The Meaning of Lives Essay Example for Free

The centre of Lives EssayIn her phrase The Meaning of Lives, Susan brute, a moral philosopher and philosopher of meetion, investigates whether content tail exist in confronts without postulating the existance of graven image. wildcat well establishes her position on this philosophic hesitation from an agnostic berth and rationally argues that such a question discharge in f wager fit within a negative or agnostic check nigh the message of purport ( masher 63). With this paper, I will first-year summarize the prominent points of barbarians article wherefore highlight and expound upon areas of her argument that contradict her line of reason. Lastly, I will introduce the theist perspective on heartful lives along with presenting animals reason and argument as supporting essay for the theistal aspect. In the Meaning of Lives, Susan Wolf opens briefly with an evaluation of the philosophically ambiguous question, What is the heart of emotional state? She argu es this partlyicular question is impossible to rationalize because it dependents upon a postulation for the organism of paragon.Wolf claims it is necessary to collect the existence of God in order to argue this kickoffal question because if God does exist, therefore He may have created us for a reason, with a design in mind(Wolf 63). Thus, if God exists then there would be purpose and signification to forgiving being existence dependent upon the creator God. Wolf does not deny the existence of God she simply suggests that a divine existence is improvable. Therefore the question of a grand purpose and importation in lifetime is an unnecessary and an improvable argument to find an resolution to, due to the improvable nature of God.However, she does believe that marrow in lives is not contingent on(p) upon the existence of God stating, Meaningfulness is an evident stimulate to be want in life and that a decreed view about the possibility of heart in lives can fit wit h a negative or agnostic view about the moment of life(Wolf 63). She expounds on this argument in tierce distinct sections. The first part of Wolfs argument observes three different examples of empty lifestyle. Wolf articulates that learning from three paradigms of importeeless lives, unitary can construct an taste for meaningfulness.She begins with a lifestyle she labeled the pick out. The Blob is defined by a lifestyle that is lived in hazy passivity unconnected to anyone or anything, going nowhere, achieving aught (Wolf 64). Wolf deduces from the Blobs meaningless lifestyle, that in order to nominate a meaningful life one mustiness be booked in a project, which can include proportionships. The second meaningless lifestyle, in contrast to the Blobs lifestyle of passivity, is regarded as the Useless life a life whose dominant activities seem pointless, baseless or empty (Wolf 65).After reviewing the lifestyle of the Useless life, a life void of worth, to bring home the bacon meaning one must be engaged in a project or projects that have rough dogmatic care for (Wolf 65). The final category of a meaningless life would be the lifestyle of the Bankrupt, somebody who is engaged or even dedicated, to a project that is supremely revealed as bankrupt, not because the persons measure outs are shallow or misguided, provided because the project fails(Wolf 65).Ultimately, Wolf concludes that in order to achieve meaningfulness one must not exclusively be engaged in a project of positive measure out but that project must be in some way successful. After providing a working definition for a meaningful life, Wolf raises the question as to what constitutes positive take account and who has the in good order to target arealy determine value. Similarly to Wolfs construction of meaningfulness, she argues reasons for why an individual is incapable of aimly determining positive value.This incapability for determining objective value is due to the individu als subjectiveness and interest in living a life that feels or seems meaningful(Wolf 66). Therefore, because an individual is incapable of distinguishing objective positive value from interest, it is unlikely that the individual can distinguish what is required for a meaningful life. She argues that objective value is determined and achieved through ob destiny value in other peoples lives.Wolf clarifies that the objective good she is referring to is not compared to moral goodness, benefiting or honoring humanity (Wolf 67). Wolf claims that meaningfulness is not contingent upon moral value. Instead, Wolf suggests that while there are examples of lives exhibiting great moral value, such as set out Teresa and Gandhi, that are effective of meaning there are also examples of other lives, such as artists, scholars, musicians and athletes, that bear great meaning, not based upon their moral value.These lives are considered valuable and meaningful due to their ability to infract our ski lls and our agreement of the manhood which give meaning to our lives- but they do not give moral value to them (Wolf 67). A greater disposition of our give birth worth and the Uni meter is what Wolf constitutes for lives to have meaning. The final do in Wolfs argument poses the question what is the good, after all, of living a meaningful life(Wolf 67)? Wolf does not wish to define goodness, but rather discusses the advantages for living a life full of meaning.Wolf makes the final stand, that in order to grasp meaningfulness and understand how one can achieve it in their life an individual must become enlightened to their status in the public as a tiny speck in a vast universe (Wolf 69). This description