the purpose of life is a life of purpose essay

• Table of Contents
• New in this Archive
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

The Meaning of Life

Many major historical figures in philosophy have provided an answer to the question of what, if anything, makes life meaningful, although they typically have not put it in these terms. Consider, for instance, Aristotle on the human function, Aquinas on the beatific vision, and Kant on the highest good. While these concepts have some bearing on happiness and morality, they are straightforwardly construed as accounts of which final ends a person ought to realize in order to have a life that matters. Despite the venerable pedigree, it is only in the last 50 years or so that something approaching a distinct field on the meaning of life has been established in Anglo-American philosophy, and it is only in the last 30 years that debate with real depth has appeared. Concomitant with the demise of positivism and of utilitarianism in the post-war era has been the rise of analytical enquiry into non-hedonistic conceptions of value, including conceptions of meaning in life, grounded on relatively uncontroversial (but not certain or universally shared) judgments of cases, often called “intuitions.” English-speaking philosophers can be expected to continue to find life's meaning of interest as they increasingly realize that it is a distinct topic that admits of rational enquiry to no less a degree than more familiar ethical categories such as well-being, virtuous character, and right action.

This survey critically discusses approaches to meaning in life that are prominent in contemporary Anglo-American philosophical literature. To provide context, sometimes it mentions other texts, e.g., in Continental philosophy or from before the 20 th century. However, the central aim is to acquaint the reader with recent analytic work on life's meaning and to pose questions about it that are currently worthy of consideration.

When the topic of the meaning of life comes up, people often pose one of two questions: “So, what is the meaning of life?” and “What are you talking about?” The literature can be divided in terms of which question it seeks to answer. This discussion starts off with works that address the latter, abstract question regarding the sense of talk of “life's meaning,” i.e., that aim to clarify what we are asking when we pose the question of what, if anything, makes life meaningful. Afterward, it considers texts that provide answers to the more substantive question about the nature of meaning as a property. Some accounts of what make life meaningful provide particular ways to do so, e.g., by making certain achievements (James 2005), developing moral character (Thomas 2005), or learning from relationships with family members (Velleman 2005). However, most recent discussions of meaning in life are attempts to capture in a single principle all the variegated conditions that can confer meaning on life. This survey focuses heavily on the articulation and evaluation of these theories of what would make life meaningful. It concludes by examining nihilist views that the conditions necessary for meaning in life do not obtain for any of us, i.e., that all our lives are meaningless.

1. The Meaning of “Meaning”

• 2.1 God-Centered Views
• 2.2 Soul-Centered Views

3.1 Subjectivism

3.2 objectivism, 4. nihilism, works cited, collections, books for the general reader, other internet resources, related entries.

One part of the field of life's meaning consists of the systematic attempt to clarify what people mean when they ask in virtue of what life has meaning. This section addresses different accounts of the sense of talk of “life's meaning” (and of “significance,” “importance,” and other synonyms). A large majority of those writing on life's meaning deem talk of it centrally to indicate a positive final value that an individual's life can exhibit. That is, comparatively few believe either that a meaningful life is a merely neutral quality, or that what is of key interest is the meaning of the human species or universe as a whole (for discussions focused on the latter, see Edwards 1972; Munitz 1986; Seachris 2009). Most in the field have ultimately wanted to know whether and how the existence of one of us over time has meaning, a certain property that is desirable for its own sake.

Beyond drawing the distinction between the life of an individual and that of a whole, there has been very little discussion of life as the logical bearer of meaning. For instance, is the individual's life best understood biologically, qua human being, or instead as the existence of a person that may or may not be human (Flanagan 1996)? And if an individual is loved from afar, can it logically affect the meaningfulness of her “life” (Brogaard and Smith 2005, 449)?

Returning to topics on which there is consensus, most writing on meaning believe that it comes in degrees such that some periods of life are more meaningful than others and that some lives as a whole are more meaningful than others (perhaps contra Britton 1969, 192). Note that one can coherently hold the view that some people's lives are less meaningful than others, or even meaningless, and still maintain that people have an equal moral status. Consider a consequentialist view according to which each individual counts for one in virtue of having a capacity for a meaningful life (cf. Railton 1984), or a Kantian view that says that people have an intrinsic worth in virtue of their capacity for autonomous choices, where meaning is a function of the exercise of this capacity (Nozick 1974, ch. 3). On both views, morality could counsel an agent to help people with relatively meaningless lives, at least if the condition is not of their choosing.

Another uncontroversial element of the sense of “meaningfulness” is that it connotes a good that is conceptually distinct from happiness or rightness (something emphasized in Wolf 2010). First, to ask whether someone's life is meaningful is not one and the same as asking whether her life is happy or pleasant. A life in an experience or virtual reality machine could conceivably be happy but very few take it to be a prima facie candidate for meaningfulness (Nozick 1974: 42–45). Indeed, many would say that talk of “meaning” by definition excludes the possibility of it coming from time spent in an experience machine (although there have been a small handful who disagree and contend that a meaningful life just is a pleasant life. Goetz 2012, in particular, bites many bullets.) Furthermore, one's life logically could become meaningful precisely by sacrificing one's happiness, e.g., by helping others at the expense of one's self-interest.

Second, asking whether a person's existence is significant is not identical to considering whether she has been morally upright; there seem to be ways to enhance meaning that have nothing to do with morality, at least impartially conceived, for instance, making a scientific discovery.

Of course, one might argue that a life would be meaningless if (or even because) it were unhappy or immoral, particularly given Aristotelian conceptions of these disvalues. However, that is to posit a synthetic, substantive relationship between the concepts, and is far from indicating that speaking of “meaning in life” is analytically a matter of connoting ideas regarding happiness or rightness, which is what I am denying here. My point is that the question of what makes a life meaningful is conceptually distinct from the question of what makes a life happy or moral, even if it turns out that the best answer to the question of meaning appeals to an answer to one of these other evaluative questions.

If talk about meaning in life is not by definition talk about happiness or rightness, then what is it about? There is as yet no consensus in the field. One answer is that a meaningful life is one that by definition has achieved choice-worthy purposes (Nielsen 1964) or involves satisfaction upon having done so (Hepburn 1965; Wohlgennant 1981). However, for such an analysis to clearly demarcate meaningfulness from happiness, it would be useful to modify it to indicate which purposes are germane to the former. On this score, some suggest that conceptual candidates for grounding meaning are purposes that not only have a positive value, but also render a life coherent (Markus 2003), make it intelligible (Thomson 2003, 8–13), or transcend animal nature (Levy 2005).

Now, it might be that a focus on any kind of purpose is too narrow for ruling out the logical possibility that meaning could inhere in certain actions, experiences, states, or relationships that have not been adopted as ends and willed and that perhaps even could not be, e.g., being an immortal offshoot of an unconscious, spiritual force that grounds the physical universe, as in Hinduism. In addition, the above purpose-based analyses exclude as not being about life's meaning some of the most widely read texts that purport to be about it, namely, Jean-Paul Sartre's (1948) existentialist account of meaning being constituted by whatever one chooses, and Richard Taylor's (1970, ch. 18) discussion of Sisyphus being able to acquire meaning in his life merely by having his strongest desires satisfied. These are prima facie accounts of meaning in life, but do not essentially involve the attainment of purposes that foster coherence, intelligibility or transcendence.

The latter problem also faces the alternative suggestion that talk of “life's meaning” is not necessarily about purposes, but is rather just a matter of referring to goods that are qualitatively superior, worthy of love and devotion, and appropriately awed (Taylor 1989, ch. 1). It is implausible to think that these criteria are satisfied by subjectivist appeals to whatever choices one ends up making or to whichever desires happen to be strongest for a given person.

Although relatively few have addressed the question of whether there exists a single, primary sense of “life's meaning,” the inability to find one so far might suggest that none exists. In that case, it could be that the field is united in virtue of addressing certain overlapping but not equivalent ideas that have family resemblances (Metz 2013, ch. 2). Perhaps when we speak of “meaning in life,” we have in mind one or more of these related ideas: certain conditions that are worthy of great pride or admiration, values that warrant devotion and love, qualities that make a life intelligible, or ends apart from base pleasure that are particularly choice-worthy. Another possibility is that talk of “meaning in life” fails to exhibit even this degree of unity, and is instead a grab-bag of heterogenous ideas (Mawson 2010; Oakley 2010).

As the field reflects more on the sense of “life's meaning,” it should not only try to ascertain in what respect it admits of unity, but also try to differentiate the concept of life's meaning from other, closely related ideas. For instance, the concept of a worthwhile life is probably not identical to that of a meaningful one (Baier 1997, ch. 5; Metz 2012). For instance, one would not be conceptually confused to claim that a meaningless life full of animal pleasures would be worth living. Furthermore, it seems that talk of a “meaningless life” does not simply connote the concept of an absurd (Nagel 1970; Feinberg 1980), unreasonable (Baier 1997, ch. 5), futile (Trisel 2002), or wasted (Kamm 2003, 210–14) life.

Fortunately the field does not need an extremely precise analysis of the concept of life's meaning (or definition of the phrase “life's meaning”) in order to make progress on the substantive question of what life's meaning is. Knowing that meaningfulness analytically concerns a variable and gradient final good in a person's life that is conceptually distinct from happiness, rightness, and worthwhileness provides a certain amount of common ground. The rest of this discussion addresses attempts to theoretically capture the nature of this good.

2. Supernaturalism

Most English speaking philosophers writing on meaning in life are trying to develop and evaluate theories, i.e., fundamental and general principles that are meant to capture all the particular ways that a life could obtain meaning. These theories are standardly divided on a metaphysical basis, i.e., in terms of which kinds of properties are held to constitute the meaning. Supernaturalist theories are views that meaning in life must be constituted by a certain relationship with a spiritual realm. If God or a soul does not exist, or if they exist but one fails to have the right relationship with them, then supernaturalism—or the Western version of it (on which I focus)—entails that one's life is meaningless. In contrast, naturalist theories are views that meaning can obtain in a world as known solely by science. Here, although meaning could accrue from a divine realm, certain ways of living in a purely physical universe would be sufficient for it. Note that there is logical space for a non-naturalist theory that meaning is a function of abstract properties that are neither spiritual nor physical. However, only scant attention has been paid to this possibility in the Anglo-American literature (Williams 1999; Audi 2005).

Supernaturalist thinkers in the monotheistic tradition are usefully divided into those with God-centered views and soul-centered views. The former take some kind of connection with God (understood to be a spiritual person who is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful and who is the ground of the physical universe) to constitute meaning in life, even if one lacks a soul (construed as an immortal, spiritual substance). The latter deem having a soul and putting it into a certain state to be what makes life meaningful, even if God does not exist. Of course, many supernaturalists believe that certain relationships with God and a soul are jointly necessary and sufficient for a significant existence. However, the simpler view is common, and often arguments proffered for the more complex view fail to support it any more than the simpler view.

2.1 God-centered Views

The most widely held and influential God-based account of meaning in life is that one's existence is more significant, the better one fulfills a purpose God has assigned. The familiar idea is that God has a plan for the universe and that one's life is meaningful to the degree that one helps God realize this plan, perhaps in the particular way God wants one to do so (Affolter 2007). Fulfilling God's purpose by choice is the sole source of meaning, with the existence of an afterlife not necessary for it (Brown 1971; Levine 1987; Cottingham 2003). If a person failed to do what God intends him to do with his life, then, on the current view, his life would be meaningless.

What I call “purpose theorists” differ over what it is about God's purpose that makes it uniquely able to confer meaning on human lives. Some argue that God's purpose could be the sole source of invariant moral rules, where a lack of such would render our lives nonsensical (Craig 1994; Cottingham 2003). However, Euthyphro problems arguably plague this rationale; God's purpose for us must be of a particular sort for our lives to obtain meaning by fulfilling it (as is often pointed out, serving as food for intergalactic travelers won't do), which suggests that there is a standard external to God's purpose that determines what the content of God's purpose ought to be (but see Cottingham 2005, ch. 3). In addition, some critics argue that a universally applicable and binding moral code is not necessary for meaning in life, even if the act of helping others is (Ellin 1995, 327).

Other purpose theorists contend that having been created by God for a reason would be the only way that our lives could avoid being contingent (Craig 1994; cf. Haber 1997). But it is unclear whether God's arbitrary will would avoid contingency, or whether his non-arbitrary will would avoid contingency anymore than a deterministic physical world. Furthermore, the literature is still unclear what contingency is and why it is a deep problem. Still other purpose theorists maintain that our lives would have meaning only insofar as they were intentionally fashioned by a creator, thereby obtaining meaning of the sort that an art-object has (Gordon 1983). Here, though, freely choosing to do any particular thing would not be necessary for meaning, and everyone's life would have an equal degree of meaning, which are both counterintuitive implications (see Trisel 2012 for additional criticisms). Are all these objections sound? Is there a promising reason for thinking that fulfilling God's (as opposed to any human's) purpose is what constitutes meaning in life?

Not only does each of these versions of the purpose theory have specific problems, but they all face this shared objection: if God assigned us a purpose, then God would degrade us and thereby undercut the possibility of us obtaining meaning from fulfilling the purpose (Baier 1957, 118–20; Murphy 1982, 14–15; Singer 1996, 29). This objection goes back at least to Jean-Paul Sartre (1948, 45), and there are many replies to it in the literature that have yet to be assessed (e.g., Hepburn 1965, 271–73; Brown 1971, 20–21; Davis 1986, 155–56; Hanfling 1987, 45–46; Moreland 1987, 129; Walker 1989; Jacquette 2001, 20–21).

