There are many different views on the meaning of life. Hundreds, if not thousands, of credible schools of thought exist, and every individual has an entirely unique opinion about their ultimate purpose. 

However, are these "meanings" really the meaning of life, or are they simply methods through which to live?  Something may give life meaning, but does that make it the meaning of life?

Through the entire history of philosophy, no philosophy has truly been centered around the question, "What is the meaning of life?" Each has an answer, or at least a general idea, but none are entirely focused with absolute precision on this matter. It is only recently that the question of the meaning of life has evolved into its own field of philosophy, rather than being associated with other life matters. This new field approaches the question of the meaning of life from a purely analytical standpoint.

Why has it taken so long to come to this point? First of all, it was important to fundamentally ensure one’s survival before searching for meaning. During many, if not all, of the past centuries, the survival of one's self – if not the survival of the entire human species – has been called into question. In that situation, meaning is apparent: survive long enough to get the next generation started.

Once basic survival is assured, the next pressing question is how to best live life. This question has fueled philosophy and religion since their inception. Indeed, many supposed answers to "the meaning of life" have instead given guidance on the best ways to live life and provide individual meaning. It seems that this answer was required in order for humanity to move forward to the next part of the question. We have figured out how to survive.  We have figured out how to live.  Now, why do we live?

Even though it is likely that the next stage will not come about for centuries or even millennia, what question will we ponder next?

Just because we have become conscious at some point in the past, does it mean that there must be a meaning of life?  Perhaps the nihilists have it right - there is no meaning, only life. This may seem pessimistic, but it is a valid consideration. Maybe it is selfish to think that we have meaning.

We have come into being through a multitude of accidents, coincidences and mutations. You can decide that this is as a result of some grand plan or not, but it is a key point in any search for meaning. Consider the nihilists and the postmodernists who have deconstructed many of the key principles of traditional philosophy in their search for a modern worldview.

Nihilism has been associated with and refuted by some of the most famous philosophers, including Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche. In particular, Nietzsche has been coupled with the philosophy due to his writings on the "death of God."  In fact, he was openly critical of nihilism, believing that it deprived the world of meaning. However, nihilism has enjoyed resurgence in the postmodern culture.

Postmodernism is inherently critical of philosophy and its tenets. It eschews many of the principles of most philosophies, specifically that humans have any essence that differs from that of other creatures, and many times dissembles inquiries into the meaning of life.

With these philosophies in mind, consider whether in fact there is any meaning. The human race has, through some permutation of the universe, arrived to this state. The grand plan is that there is no grand plan. The universe exists, somehow. It has evolved according to a set of physical and chemical rules that are still largely unknown. We exist, the world exists, and we go along living through no fault of our own.

So, we return to the question. Just because we become conscious does that mean that there must be a meaning to our consciousness?

In the beginning, there were people, and they were confused. They existed, they thought, they hunted, they gathered, they made more of themselves. However, why were they there? How were they there? How did the world around them exist?

It is commonly stated that religion and faith came from an attempt by our ancestors to explain the world around them. However, it was also an attempt to explain themselves. The who, why, how, what and when of conscious life could not be known in their life experiences. Therefore, they created their own answers according to their worldviews. Religion and the associated stories answered all their questions. Where did you come from? Well, in the beginning there was a cosmic egg, or Chaos, or God, or the Word, or clay or darkness. From there, the stories spiraled to answer all your questions, from the meaning of life to how you should ensure your group's continued existence.

The basic tenet of most Western theologies answers the question of the meaning of life: we exist to serve the higher power, i.e. God. The codicil to this meaning is that you serve God in order to make it to the next life, or more specifically, the better version of the next life. Few people serve a higher power in order to make it to Hell unless, of course, they are serving Satan, but that is another subject entirely.

Of course, there is a question with this meaning of life. Is the meaning of life to serve God or to get to Heaven? While many may claim that this is the same thing, the intention behind the two is vastly different. It is like telling your children that if they volunteer at the local soup kitchen, they will not have to do chores for two weeks.  Volunteering, like serving God, is a selfless and giving act.  Doing it for the reward, be it two weeks of no weeding or an eternity in Heaven, is entirely selfish.

Many religions will offer an answer to the meaning of life. However, it is useful to consider whether they are offering a selfless or selfish answer.
 

“When I consider the short duration of my life, swallowed up in the eternity before and after, the little space which I fill, and even can see, engulfed in the infinite immensity of spaces of which I am ignorant, and which know me not, I am frightened, and am astonished at being here rather than there; for there is no reason why here rather than there, why now rather than then. Who has put me here? By whose order and direction have this place and time been allotted to me?” - Blaise Pascal

Blaise Pascal is one of the less known and less studied philosophers. A 17th century Renaissance man, he is more known for his contributions to physics and mathematics, especially regarding projective geometry and the theory of probability, than the search for the meaning of life. However, he is one of many French philosophers who have studied the topic. Each of the major philosophers that have come from the land of wine and snails has developed his own distinct theories on the meaning of life. Also, like Pascal, they tend to dip into other subjects and realms.

