Jump to content

Meaning of life

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wiki alf (talk | contribs) at 22:42, 30 November 2007 (rv further). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Distinguish2

This article is about the concept of the meaning of life. For the Monty Python film, see Monty Python's The Meaning of Life.
For the meaning of the word "life", see [[:Life (more specifically the section Life#Definitions) and Life (disambiguation)|Life (more specifically the section Life § Definitions) and Life (disambiguation)]].

When the question "What is the meaning of life?" is asked, one of a variety of questions may be implied, such as: "Why are we here?",[1][2][3] "What is the origin of life?",[4] "What is the nature of life (and of the universe in which we live)?",[4] "What is the significance of life?",[4] "What is the purpose of, or in, (one's) life?",[5] and "What is valuable in life?"[6] Some answers have been given, deriving from scientific theories, or philosophical, theological, and spiritual explanations.[7]

Look up meaning of life in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Scientific approaches to the meaning of life

Claims that empirical science can shed light on issues such as the meaning of life are highly disputed within the scientific and philosophy-of-science communities, and have been from the very beginning of science.

Claims that science can address the meaning of life.

According to [specify], The empirical method of science has shed light on questions related to the meaning of life. [citation needed] Five such questions are discussed below.

Why are we here?

This question is related to the question "What is the origin of life?", though it rather asks for the purpose of our creation or the reason for our coming into being: "For what reason did (human) life originate?", which connects it more closely the question "What is the purpose of, or in, (one's) life?", and also to the questions "What is the significance of life?" and "What is valuable in life?"

What is the origin of life?

The question "What is the origin of life?" is addressed in the sciences in the areas of abiogenesis (for the origins of biological life) and cosmogony (for the origins of the universe). Both of these areas are quite hypothetical, cosmogony because no existing physical model can accurately describe the very early universe (the instant of the Big Bang),[8] and abiogenesis because the environment of the young earth is not known, and because the conditions and chemical processes that may have taken billions of years to produce life cannot (as of yet) be reproduced in a laboratory.[citation needed] Nevertheless, biologists think an early protein replicator was formed by the gradual build up of amino acids in the oceans, and then proceeded to dominate the primeval soup, occasionally mutating into a more (or less) successful form.[citation needed] Eventually a primitive cell was formed, and life continued to evolve by the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection.[9] Based on these or similar theories, some philosophers[who?] say that because life was entirely coincidental, one cannot expect life to have any meaning at all, other than its own self-perpetuation — reproduction. Other philosophers say that life with no meaning takes on the meaning an individual gives it; in other words, we chose our own meaning of life.

What is the nature of life?

Scientists in the biological and medical fields have studied the human body to acquire an understanding of the nature of human life. Near the end of the 20th century, equipped with insights from the gene-centered view of evolution, some biologists suggested that insofar as there may be a primary function to life, it is the survival of genes; following this approach, success isn't measured in terms of the survival of species, but one level deeper, in terms of the successful replication of genes.[citation needed]

What is the significance of life?

The question "What is the significance of life?" has been extensively explored by those who attempt to explain the relationship of life to its environment (the universe), and vice versa. Thus, from a scientific point of view, the significance of life is what it is, what it does, and what mechanisms are behind it[citation needed]. In psychology and biology, significance only exists within human and animal minds; significance is subjective and is an emotional function of brains, making it impossible to exist outside of people's thoughts and feelings[citation needed].

What is valuable in life?

Science may not be able to tell us what is most valuable in life in a philosophical sense, but some studies bear on related questions [citation needed]: Researchers in "positive psychology" study factors that lead to satisfaction in our lives. (and before them less rigorously in Humanistic Psychology), in Social psychology factors that lead to infants thriving or failing to thrive, and in other areas of psychology questions of motivation, preference, and what people value; Economists have learned a great deal about what is valued in the marketplace; and sociology examines value at a social level using theoretical constructs such as value theory, norms, anomie, etc.

What is the purpose of, or in, (one's) life?

When he is not doing science, Natural scientist Pier Luigi Luisi looks for the purpose of life within the structure and function of life itself. [2], and extrapolate life's purpose from the activities of living organisms. For example, Pier Luigi Luisi concluded since almost all life reproduces, one purpose of life is reproduction.