Robert Nozick presents a God-centered theory that focuses less on God as purposive and more on God as infinite (Nozick 1981, ch. 6, 1989, chs. 15–16; see also Cooper 2005). The basic idea is that for a finite condition to be meaningful, it must obtain its meaning from another condition that has meaning. So, if one's life is meaningful, it might be so in virtue of being married to a person, who is important. And, being finite, the spouse must obtain his or her importance from elsewhere, perhaps from the sort of work he or she does. And this work must obtain its meaning by being related to something else that is meaningful, and so on. A regress on meaningful finite conditions is present, and the suggestion is that the regress can terminate only in something infinite, a being so all-encompassing that it need not (indeed, cannot) go beyond itself to obtain meaning from anything else. And that is God.

The standard objection to this rationale is that a finite condition could be meaningful without obtaining its meaning from another meaningful condition; perhaps it could be meaningful in itself, or obtain its meaning by being related to something beautiful, autonomous or otherwise valuable for its own sake but not meaningful (Thomson 2003, 25–26, 48).

The purpose- and infinity-based rationales are the two most common instances of God-centered theory in the literature, and the naturalist can point out that they arguably face a common problem: a purely physical world seems able to do the job for which God is purportedly necessary. Nature seems able to ground a universal morality and the sort of final value from which meaning might spring. And other God-based views seem to suffer from this same problem. For two examples, some claim that God must exist in order for there to be a just world, where a world in which the bad do well and the good fare poorly would render our lives senseless (Craig 1994; cf. Cottingham 2003, pt. 3), and others maintain that God's remembering all of us with love is alone what would confer significance on our lives (Hartshorne 1984). However, the naturalist will point out that an impersonal, Karmic-like force of nature conceivably could justly distribute penalties and rewards in the way a retributive personal judge would, and that actually living together in loving relationships would seem to confer much more meaning on life than a loving fond remembrance.

A second problem facing all God-based views is the existence of apparent counterexamples. If we think of the stereotypical lives of Albert Einstein, Mother Teresa, and Pablo Picasso, they seem meaningful even if we suppose there is no all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good spiritual person who is the ground of the physical world. Even religiously inclined philosophers find this hard to deny (Quinn 2000, 58; Audi 2005), though some of them suggest that a supernatural realm is necessary for a “deep” or “ultimate” meaning (Nozick 1981, 618; Craig 1994, 42). What is the difference between a deep meaning and a shallow one? And why think a spiritual realm is necessary for the former?

At this point, the supernaturalist could usefully step back and reflect on what it might be about God that would make Him uniquely able to confer meaning in life, perhaps as follows from the perfect being theological tradition. For God to be solely responsible for any significance in our lives, God must have certain qualities that cannot be found in the natural world, these qualities must be qualitatively superior to any goods possible in a physical universe, and they must be what ground meaning in it. Here, the supernaturalist could argue that meaning depends on the existence of a perfect being, where perfection requires properties such as atemporality, simplicity, and immutability that are possible only in a spiritual realm (Metz 2013, chs. 6–7; cf. Morris 1992; contra Brown 1971 and Hartshorne 1996). Meaning might come from loving a perfect being or orienting one's life toward it in other ways such as imitating it or even fulfilling its purpose, perhaps a purpose tailor-made for each individual (as per Affolter 2007).

Although this might be a promising strategy for a God-centered theory, it faces a serious dilemma. On the one hand, in order for God to be the sole source of meaning, God must be utterly unlike us; for the more God were like us, the more reason there would be to think we could obtain meaning from ourselves, absent God. On the other hand, the more God is utterly unlike us, the less clear it is how we could obtain meaning by relating to Him. How can one love a being that cannot change? How can one imitate such a being? Could an immutable, atemporal, simple being even have purposes? Could it truly be a person? And why think an utterly perfect being is necessary for meaning? Why would not a very good but imperfect being confer some meaning?

2.2 Soul-centered Views

A soul-centered theory is the view that meaning in life comes from relating in a certain way to an immortal, spiritual substance that supervenes on one's body when it is alive and that will forever outlive its death. If one lacks a soul, or if one has a soul but relates to it in the wrong way, then one's life is meaningless. There are two prominent arguments for a soul-based perspective.

The first one is often expressed by laypeople and is suggested by the work of Leo Tolstoy (1884; see also Hanfling 1987, 22–24; Morris 1992, 26; Craig 1994). Tolstoy argues that for life to be meaningful something must be worth doing, that nothing is worth doing if nothing one does will make a permanent difference to the world, and that doing so requires having an immortal, spiritual self. Many of course question whether having an infinite effect is necessary for meaning (e.g., Schmidtz 2001; Audi 2005, 354–55). Others point out that one need not be immortal in order to have an infinite effect (Levine 1987, 462), for God's eternal remembrance of one's mortal existence would be sufficient for that.

The other major rationale for a soul-based theory of life's meaning is that a soul is necessary for perfect justice, which, in turn, is necessary for a meaningful life. Life seems nonsensical when the wicked flourish and the righteous suffer, at least supposing there is no other world in which these injustices will be rectified, whether by God or by Karma. Something like this argument can be found in the Biblical chapter Ecclesiastes , and it continues to be defended (Davis 1987; Craig 1994). However, like the previous rationale, the inferential structure of this one seems weak; even if an afterlife were required for just outcomes, it is not obvious why an eternal afterlife should be thought necessary (Perrett 1986, 220).

Work has been done to try to make the inferences of these two arguments stronger, and the basic strategy has been to appeal to the value of perfection (Metz 2013, ch. 7). Perhaps the Tolstoian reason why one must live forever in order to make the relevant permanent difference is an agent-relative need for one to honor an infinite value, something qualitatively higher than the worth of, say, pleasure. And maybe the reason why immortality is required in order to mete out just deserts is that rewarding the virtuous requires satisfying their highest free and informed desires, one of which would be for eternal flourishing of some kind (Goetz 2012). While far from obviously sound, these arguments at least provide some reason for thinking that immortality is necessary to satisfy the major premise about what is required for meaning.

However, both arguments are still plagued by a problem facing the original versions; even if they show that meaning depends on immortality, they do not yet show that it depends on having a soul . By definition, if one has a soul, then one is immortal, but it is not clearly true that if one is immortal, then one has a soul. Perhaps being able to upload one's consciousness into an infinite succession of different bodies in an everlasting universe would count as an instance of immortality without a soul. Such a possibility would not require an individual to have an immortal spiritual substance (imagine that when in between bodies, the information constitutive of one's consciousness were temporarily stored in a computer). What reason is there to think that one must have a soul in particular for life to be significant?

The most promising reason seems to be one that takes us beyond the simple version of soul-centered theory to the more complex view that both God and a soul constitute meaning. The best justification for thinking that one must have a soul in order for one's life to be significant seems to be that significance comes from uniting with God in a spiritual realm such as Heaven, a view espoused by Thomas Aquinas, Leo Tolstoy (1884), and contemporary religious thinkers (e.g., Craig 1994). Another possibility is that meaning comes from honoring what is divine within oneself, i.e., a soul (Swenson 1949).

As with God-based views, naturalist critics offer counterexamples to the claim that a soul or immortality of any kind is necessary for meaning. Great works, whether they be moral, aesthetic, or intellectual, would seem to confer meaning on one's life regardless of whether one will live forever. Critics maintain that soul-centered theorists are seeking too high a standard for appraising the meaning of people's lives (Baier 1957, 124–29; Baier 1997, chs. 4–5; Trisel 2002; Trisel 2004). Appeals to a soul require perfection, whether it be, as above, a perfect object to honor, a perfectly just reward to enjoy, or a perfect being with which to commune. However, if indeed soul-centered theory ultimately relies on claims about meaning turning on perfection, such a view is attractive at least for being simple, and rival views have yet to specify in a principled and thoroughly defended way where to draw the line at less than perfection (perhaps a start is Metz 2013, ch. 8). What less than ideal amount of value is sufficient for a life to count as meaningful?

Critics of soul-based views maintain not merely that immortality is not necessary for meaning in life, but also that it is sufficient for a meaningless life. One influential argument is that an immortal life, whether spiritual or physical, could not avoid becoming boring, rendering life pointless (Williams 1973; Ellin 1995, 311–12; Belshaw 2005, 82–91; Smuts 2011). The most common reply is that immortality need not get boring (Fischer 1994; Wisnewski 2005; Bortolotti and Nagasawa 2009; Chappell 2009; Quigley and Harris 2009, 75–78). However, it might also be worth questioning whether boredom is truly sufficient for meaninglessness. Suppose, for instance, that one volunteers to be bored so that many others will not be bored; perhaps this would be a meaningful sacrifice to make.

Another argument that being immortal would be sufficient to make our lives insignificant is that persons who cannot die could not exhibit certain virtues (Nussbaum 1989; Kass 2001). For instance, they could not promote justice of any important sort, be benevolent to any significant degree, or exhibit courage of any kind that matters, since life and death issues would not be at stake. Critics reply that even if these virtues would not be possible, there are other virtues that could be. And of course it is not obvious that meaning-conferring justice, benevolence and courage would not be possible if we were immortal, perhaps if we were not always aware that we could not die or if our indestructible souls could still be harmed by virtue of intense pain, frustrated ends, and repetitive lives.

There are other, related arguments maintaining that awareness of immortality would have the effect of removing meaning from life, say, because our lives would lack a sense of preciousness and urgency (Lenman 1995; Kass 2001; James 2009) or because external rather than internal factors would then dictate their course (Wollheim 1984, 266). Note that the target here is belief in an eternal afterlife, and not immortality itself, and so I merely mention these rationales (for additional, revealing criticism, see Bortolotti 2010).

3. Naturalism

I now address views that even if there is no spiritual realm, meaning in life is possible, at least for many people. Among those who believe that a significant existence can be had in a purely physical world as known by science, there is debate about two things: the extent to which the human mind constitutes meaning and whether there are conditions of meaning that are invariant among human beings.

Subjectivists believe that there are no invariant standards of meaning because meaning is relative to the subject, i.e., depends on an individual's pro-attitudes such as desires, ends, and choices. Roughly, something is meaningful for a person if she believes it to be or seeks it out. Objectivists maintain, in contrast, that there are some invariant standards for meaning because meaning is (at least partly) mind-independent, i.e., is a real property that exists regardless of being the object of anyone's mental states. Here, something is meaningful (to some degree) in virtue of its intrinsic nature, independent of whether it is believed to be meaningful or sought.

There is logical space for an intersubjective theory according to which there are invariant standards of meaning for human beings that are constituted by what they would all agree upon from a certain communal standpoint (Darwall 1983, chs. 11–12). However, this orthogonal approach is not much of a player in the field and so I set it aside in what follows.

According to this view, meaning in life varies from person to person, depending on each one's variable mental states. Common instances are views that one's life is more meaningful, the more one gets what one happens to want strongly, the more one achieves one's highly ranked goals, or the more one does what one believes to be really important (Trisel 2002; Hooker 2008; Alexis 2011). Lately, one influential subjectivist has maintained that the relevant mental state is caring or loving, so that life is meaningful just to the extent that one cares about or loves something (Frankfurt 1982, 2002, 2004).

Subjectivism was dominant for much of the 20 th century when pragmatism, positivism, existentialism, noncognitivism, and Humeanism were quite influential (James 1900; Ayer 1947; Sartre 1948; Barnes 1967; Taylor 1970; Hare 1972; Williams 1976; Klemke 1981). However, in the last quarter of the 20 th century, “reflective equilibrium” became a widely accepted argumentative procedure, whereby more controversial normative claims are justified by virtue of entailing and explaining less controversial normative claims that do not command universal acceptance. Such a method has been used to defend the existence of objective value, and, as a result, subjectivism about meaning has lost its dominance.

Those who continue to hold subjectivism often are suspicious of attempts to justify beliefs about objective value (e.g., Frankfurt 2002, 250; Trisel 2002, 73, 79, 2004, 378–79). Theorists are primarily moved to accept subjectivism because the alternatives are unpalatable; they are sure that value in general and meaning in particular exists, but do not see how it could be grounded in something independent of the mind, whether it be the natural, the non-natural, or the supernatural. In contrast to these possibilities, it appears straightforward to account for what is meaningful in terms of what people find meaningful or what people want out of life. Wide-ranging meta-ethical debates in epistemology, metaphysics, and the philosophy of language are necessary to address this rationale for subjectivism.

There are two other, more circumscribed arguments for subjectivism. One is that subjectivism is plausible since it is reasonable to think that a meaningful life is an authentic one (Frankfurt 1982). If a person's life is significant insofar as she is true to herself or her deepest nature, then we have some reason to believe that meaning simply is a function of satisfying certain desires held by the individual or realizing certain ends of hers. Another argument is that meaning intuitively comes from losing oneself, i.e., in becoming absorbed in an activity or experience (Frankfurt 1982). Work that concentrates the mind and relationships that are engrossing seem central to meaning and to be so because of the subjective element involved, that is, because of the concentration and engrossment.

However, critics maintain that both of these arguments are vulnerable to a common objection: they neglect the role of objective value both in realizing oneself and in losing oneself (Taylor 1992, esp. ch. 4). One is not really being true to oneself if one intentionally harms others (Dahl 1987, 12), successfully maintains 3,732 hairs on one's head (Taylor 1992, 36), or, well, eats one's own excrement (Wielenberg 2005, 22), and one is also not losing oneself in a meaning-conferring way if one is consumed by these activities. There seem to be certain actions, relationships, states, and experiences that one ought to concentrate on or be engrossed in, if meaning is to accrue.