of where an individual lies in relation to the vastness of the Universe, provides the naturalism that meaning in lives cannot logically be contingent upon the desires and benefits for the individual, due to humanities insignificance.It seems unconnected to Wolf, that a person who seeks to find meaning in their life could conclude that is dependent upon their independent cheer claiming, to devote one egotism wholly to ones own satisfaction seems to me to fly in the face of rectitude, to act as if one is the only thing that matters, or perhaps, more, that ones own psychology is the only semen of (determining) what matters (Wolf 70). The loyalty, to which Wolf refers, is the reality that individuals have very little significance in relation to the value of the vast Universe.It is because of this truth that a self-center and egocentric life goes against of logic after such a truth is know. Wolf argues that instead of egocentric priorities to achieve meaning, an individual should alternatively be focused on the demand of the Universe and others. She understands that you are just one person among others, equally real- is the point of reference of practical reason-in this case, it gives you reason to call for the pains of others to constitute reasons f or actionreason to care about the pain of others that is grounded, not in our own psychologies, but a fact about the military man(Wolf 70).In this section, I will address three areas of Wolfs argumentation I find to be inharmonious with her argument as a whole. A concern that I have regarding Wolfs argument is her use of the word meaning, in regards to the meaning of lives. A very different connotation of the word meaning suggested by the philosophical question, What is the meaning of life? Wolf states that the question, What is the meaning of life? requires an individual to postulate the existence of God because it implies their last aim to find a purpose or a point to human existence(Wolf 63).However, Wolf also argues, whether or not God exists, the fact remains that some objects, activities and estimations are better than others. Whether or not God exists some ways of living are more worthwhile than others(Wolf 72). At the ascendent of Wolfs argument about the meaning of lives, suggests that she neither denies nor rejects the existence of God. She argues this as true because she believes the question behind the meaning in lives can be answered as an intelligible feature to be sought in life and that it is at least sometimes attainable but not everywhere assure(Wolf 63).Wolf reduces the meaning of lives to that which can be determined by human reasoning a limited measurement of this transitory world. Thus Wolf, who has neither denied nor rejected the existence of God has unreasonably eliminated the question of origin of lives, as irrelevant to meaning in lives. She focuses how current types of lives merit significance in existence and so refers to the word meaning as synonymous with value. Finally, Wolf argues that there is value in human lives that can fit with a negative or agnostic view about the meaning of life(Wolf 66).This controversy is far less controversial than her attempts to argue that meaning in lives is achievable without the postu lation of God. Logically, to explore meaning in lives, one must consider the beginning of life, which must have been constructed either by cam stroke or by a creator. Meaning cannot be cited as more or less real at a particular point in an individuals life. Thus, the point that one comes into existence must be regarded for defining meaning within an individuals life. The second problem in Wolfs argument comes in her evaluation of what is considered a project of positive value.An individual who is engaged in a project of positive value is central to Wolfs definition of a meaningful life. Although, projects of positive value can add to meaning in an individuals life, Wolfs reasoning as to who is to decide which projects have positive value is vague and inconsistent with her ahead positions (Wolf 66). Wolf concludes that individuals are incapable of objectively deciding what has positive value, due to subjective interests, which skew their understanding of objective value.Wolf deduc es that in order for an individual to understand projects of positive value, which will eventually adds meaning to heir lives, they must experience an epiphany to the recognition that our life to date has been meaningless (Wolf 66). This comment is completely inconsistent with Wolfs fundamental goal to acquire an understanding of meaning in lives from an intelligible routine of reason. The understanding for projects of positive value through an epiphany is inconsistent with her pervious arguments because it depends she suggests that understanding meaning comes from an unintelligible source of knowledge.Who is to say that that epiphany is not guided by a supreme higher being? The irony of Wolfs conclusion about the necessary epiphany, is that her statement It is the sort of experience that one might pull in in terms of scales dropping from ones eyes, compares closely to the allusion found in Acts 918 (Wolf 66). The verse reads And immediately something like scales fell from his eye s, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized (NIV 1000). The language of scales falling from the eyes in order to gain true understanding is regarded in two versions as an act depended upon a supernatural entity enabling the change.This very interesting comment by Wolf, suggests that understanding how an individual recognizes truth through epiphany is beyond the capabilities of human control and intellect. Her