how to find meaning in life: a philosophical investigation
How can one find meaning in life when most of the things they do are ‘meaningless’? Where does meaning derive — is it inherent within each of us, or is it immutable? The answers to these questions are essential to understanding ourselves — if there is some magic way to feel absolutely fulfilled, then why would we focus on anything else but that? This investigation will use the ideas of Plato, Aristotle and Albert Camus to explore these questions.
Plato
Despite having lived 2500 years ago, Plato is still arguably the most influential figure in western philosophy. According to Plato, the purpose of life is to achieve wisdom and understanding. Plato was a proponent of the dualism ideology, in that the mind and body represent the two distinct natures of the human experience. He also believed that the soul is immortal.
As described in The Republic, Plato uses an allegory of a cave to illustrate his ‘realm of the forms’. Allow me to paraphrase… there are a couple of prisoners that have spent their entire lives living chained inside of a cave, facing one of the cave walls. All they can see are the shadows of passing prison guards — cast on the wall by a fire. The prisoners are convinced that these shadows are reality because they have never known anything else.
One of the prisoners is freed, and forced to leave the cave. When the prisoner gets outside, the sun blinds him, but after several minutes his eyes adjust, and he can at last see the world the way you and I can. The prisoner returns to the cave to inform the others. Yet in a state of disbelief, the other prisoners murder him.
You might be thinking: what does any of this cave stuff have to do with the meaning of life? Well, the purpose of Plato’s story is not meaningless discourse, but it is an allegory that symbolizes both resistance to intellectual awaking and the existence of ‘higher truth’s beyond what can be directly observed. Plato believed the majority of people, dependant on constant sensory pleasure, are unable to observe the true nature of the world around them. Plato believed that for every group of things, there is an objective ideal for that thing. The ‘goodness’ of a thing, therefore, can be determined by how closely it resembles the ideal or its ‘form’. This is what Plato is trying to convey through the allegory of the cave (although it might take a little interpretation to understand)… the things we can observe with our bodies are of less truth, of less goodness than those that can be seen through the mind’s eye. The shadows on the cave wall are akin to the ‘instances’ of things in the real world. The world that the prisoner finds when he finally escapes the cave symbolizes the realm of the forms.
So, again, back to our question: what does this ‘realm of the forms’ have to do with the meaning of life? Remember that Plato believed the soul is immortal. He also believed that one’s purpose, or intention, is to return to the world of the forms, where one can find true knowledge and understanding. In his (translated) words: pursuit of a good life is in aligning oneself with the realm of the forms through philosophical contemplation and the pursuit of knowledge. Plato believed that to live a complete life, one must contemplate the unchanging nature of things, as opposed to their physical qualities. And remember, “Those who love looking and listening… their minds are incapable of seeing and delighting in the essential nature of beauty itself”
Aristotle
Aristotle, although one of Plato’s students, had a radically different perspective on the human condition. Both Plato and Aristotle believed that there is some ultimate good. The difference is that for Plato, that good is abstract and transcendent, whereas with Aristotle, it is more rooted in the practical.
Eudaimonia, or happiness, Aristotle defines as the ultimate end to which all humans aim. It does not represent a fleeting pursuit of pleasure, but a fulfilled and meaningful life. You may think, well, I already know that happy is nice and all… the issue is how do I get it? And herein lies the most striking difference between Plato and Aristotle. Where Plato leaves his readers with very abstract, higher-order ideas, he does not offer fantastic advice with regard to what we refer to as ‘real life’. Plato makes it clear that the mind is what bridges the realm of the forms to the sensory world, but he does not offer a prescription as to how to observe the forms. Aristotle, on the other hand, indicates that eudaimonia is achieved specifically through the cultivation of virtues, and outlines his theory of the mean.
Aristotle states that virtue is found in striking a balance between and choosing the mean between the vices of excess and of deficiency. For example, one could say that courage is the means between recklessness and cowardice. So, in order to achieve eudaimonia, you must act virtuously, and in order to act virtuously you must aim for the ‘mean’ when making ethical decisions. Aristotle also highlights that virtues are not innate, but are developed through a process of moral education and habitation. It follows that Aristotle’s concept of what is good relies on some subjectivity in the individual.