So says the objectivist, but many subjectivists also feel the pull of the point. Paralleling replies in the literature on well-being, subjectivists often respond by contending that no or very few individuals would desire to do such intuitively trivial things, at least after a certain idealized process of reflection (e.g., Griffin 1981). More promising, perhaps, is the attempt to ground value not in the responses of an individual valuer, but in those of a particular group (Brogaard and Smith 2005; Wong 2008). Would such an intersubjective move avoid the counterexamples? If so, would it do so more plausibly than an objective theory?

Objective naturalists believe that meaning is constituted (at least in part) by something physical independent of the mind about which we can have correct or incorrect beliefs. Obtaining the object of some variable pro-attitude is not sufficient for meaning, on this view. Instead, there are certain inherently worthwhile or finally valuable conditions that confer meaning for anyone, neither merely because they are wanted, chosen, or believed to be meaningful, nor because they somehow are grounded in God.

Morality and creativity are widely held instances of actions that confer meaning on life, while trimming toenails and eating snow (and the other counterexamples to subjectivism above) are not. Objectivism is thought to be the best explanation for these respective kinds of judgments: the former are actions that are meaningful regardless of whether any arbitrary agent (whether it be an individual,her society, or even God) judges them to be meaningful or seeks to engage in them, while the latter actions simply lack significance and cannot obtain it if someone believes them to have it or engages in them. To obtain meaning in one's life, one ought to pursue the former actions and avoid the latter ones. Of course, meta-ethical debates about the nature of value are again relevant here.

A “pure” objectivist thinks that being the object of a person's mental states plays no role in making that person's life meaningful. Relatively few objectivists are pure, so construed. That is, a large majority of them believe that a life is more meaningful not merely because of objective factors, but also in part because of subjective ones such as cognition, affection, and emotion. Most commonly held is the hybrid view captured by Susan Wolf's pithy slogan: “Meaning arises when subjective attraction meets objective attractiveness” (Wolf 1997a, 211; see also Hepburn 1965; Kekes 1986, 2000; Wiggins 1988; Wolf 1997b, 2002, 2010; Dworkin 2000, ch. 6; Raz 2001, ch. 1; Schmidtz 2001; Starkey 2006; Mintoff 2008). This theory implies that no meaning accrues to one's life if one believes in, is satisfied by, or cares about a project that is not worthwhile, or if one takes up a worthwhile project but fails to judge it important, be satisfied by it, care about it or otherwise identify with it. Different versions of this theory will have different accounts of the appropriate mental states and of worthwhileness.

Pure objectivists deny that subjective attraction plays any constitutive role in conferring meaning on life. For instance, utilitarians with respect to meaning (as opposed to morality) are pure objectivists, for they claim that certain actions confer meaning on life regardless of the agent's reactions to them. On this view, the more one benefits others, the more meaningful one's life, regardless of whether one enjoys benefiting them, believes they should be aided, etc. (Singer 1993, ch. 12, 1995, chs. 10–11; Singer 1996, ch. 4). Midway between pure objectivism and the hybrid theory is the view that having certain propositional attitudes toward finally good activities would enhance the meaning of life without being necessary for it (Audi 2005, 344). For instance, might a Mother Teresa who is bored by her substantial charity work have a significant existence because of it, even if she would have an even more significant existence if she were excited by it?

There have been several attempts to theoretically capture what all objectively attractive, inherently worthwhile, or finally valuable conditions have in common insofar as they bear on meaning. Some believe that they can all be captured as actions that are creative (Taylor 1987), while others maintain that they are exhibit rightness or virtue and perhaps also involve reward proportionate to morality (Kant 1791, pt. 2; cf. Pogge 1997). Most objectivists, however, deem these respective aesthetic and ethical theories to be too narrow, even if living a moral life is necessary for a meaningful one (Landau 2011). It seems to most in the field not only that creativity and morality are independent sources of meaning, but also that there are sources in addition to these two. For just a few examples, consider making an intellectual discovery, rearing children with love, playing music, and developing superior athletic ability.

So, in the literature one finds a variety of principles that aim to capture all these and other (apparent) objective grounds of meaning. One can read the perfectionist tradition as proffering objective theories of what a significant existence is, even if their proponents do not frequently use contemporary terminology to express this. Consider Aristotle's account of the good life for a human being as one that fulfills its natural purpose qua rational, Marx's vision of a distinctly human history characterized by less alienation and more autonomy, culture, and community, and Nietzsche's ideal of a being with a superlative degree of power, creativity, and complexity.

More recently, some have maintained that objectively meaningful conditions are just those that involve: transcending the limits of the self to connect with organic unity (Nozick 1981, ch. 6, 1989, chs. 15–16); realizing human excellence in oneself (Bond 1983, chs. 6, 8); maximally promoting non-hedonist goods such as friendship, beauty, and knowledge (Railton 1984); exercising or promoting rational nature in exceptional ways (Hurka 1993; Smith 1997, 179–221; Gewirth 1998, ch. 5); substantially improving the quality of life of people and animals (Singer 1993, ch. 12, 1995, chs. 10–11; Singer 1996, ch. 4); overcoming challenges that one recognizes to be important at one's stage of history (Dworkin 2000, ch. 6); constituting rewarding experiences in the life of the agent or the lives of others the agent affects (Audi 2005); making progress toward ends that in principle can never be completely realized because one's knowledge of them changes as one approaches them (Levy 2005); realizing goals that are transcendent for being long-lasting in duration and broad in scope (Mintoff 2008); or contouring intelligence toward fundamental conditions of human life (Metz 2013).

One major test of these theories is whether they capture all experiences, states, relationships, and actions that intuitively make life meaningful. The more counterexamples of apparently meaningful conditions that a principle entails lack meaning, the less justified the principle. There is as yet no convergence in the field on any one principle or even cluster as accounting for commonsensical judgments about meaning to an adequate, convincing degree. Indeed, some believe the search for such a principle to be pointless (Wolf 1997b, 12–13; Kekes 2000; Schmidtz 2001). Are these pluralists correct, or does the field have a good chance of discovering a single, basic property that grounds all the particular ways to acquire meaning in life?

Another important way to criticize these theories is more comprehensive: for all that has been said so far, the objective theories are aggregative or additive, objectionably reducing life to a “container” of meaningful conditions (Brännmark 2003, 330). As with the growth of “organic unity” views in the context of debates about intrinsic value, it is becoming common to think that life as a whole (or at least long stretches of it) can substantially affect its meaning apart from the amount of meaning in its parts.

For instance, a life that has lots of beneficent and otherwise intuitively meaning-conferring conditions but that is also extremely repetitive (à la the movie Groundhog Day ) is less than maximally meaningful (Taylor 1987). Furthermore, a life that not only avoids repetition but also ends with a substantial amount of meaningful parts seems to have more meaning overall than one that has the same amount of meaningful parts but ends with few or none of them (Kamm 2003, 210–14). And a life in which its meaningless parts cause its meaningful parts to come about through a process of personal growth seems meaningful in virtue of this causal pattern or being a “good life-story” (Velleman 1991; Fischer 2005).

Extreme versions of holism are also present in the literature. For example, some maintain that the only bearer of final value is life as a whole, which entails that there are strictly speaking no parts or segments of a life that can be meaningful in themselves (Tabensky 2003; Levinson 2004). For another example, some accept that both parts of a life and a life as a whole can be independent bearers of meaning, but maintain that the latter has something like a lexical priority over the former when it comes to what to pursue or otherwise to prize (Blumenfeld 2009).

What are the ultimate bearers of meaning? What are all the fundamentally different ways (if any) that holism can affect meaning? Are they all a function of narrativity, life-stories, and artistic self-expression (as per Kauppinen 2012), or are there holistic facets of life's meaning that are not a matter of such literary concepts? How much importance should they be accorded by an agent seeking meaning in her life?

So far, I have addressed theoretical accounts that have been naturally understood to be about what confers meaning on life, which obviously assumes that some lives are in fact meaningful. However, there are nihilistic perspectives that question this assumption. According to nihilism (or pessimism), what would make a life meaningful either cannot obtain or as a matter of fact simply never does.

One straightforward rationale for nihilism is the combination of supernaturalism about what makes life meaningful and atheism about whether God exists. If you believe that God or a soul is necessary for meaning in life, and if you believe that neither exists, then you are a nihilist, someone who denies that life has meaning. Albert Camus is famous for expressing this kind of perspective, suggesting that the lack of an afterlife and of a rational, divinely ordered universe undercuts the possibility of meaning (Camus 1955; cf. Ecclesiastes ).

Interestingly, the most common rationales for nihilism these days do not appeal to supernaturalism. The idea shared among many contemporary nihilists is that there is something inherent to the human condition that prevents meaning from arising, even granting that God exists. For instance, some nihilists make the Schopenhauerian claim that our lives lack meaning because we are invariably dissatisfied; either we have not yet obtained what we seek, or we have obtained it and are bored (Martin 1993). Critics tend to reply that at least a number of human lives do have the requisite amount of satisfaction required for meaning, supposing that some is (Blackburn 2001, 74–77).

Other nihilists claim that life would be meaningless if there were no invariant moral rules that could be fully justified—the world would be nonsensical if, in (allegedly) Dostoyevskian terms, “everything were permitted”—and that such rules cannot exist for persons who can always reasonably question a given claim (Murphy 1982, ch. 1). While a number of philosophers agree that a universally binding and warranted morality is necessary for meaning in life (Kant 1791; Tännsjö 1988; Jacquette 2001, ch. 1; Cottingham 2003, 2005, ch. 3), some do not (Margolis 1990; Ellin 1995, 325–27). Furthermore, contemporary rationalist and realist work in meta-ethics has led many to believe that such a moral system exists.

In the past 10 years, some interesting new defences of nihilism have arisen that merit careful consideration. According to one rationale, for our lives to matter, we must in a position to add value to the world, which we are not since the value of the world is already infinite (Smith 2003). The key premises for this view are that every bit of space-time (or at least the stars in the physical universe) have some positive value, that these values can be added up, and that space is infinite. If the physical world at present contains an infinite degree of value, nothing we do can make a difference in terms of meaning, for infinity plus any amount of value must be infinity.

One way to question this argument is to suggest that even if one cannot add to the value of the universe, meaning plausibly obtains merely by being the source of value. Consider that one does not merely want one's child to be reared with love, but wants to be the one who rears one's child with love. And this desire remains even knowing that others would have reared one's child with love in one's absence, so that one's actions are not increasing the goodness of the state of the universe relative to what it would have had without them. Similar remarks might apply to cases of meaning more generally (for additional, and technical, discussion of whether an infinite universe entails nihilism, see Almeida 2010; Vohánka and Vohánková n.d.).

Another fresh argument for nihilism is forthcoming from certain defenses of anti-natalism, the view that it is immoral to bring new people into existence because doing so would be a harm to them. There are now a variety of rationales for anti-natalism, but most relevant to debates about whether life is meaningful is probably the following argument from David Benatar (2006, 18–59). According to him, the bads of existing (e.g., pains) are real disadvantages relative to not existing, while the goods of existing (pleasures) are not real advantages relative to not existing, since there is in the latter state no one to be deprived of them. If indeed the state of not existing is no worse than that of experiencing the benefits of existence, then, since existing invariably brings harm in its wake, existing is always a net harm compared to not existing. Although this argument is about goods such as pleasures in the first instance, it seems generalizable to non-experiential goods, including that of meaning in life.

The criticisms of Benatar that promise to cut most deep are those that question his rationale for the above judgments of good and bad. He maintains that these appraisals best explain, e.g., why it would be wrong for one to create someone whom one knows would suffer a torturous existence, and why it would not be wrong for one not to create someone whom one knows would enjoy a wonderful existence. The former would be wrong and the latter would not be wrong, for Benatar, because no pain in non-existence is better than pain in existence, and because no pleasure in non-existence is no worse than pleasure in existence. Critics usually grant the judgments of wrongness, but provide explanations of them that do not invoke Benatar's judgments of good and bad that apparently lead to anti-natalism (e.g., Boonin 2012; Weinberg 2012).

This survey closes by discussing the most well-known rationale for nihilism, namely, Thomas Nagel's (1986) invocation of the external standpoint that purportedly reveals our lives to be unimportant (see also Hanfling 1987, 22–24; Benatar 2006, 60–92; cf. Dworkin 2000, ch. 6). According to Nagel, we are capable of comprehending the world from a variety of standpoints that are either internal or external. The most internal perspective would be a particular human being's desire at a given instant, with a somewhat less internal perspective being one's interests over a life-time, and an even less internal perspective being the interests of one's family or community. In contrast, the most external perspective, an encompassing standpoint utterly independent of one's particularity, would be, to use Henry Sidgwick's phrase, the “point of view of the universe,” that is, the standpoint that considers the interests of all sentient beings at all times and in all places. When one takes up this most external standpoint and views one's finite—and even downright puny—impact on the world, little of one's life appears to matter. What one does in a certain society on Earth over an approximately 75 years just does not amount to much, when considering the billions of years and likely trillions of beings that are a part of space-time.