attempted arguments about how a meaningful life is realized are sound up until the point about epiphany. Lastly, Wolfs argument for meaning in lives lacks any discussion of immortality as a necessary property for meaning. Wolf reasons that there are certain lifestyles that are more meaningful than others.This argument for certain lifestyle having greater meaning has limited relevance because as she rationalizes, lives are finite and temporary as are the lives of others whom we must focus in our recognition of the truth that we are just a speck in the vast Uni verse(Wolf 69). Wolf does a fine job at articulating the insignificance and temporary state of human life. However, she fails to recognize that in her attempts to construct a logical framework for meaning in finite lives she disregards the possibility for immortality to give further meaning to lives.Thus, she reduces the idea of meaning as an avoidance of an egocentric lifestyle and recognizes insignificance and meaning within an individuals life alone. Wolfs claim that meaning is attainable through certain actions only satisfies temporary lives for a finite marrow of time. This argument surrounding meaning as dependent upon an inward acknowledgment of insignificance manifesting into outward actions, is simply a cycle of meaningless people jockstraping other meaningless people, and causes only a temporary impact.In an argument for the importance of immortality to meaning in lives, Gianluca Di Muzio states, If a human being dies and her actions have no steadfast effect, because t he world itself perished, then her life was meaningless. If, in the end, all comes to nothing, then it does not matter in the first place whether a particular person existed or not (Di Muzio 2). In order for actions and lives to be meaningful, they must have a lasting impact or something to gain, and provide for others in a way that is not reducible to the finite and temporary world. Thus, achievable immortality must exist for meaning to be possible.Although she attempts to determine the meaning in lives for an agnostic world, I would argue that Wolfs argument actually supports many theisticalalalalal views regarding the meaning of lives. Though many of Wolfs arguments do not adequately provide understanding for meaning in lives from an agnostic perspective, many of her points parallel to the theistic view of purpose theory. Before I expound on these similarities, an understanding of the theistic view regarding the meaning of must be addressed. According to Borchert, the theis tic view argues that, life is meaningful insofar as one fulfills a purpose that God has designate (Borchert 295).In Confession, Leo Tolstoy discusses meaning in life from the theistic perspective and claims now I see clearly that my faith-my only real faith-that which apart from my animal instincts gave impulse to my life- was a belief in perfecting myself (Klemke 2). Tolstoy sought such perfection in artistic achievements and loving his family. In trying to find meaning in family and people, Tolstoy ultimately realizes that My family wife and children are also human. They are placed just as I am they must either live in a lie or see the dread(a) truth (Klemke 10).In other words, Tolstoy realizes that if meaning resides in the finite and temporary nature of humanity, meaning similarly will die along with the life. Tolstoy further suggests that meaning cannot reside within artistic modes when he writes Art, poem? Under the define of success and the praise of men, I had long a ssured myself that this was a thing one could do though death was drawing near death which destroys all things, including my work and its remembrance but soon I saw that that too was a fraud (Klemke 10).This declaration further supports Tolstoys theistic belief that everything of and in this world cannot be the ultimate source of meaning in lives. Although, the substance of this world may increase value within life, it cannot supply ultimate, enduring meaning. Tolstoy finally declares, To know God and to live is one and the same thing. God is life- Live seeking God, and then you will not live without God (Klemke 11). This passage concludes with his theistic assertion that without a divine plan for the world, then all efforts come to nothing, because everything comes to nothing. because our lives are meaningless without God (Metz 293).Though Wolf attempts to support an agnostic view for the question, is there meaning in lives? her central points mirror those of the theistic view a nd supports many of its claims. This final section will reduce on central points within Wolfs argument that support a theistic view for understanding meaning in lives. To begin, she claims that a life has meaning insofar as it is engaged in a project or projects that have some positive value (Wolf 65). Although this statements seems logical, Wolf fails to provide an intelligible source for acquiring knowledge about whether or not a project has positive value and which projects do not.She betrays the agnostic attempt to provide an understanding of meaning in lives through reason, by suggesting that realization of projects with positive value relies upon an epiphany. The concept of an epiphany for realization is inconsistent with her attempts to rationalize. However, when Wolfs definition is placed against the theistic view, it is logically consistent with theological beliefs. Theists believe that an individual must be actively engaged in positively doctoring peoples lives with in t he world, while ultimately contributing to Gods divine plan in order for their lives to have meaning.This concept is articulated