René Descartes was a contemporary of Pascal though he operated in different circles. Probably most famous today for his quote "I think, therefore I am," he was well known for his work in mathematics, science and literature, as well as philosophy.

He has also been given the illustrious title "Father of Modern Philosophy" for which he may or may not enjoy taking credit. Descartes centered his musings on the idea that our essence is thinking. Our senses may give information but our minds allow us to make sense of the world. This led to a questioning of our physicality, whether we exist in a corporeal form at all. Reading Descartes, you are led to question whether in fact this is all a dream or imagined state of being, which begs the question of whether there is any meaning at all.

Jean-Paul Sartre is best known as an existentialist, famous for his explicit depiction of the idea that existence precedes essence, the core theory of existentialism. He was also a prolific writer, winning the 1964 Nobel Prize for literature, and political activist. This is a theory in opposition to most traditional philosophy, which espouses the idea that essence, or the meaning of life, is an unchanging and fundamental thing. Basically, Sartre claimed that a person defines oneself, rather than being defined or directed by some outside force. He said, "man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world - and defines himself afterwards." Another view of this theory is that we create our own meaning in life out of our experience, though that meaning is dependent on the fairness of the outside world.

Throughout the millennia, there are countless stories of men and women who have spent their lives searching for the meaning of life. However, is this a worthwhile pursuit or a waste of time? 

Let us suppose that there is a meaning of life. If it cannot be discovered after hours, days, weeks, months or even years of searching, is it worth taking the time to do so? In effect, does the possible answer merit the search?

It would be hard to find anyone over the age of 10 that has not once wondered why they exist. It seems though that most people either accept an already posited answer to the meaning of life, generally from a theological or philosophical tradition. For some though, it may make more sense to contemplate the subject, find it unanswerable, and then move on to other pursuits.

It is also worth considering if the meaning of life is important on a personal or a grand scale. "What is my meaning of life?" is a very different question than "What is the meaning of all of this?" Then again, does either question matter?  Would knowledge of the meaning of life change all that much in your life?  Certainly the consensus of most accepted meanings given so far has been that your purpose is to live a good life. This may vary depending on the religious leader or philosopher you subscribe to, but this is a very common theme. The search for the meaning of life does not seem to be critical to this idea. Instead, it seems to be built on the search for comfort for you and your family in this life.

There are many people who live good, virtuous, happy lives without spending time contemplating the meaning of it all. To be a good person, to be happy, to love and be loved – all of these are worthwhile pursuits that may actually satisfy the tenets of some philosophies unintentionally.

Another time [the Buddha] said, "Suppose a man is struck by a poisoned arrow and the doctor wishes to take out the arrow immediately. Suppose the man does not want the arrow removed until he knows who shot it, his age, his parents, and why he shot it. What would happen? If he were to wait until all these questions have been answered, the man might die first." Life is so short. It must not be spent in endless metaphysical speculation that does not bring us any closer to the truth. - Thich Nhat Hanh, Zen Keys

Buddhism is an interesting religious tradition. In fact, it is not even always considered a religion, but rather a family of beliefs and practices. Buddhists trust in what are referred to as the Three Jewels: the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha which are respectively the Awakened One, the Teachings and the Community.

The Buddha is believed to have been a man named Siddhartha Gautama who shared many teachings during his lifetime sometime around the 5th century B.C. The teachings of the Buddha tend to shy away from the so-called 'Big Questions' of life. This is generally seen as demonstrative of his aversion to contemplating these issues, as they distract from the pursuit of true knowledge known as Enlightenment, a state free from worldly pleasures and suffering. Experience is emphasized over philosophical musings, although Buddha did not actively dismiss philosophy.

The quote at the beginning of this article demonstrates the Buddhist theory of why philosophical musings on the meaning of life are futile and/or distracting. It can be seen as Nihilistic, but in fact is better described as Pragmatic.

The arrow (life) should be addressed, rather than the shooter (is there meaning/God), the source (our/the Universe's origins), or why he was shot (why are we here). This is a fairly unique stance for any religious or even quasi-religious tradition, as it leaves out the usual purpose of humanity: serving a higher power. However, the Buddhist teachings are extremely interesting and can give insight to not only the meaning of life, but also to our life as it is.

“I mean, yes idealism, yes the dignity of pure research, yes the pursuit of truth in all its forms, but there comes a point I'm afraid where you begin to suspect that if there's any real truth it's that the entire multi-dimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs; and if it comes to a choice between spending another ten million years finding that out or on the other hand just taking the money and running, then I for one could do with the exercise.”- Frankie Mouse, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Legions upon legions of devoted readers of Douglas Adams will have no problem in telling you the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything. As calculated by the second greatest computer to have ever existed, also known as Deep Thought, it is 42. The number 42. There is no more complex meaning to life than that. The problem with this, however, is that The Ultimate Question is unknown. For that solution, the greatest computer to have ever existed was built: Earth. After many eons and more random events than could be imagined, the Question was discovered: "What do you get if you multiply six by nine?" as spelled out in Scrabble tiles.

