The Meaning of Life: Continuous Improvement?
“The meaning of life is whatever you ascribe it to be. Being alive is the meaning.” ―Joseph Campbell
I hate to argue with the great Joseph Campbell, but maybe we can be a bit clearer about what the meaning of life actually is. I think there are certain key elements that must be included in any goal. But how should we try to lay out the elements needed to point us towards this goal?
I believe there are two key parts to our definition. First, this “meaning” should be something that can be stated simply but is still a complex enough idea to allow for a variety of individual choices.
Secondly, the goal should be something that, as strange as it may sound, is unachievable. By this I mean it is something that we are continually progressing towards but never fully grasping. I add this element into the definition mainly because I worry about what would happen if we chose a meaning to life that was something that we could easily finish doing. Once complete, I believe that our society would enter a period of stasis that would eventually end in decline.
(Interested in seeing me try and puzzle through this issue on YouTube? Check out my video here)
In order to help us get a better grip on what the overall meaning to life is, it will be useful if we examine some of the possibilities that other thinkers have mooted in the past:
Food, clothing, & shelter?
Finding the meaning to life makes little sense if your basic needs are not met. For example, if you do not have such things as food, clothing, and shelter, it seems unlikely that you are going to be complaining that you have not achieved self-actualization. Give me a sandwich first (and a beer too), and then we can get philosophical.
So is the meaning of life to just meet these basic needs, i.e. don’t die (at least not immediately)? Well, it could be. After all, we exist as a species to spread our genes. And you can’t spread your genes if you are dead.
But for conscious beings such as ourselves, this goal seems rather lacking in attractiveness (other than the sex part, obviously). And does it mean that, once you have reached an age where you can’t have children anymore, you are useless? That there is nothing else you are supposed to do with your life? Just shuffle off this mortal coil ASAP?
This is clearly not meeting either part of our definition of “meaning of life”.
Achieving Freedom?
Similar to the goal of covering your basic needs, perhaps we should add in the need to achieve some level of freedom. How much is rather hard to determine, but I think we can speak in generalities and say that slavery is not enough freedom and anarchy is too much. Therefore, the correct level must lie somewhere in-between those two extremes. This would likely need to be further adjusted based on certain situations (ex. Viral outbreaks, national security, etc.).
Despite Big Brother’s dictum that “freedom is slavery”, we can say that we need to have enough freedom to make our own choices (within reason) and to develop our own opinions.
I know this brings up its own philosophical debate about free will. I will not touch on that here, but if you are interested: see my article on free will “My Brain Made Me Do It: Is Free Will Real or Just an Illusion?” here.
Of course, we run into a similar problem with this idea as we have seen before. What do we do once we have achieved the required level of freedom? Clearly there must be something else beyond this.
Religon?
With an answer for almost everything (if you squint your eyes hard enough), can religion point us in the right direction? But which religion? And which version of that religion?
If I grossly oversimplify all religions (sorry) then the meaning of life is to do what is necessary to get into “heaven”. Just follow whichever rulebook you want and you are good to go.
However, Pascal’s wager notwithstanding (believe in every god just in case?), this is of little help to all the brave atheists out there.
Additionally, if the goal is just to get into heaven then this feels rather devaluing to our civilization, our planet, and the whole universe for that matter. Why should we try to come up with new ideas, new inventions, new societal structures when all this stuff around us only matters in relation to the afterlife. Better perhaps to just stay in a cave making periodic sacrifices to whatever bloodthirsty god we have chosen to bend the knee to.
While “get into heaven” is something that can be stated simply (perhaps deceptively so) this is not a continuous goal since it can, in theory, be achieved.
Nihilism?
Let’s go in the extreme opposite direction. You tell me you have a god who has set up a universe-sized video game to judge us all? Well, I raise you a universe where nothing has any meaning at all. You don’t matter. I don’t matter. Everything is going to die. Everything falls apart.
Super jolly this idea, but there is some truth to it, at least superficially. Entropy is a real thing. And it is something that we do not currently have the ability to fight. But this does not mean that we might not develop that ability in the future.
Essentially, nihilism appears to argue in favor of doing nothing. This is strangely similar to what religion seems to call for too. Don’t try to change things, don’t question things.
The biggest argument against nihilism might be the fact that most people who flirt with this belief tend to grow out of it over time. This is what might best be termed a “teenage philosophy”. Once that existential angst has been used up by their overactive hormones, it is rare to see someone cling onto this philosophy later on in their life.
Additionally, this is entirely too pessimistic a philosophy for pretty much everyone. I think Ben Jonson said it best:
“I’ve studied all the philosophies and all the theologies but cheerfulness keeps breaking through.”
Clearly nihilism does not fit into our definition either.
Make our world a utopia?
Perhaps, the meaning of our lives can be found in the struggle to make our societies better. That we should aim for a utopia. This has certainly been suggested before, see communism for example.
The problem here is that, at least according to history and science fiction, utopias have a nasty habit of turning into dystopias. For further evidence of this, look no further than 1984 and Brave New World.