Social scientists investigate people's beliefs about the purposes of human lives by studying and explaining the behaviors and interactions of human beings and other animals. People choose goals (a form of purpose), and the social sciences study what those goals are, how they are chosen, and the differences between them. For example, what causes one person to choose to become a serial killer while others choose productive careers? [citation needed]

View of Pier Luigi Luisi

Swiss chemistry professor Pier Luigi Luisi suggested that Natural scientists should look for the purpose of life within the structure and function of life itself.[10]

Professor Luisi, however, suggested that the concepts of purpose a scientist might offer as a result of such an inquiry are a "mere mental construction" which depend on the social and religious traditions and intellectual milieu of the scientist, rather than representing scientific results as such:

The "purpose" is a mere mental construction of the scientist observer, it depends on his/her intelligence, on his race, religion, scientific beliefs. This implies that the notion of purpose is not objective, but it is contextual, changing in time and is probably different in different societies and traditions and point of time.[10]

Teleology and science

Claims that the existence or non-existence of teleology can be established by science

View of Richard Dawkins

Author and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins argued that teleology is an illusion and does not exist in his Discovery Science video 'The Big Question: Why are we here?'.[citation needed]

Claims that the existence or non-existence of teleology cannot be established by science

View of Bertrand Russell

As further explained below, the Logical Positivism school exemplified by Betrand Russell explicitly argued that scientific methods cannot establish the truth or falseness of the existence of a "Cosmic Purpose" or teleology. They argued that science can only address questions that can be determined by a well-defined, finite procedure, and claimed that there is no known way to define or construct a well-defined, finite procedure that can answer this question.

View of C.I. Lewis and successors

Statisticians George Box, W. Edwards Deming, and Genichi Taguchi, building on the work of Walter Shewhart based on the views of pragmatist epistemologist Clarence Irving Lewis, argued that because of observational variation inherent in observed phenomena, models(including scientific theories) are never found to be strictly true, and hence will almost always be found to be at least partially false, truth and falseness have no strict or absolute meaning, and science can only help establish whether or not propositions are useful, which they define by whether relying on them helps one accomplish a purpose. C. I. Lewis used as an example two individuals who see an image of a lake in a desert, one a traveler thirsty for water, the other an artist looking for a scene to paint. The artist, whose purpose could be achieved, has no basis for believing the perception of a lake false, but the traveler, whose thirst was not quenched, had such a basis. In general, the pragmatist school argues that the truth and falsity of applied scientific propositions can be established only with respect to a particular purpose, and people with different purposes can legitimately have different views as to whether a given proposition is true or false. As one corollary, statisticians generally proceed on an assumption that not only the amount of evidence needed before deciding a question, but which statistic and statistical model to use depends on the losses incurred from being wrong with respect to a particular purpose. (See Loss function). Lewis and Deming in particular argued the matter in more general, qualitative terms, noting that various other aspects of decision rules and methods of obtaining data are teleological and their management requires keeping purpose in mind to conduct scientific research reliably. If one accepts this perspective, that human beings are capable of establishing the truth or falsity of scientific propositions only with respect to particular purposes, then a claim that teleology does or does not exist cannot be scientifically evaluated (A similar argument is made regarding logic, that because the way human beings evaluate scientific propositions requires the use of logic, although individual laws of logic can be disproved by observing evidence inconsistent with them, a claim that logic as a whole does not exist cannot itself be scientifically evaluated).[11]

Philosophy of the meaning of life

While scientific approaches to the meaning of life aim to describe empirical facts about human existence, philosophers are usually more concerned about the relationship between ideas. For example, philosophers have considered such questions as: "Is the question 'What is the meaning of life?' a meaningful question?";[12] "What does the question 'What is the meaning of life?' mean?";[13] and "If there are no objective values, then is life meaningless?"[14] Some philosophical disciplines have also aimed to develop an understanding of life that explains, regardless of how we came to be here, what we should do now that we are here (such as humanism, which presents a code of conduct - see the ethics of humanism explained below).

Claims that science cannot address the meaning of life

The Logical Positivism approach, following philosophers such as Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Karl Popper, have argued that science can address, and we can know, only subjects that have cognitive meaning, which they define as matters that can be determined by a well-defined, finite procedure. Questions that cannot be so answered, such as the meaning of life, are regarded as part of the realm of the emotions rather than the realm of knowledge.

The logical positivism approach places many issues which human beings find important outside the realm of science to answer. Russell, for example, wrote that although he found it impossible to bring himself to seriously believe that his distaste for torture was similar in nature to his distaste for broccoli, he nonetheless could find no satisfactory empirical method of proving this.[15] Russell argued that science cannot address questions involving a purpose in life: "It is impossible to uphold the way of speaking about values which is common among those who believe in Cosmic Purpose. Their argument is that certain things which have been evolved are "good," and therefore the world must have had a purpose which was ethically admirable."[16]

Russell explained his argument in detail:

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 rouse 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.[17]

Accordingly, from a logical positivist approach, human beings can certainly discuss the emotional, "meaning" impact of scientific theories and findings about the natural world, but such discussion represents an emotional reflection on science rather than a scientific approach to meaning. A scientific approach to meaning from this perspective would discuss neurological, genetic, and environmental bases of human perceptions of and perceptions of need for meaning, as with other internal human phenomena.