Very few accept the authority of the (most) external standpoint (Ellin 1995, 316–17; Blackburn 2001, 79–80; Schmidtz 2001) or the implications that Nagel believes it has for the meaning of our lives (Quinn 2000, 65–66; Singer 1993, 333–34; Wolf 1997b, 19–21). However, the field could use much more discussion of this rationale, given its persistence in human thought. It is plausible to think, with Nagel, that part of what it is to be a person is to be able to take up an external standpoint. However, what precisely is a standpoint? Must we invariably adopt one standpoint or the other, or is it possible not to take one up at all? Is there a reliable way to ascertain which standpoint is normatively more authoritative than others? These and the other questions posed in this survey still lack conclusive answers, another respect in which the field of life's meaning is tantalizingly open for substantial contributions.

• Affolter, J., 2007, “Human Nature as God's Purpose”, Religious Studies , 43: 443–55.
• Alexis., A., 2011, The Meaning of Life: A Modern Secular Answer to the Age-Old Fundamental Question , CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
• Almeida, M., 2010, “Two Challenges to Moral Nihilism”, The Monist , 93: 96–105.
• Audi, R., 2005, “Intrinsic Value and Meaningful Life”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 331–55.
• Ayer, A. J., 1947, “The Claims of Philosophy”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 219–32.
• Baier, K., 1957, “The Meaning of Life”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 101–32.
• –––, 1997, Problems of Life and Death: A Humanist Perspective , Amherst: Prometheus Books.
• Barnes, H., 1967, An Existentialist Ethics , New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• Belshaw, C., 2005, 10 Good Questions about Life and Death , Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Benatar, D., 2006, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Blackburn, S., 2001, Being Good , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Blumenfeld, D., 2009, “Living Life Over Again”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 79: 357–86.
• Bond, E. J., 1983, Reason and Value , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Boonin, D., 2012, “Better to Be”, South African Journal of Philosophy , 31: 10–25.
• Bortolotti, L., 2010, “Agency, Life Extension, and the Meaning of Life”, The Monist , 92: 38–56.
• Bortolotti, L. and Nagasawa, Y., 2009, “Immortality Without Boredom”, Ratio , 22: 261–77.
• Brännmark, J., 2003, “Leading Lives”, Philosophical Papers , 32: 321–43.
• Britton, K., 1969, Philosophy and the Meaning of Life , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Brogaard, B. and Smith, B., 2005, “On Luck, Responsibility, and the Meaning of Life”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 443–58.
• Brown, D., 1971, “Process Philosophy and the Question of Life's Meaning”, Religious Studies , 7: 13–29.
• Camus, A., 1955, The Myth of Sisyphus , J. O'Brian (tr.), London: H. Hamilton.
• Chappell, T., 2009, “Infinity Goes Up on Trial: Must Immortality Be Meaningless?”, European Journal of Philosophy , 17: 30–44.
• Cooper, D., 2005, “Life and Meaning”, Ratio , 18: 125–37.
• Cottingham, J., 2003, On the Meaning of Life , London: Routledge.
• –––, 2005, The Spiritual Dimension: Religion, Philosophy and Human Value , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Craig, W., 1994, “The Absurdity of Life Without God”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 40–56.
• Dahl, N., 1987, “Morality and the Meaning of Life”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 17: 1–22.
• Darwall, S., 1983, Impartial Reason , Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Davis, W., 1986, “The Creation of Meaning”, Philosophy Today , 30: 151–67.
• –––, 1987, “The Meaning of Life”, Metaphilosophy , 18: 288–305.
• Dworkin, R., 2000, Sovereign Virtue , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Edwards, P., 1972, “Why”, in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volumes 7– 8 , P. Edwards (ed.), New York: Macmillan Publishing Company: 296–302.
• Ellin, J., 1995. Morality and the Meaning of Life , Ft. Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
• Feinberg, J., 1980, “Absurd Self-Fulfillment,” repr. in Freedom and Fulfillment: Philosophical Essays , Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992: 297–330.
• Fischer, J. M., 1994, “Why Immortality is Not So Bad”, International Journal of Philosophical Studies , 2: 257–70.
• –––, 2005, “Free Will, Death, and Immortality: The Role of Narrative”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 379–403.
• Flanagan, O., 1996, Self-Expressions: Mind, Morals, and the Meaning of Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Frankfurt, H., 1982, “The Importance of What We Care About”, Synthese , 53: 257–72.
• –––, 2002, “Reply to Susan Wolf”, in The Contours of Agency: Essays on Themes from Harry Frankfurt , S. Buss and L. Overton (eds.), Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press: 245–52.
• –––, 2004, The Reasons of Love , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Gewirth, A., 1998, Self-Fulfillment , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Goetz, S., 2012, The Purpose of Life: A Theistic Perspective , New York: Continuum.
• Gordon, J., 1983, “Is the Existence of God Relevant to the Meaning of Life?” The Modern Schoolman , 60: 227–46.
• Griffin, J., 1981, “On Life's Being Valuable”, Dialectics and Humanism , 8: 51–62.
• Haber, J., 1997, “Contingency and the Meaning of Life”, Philosophical Writings , 5: 32–44.
• Hanfling, O., 1987, The Quest for Meaning , New York: Basil Blackwell Inc.
• Hare, R. M., 1957, “Nothing Matters”, repr. in Applications of Moral Philosophy , London: Macmillan, 1972: 32–47.
• Hartshorne, C., 1984, “God and the Meaning of Life”, in Boston University Studies in Philosophy and Religion, Volume 6: On Nature , L. Rouner (ed.), Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press: 154–68.
• –––, 1996, “The Meaning of Life”, Process Studies , 25: 10–18.
• Hepburn, R., 1965, “Questions About the Meaning of Life”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 261–76.
• Hooker, B., 2008, “The Meaning of Life: Subjectivism, Objectivism, and Divine Support”, in The Moral Life: Essays in Honour of John Cottingham , N. Athanassoulis and S. Vice (eds.), New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 184–200.
• Hurka, T., 1993, Perfectionism , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Jacquette, D., 2001, Six Philosophical Appetizers , Boston: McGraw-Hill.
• James, L., 2005, “Achievement and the Meaningfulness of Life”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 429–42.
• –––, 2009, “Shape and the Meaningfulness of Life”, in Philosophy and Happiness , L. Bortolotti (ed.), New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 54–67.
• James, W., 1900, “What Makes a Life Significant?”, in On Some of Life's Ideals , New York: Henry Holt and Company: 49–94.
• Kamm, F. M., 2003, “Rescuing Ivan Ilych: How We Live and How We Die”, Ethics , 113: 202–33.
• Kant, I., 1791, Critique of Judgment .
• Kass, L., 2001, “ L'Chaim and Its Limits: Why not Immortality?”, First Things , 113: 17–24.
• Kauppinen, A., 2012, “Meaningfulness and Time”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 82: 345–77.
• Kekes, J., 1986, “The Informed Will and the Meaning of Life”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 47: 75–90.
• –––, 2000, “The Meaning of Life”, in Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Volume 24; Life and Death: Metaphysics and Ethics , P. French and H. Wettstein (eds.), Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers: 17–34.
• Klemke, E. D., 1981, “Living Without Appeal”, in The Meaning of Life, E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press.
• Landau, I., 2011, “Immorality and the Meaning of Life”, The Journal of Value Inquiry , 45: 309–17.
• Lenman, J., 1995, “Immortality: A Letter”, Cogito , 9: 164–69.
• Levine, M., 1987, “What Does Death Have to Do with the Meaning of Life?” Religious Studies , 23: 457–65.
• Levinson, J., 2004, “Intrinsic Value and the Notion of a Life”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 62: 319–29.
• Levy, N., 2005, “Downshifting and Meaning in Life”, Ratio , 18: 176–89.
• Margolis, J., 1990, “Moral Realism and the Meaning of Life”, The Philosophical Forum , 22: 19–48.
• Markus, A., 2003, “Assessing Views of Life, A Subjective Affair?”, Religious Studies , 39: 125–43.
• Martin, R., 1993, “A Fast Car and a Good Woman”, in The Experience of Philosophy, 2 nd Ed. , D. Kolak and R. Martin (eds.), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company: 589–95.
• Mawson, T., 2010, “Sources of Dissatisfaction with Answers to the Question of the Meaning of Life”, European Journal for Philosophy of Religion , 2: 19–41.
• Metz, T., 2012, “The Meaningful and the Worthwhile: Clarifying the Relationships”, The Philosophical Forum , 43: 435–48.
• –––, 2013, Meaning in Life: An Analytic Study , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Mintoff, J., 2008, “Transcending Absurdity”, Ratio , 21: 64–84.
• Moreland, J. P., 1987, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity , Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
• Morris, T., 1992, Making Sense of It All: Pascal and the Meaning of Life , Grand Rapids: Willliam B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Munitz, M., 1986, Cosmic Understanding , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Murphy, J., 1982, Evolution, Morality, and the Meaning of Life , Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Nagel, T., 1970, “The Absurd”, Journal of Philosophy , 68: 716–27.
• –––, 1986, The View from Nowhere , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Nielsen, K., 1964, “Linguistic Philosophy and ‘The Meaning of Life’”, rev. ed. in The Meaning of Life, E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 1981: 177–204.
• Nozick, R., 1974, Anarchy, State and Utopia , New York: Basic Books.
• –––, 1981, Philosophical Explanations , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1989, The Examined Life , New York: Simon & Schuster.
• Nussbaum, M., 1989, “Mortal Immortals: Lucretius on Death and the Voice of Nature”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 50: 303–51.
• Oakley, T., 2010, “The Issue is Meaninglessness”, The Monist , 93: 106–22.
• Perrett, R., 1986, “Regarding Immortality”, Religious Studies , 22: 219–33.
• Pogge, T., 1997, “Kant on Ends and the Meaning of Life”, in Reclaiming the History of Ethics: Essays for John Rawls , A. Reath et al. (eds.), New York: Cambridge University Press: 361–87.
• Quigley, M. and Harris, J., 2009, “Immortal Happiness”, in Philosophy and Happiness , L. Bortolotti (ed.), New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 68–81.
• Quinn, P., 2000, “How Christianity Secures Life's Meanings”, in The Meaning of Life in the World Religions , J. Runzo and N. Martin (eds.), Oxford: Oneworld Publications: 53–68.
• Railton, P., 1984, “Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality”, repr. in Consequentialism and Its Critics , S. Scheffler (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 1988: 93–133.
• Raz, J., 2001, Value, Respect, and Attachment , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sartre, J.-P., 1948, Existentialism is a Humanism , P. Mairet (tr.), London: Methuen & Co.
• Schmidtz, D., 2001, “The Meanings of Life”, in Boston University Studies in Philosophy and Religion, Volume 22; If I Should Die: Life, Death, and Immortality , L. Rouner (ed.), Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press: 170–88.
• Seachris, J., 2009, “The Meaning of Life as Narrative: A New Proposal for Interpreting Philosophy's ‘Primary’ Question”, Philo , 12: 5–23.
• Singer, I., 1996, Meaning in Life, Volume 1: The Creation of Value , Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Singer, P., 1993, Practical Ethics, 2 nd Ed ., New York: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1995, How are We to Live? Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books.
• Smith, Q., 1997, Ethical and Religious Thought in Analytic Philosophy of Language , New Haven: Yale University Press.
• –––, 2003, “Moral Realism and Infinite Spacetime Imply Moral Nihilism”, in Time and Ethics: Essays at the Intersection , H. Dyke (ed.), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 43–54.
• Smuts, A., 2011, “Immortality and Significance”, Philosophy and Literature , 35: 134–49.
• Starkey, C., 2006, “Meaning and Affect”, The Pluralist , 1: 88–103.
• Swenson, D., 1949, “The Dignity of Human Life”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 21–30.
• Tabensky, P., 2003, “Parallels Between Living and Painting”, The Journal of Value Inquiry , 37: 59–68.
• Tännsjö, T., 1988, “The Moral Significance of Moral Realism”, The Southern Journal of Philosophy , 26: 247–61.
• Taylor, C., 1989, Sources of the Self , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1992, The Ethics of Authenticity , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Taylor, R., 1970, Good and Evil , New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.
• –––, 1987, “Time and Life's Meaning”, The Review of Metaphysics , 40: 675–86.
• Thomas, L., 2005, “Morality and a Meaningful Life”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 405–27.
• Thomson, G., 2003, On the Meaning of Life , South Melbourne: Wadsworth.
• Tolstoy, L., 1884, A Confession .
• Trisel, B. A., 2002, “Futility and the Meaning of Life Debate”, Sorites , 70–84.
• –––, 2004, “Human Extinction and the Value of Our Efforts”, The Philosophical Forum , 35: 371–91.
• –––, 2012, “Intended and Unintended Life”, The Philosophical Forum , 43: 395–403.
• Velleman, J. D., 1991, “Well-Being and Time”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 72: 48–77.
• Velleman, J. D., 2005, “Family History”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 357–78.
• Walker, L., 1989, “Religion and the Meaning of Life and Death”, in Philosophy: The Quest for Truth , L. Pojman (ed.), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co: 167–71.
• Weinberg, R., 2012, “Is Having Children Always Wrong?”, South African Journal of Philosophy , 31: 26–37.
• Wielenberg, E., 2005, Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wiggins, D., 1988, “Truth, Invention, and the Meaning of Life”, rev. ed. in Essays on Moral Realism , G. Sayre-McCord (ed.), Ithaca: Cornell University Press: 127-65.
• Williams, B., 1973, “The Makropulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality”, in Problems of the Self , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 82–100.
• –––, 1976, “Persons, Character and Morality”, in The Identities of Persons , A. O. Rorty (ed.), Berkeley: University of California Press: 197–216.
• Williams, G., 1999, “Kant and the Question of Meaning”, The Philosophical Forum , 30: 115–31.
• Wisnewski, J. J., 2005, “Is the Immortal Life Worth Living?”, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion , 58: 27–36.
• Wohlgennant, R., 1981, “Has the Question About the Meaning of Life Any Meaning?” repr. in Life and Meaning: A Reader , O. Hanfling (ed.), Cambridge: Basic Blackwell Inc., 1987: 34–38.
• Wolf, S., 1997a, “Happiness and Meaning: Two Aspects of the Good Life”, Social Philosophy and Policy , 14: 207–25.
• –––, 1997b, “Meaningful Lives in a Meaningless World”, Quaestiones Infinitae , Volume 19 , Utrecht: Utrecht University: 1–22.
• –––, 2002, “The True, the Good, and the Lovable: Frankfurt's Avoidance of Objectivity”, in The Contours of Agency: Essays on Themes from Harry Frankfurt , S. Buss and L. Overton (eds.), Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press: 227–44.
• –––, 2010, Meaning in Life and Why It Matters , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Wollheim, R., 1984, The Thread of Life , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Wong, W., 2008, “Meaningfulness and Identities”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 11: 123–48.
• Benatar, D. (ed.), 2004, Life, Death & Meaning , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
• Cottingham, J. (ed.), 2007, Western Philosophy: An Anthology , Oxford: Blackwell: pt. 12.
• Hanfling, O. (ed.), 1987, Life and Meaning: A Reader , Cambridge: Basic Blackwell Inc.
• Klemke, E. D. and Cahn, S. M. (eds.), 2007, The Meaning of Life: A Reader, 3 rd Ed. , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Metz, T. (ed.), 2005, Special Issue: Meaning in Life, Philosophical Papers , 34: 330–463.
• Runzo, J. and Martin, N. (eds.), 2000, The Meaning of Life in the World Religions , Oxford: Oneworld Publications.
• Sanders, S. and Cheney, D. (eds.), 1980, The Meaning of Life: Questions, Answers, and Analysis , Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
• Seachris, J. (ed.), 2012, Exploring the Meaning of Life: An Anthology and Guide , Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Smith, Q. (ed.), 2010, Special Issue: The Meaning of Life, The Monist , 93: 3–165.
• Westphal, J. and Levenson, C. A. (eds.), 1993, Life and Death , Indianapolis: Hackett.
• Baggini, J., 2004, What's It All About?: Philosophy and the Meaning of Life , London: Granta Books.
• Belliotti, R., 2001, What Is the Meaning of Life? , Amsterdam: Rodopi.
• Eagleton, T., 2007, The Meaning of Life: A Very Short Introduction , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Ford, D., 2007, The Search for Meaning: A Short History , Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Martin, M., 2002, Atheism, Morality, and Meaning , Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
• Messerly, J., 2012, The Meaning of Life: Religious, Philosophical, Transhumanist, and Scientific Approaches , Seattle: Darwin and Hume Publishers.
• Young, J., 2003, The Death of God and the Meaning of Life , New York: Routledge.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up this entry topic at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Seachris, J., 2011, “ Meaning of Life: The Analytic Perspective ”, in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy , J. Fieser and B. Dowden (eds.)
• Vohánka, V. and Vohánková, P., n.d., “ On Nihilism Driven by the Magnitude of the Universe ”.