Is a utopia possible? Problaby not. Is it desirable? I also think not, especially if it means that once we reach that promised land we essentially don’t need to do anything anymore. Like the goal of having children, once we have reached the utopia there seems little incentive to do anything else. It is hard to imagine any society that could remain in stasis for any significant length of time, particularly when you take into account how many things would likely remain out of our control (ex. supernova explosion).
However, rather than striving for a utopia, we can lessen this goal to a continuing progression towards improving society. I like this as a meaning to life because it would be something that we would always be moving towards but never reaching, in part because we would never all agree on what it was. Additionally, the definition of “better” would no doubt change over time based on our knowledge and changing external situations (ex. Adjusting society to deal with an alien invasion vs dealing with an aging population).
Therefore, if we keep to the more limited goal of improving society we get a closer fit to our definition.
Happiness above all else?
Only the United States has made the pursuit of happiness an “unalienable right”. But does this mean that is also the meaning of life?
Being happy is certainly better than being sad (except according to those damn nihilists). However, the obvious problem here is: how do we define happiness? Is it just the chemical processes in our heads? If so, is this an argument for obtaining an endless supply of drugs that can keep us in a perpetual state of euphoria? What about scooping our brains out of our bodies and hooking them up to electrodes that can simulate those happy feelings for us?
Clearly, happiness needs to have a wider meaning than just what is happening in our brains. But does this get us any closer to an answer? Perhaps the ancient philosophers were on the right track when they talked about pursuing a contemplative life. Would living a philosophical life be the highest form of happiness?
I am not sure that most people have the ability to do something like that. And does this mean that the other forms of happiness are less important? Is the happiness of seeing your children succeed less than pondering the allegory of Plato’s cave?
Nevertheless, there is something to this pursuit of happiness. Although we probably need to add a few caveats, such as your happiness can not come at the expense of the suffering of other people (at least not to a large extent). And, I think the mindless pursuit of happiness (ex. The brain in a fishbowl) is not the best path either.
But we do have the possibility of a simple statement and continuous progression, so we have another contender for the meaning of life.
Knowledge?
A possible subset of the pursuit of “happiness” could be the pursuit of knowledge. Here, ignorance is not bliss but rather a negative move away from the goal of life. This could indeed by a good meaning to life in that, so far as it seems, knowledge is an inexhaustible resource in our universe. It seems likely that we will never stop learning, never stop discovering new things; at least as long as we choose to.
Focus on the present?
Pretty much everything I have mentioned so far has been future focused to an extent. Save these berries for the winter, build a house to protect you from future storms, do what you need to do to ensure that you are happy in the future, etc. But why should this be? Why not just focus on the present? You want to spend all your money on bitcoin and candy? Sure, why not?
I think this philosophy can be best summed up by Homer Simpson, who, in an episode of the Simpsons, is seen lying on his couch pouring mayonnaise into his mouth and eating other very unhealthy foods. When asked by his wife, Marge, why he doesn’t care about his health, his answer is:
“That’s a problem for future Homer.”
And he is right, at least philosophically speaking, he will not be the same person in the future (ex. Different atoms, different experiences, he will have heart disease, etc.). Unfortunately, however, we seem to have an annoying connection to our pasts no matter how much we think we are able to logic our way out of such a link.
Living just for the present? Bad idea.
Fulfill your potential?
“You are wasting your potential, you are wasting your life!” Many of us probably heard similar laments when we were children sitting in front of the tv or computer screen. But how to actually measure your potential? Obviously, it is currently not possible to put an exact number on this (at least until Gattaca becomes a reality), but it does ring a bit true nevertheless.
For example, take someone who is very intelligent (however you wish to measure that) and has been given a prestigious education, offered many opportunities, but has instead chosen to sit on that proverbial couch and watch tv. Many people would probably say that this person is wasting their potential.
However, it is useful to see the counterexample. Imagine a person of middling intelligence, born poor, with no education, no opportunities. If that person chooses to lie on the couch, are they wasting their potential too? If so, then we are not really talking about potential as much as doing something that is deemed societally beneficial.
Continuous Improvement is the Answer
As I mentioned in the beginning of this article, I think a key part of the meaning to life is that it must be something that we are always moving towards but never quite reaching. It is the journey rather than the destination that is the point.
Therefore, I believe there are two main elements to the meaning of life: continuous improvement of ourselves & of society.
(Interested in seeing me try and puzzle through this issue on YouTube? Check out my video here)
The exact definitions of improvement are not particularly necessary for me to give since, as I mentioned, these are guaranteed to change over time. Although I certainly believe that there will always be some level of focus on increasing safety, happiness, and ensuring a minimum level of freedom. Therefore, the path lies in the continuous adjustment and refinement of these goals.
This would be similar to goal setting in any arena. Once you achieve your goal, you do not simply shut down like some sort of machine. Instead you move on to the next goal, and the next, and the next, ad infinitum.
And so, as that great philosopher, Arnold Schwarzenegger, said:
“The meaning of life is not simply to exist, to survive, but to move ahead, to go up, to achieve, to conquer.”
Let me know what you think in the comments.