Value as meaning

Theories of value bear on the question of the meaning of life. Philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, and many others had views about what sort of life was best (and hence most meaningful).[citation needed] Aristotle, for example, believed that the pursuit of happiness was the Highest Good and that such is achievable through our uniquely human capacity to reason.[citation needed]

Existentialist views of the meaning of life

Main article: Existentialism

Arthur Schopenhauer offered a bleak answer to "what is the meaning of life?" by determining one's life as a reflection of one's will and the will (and thus life) as being an aimless, irrational, and painful drive. He saw salvation, deliverance, or escape from suffering in aesthetic contemplation, sympathy for others, and asceticism.[citation needed] Søren Kierkegaard invented the term "leap of faith" and argued that life is full of absurdity and the individual must make his or her own values in an indifferent world. For Kierkegaard, an individual can have a meaningful life (or at least one free of despair) if the individual relates the self in an unconditional commitment to something finite, and devotes his or her life to the commitment despite the inherent vulnerability of doing so.[citation needed]

Humanist views of the meaning of life

Main article: Humanism

According to humanism the human race came to be by reproducing in a progression of unguided evolution as an integral part of nature, which is self-existing.[18] Knowledge does not come from supernatural sources, rather it flows from human observation, experimentation, and rational analysis preferably utilizing the scientific method: the nature of the universe is what we discern it to be.[18] As are "values and realities", which are determined "by means of intelligent inquiry"[18] and "are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience", that is, by critical intelligence.[19][20] "As far as we know, the total personality is [a function] of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context."[21]

The purpose of human life

Human purpose is determined by humans, completely without supernatural influence; it is human personality (in the broadest sense) that is the purpose of a human's life, and this humanism seeks to develop and fulfill:[18] "Humanism affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity."[19]

Enlightened self-interest and the common good
Main articles: Enlightened self-interest and common good

According to the Humanist Manifesto III, the most significant thing in life (the very focus of humanism) is the human being, and by extension, the human race and the environment in which we live. The happiness of the individual is inextricably linked to the well-being of humanity as a whole, in part because we are social animals which find meaning in relationships, and because cultural progress benefits everybody who lives in that culture.[19]

When the world improves, life in general improves, so, while the individual desires to live well and fully, humanists feel it is important to do so in a way that will enhance the well being of all. While the evolution of the human species is still (for the most part) a function of nature, the evolution of humanity is in our hands and it is our responsibility to progress it toward its highest ideals. In the same way, humanism itself is evolving, because humanists recognize that values and ideals, and therefore the meaning of life, are subject to change as our understanding improves.[19]

Humanist doctrines and life stance
Main article: Humanist (life stance)

The original doctrine of humanism is set forth in the Humanist Manifesto[18] [citation needed] and has been revised and refined in A Secular Humanist Declaration,[20] the Humanist Manifesto II, and the Humanist Manifesto III (in which humanism is referred to as a life stance).[19]

Christian beliefs about the meaning of life

Relationship to God

The Holy Bible states that that it is God "in whom we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). The notion here is that they respond to a higher authority who will give their lives meaning and provide purpose through a relationship with the divine. The Bible says that to fear God is the beginning of wisdom, and to depart from evil is the beginning of understanding.

What is the purpose in one's life?

An example of how religion sets purpose can be found in the biblical story of creation in the Christian Old Testament of the Bible (Genesis 1:28), in which God orders Man to "Be fruitful, and multiply; fill the earth, and subdue it". This indicates that the propagation of the human race, the care and population of the earth, and the control of the earth are the first three commandments God has set for man.

Another Biblical example is given in Micah 6:8, which states "He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."

Spiritual and mystical views of the meaning of life

The Book of Light presents the nature of God and the purpose of creation.[22] According to Michael Sharp, God is consciousness and the purpose of creation is to have fun (alleviate boredom). Creation exists "as a dream inside the mind of God" and we are all Sparks of the One Creator Consciousness.

The Science of Soulmates [3] provides philosophical arguments and some evidence to suggest God is not one but Two beings and the purpose of the universe is to provide consciousness for these beings and the meaning of the universe is realized through soulmates on earth.

Mystical views

The view of mysticism varies widely according to how each speaker describes it. In general the view is broadly that life is a happening, an unfolding. There is no duality, it is a nondual worldview, in which subject and object are the same, the sense of doer-ship is illusionary. This view is central to Buddhism, and is also found in certain non-dual sects of Hinduism. To become enlightened as to the nature and oneness of the universe

"What is the meaning of life?" is a question many people ask themselves at some point during their lives, most in the context "What is the purpose of life?"[5] Here are some of the life goals people choose, and some of their beliefs on what the purpose of life is:

...to survive

  • ...to survive,[23] that is, to live as long as possible,[24] including pursuit of indefinite lifespan (the closest thing to immortality that is theoretically possible) through scientific means (see life extension)[25]
  • ...to evolve[26][27]
  • ...to replicate, "the dream of a bacterium is to become two bacteria," since DNA replication has a mutation rate, this results in evolution.

