://www.solstice.us/russell/science-ethics.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071114144956/http://www.solstice.us/russell/science-ethics.html |archive-date=14 November 2007 }}.</ref></blockquote>

====Postmodernism====
{{Further|Postmodernism}}
Postmodernist thought—broadly speaking—sees human nature as constructed by language, or by structures and institutions of human society. Unlike other forms of philosophy, postmodernism rarely seeks out ''[[a priori and a posteriori|a priori]]'' or innate meanings in human existence, but instead focuses on analyzing or critiquing ''given'' meanings in order to rationalize or reconstruct them. Anything resembling a "meaning of life", in postmodernist terms, can only be understood within a social and linguistic framework and must be pursued as an escape from the power structures that are already embedded in all forms of speech and interaction. As a rule, postmodernists see [[awareness]] of the constraints of language as necessary to escaping those constraints, but different theorists take different views on the nature of this process: from a radical reconstruction of meaning by individuals (as in [[deconstructionism]]) to theories in which individuals are primarily extensions of language and society, without real autonomy (as in [[poststructuralism]]).

====Naturalistic pantheism====
According to [[naturalistic pantheism]], the meaning of life is to care for and look after nature and the environment.

====Embodied cognition====
[[Embodied cognition]] uses the neurological basis of emotion, speech, and cognition to understand the nature of thought. [[Cognitive neuropsychology]] has identified brain areas necessary for these abilities, and genetic studies show that the gene [[FOXP2]] affects neuroplasticity which underlies language fluency.

[[George Lakoff]], a professor of [[cognitive linguistics]] and philosophy, advances the view that metaphors are the usual basis of meaning, not the logic of verbal symbol manipulation.<ref>{{cite web |title=BLENDING AND METAPHOR |url=https://markturner.org/blendaphor.html |website=markturner.org |access-date=28 February 2023}}</ref> Computers use [[logic programming]] to effectively query databases but humans rely on a trained [[biological neural network]]. Postmodern philosophies that use the indeterminacy of [[Symbolic language (literature)|symbolic language]] to deny definite meaning ignore those who feel they know what they mean and feel that their [[Interlocutor (linguistics)|interlocutors]] know what they mean.{{Citation needed|date=March 2019}} Choosing the correct metaphor results in enough common understanding to pursue questions such as the meaning of life.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Landau |first1=Mark J. |title=Using Metaphor to Find Meaning in Life |journal=Review of General Psychology |date=March 2018 |volume=22 |issue=1 |pages=62–72 |doi=10.1037/gpr0000105 |pmid=29632431 |pmc=5889147 }}</ref> Improved knowledge of brain function should result in better treatments producing healthier brains. When combined with more effective training, a sound personal assessment as to the meaning of one's life should be straightforward.{{Citation needed|date=March 2019}}