For Aristotle, balance is more important than following a rigid set of rules. Virtue cannot be imposed by external sources, but it is an all-encompassing quality that individuals must cultivate from within themselves. There is no singular way to live the ‘ideal life’ because the only prerequisites are mastering one’s self through rational decision-making and internal harmony.
Camus
Albert Camus lived from 1913–1960. In his essay ‘The Myth of Sisyphus’, he explores the relationship between individuals and the universe, ultimately determining how to achieve happiness in what he see as a world lacking meaning.
To understand the ideas of Camus, we must first understand his concept of ‘the absurd’. Camus proposed that the universe is inherently irrational and that humans have an inherent desire for rational, evidence-based explanations for the phenomena around them. There is a constant conflict between human ideals and the ‘indifferent’ universe. In the words of Camus, “The absurd is born of this confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world. This must not be forgotten. This must be clung to because the whole consequence of a life can depend on it.”
Everyone has experienced an instance of the absurd feeling — it is ‘when the stage set collapses’, an almost dissociation. When the question of ‘why’ interrupts the passing of colloquial tasks, everything can come crashing down.
Camus offers three ‘solutions’ to the absurd and their consequences. It should be stressed that Camus took the conclusions to these questions very seriously, emphasizing that philosophers should preach by example. The first idea is physical suicide. One can escape the absurdity by ending one’s life. This is certain because the absurd is necessarily a confrontation between an individual and reality — without one component the absurd cannot exist. Yet Camus rejects this ‘solution’ because it avoids confrontation, and denies one’s freedom of choice.
Next, Camus suggests ‘philosophical suicide’. This is when one accepts a religious or philosophical belief system, providing a sense of comfort and meaning to life. The reason that Camus likens faith to suicide is because belief similarly bypasses one’s responsibility to choose their own values. Similarly, Camus discourages a life that follows this ath.
The last idea is an acceptance of the absurd. By simply accepting life’s uncertainty without any need for an external purpose, you are exercising a form of rebellion and gain a sense of liberation. By recognizing the abuse and being present with absolute awareness, individuals can find freedom and authenticity even in a world ‘without meaning’.
So, back to the title of Camus’ essay, what is ‘The Myth of Sisyphus’, and what does it have to do with the meaning of life? According to ancient Greek mythology, Sisyphus was a cunning and deceitful king, who was known for his cleverness and trickery. Sisyphus was punished by the gods for his arrogance and deceitfulness. His eternal punishment involved a seemingly never-ending and futile task. In the underworld, Sisyphus was condemned to roll a massive boulder up a steep hill. However, just as he neared the top, the boulder would slip from his grasp and roll back down to the bottom of the hill. This process would then repeat, forcing Sisyphus to start over again and again, for all eternity.
The punishment of Sisyphus is a fitting allegory for the absurdity of the human condition. Sisyphus is trapped in a cycle to fulfill an endless and meaningless task, where his efforts are ultimately in vain, just as humans are condemned to live in a world that lacks meaning. The myth reflects the human struggle to find purpose in a seemingly indifferent and chaotic universe. Despite the futility of his task, Sisyphus is excercising that third solution: acceptance. He continues to push the boulder each time it rolls back down, defying the gods and embracing the absurdity of his existence. As Camus said, “One must imagine Sisyphus happy”.
To conclude, Plato felt that individuals should be striving to get as close to his ‘realm of the forms’. Observing the immutable and unchanging as obsessed to instance of good things that can be observed by the senses. He conveyed this through his allegory of the caves.
Aristotle believed that happiness is the meaning of life, and in order to achieve it, one must cultivate virtues. One way to do this is to exercise his ‘rule of the means’ when making ethical decisions. Moreover, he argued that there is no rigid path to happiness, but it is a rather individual process.
Camus thought the world lacked meaning — humans are rational, while the universe is irrational. What he calls ‘the absurd’ is the conflict between ‘needy’ humans and the silent, or indifferent universe. Camus proposed that to deal with the absurd, one must simply accept their situation, being present for all of the obstacles they face — just like Sisyphus
I hope that this essay offered you some support in finding ‘the meaning of life’. As I am sure you have realized, this is not an easy question to answer. The perspective you choose to embody, whether it be one of those mentioned here, or otherwise, is up to you… but further philosophical research might help you decide.