afterlife | death | ethics: ancient | existentialism | friendship | love | perfectionism, in moral and political philosophy | value: intrinsic vs. extrinsic | well-being

Copyright © 2013 by Thaddeus Metz < tmetz @ uj . ac . za >

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2016 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Robert Byrne: 'The purpose of life is a life of purpose.'

The purpose of life is a life of purpose.

The quote by Robert Byrne, "The purpose of life is a life of purpose," encapsulates a profound idea about the significance of finding purpose in our existence. At its core, this quote suggests that to truly live a fulfilling life, we need to pursue activities and goals that align with our values and contribute to something meaningful. It emphasizes that a life devoid of purpose can lead to a sense of emptiness and dissatisfaction.However, let us delve deeper into the concept of purpose and explore an unexpected philosophical perspective that adds intrigue to the topic. Existentialism, a philosophical school of thought that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, offers a unique viewpoint on this matter. According to existentialism, individuals are responsible for creating and defining their own purpose in life. It asserts that there is no predetermined meaning to human existence, leaving each person to grapple with the profound question of finding purpose in a seemingly absurd world.Drawing from existentialism, we can compare and contrast this perspective with the quote by Byrne. On one hand, Byrne's quote implies that there is an inherent purpose waiting to be discovered, suggesting a more deterministic outlook on life. On the other hand, existentialism challenges us to embrace our agency and actively shape our purpose, recognizing the freedom and responsibility that come with such autonomy.While Byrne's quote emphasizes the importance of leading a purposeful life, existentialism adds a layer of complexity by highlighting the individual's role in defining their purpose. It compels us to reflect on whether purpose is something external, waiting to be found, or an internal construct that we must build and cultivate.Beneath the surface, both perspectives share a common desire to uncover meaning in life. They challenge us to consider how our actions and pursuits contribute to something greater than ourselves. Whether we discover purpose through aligning with an external goal or by actively forging our own path, the underlying message remains the same: a purposeful life is one that encompasses values, passion, and meaningful contributions to society.In the quest for a life of purpose, it is essential to explore our own values, passions, and aspirations. What brings us joy and fulfillment? What aligns with our core beliefs and values? Reflecting on these questions can help us navigate the maze of finding purpose in life. Whether our purpose manifests in our personal relationships, professional endeavors, creative pursuits, or acts of service, the key lies in engaging with activities that resonate deeply within us.Moreover, a life of purpose does not necessarily require grand gestures or momentous achievements. It can be found in the small everyday actions that bring us joy and fulfillment. It can be as simple as being present with loved ones, practicing acts of kindness, pursuing hobbies, or using our skills to make a positive impact on others. Purpose can manifest through our interactions with the world, shaping not only our own lives but also the lives of those around us.Ultimately, the quote by Robert Byrne acts as a guiding principle, reminding us of the importance of leading a life steeped in purpose. It encourages us to seek out activities and goals that align with our values and contribute to something meaningful. Combining this perspective with existentialist philosophy sparks a fascinating exploration of our own agency in defining purpose.As we navigate the complexities of life, let us remember that purpose is not a fixed destination but rather an ongoing journey of self-discovery and growth. By seeking out what brings us joy, resonates with our core values, and positively impacts others, we can cultivate a life rich in purpose and find fulfillment in the pursuit of our own unique path.

James Whitcomb Riley: 'It is no use to grumble and complain It's just as cheap and easy to rejoice When God sorts out the weather and sends rain - Why, rain's my choice.'

Benito mussolini: 'fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.'.

The Meaning of Life: Personal Essay Essay

When it comes to the meaning of life, there are two different ways we can look at it. Both of these have their advantages and disadvantages, and ultimately it is up to the individual to decide which sense of the term they use when discussing the meaning of life. In my opinion, life has meaning which comes from the choices, relationships, and experiences that an individual has, so I find personal meaning within myself.

The external meaning of life is something that is imposed upon us from an outside source. This could be anything from a religious belief system to a set of societal norms and expectations. For example, some people may believe that the meaning of life is to serve God, while others may think that the meaning of life is to be successful in their career. The advantage of this type of meaning is that it provides a clear goal and a sense of purpose, which can help people stay focused and motivated (Novosel, 2020). The disadvantage, however, is that it can be limiting and can make it difficult to explore and find meaning in other areas of life.

The internal meaning of life is something that we find within ourselves. I believe that life is a journey and the meaning of life comes from the choices we make and the relationships we form. Expressing creativity and helping others by making a positive impact on the world are just a few ways to find purpose in life (Novosel, 2020). Nevertheless, it can be challenging to discover the meaning of life, as it requires self-reflection and exploration. The reward of this effort is the sense of freedom it brings, allowing us to define our own sense of purpose.

In conclusion, life is a journey and the meaning of life is a combination of both the internal and external meaning. It is often said that there is no definite answer to the question of the meaning of life. Everyone has their own distinct point of view and it is ultimately the individual’s choice to select which interpretation they would like to embrace. It could be an external interpretation or an internal one; the essential thing is to uncover something that brings pleasure and satisfaction to your life.

Novosel, N. (2020). The meaning of life: A guide to finding your life’s purpose . Nathanael Garrett Novosel.

• Self-Reflection on Course Participation
• Self-Reflection in Nurses: 70-Year-Old Patient
• Black Lives Matter: Diversity Awareness and Self-Reflection
• The Power of Personal Mission Statements
• Adolescent Socialization in a Post-Pandemic World
• From Solitude to Socialization: A Journey of Friendship
• The Value of Life Learnt from Personal Experience
• Navigating the Ambiguity of Family
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, May 24). The Meaning of Life: Personal Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-meaning-of-life-personal-essay/

"The Meaning of Life: Personal Essay." IvyPanda , 24 May 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/the-meaning-of-life-personal-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'The Meaning of Life: Personal Essay'. 24 May.

IvyPanda . 2024. "The Meaning of Life: Personal Essay." May 24, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-meaning-of-life-personal-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Meaning of Life: Personal Essay." May 24, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-meaning-of-life-personal-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Meaning of Life: Personal Essay." May 24, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-meaning-of-life-personal-essay/.

Your complimentary articles

You’ve read one of your four complimentary articles for this month.

You can read four articles free per month. To have complete access to the thousands of philosophy articles on this site, please

Question of the Month

What is life, the following answers to this fundamental question each win a random book..

Life is the aspect of existence that processes, acts, reacts, evaluates, and evolves through growth (reproduction and metabolism). The crucial difference between life and non-life (or non-living things) is that life uses energy for physical and conscious development. Life is anything that grows and eventually dies, i.e., ceases to proliferate and be cognizant. Can we say that viruses, for example, are cognizant? Yes, insofar as they react to stimuli; but they are alive essentially because they reproduce and grow. Computers are non-living because even though they can cognize, they do not develop biologically (grow), and cannot produce offspring. It is not cognition that determines life, then: it is rather proliferation and maturation towards a state of death; and death occurs only to living substances.

Or is the question, ‘What is the meaning (purpose) of life?’ That’s a real tough one. But I think that the meaning of life is the ideals we impose upon it, what we demand of it. I’ve come to reaffirm my Boy Scout motto, give or take a few words, that the meaning of life is to: Do good, Be Good, but also to Receive Good. The foggy term in this advice, of course, is ‘good’; but I leave that to the intuitive powers that we all share.

There are, of course, many intuitively clear examples of Doing Good: by retrieving a crying baby from a dumpster; by trying to rescue someone who’s drowning. Most of us would avoid murdering; and most of us would refrain from other acts we find intuitively wrong. So our natural intuitions determine the meaning of life for us; and it seems for other species as well, for those intuitions resonate through much of life and give it its purpose.

Tom Baranski, Somerset, New Jersey

The ceramic artist Edmund de Waal places an object in front of him and begins to tell a story. Even if the patina, chips and signs of repair of the inanimate object hint at its history, the story is told by a living observer. A living thing is an object that contains its story within itself. Life’s story is held in the genome, based in DNA. Maybe other ways for memorising the story may be discovered, but in environments subject to common chemical processes, common methods are likely to emerge.

Although we have only the example of the Earth, it shows that life will evolve to fill every usable niche, and to secure and further diversify those niches. This should not be thought of as purposeful. Life embodies a ‘plan’, but one that does not specify ends, only methods acquired iteratively. Inanimate processes can be cyclic but not iterative: they do not learn from past mistakes.

Life exists at many levels. Life is also a process through which energy and materials are transformed; but so is non-life. The difference is that the process of life is intimately linked to story it contains, whereas non-life is indifferent to the story we impose upon it. Yet life is only a story, so it can act only through matter. Therefore life is by nature a toolmaker. Its tools are potentially everything that exists, and its workshop is potentially the whole universe. So why do humans risk undermining the life of which they are part? Because they try to impose upon it a story of their own making. Yet humans, the ‘tool-making animals’, are themselves tools of life, in an unplanned experiment.

Nicholas Taylor, Little Sandhurst, Berkshire

First the technical definition. Life is self-organising chemistry which reproduces itself and passes on its evolved characteristics, encoded in DNA. In thermodynamics terms, it has the ability to reduce local entropy or disorganisation, thus locally contravening the third law of thermodynamics.

But what is life really about , if anything? The two possibilities are, life is either a meaningless accident arising from the laws of physics operating in a meaningless universe, or it is a step in a planned ‘experiment’. I say ‘step’, because this cannot be the end. The current state of life is as yet too unstable and undeveloped for it to be the end. And I say ‘experiment’ because the evolutionary nature of life suggests that its future is not known. If therefore the universe itself has a purpose, it seems most likely to be to explore what the outcome of the evolutionary experiment would be.

But what will be the outcome? If, as many physicists now believe, the universe is only information, then harnessing all the resources of the universe in one giant evolutionary process could plausibly provide a useful outcome for a species clever enough to create the universe in the first place. On this interpretation, life will ultimately organise all the physical resources of the universe into a single self-conscious intelligence, which in turn will then be able to interact with its creator(s).