beautifully in Gianluca Di Muzios argument Theism and the Meaning of Life, in which he states, In order to have meaning, our lives must make a difference to a higher scheme. And theism sees human action as doing a sort of double duty. On one hand, they affect other people and events in this world, on the other, they further or hinder Gods ultimate plan (Di Muzio 2). This statement suggests that humanities actions in projects have the ability to have two different forms of significance, both congener and ultimate.Relative significance refers to the theistic perspective that, actions and events have relative significance when they only influence other actions and events(Di Muzio 3). Ultimate significance is when our actions and events contribute to Gods plan (Di Muzio 3). Both of these forms contribute to theistic view, however Wolfs argument focuses solely on relative significance. The theistic understanding of relative significance is paralleled to Wolfs understanding of meaning in lives. She believes that when individuals realize their insignificance and begin to seek beyond themselves for meaning by actively engaging in projects of positive value, they can acquire meaning.Though this insignificance is transient, it supports the theistic belief that, human beings have access to value without having to postulate the existence of God, because existence affords the opportunity to attain the kinds of goods that make a human life worthwhile and fulfilling (Di Muzio 5-6). Wolfs profound point that human life is just a speck in a vast universe lays the foundation for the theistic belief in ultimate significance (Wolf 71). Theists believe that there is A fundamental disproportion between aspirations and reality is a powerful source of the idea that our lives are absurd and meaningless.We think we matter, and yet we dont. The world is not i ntoned with our hope, desires and projects. The possibility of out destruction looms everywhere and human suffering, however enormous, seems to be nothing but a passing accident, a byproduct of the presence of sentient creatures in a world that merely tolerates them for a short time. (Di Muzio 9) This understanding of human insignificance plays a vital role in the theistic belief that despite human fragility, purpose and significance are achievable within the most tragic constituent. Wolfs recognition of our insignificance implies our need to look beyond our own lives for meaning.If a life of meaning depends upon recognizing the truth about our insignificance and continuing to be actively engaged in a project of positive value, and one cannot perform these projects due to tragic circumstances, then within Wolfs reasoning their life can not have meaning. Wolfs understanding of meaning depends upon individual human performance. In trying times of suffering, whether great or small, th is concept of looking outside of ones own circumstances is hard to accomplish and in some circumstances impossible, thus in such cases meaning cannot be unachieved.The theistic view of ultimate significance provides a hope that a life of suffering can have meaning and purpose too in that, the idea of God and hope for immortality can help us look again at the world and our fragile lives as meaningful(Di Muzio 9). The project of dynamic in Gods divine plan is the only project that has lasting and unwavering value for meaning in lives. Wolfs central argument concerning meaning in lives provides many logically convincing and sound points.However, Wolfs definition of a life of meaning is both confused from her original argument and lacks a consistent, authoritative source and process for achieving meaning. She attempts to suggest that meaning is an intelligible feature to be sought in life, then provides the solution for achieving this insight of through the unintelligible source of epi phany. Secondly, Wolfs argument for the realization of insignificance as the truth, unlocks the need for an individual to look beyond serving his or her own self-centered desires for meaning.However, though her point about insignificance seems valid, Wolf fails to provide examples or an understanding of how an individual can objectively determine how to look outside of themselves. In total, Wolf produces an understanding of meaning that depends upon an individuals abilities to undergo an epiphany and properly manifest their understanding of the need to look outside ones self and recognize Universal needs. The problem with this stance is that focusing on the Universe provides no lasting impact, or meaning to a particular life because the things of this Universe are finite and temporary.The individuals life will eventually end along with the actions and events they affected. Though existence can provide an opportunity for value, as understood in Wolfs argument and the theistic view, m eaning is dependent upon a myriad being whose performance can not be temporary. An individual must not be reliant on their personal performances and finite experiences to obtain meaning, but rather is actively engaged in an eternal project of positive value, determined by an infinite and constant authority, God.Works Cited Borchert, Donald M. Theism. Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2nd ed. 10. Detroit Gale, 2006. Web. 25 Apr 2012. Di Muzio, Gianluca. Theism and the Meaning of Life lifes meaning? Ars Disputandi . 6. (2006) 1-12. Print. Klemke, E. D. The Meaning of Life. 2nd. New York Oxford University Press, 2000. Print. Metz, Thaddeus. Could Gods purpose be the source of lifes meaning? Cambridge Journals. (2000) 293-311. Print. Wolf, Susan. The Meaning Of Lives. 62-73. Print.