...to find happiness

to end suffering, to create equality, to challenge oppression, to distribute wealth, be generous, to contribute to a community, to help others, be creative and have fun. And to be a true authentic human being and accept and forgive human flaws. [citation needed]

See also

What is the origin of life?

What is the nature of life (and of the universe in which we live)?

What is the significance of life?

What is valuable in life?

What is the purpose of, or in, (one's) life?

Covering more than one of the above

References

  1. ^ Ronald F. Thiemann, William Carl Placher (1998). Why Are We Here?: Everyday Questions and the Christian Life. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 1563382369.
  2. ^ Dennis Marcellino (1996). Why Are We Here?: The Scientific Answer to this Age-old Question (that you don't need to be a scientist to understand). Lighthouse Pub. ISBN 0945272103.
  3. ^ F. Homer Curtiss (2003). Why Are We Here. Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 0766138992.
  4. ^ a b c Davies, Paul (March 2000). The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-86309-X. Retrieved 2007-07-26.
  5. ^ a b "Question of the Month: What Is The Meaning Of Life?". Philosophy Now. Issue 59. Retrieved 2007-07-26.
  6. ^ Puolimatka, Tapio (2002). "Education and the Meaning of Life" (PDF). Philosophy of Education. University of Helsinki. Retrieved 2007-07-26. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ Baggini, Julian (September 2004). What's It All About? Philosophy and the Meaning of Life. USA: Granta Books. ISBN 1862076618.
  8. ^ Greene, Brian (2004). The Fabric of the Cosmos. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. p. 272. ISBN 0375727205.
  9. ^ Charles Darwin. (1859). On the Origin of Species.
  10. ^ a b Luisi, Pier Luigi (1998). "Does Science See A Purpose In Life?". Center for Theoretical Study. Retrieved 2007-07-26.
  11. ^ Clarence Irving Lewis, Mind and the world order, 1929
  12. ^ Wohlgennant, Rudolph. (1981). "Has the Question about the Meaning of Life any Meaning?" (Chapter 4). In E. Morscher, ed., Philosophie als Wissenschaft.
  13. ^ Taylor, Richard (January 1970). Good and Evil. Macmillan Publishing Company. pp. "The Meaning of Life" (Chapter 5). ISBN 0026166909.
  14. ^ McNaughton, David (August 1988). Moral Vision: An Introduction to Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. pp. "Moral Freedom and the Meaning of Life" (Section 1.5). ISBN 0631159452.
  15. ^ Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, New York: Simon and Schuster; London: George Allen and Unwin, 1946
  16. ^ Bertrand Russell, Science and Ethics, 1961
  17. ^ Bertrand Russell, Science and Ethics, 1961
  18. ^ a b c d e "Humanist Manifesto I". American Humanist Association. 1933. Retrieved 2007-07-26.
  19. ^ a b c d e "Humanist Manifesto III". American Humanist Association. 2003. Retrieved 2007-08-01.
  20. ^ a b "A Secular Humanist Declaration". Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism (now the Council for Secular Humanism). 1980. Retrieved 2007-08-01.
  21. ^ "Humanist Manifesto II". American Humanist Association. 1973. Retrieved 2007-08-01.
  22. ^ Sharp, Michael (2005). The Book of Light: The Nature of God, The Structure of Consciousness, and The Universe Within You. Avatar Publications. ISBN 0-9738555-2-5. Retrieved 2007-07-26.
  23. ^ Lopez, Mike (September 22, 1999). "Episode III: Relativism? A Jedi craves not these things". The Michigan Daily. Retrieved 2007-07-26.
  24. ^ Lovatt, Stephen C. (2007). New Skins for Old Wine. Universal Publishers. pp. The Meaning of Life. ISBN 1581129602.
  25. ^ Kurzweil, Ray (2004). Fantastic Voyage. Holtzbrinck Publishers. ISBN 1-57954-954-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  26. ^ Cameron, Donald (2001). The Purpose of Life. Woodhill Publishing. ISBN 0-9540291-0-0.
  27. ^ Wayne, Larry. "Expanding The Oneness". SelfGrowth.com. Retrieved 2007-07-26. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  28. ^ Lee, Dong Yul (June 2000). "What Makes You Happy?: A Comparison of Self-reported Criteria of Happiness Between Two Cultures". Social Indicators Research. 50 (3): 351–362. doi:10.1023/A:1004647517069. Retrieved 2007-07-26. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  29. ^ [1]

General

Scientific

Philosophical

Spiritual

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meaning_of_life&oldid=174935582"