Dr Harry Fuchs, Flecknoe, Warwickshire

Life is the embodiment of selfishness! Life is selfish because it is for itself in two ways: it is for its own survival, and it is for its own reproduction. This desire is embodied in an adaptive autocatalytic chemical system, forming life’s embodied mind.

Anything that is not itself is the other; and the collection of others constitute its environment. The organism must destructively use the other to satisfy its reproductive desire, but on achieving this, it produces an additional other – but now one that also embodies its own selfish aim and the means to satisfy this aim. Therefore, even by an organism satisfying its desire, it makes the continuing satisfaction of its desires ever more difficult to achieve. A partial solution to this dilemma is for genetically-related entities to form a cooperating society.

The underlying mechanism of evolution is therefore the iteration of the embodied desire within an ever more complex competitive and social environment. Over vast numbers of iterations, this process forces some life-forms along a pathway that solves the desire for survival and reproduction by developing ever more complex and adaptable minds. This is achieved by supplementing their underlying cellular embodied chemistry with a specialist organ (although still based on chemistry) that we call its brain, able to rapidly process electrical signals. Advanced minds can collect and process vast inputs of data by ‘projecting’ the derived output back onto its environmental source, that is by acting. However advanced it might be, an organism is still driven by the same basic needs for survival and reproduction. The creative process, however, leads the organism towards an increasingly aesthetic experience of the world. This is why for us the world we experience is both rich and beautiful.

Dr Steve Brewer, St Ives, Cornwall

In our scientific age, we look to the biologists to define ‘life’ for us. After all, it is their subject matter. I believe they have yet to reach consensus, but a biological definition would be something like, ‘Life is an arrangement of molecules with qualities of self-sustenance and self-replication’. This kind of definition might serve the purposes of biologists, but for me, it has five deficiencies. First, any definition of life by biologists would have little utility outside biology because of its necessary inclusiveness. We humans would find ourselves in a class of beings that included the amoeba. ‘Life’ would be the limited common properties of all organisms, including the lowest. Second, the scientific definition of life is necessarily an external one. I think that knowing what life is, as opposed to defining it, requires knowing it from within. Non-sentient organisms live, but they do not know life. Third, in the scientific definition, there is no place for life having value. However, many would say that life has value in its own right – that it is not simply that we humans value life and so give it value, but that it has value intrinsically. Fourth, there is the question of life as a whole having a purpose or goal. This notion is not scientific, but one wonders if the tools of science are fit to detect any evolutionary purpose, if there is one. Fifth, for the scientists, life is a set of biological conditions and processes. However, everywhere and always, people have conceived of a life after biological death, a life of spirit not necessarily dependent on the physical for existence.

The scientific definition of life is valid in its context, but otherwise I find it impoverished. I believe there is a hierarchy of living beings from the non-sentient, to the sentient, to humans, and perhaps up to God. When I ask, ‘What is life? I want to know what life is at its highest form. I believe life at its best is spirit: it is active, sentient, feeling, thinking, purposive, valuing, social, other-respecting, relating, and caring.

John Talley, Rutherfordton, NC

I listen enthralled to scientific debate on what, how, when and where life was created. However, questions remain which may never be resolved. In this vacuum, philosophers and religious thinkers have attempted to give meaning to life by suggesting goals: Plato suggested the acquisition of knowledge, Aristotle to practice virtue, and the Stoics, mental fortitude and self-control. Today’s philosophers echo the existentialist view that life is full of absurdity, although they also tell us that we must put meaning into life by making our own values in an indifferent world. But if life is just a journey from womb to tomb, will such ‘meaning’ be sufficient to allow the traveller at journey’s end to feel that it was worthwhile?

Perhaps the hypothesis upon which Ivan Tyrrell and Joe Griffin have based their therapy could help (see Human Givens , 2003). They describe that we are born with evolved needs that seek satisfaction from our environment. These are physical and emotional needs, which, when enough of them are met, ensure the health of the individual, maximising his or her ability to achieve meaning in life. Griffin and Tyrrell have proven empirically that when sufficient needs are met an individual will enjoy mental and physical health, unless there is damage or toxicity in the environment. Some of these needs were identified by Maslow in his ‘Hierarchy of Needs’ in his 1943 paper ‘A Theory of Human Motivation’, Psychological Review , 50 (4), but Griffin and Tyrrell focus more clearly on emotional needs such as:

• To achieve, and to feel competent

• To fulfil our sense of autonomy and control

• To be emotionally connected to other people and part of a larger community

• To have a sense of status within social groupings

• For privacy and rest, to reflect and consolidate learning

• And yes – to have meaning in one’s life

Meaning becomes difficult, if not impossible, to achieve if these needs are insufficiently satisfied. Unfortunately, modern society seeks meaning to life through materialism, to the detriment of our biological needs, leading to dissatisfaction and a consequent inability to find meaning. The result is an exponential increase in mental ill-health. Sadly, then, many of us will not experience the satisfaction of a meaningful life journey.

Caryl A. Fuchs, Flecknoe, Warwickshire

Life is the eternal and unbroken flow of infinite rippling simultaneous events that by a fortuitous chain has led to this universe of elements we are all suspended in, that has somehow led to this present experience of sentient existence. Animal life (excluding that of humans) shows that life is a simple matter of being, by means of a modest routine of eating, sleeping and reproducing. Animals balance their days between these necessities, doing only what their bodies ask of them. The life of vegetation is not far from that of animals. They eat and sleep and reproduce in their own way, for the same result. So life is a beautiful and naturally harmonious borrowing of energy.

Yet we have taken it for granted. We have lost the power to simply be happy eating, sleeping, reproducing, believing we need a reason to be alive, a purpose and a goal to reach, so that on our deathbeds (something we have been made to fear) we can look back and tell ourselves we have done something with our lives. Life has lost its purpose because we have tried to give it one. The truth is that we are no more significant than the sand by the sea or the clouds in the sky. No more significant. But as significant.

No matter what your race, religion or gender, when you first step outside your door in the morning and feel the fresh air in your lungs and the morning sun on your face, you close your eyes and smile. In that moment you are feeling life as it should be. No defining, no understanding, no thinking. Just that feeling of pure bliss. For that is what life is.

Courtney Walsh, Farnborough, Hampshire

Of all Webster’s definitions of ‘life’, the one for me that best covers it is, “the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual.” Indeed, life is a continuum of accomplishment, failure, discovery, dilemma, challenge, boredom, sadness, disappointment, appreciation, the giving and receipt of grace, empathy, peace, and our reactions to all sorts of stimuli – touch, love, friendship, loss… One can either merely exist or try to achieve, working through the difficult times, perhaps learning a thing or two. Everyone has a story. I’ve been surprised when learning something new about an acquaintance or friend that must have been very difficult to manage or survive; but there they are in front of me. It’s how you come out on the other side of those challenging times that is important. How you land, get on with it, and keep on truckin’.

Life cannot be planned: there’s fate, and there’s simple bad luck. Failure can bring crushing disappointment, or you can try and make a new plan. A person can waste an inordinate amount of time mourning what they don’t have, or plans that don’t work out. But who wants to waste that much time regretting?

Life has happy surprises, small moments to cherish. It’s a matter of weighing the good and bad times – the challenge is to balance both, ending up with a life looked back on that was worth the mighty effort. I’m not meaning to sound like a Pollyanna – I assure you I’m not – it’s just more pleasant to strive for a modicum of equilibrium. If I can manage that, I’m good.

Cheryl Anderson, Kenilworth, Illinois

“Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.” ( Macbeth , Act V, Scene V)

These words of Shakespeare’s Macbeth summarize interesting ideas about the nature of life. The first line expresses two of the three marks of existence as per Buddhist thinking, Anicca , impermanence, and Anatta , non-self: a “walking shadow” is as insubstantial and impermanent as anything imaginable; a “poor player” neither creates nor directs his role, and the character being played only exists because of an author. Macbeth’s entire statement, particularly the last sentence, expresses the third Buddhist mark of existence: Dukkha , dissatisfaction.

The stage metaphor in the second line represents boundaries or limits. Scientific research into the nature of life often focuses on the material, energetic, and temporal limitations within which life can exist. The temporal limit of life is known as death. In the spirit of this interpretation, the idea of being “heard no more” could imply that life constantly evolves new forms while discarding older ones.

Macbeth hints at the wisdom of mystery traditions while anticipating the revelations of genetic science by stating that life “is a tale”. Now, this refers to the language-based, or code-based, nature of life. Readers may consider this in relation to DNA and RNA, and also in relation to John’s Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (The implications of the phrase “told by an idiot” exceed the scope of this inquiry.)

In five concise and poetic lines, Shakespeare defined life as an impermanent, non-self-directed, unsatisfactory, limited, ever-changing, and ultimately insignificant code.

Devon Hall, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Life is the realisation of its own contingency. But that’s not the end of it; it’s merely the means towards the creation of meaning. Life is thus a constant process of becoming, through creating values and meaning. Life is therefore perpetual transcendence, always moving into the future, creating the present. Life is also acceptance: the acceptance of finitude; acceptance of one’s responsibilities; acceptance of other human beings’ existence and choices. Life is neither fixed nor absolute, it is ambiguous; life is the possibilities entailed by existence. Life is the consciousness of humanity; it is perception of the world and the universe. So life is sadness; life is death. Life is suffering and destruction. But life is also happiness; life is living. Life is joy and creativity. Life is finding a cause to survive, a reason not to die – not yet. It is youth and old age, with everything in between. Overall, life is beautiful – ugliness is fleeting. Corpses and skeletons are lugubrious; living flesh is resplendent, all bodies are statuesque. Human life is love and hate, but it can only be life when we are with others. Life as fear and hatred is not real life at all. For some, life is God. We would all then be His children. We are nevertheless the spawn of the Earth.

Human existence is freedom – an edifice of plurality.

Greg Chatterton, Cupar, Fife

If the ancients could do philosophy in the marketplace, maybe I can too. So I employed some modern technology by texting the question ‘What is Life?’ to all my contacts. I didn’t explain the context of the question, to avoid lyrical waxing. Here are a sample of replies. Life is: being conscious of yourself and others; a being with a soul; experience; what you make it; your chance to be a success; family; living as long as you can; not being dead; greater than the sum of its parts; complex chemical organisation; different things to different people; a mystery; a journey; don’t know; a quote from a song, “baby don’t hurt me”; life begins after death. I asked a regular in my favourite café. They said, “man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.” A person suffering from a degenerative disease answered: “life is sh** then you die.” Another with the same illness interviewed in our local newspaper said, “My life is a mission to help other sufferers.” A colleague said “some would want to shoot themselves if they had my life, but I’m happy.” I posed the question at my art club and we did no painting that day…

I was surprised to find that I had no immediate definition of life myself (hence the idea to ask) and that there is no consensus (only one reply was repeated), but then, that also is life.

I sometimes catch myself considering life when I arrive at the turning point on my evening walk. It’s a dark spot which makes stargazing easier, and the heavens are a good place to start, since life as we know it began there (the heavier atoms like carbon which make up our bodies initially formed in dying Red Giant stars). This makes me feel two things about my life: it’s a dot because the cosmos is immense; but it’s an important dot in the cosmos because I can consider it.

Kristine Kerr, Gourock, Renfrewshire

Next Question of the Month

Now we know what life is, the next question is, How Should I Live? Please give and justify your ethical advice in less than 400 words. The prize is a semi-random book from our book mountain. Subject lines or envelopes should be marked ‘Question of the Month’, and must be received by 9th June. If you want a chance of getting a book, please include your physical address. Submission implies permission to reproduce your answer physically and electronically. Thank you.

This site uses cookies to recognize users and allow us to analyse site usage. By continuing to browse the site with cookies enabled in your browser, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our privacy policy . X

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

13.7 Cosmos & Culture

Does life have a purpose.

Marcelo Gleiser

Kind of cute. But pretty stupid. A scale model of a baby sauropod in its egg. Tim Boyle/Getty Images hide caption

Kind of cute. But pretty stupid. A scale model of a baby sauropod in its egg.

I don't mean our private lives, our personal choices and hopes, the plans we make along the years. I imagine that each and every one of us believes our lives do have a purpose, or many. What I mean is life as a natural phenomenon, this strange assembly of matter endowed with autonomy, capable of absorbing energy from the environment and preserving itself through reproduction.

All life forms have one essential purpose: survival. This is even more important than reproduction. After all, babies and grannies are alive but don't reproduce. To be alive is more than passing genes along. To be alive is to want to remain alive. This is an essential difference between living creatures and other forms of material organization, such as stars or rocks.

These forms simply exist, passively allowing the unfolding of the physical processes that define their interactions with themselves and their surroundings. For rocks, it's a give and take with erosion; for stars, they withstand their gravitational imploding while there is enough fuel in their cores. There is no energy architecture, no planning to prolong what is inevitable.

The essential difference between the living and the non-living is the urge for preservation. Life is a form of material organization that strives to perpetuate itself.

The confusion with respect to the purpose of life shows up when we consider the amazing diversity of life forms. Given such richness and creativity, it's hard to accept that all of this is just the result of a purposeless accident, without any intention of creating ever-more-complex creatures. Things get worse when we learn that the history of life on Earth shows an increasing complexity.

Life has been around planet Earth for at least 3.5 billion years. During the first 2.5 billion years there were only unicellular bacteria. Only some 600 million years ago did diversity take off. After the Cambrian explosion, at about 550 million years ago, we see the multicellular complexity we associate with higher life forms. From there to here life took over the oceans, land and air with amazing speed and resilience.