While this is, indeed, both an amusing and fictitious question and answer (also incorrect according to most known methods of multiplication), it poses a reasonable question to any searchers for the meaning of life: what if the meaning of life does not make sense or, worse, offers futility rather than meaning?

We search because we want to know our purpose, to know that we mean something in a universal, not just a local, sense. The problem with searching is always what we might find. If, in fact, the reason for being is not for our own sakes but for some others' needs or even a cosmic gag, is the search still meaningful itself?

Be happy while you're living, for you're a long time dead.
- Anonymous Scotsman

There are so many ways to express this philosophy: Carpe Diem; Eat, Drink and Be Merry, for Tomorrow We Die; Memento Mori; Be Happy.

These endeavors go on record as the most pleasurable search for meaning: hedonism, in which the main pursuit of life is pleasure. Hedonism espouses the fact that man is in essence selfish and lustful. Hedonism is often joined with utilitarianism, which claims that we should act based upon the best interest of the group, or on a grander scale, everyone. We seek good for both ourselves and our families.  Coupling hedonism and utilitarianism, therefore, should result in everyone aiming for the happiness of everyone.

Hedonism has a long history. As early as the 5th century BC, Democritus was advocating the chief goal of life being "contentment," long before Plato was advocating the relentless search for knowledge. Epicurus advocated a similar position a century later, emphasizing the highest pleasure of a simple, moderate life of friends and philosophical discussions. Of course, most people today would associate Epicurus with the term Epicurean and high dining. There are also those who would say that Freud was a proponent of hedonism. His description of a "life instinct" is very similar to the philosophy's claims that people pursue pleasure.

Hedonism is closely associated with Egoism, a theory that claims that humans act solely in their own self-interest. They are sometimes combined and referred to as ethical hedonism. This combines ethical egoism, individuals seeking their own good, with hedonism. Ethical hedonism, in short, advocates that humans should rightly seek their own pleasure and act accordingly. It is important to distinguish, however, the search for pleasure from selfish acts. In order to contribute to one's meaning, the intention must be a pleasurable life rather than just a selfish, pleasurable act.

Know Thyself. ~ Plato 

No discussion of the meaning of life is complete without a discussion of perhaps the most influential of all Western philosophers: Plato. Student of Socrates, teacher of Aristotle, founder of the Academy, he has influenced countless generations of free thinkers and under-the-influence philosophy students.  His most famous quote, "Know Thyself," is not only a favorite of coffee shop artwork, but an extremely simple summary of his philosophical thoughts on the meaning of life.

The foundation of Plato's philosophy is based on his Theory of Forms, an intense theory that nevertheless resonates. Forms, in essence, are unchangeable, untouchable types, or more clearly, Ideas. These ideas were not able to be sensed in the physical world. Rather, they are essences, typically described as aspatial and atemporal, that is, outside of space and time. They simply exist. Plato postulated that the forms existed in another part of the universe that is more pure than the space which we inhabit.

In Plato's teaching, there exist ideal Forms which we cannot know, but for which we should nevertheless strive. The ultimate Form, which also informs all the other Forms, is the Form of the Good. In essence, the purpose of human beings is to pursue the Good with the only means available to us: intelligence and reason. The Form of the Good is also recognized as the highest form of knowledge. You must use your rational thought to pursue knowledge, through which search you will pursue the Good, which is what drives all that is good and valued in life.

This may be confusing, but it simplifies to the fact that Plato believed each person must perform their own search for the Good, i.e. the meaning of life. Knowledge and rational thought were the keys, as a good student of the Socratic Method should know. There is little certainty in the philosophy of Plato, which makes it excellent reading for any student of the meaning of life.

"In modern times there are opposing views about the practice of education. There is no general agreement about what the young should learn either in relation to virtue or in relation to the best life; nor is it clear whether their education ought to be directed more towards the intellect than towards the character of the soul.... And it is not certain whether training should be directed at things useful in life, or at those conducive to virtue, or at non-essentials.... And there is no agreement as to what in fact does tend towards virtue. Men do not all prize most highly the same virtue, so naturally they differ also about the proper training for it."

The statement above was written by the Greek philosopher and scientist Aristotle over 2300 years ago.  But even though Aristotle's "modern times" are today's ancient times, there remains an ongoing debate about what students should be training toward in their formative years.  Proponents of training 'directed at things useful in life' (i.e., vocational education) like California high school teacher Chris Peters say a radical overhaul could make U.S. secondary schools more effective. High schoolers should spend their first two years meeting basic standards, supporters say, then if they pass subject exams, they could choose between a college-prep track and a variety of community college vocational programs.  

The question is a global one - recent reforms in Sweden led to the creation of a chain of “Knowledge Schools” that have been compared to IKEA and McDonald's for their emphasis on standardization.  These private schools that are free to the students achieve success by setting the expectation that students must be able to establish their own learning goals by the time they finish high school.

While the education experts may disagree, Aristotle recognized the difficulty we all face when trying to decide the path to personal virtue.  Following the links in this post should assist with your journey.