No wonder so many people think that life has a purpose, that of increasing its complexity. Of course, the apex of this process would be us, intelligent humans.

This conclusion, however, is false. There is no "plan" to make life more complex so that it can finally generate intelligent beings. (The eminent biologist Ernst Mayr makes a powerful argument against this kind of teleology.) Take the dinosaurs, for example: they were here for some 150 million years and were pretty stupid. We don't see velociraptors using radio telescopes or iPads. Life wants to preserve itself. As long as it is well adapted to its environment it will remain as is, with the possibility of the occasional beneficial mutation.

If the environment changes drastically, life will respond. Either by dying or, for those species that survive, through mutations that may drive radical changes in short periods, as in the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis of Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge that — even if somewhat controversial — seems to contain a germ of truth.

If we changed one or more dramatic events in Earth's history, say, the fall of the asteroid that helped eliminate the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, life's history would also change. It's quite possible that we wouldn't even be here.

The lesson from life is simple: in Nature, creation and destruction dance together. But in this choreography there is no choreographer.

You can keep up with more of what Marcelo is thinking on Facebook and Twitter: @mgleiser

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

How Purpose Changes Across Your Lifetime

Purpose is the stuff of inspirational posters and motivational speeches. When we find our purpose, they say, we’ll know what we are meant to do in life. The path will be laid out before us, and our job will be to keep following that vision with unwavering commitment.

But is this really what purpose looks like?

Alongside the self-help hype is a body of research on purpose across the lifespan, reaching back more than 30 years. Following people as they grapple with their identity as teens, settle into the responsibilities of adulthood, and make the shift to retirement, this research paints a more complicated picture of purpose—but a hopeful one, too.

Here’s the upshot: We don’t have to worry about finding our one true purpose; we can find purpose in different areas of life. In fact, purpose isn’t something we find at all. It’s something we can cultivate through deliberate action and reflection, and it will naturally wax and wane throughout our lives.

Like happiness, purpose is not a destination, but a journey and a practice. That means it’s accessible at any age, if we’re willing to explore what matters to us and what kind of person we want to be—and act to become that person.

This “is a project that endures across the lifespan,” as purpose expert Kendall Bronk and her colleagues write in a 2009 paper. If we’re able to revisit and renew our sense of purpose as we navigate milestones and transitions, suggests this research, then we can look forward to more satisfying, meaningful lives.

Teens: Seeking purpose

A purpose in life is not just any big goal that we pursue. According to researchers, purpose is a long-term aim that is meaningful to the self—but goes beyond the self, aiming to make a difference to the broader world. We might find purpose in fighting poverty, creating art, or making people’s lives better through technology.

That process begins when we’re teens, as we explore who we are, what we value, and what we want out of life, says Bronk, an associate professor at Claremont Graduate University. As they try different interests and activities, like music or volunteering, some teens start to discover paths they want to pursue. Other teens have challenging life experiences, like a parent being diagnosed with cancer or a shooting in their hometown, that spur them to work on particular causes. Others are inspired by role models who are leading purposeful lives, from parents to coaches.

Mariah Jordan from Cleveland, one of the winners of the GGSC Purpose Challenge Scholarship Contest, often accompanied her grandmother to doctor’s appointments as a child. Over time, witnessing her grandmother’s experiences, she began to see the racial inequalities that existed in health care. She went on to volunteer in a medical setting and conduct research on cancer in African Americans, working to eliminate health disparities and bring more cultural sensitivity to the field of medicine.

Talk with Teens about Purpose

Help adolescents start exploring and reflecting on meaningful life goals

William Damon, author of The Path to Purpose and a professor at Stanford, has spent nearly 20 years studying how people develop purpose in work, family, and civic life. As he describes it, purpose is something of a chemical reaction that takes place when our skills meet the needs of the world. Young people must identify something in their environment that could be improved, whether it’s politics or modern jazz music, and recognize something in themselves that they can bring to bear on that problem—leadership skills, say, or creativity.

Knowing your skills and your interests—and in a larger sense, your identity—seems to be key to pursuing purpose. In a 2011 study , high school and college students answered surveys about their sense of purpose, as well as their sense of identity—how clear they were on the kinds of jobs, values, friendships, politics, religion, and sex roles they would have in life. Researchers found that the more solid their sense of identity, the more purposeful they were. In turn, they were also happier and more hopeful for the future.

A 2012 study by the same researchers had a similar finding, but in the opposite direction—with young people who felt purposeful building a more solid sense of identity over time. “Identity and purpose development are intertwined processes,” write Patrick Hill of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Anthony Burrow of Cornell University.

At this age, though, only about 20 percent of teens have a strong sense of purpose in life, at least according to Damon’s work. Others have pie-in-the-sky dreams, or fun hobbies, or they’re just trying to get through high school. More often, childhood and adolescence seem to be the time when the building blocks of purpose are established, but we’re still exploring what we want out of life.

Adults: Busy with purpose

According to Damon, most people who find purpose do so in their 20s and 30s. This is when we tend to start building a career and a family—both of which are major sources of purpose during adulthood, along with religion and volunteering.

In the family realm, we may find a deep sense of purpose from raising children, as well as taking care of aging parents . At work, we might feel fulfilled in supporting our coworkers, making a difference in the organization, or contributing to society, Damon writes .

When education professional Paul LeBuffe found out that he was raising a special-needs child, it was a turning point for his family and his career—and his sense of purpose. Since then, he has been working to promote resilience in children and adults, and within his own family. Working in that field means he’s always learning things he can apply to his own life, which helps give him a sense of balance.

How Strong is Your Sense of Purpose?

Do you have a long-term goal that's meaningful to yourself and the world? Take our quiz to find out.

While finding purpose can feel like an exciting adventure for young people, who might take gap years or try interesting electives in college, purpose becomes more urgent for adults.

In a 2009 study , Bronk and her colleagues surveyed people of different age groups, including nearly 400 young people (in their teens and early 20s) and over 400 adults (around age 35). When they were searching for purpose, young people were more satisfied with life—but this wasn’t true of adults. In fact, the more they were still actively seeking purpose, the less satisfied they were. The researchers surmise that this comes down to cultural norms and the expectations adults have for themselves.

“In our culture we expect young people to explore what matters most to them, but by midlife, we expect them to have sorted this out,” write Bronk and her colleagues.

At some age, lacking in purpose becomes unpleasant—but Bronk points out that having purpose isn’t always a picnic, either. Going after a big, long-term goal can be stressful and discouraging; as anyone who has raised a child knows, things that bring us meaning don’t always bring us day-to-day fun and good cheer.

While there may be struggles, though, people who have that sense of direction and purpose do ultimately tend to have more satisfying , healthier , and even longer lives .

Midlife and beyond: A crossroads of purpose

While purpose tends to be highest in adulthood, old age can come with a diminishing sense of purpose and direction. In one survey of people ages 50-92, only 30 percent reported feeling purposeful.

The causes aren’t too surprising. Two of the biggest sources of purpose for adults, work and family, take a major hit when we retire and when kids leave home. Suddenly, we wake up to days that aren’t structured by meetings and deadlines, by soccer games and homework help. It can feel like the things that defined us—our very identity—are slipping away. On top of all that, niggling health problems can make it physically harder to stay involved with activities and people that might keep us feeling engaged.

Gerontologist and AgeWave founder Ken Dychtwald sees a pattern where society doesn’t recognize the value and wisdom of older people, writing them off as feeble or irrelevant, and elders don’t always put in the work to learn new technology and connect with younger people. While society might be telling them to relax and enjoy their golden years, he says, many older adults just feel adrift.

More on Purpose

Read how one millennial is finding purpose and connection in a pandemic.

Learn how to find your purpose in life .

Explore what purpose looks like for fathers.

Discover the health benefits of having a purpose .

Not everyone has this experience, of course. People who have strong relationships and a positive attitude toward aging tend to fare better. In one study , researchers interviewed people ages 61-70 and identified the ones who were able to maintain or increase their sense of purpose over the decade. Those individuals often turned their efforts inward to become better human beings, learning new skills or tackling long-held emotional struggles. As Damon explains, the pause of retirement and an empty nest can be an invitation to introspection, in ways that weren’t possible in our chaotic midlives, and a reconnection with the things that truly matter.

John Leland, a New York Times reporter, had the opportunity to follow six New Yorkers over 85 for a year and get an intimate glimpse into their lives. They became his friends, he says, and their stories were featured in his book about happiness. He observes that the elders who held on to a sense of purpose thrived because of their flexibility. They rolled with the punches as their lives changed and evolved, and they remained open to new experiences.

“Those who are able to understand their roles as constantly changing, constantly evolving—it’s a story that they’re still writing—are able to deal with the ups and downs that we all confront better than people who see themselves as fixed in one point,” he says.

In many ways, the pursuit of purpose as an older adult looks a lot like it does for teens. Marc Freedman, founder of the generation-connecting organization Encore.org, sees this parallel, too: Instead of internships, Encore.org offers fellowships where older people spend up to a year working in nonprofits, foundations, and other social sector organizations. The experience is designed to help them find an “encore career,” a purposeful activity that serves the greater good and contributes to the world they’ll leave behind.

Gary Maxworthy, who won Encore.org’s Purpose Prize in 2007, was 56 when his wife died from cancer. After more than three decades in food distribution, he wanted to give back. He started volunteering at a food bank, where he quickly noticed a big problem and a big opportunity: Growers were having to send lots of “imperfect” produce to landfills, because they couldn’t sell it, and accepting fresh produce was too difficult for food banks. He created Farm to Family to solve that problem and ensure that fresh fruit and vegetables make it to families in need.

Other Encore.org fellows include retired doctors caring for underserved patients and retired tech company executives helping to improve online government services. Meanwhile, organizations like Stanford’s Advanced Leadership Institute and the Modern Elder Academy offer college-like experiences for older adults looking for a fresh start. In Freedman’s experience, very few of us will wake up one day with a totally new purpose in life. Instead, he observes people draw on the skills, knowledge, and values they’ve cultivated over a lifetime to start a new chapter.

That’s good news, because it means the building blocks of purpose are already within us when we reach maturity.

The practice of purpose

Years ago, Bronk interviewed young people about their sense of purpose, hoping to gain some insight into how it developed. Afterward, she was surprised to hear how much the participants enjoyed the conversation. In fact, she and her team discovered that talking with young people about the things that mattered to them actually increased their sense of purpose in life—an outcome the researchers hadn’t even been looking for.

That’s partly why Bronk believes, deep down, that everyone has a purpose, even if they don’t realize it or know what it is yet.

“We all have things that we care about, we all have special talents that we can apply to make a meaningful difference in the world around us,” she says. Other researchers agree that you can have a sense of purpose even if you can’t write it down in a simple sentence: “My purpose is…”

As we’ve seen, we can have multiple purposes that rise and fall in importance over our lifetime, as schedules are juggled and priorities shift. When we face transitions, whether it’s changing careers, going through divorce or illness, or hitting a milestone birthday, we may be prompted to slow down, reflect, and reprioritize.

In other words, purpose is a constant practice—which is something Leland took away from his time with New York’s “oldest old.”

“They believed that purpose was something you created, not something you sought, and it would be something that you have to keep creating,” reflects Leland. “I think they would say that happiness would be the same thing. It’s something that you have within you, and you have to tap it and recognize it and cultivate it rather than waiting for it to come your way.”

This article is part of a GGSC initiative on “ Finding Purpose Across the Lifespan ,” supported by the John Templeton Foundation. In a series of articles, podcast episodes, and other resources, we’ll be exploring why and how to deepen your sense of purpose at different stages of life.

About the Author

Kira M. Newman

Kira M. Newman is the managing editor of Greater Good . Her work has been published in outlets including the Washington Post , Mindful magazine, Social Media Monthly , and Tech.co, and she is the co-editor of The Gratitude Project . Follow her on Twitter!

You May Also Enjoy

How to Find Your Purpose in Life

How to Find Your Purpose as a Special-Needs Family

Five Childhood Experiences That Lead to a More Purposeful Life

What Is Your Purpose as a Father?

How to Find Your Purpose in Midlife

How I’m Finding Purpose and Connection in a Pandemic

Essay on Purpose Of Life

Students are often asked to write an essay on Purpose Of Life in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Purpose Of Life

Understanding the purpose of life.

Life is a precious gift. Its purpose is different for everyone and depends on individual beliefs and experiences. Some people find purpose in helping others, while others find it in learning or creating. It’s about finding what makes you happy and fulfilled.

Finding Your Purpose

Discovering your purpose can take time. It’s not always clear and may change as you grow. You can start by thinking about what you love to do, what makes you feel good, and how you can make a positive impact on the world.

The Joy in Purpose

When you find your purpose, life becomes more meaningful. You feel a sense of fulfillment and satisfaction. This joy can motivate you to work harder and achieve your goals. It’s like a guiding light that leads you through life.

Living with Purpose

To live with purpose, you need to follow your heart and stay true to yourself. It’s about making choices that align with your beliefs and values. Remember, your purpose is unique to you. So, embrace it and live life to the fullest.

Also check:

• Paragraph on Purpose Of Life

250 Words Essay on Purpose Of Life

What is the purpose of life.

Life is a precious gift, and everyone has their unique way of living it. Some people think the purpose of life is to be happy, while others believe it is to help others.

Finding Happiness

Many people believe that the purpose of life is to find happiness. This could mean doing things that make us feel good, like playing games, eating our favorite food, or spending time with friends and family. It is about enjoying every moment and making the most of our time.

Helping Others

For others, life’s purpose is to help people. They find joy in making others happy or making the world a better place. This could mean doing volunteer work, helping a friend with homework, or simply being kind to everyone around us.

Learning and Growing

Some people see the purpose of life as a chance to learn and grow. They want to gain knowledge, learn new skills, and become better people. This could mean studying hard at school, reading lots of books, or trying new things.

In conclusion, the purpose of life can be different for everyone. It could be about finding happiness, helping others, or learning and growing. It’s about finding what makes you feel fulfilled and doing that. Remember, the purpose of life is a journey, not a destination. So, enjoy every step of your journey.

500 Words Essay on Purpose Of Life

Understanding ‘purpose of life’.

The ‘Purpose of Life’ is a big idea that everyone thinks about at some point. In simple terms, it is the reason why we are here. It is what gives our life meaning and direction. It is like a personal goal that guides our actions and choices.

Individual Purpose

Everyone has their own purpose in life, which can be different from others. This purpose can be anything that makes you feel happy and fulfilled. For some, it could be becoming a doctor and saving lives, while for others, it could be becoming a painter and creating beautiful art. It is not about what others think is important, but what you feel is important.

Common Human Purpose

While each person has their own purpose, there are also common purposes that all humans share. These include learning, growing, and contributing to the world. We all want to learn new things, grow as people, and make the world a better place. These common purposes can help bring us together and create a sense of community.

Finding your purpose in life can take time and is often a journey of self-discovery. It involves understanding your passions, values, and strengths. You can start by asking yourself questions like, “What do I love to do?”, “What am I good at?” and “What do I feel strongly about?” The answers to these questions can help guide you towards your purpose.

Living Your Purpose

Once you find your purpose, it is important to live it. This means making choices and taking actions that align with your purpose. For example, if your purpose is to help others, you might choose to volunteer at a local charity. Living your purpose can give your life meaning and make you feel fulfilled.

The Importance of Purpose

Having a purpose in life is important because it gives our life direction and meaning. It helps us make decisions and set goals. It also gives us a sense of fulfillment and happiness. Without a purpose, life can feel empty and meaningless.

In conclusion, the purpose of life is a deeply personal and important idea. It is the guiding force that gives our life meaning and direction. While each person’s purpose is unique, we all share common purposes of learning, growing, and contributing to the world. Finding and living your purpose can bring great joy and fulfillment to your life.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Pyramids Of Egypt
• Essay on Qin Dynasty
• Essay on Qualities Of A Good Mother

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

What is the Purpose of Life Essay | 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 400 + Words

What is the purpose of life essay- 100 words.

The purpose of life is a question that has been asked by people for centuries. There are many different opinions on the answer, but at its core, the purpose of life is to be happy. We can achieve happiness in different ways, but at its heart, happiness is about finding our purpose in life and embracing it. Some people may identify their purpose early in life and adjust their lives accordingly. For others, it may take longer to figure out what they want to do with their lives. The important thing is to stay true to oneself and find a way to be happy regardless of how long it takes. If we can find our purpose in life and embrace it, we can live a fulfilling and happy life.

What is the Purpose of Life Essay- 150 Words

There is no one answer to the question “What is the purpose of life?” As humans, we are constantly seeking knowledge and understanding. There are many different interpretations of what this purpose is, but the most important thing is that we figure it out for ourselves. We don’t need anyone else’s approval or validation to know what our purpose is – we just need to go for it!  We want to know why things happen, what makes us happy, and what will bring us peace. The purpose of life is a question that has been asked by people throughout history. There are many different opinions on the subject, but at its core, everyone seems to believe in something. Some believe that life has a specific purpose, while others feel that it exists for its own sake. Whatever the case may be, it’s clear that humans are interested in discovering what purpose life serves. If we can find our purpose, everything else in life will fall into place automatically. As humans, it is our responsibility to find out what our purpose in life is and to live it to the fullest.

What is the Purpose of Life Essay- 200 Words

No one knows for sure what the purpose of life is, but there are many theories. Some people believe that life has no specific purpose, while others believe that it has a specific purpose. There are also those who think that life has no meaning and that it is just a series of accidents and coincidences. Whatever the case may be, everyone has their own opinion on the purpose of life. There are many different purposes that people ascribe to life. Some people believe that life is a series of purposeless events that happen to us and we have no control over. Others believe that life has a specific purpose, and we should strive to find it. There is not one answer that fits everyone, and each person has to find their own purpose in life. The purpose of life, as we understand it, is to seek happiness and fulfilment. However, this pursuit can be difficult, with many people struggling for years or even decades without reaching their full potential. Thankfully, there are a number of things that can help you on your journey towards happiness and fulfilment. Some of these things might include seeking out new experiences, developing relationships with positive people, learning new skills, and doing what makes you happy. Whatever path you choose to take – whether it’s searching for meaning in your work or pursuing personal happiness – the most important thing is to enjoy the journey.

What is the Purpose of Life Essay- 300 Words

The purpose of life is a question that has puzzled humans for centuries. There are many different theories about what the purpose of life is, and no one definitive answer. Some people believe that the purpose of life is to be happy and fulfilled. Others believe that the purpose of life is to make the world a better place. Still others believe that the purpose of life is to find out why we are here. Whatever the reason for our existence, we need to find it if we want to live fulfill lives. We can’t just blindly go through life doing what comes naturally to us without thinking about why we’re doing it. That’s where meditation comes in. Meditation helps us explore our inner thoughts and feelings, which can help us find out what the purpose of life is for us. Each person has a unique purpose in life. Some people may want to help others, while others may want to find their own purpose. The important thing is to find what truly fulfills you and makes you happy. Once you find that purpose, make a commitment to yourself to stick with it no matter what. You will be amazed at the things that happen as a result. The purpose of life is a question that has puzzled humans for centuries. There are many different opinions on what the purpose of life is, and no one answer is correct. However, there are some common themes that can be found in the Purpose of Life essays. These themes include finding meaning in life, helping others, and making the world a better place. Each person has their own unique perspective on what the purpose of life is, so there is no one right answer. However, understanding and satisfying the needs of yourself and others is a strong indication that you are on the right path in life.

What is the Purpose of Life Essay- 400+  Words

What is the Purpose of Life Essay

Life can be difficult, sometimes we don’t know what to do and we feel lost. But don’t worry, there is someone out there who can help. That someone is an essayist, and their purpose in life is to help others find understanding and comfort in their life experiences. In this article, we will explore the basics of what makes an essay great and see why you might want to consider hiring one for your next project.

What is the Purpose of Life?

There is no single answer to this question as there is no agreed-upon definition of what “life” actually is. However, one of the main purposes that most people ascribe to life is the pursuit of happiness. This may be achieved in different ways for different people, but at its core, happiness is a state of being that can be felt through joy, pleasure, satisfaction, contentment and love. While life may not be perfect and there will be times when we don’t feel happy, it is important to remember that the purpose of life is to engage in activities and experiences that will make us happy.

Different Types of Purpose of Life

The purpose of life can be interpreted in many ways, but most people believe that it is something more than simply survival. There are many different purposes of life and they all have their own unique benefits. Some people believe that the purpose of life is to enjoy life while others believe that the purpose of life is to achieve happiness. There are also those who believe that the purpose of life is to help others. Regardless of what someone believes, there are a few things that are common to all purposes of life. First, all purposes of life involve some kind of activity or work. Second, all purposes of life involve some level of contribution or service to others. Finally, all purposes of life involve some level of meaning or significance.

Difference between Meaningful and Unmeaningful Life

The purpose of life is a question that has been pondered by people for centuries. Some believe that life has no meaning, while others believe that life has a specific and predetermined purpose. Ultimately, it is up to each individual to determine what their purpose in life is. However, there are some key things to keep in mind when trying to figure out your purpose in life. First and foremost, the purpose of life cannot be dictated by anyone else. You have to find your own meaning in life, and nobody else can give you that guidance. Secondly, the purpose of life should be something that you are interested in and passionate about. If you don’t care about what your purpose is, then it is unlikely that you will be motivated to achieve it. And finally, the purpose of life should be something that will make you happy. If your goal is to make other people happy as well, then you are on the right track!

The Importance of Values in Life

The purpose of life is to fulfill our values. Values are the things that we hold most important in our lives and make us who we are. They are the principles and beliefs by which we live our lives. Our values determine what is important to us and how we behave. They give us a sense of purpose and direction in our lives. Our values shape the way we see the world around us and the decisions we make. They are the source of our strength and determination. Our values define who we are as individuals and as a society. They are the foundation of our morals and ethics. Values provide meaning and purpose to our lives. They provide an understanding of who we are and where we are going. They keep us focused on what is important, even when things get tough. Values give us a sense of hope in difficult times. Values are essential to happiness, success, and fulfillment in life. We can’t achieve anything without them. Our values define who we are as individuals and as a society. We need to adopt positive values if we want to build a better future for ourselves and our children.

Relationship of Values to Happiness

The purpose of life is to be happy. In order to be happy, we must have values that are important to us. Values are things we hold dear and consider important in our lives. These values can come from anything- a belief, experience, or habit- but they must be something we care about deeply. When we have values that are important to us, we are happier because we are living according to our own standards and expectations. We are also happier because we are taking action based on what is important to us. Doing what is right by ourselves makes us feel good and helps us achieve our goals. The more we live according to our own values, the happier we will be.

What is the purpose of life?

The purpose of life is a question that has puzzled humans for centuries. Some believe life is meant to be lived to the fullest, while others believe it is simply a means to an end. There are many different ideas on what the purpose of life could be, but no one definitive answer. There are many theories, but without knowing the meaning of life, it is difficult to determine which one is correct. One of the most popular theories on what the purpose of life might be is that it is meant to provide meaning and purpose in an otherwise meaningless world. This theory was put forth by philosopher and author existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre in his book “Existentialism Is A Humanism”. He argued that humans are free and able to create their own meanings in life, and that without meaning there is nothing to keep us going. However, some people argue that this theory alone does not provide enough purpose in life. They say that without love, passion or duty there is no intrinsic value in living. Another popular idea on what the purpose of life might be is that it is meant to help us achieve our goals and aspirations. This theory was put forward by philosopher Arthur Schopenh

How we can find our purpose in life

The purpose of life is a question that has been asked by people for centuries. While there is no one answer to this question, there are many ways to find your purpose in life. Below are some tips to help you find your purpose in life:

1. Think about what you enjoy most and what makes you happy. This can be a difficult task, but it is important to figure out what makes you fulfilled and content. Once you know what makes you happy, try to find ways to incorporate those activities into your life on a regular basis.

2. Take time for yourself every day. Whether it means taking a walk outdoors or relaxing with a book in your favorite spot, make sure to carve out time for yourself every day. This will help you reflect on your purpose in life and find new ways to incorporate your interests into your everyday routine.

3. Talk to others about their purpose in life. It can be helpful to hear other people’s perspectives on the matter. Talking about your purpose can also inspire you to continue searching for yours.

4. Find a cause that you feel passionately about and commit your time and resources to it. Doing so will help you feel more connected to the

The five purposes of life

There are many purposes of life, but the five most commonly cited are to enjoy life, to find meaning in life, to improve oneself, to help others, and to create beauty.

To find meaning in life

The purpose of life is an elusive question that has bewildered philosophers and thinkers for centuries. Some believe that life has no inherent purpose, while others believe that the purpose of life is to find meaning in it. Many people believe that the purpose of life is a personal goal to be pursued and achieved.

To learn and grow

The purpose of life is to learn and grow. We learn by experiencing different things in life and by interacting with other people. We grow by reaching our goals and learning from our mistakes. The important thing is to never stop learning and growing, because that is what will make us happy in the long run.

To create lasting memories

The purpose of life is to create lasting memories. Whether it is making your parents proud, or simply remembering an amazing experience, there is something special about living in the moment and cherishing every moment spent with loved ones. Memories are what make our lives worth living and nothing can bring us more happiness than sharing our most cherished moments with others.

To connect with others

The purpose of life, according to many philosophers and religious figures, is to be happy. But what does that mean for each individual? For some, it might mean accumulating material possessions or achieving high levels of success. Others might find fulfillment in giving back to their community or helping others in need. There is no one right answer, as the meaning of “happiness” can vary greatly from person to person. Nevertheless, there are several things we can all do to increase our chances of happiness and fulfillment in life. One of the most important things you can do is to connect with others. Socializing with friends, family, and other people you enjoy spending time with can make you happier than staying isolated. It can also help you learn more about yourself and how you can improve your life. Connecting with others also gives you a sense of Purpose beyond your own individual happiness. Being part of a community or group where everyone has a common goal provides a sense of satisfaction that is difficult to find on your own. If connecting with others isn’t an option for you, then taking time for yourself is still an important step in reaching happiness. Spending time alone reflection on what makes you happy or exploring new

To be happy

The purpose of life is to be happy. This seems like a simple proposition, but it is one that can be difficult to achieve. Much of our happiness depends on the circumstances in which we find ourselves, as well as the things we do to make ourselves happy. However, there are certain things that we can control, and by improving our own happiness, we can help ensure that others are also happy.

The purpose of life is a question that has puzzled humans for centuries, and likely will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. There are many different answers to this question, but at its core, the purpose of life is to fulfill our individual goals and desires. Whether or not we can definitively say that every person on Earth has a specific purpose yet to be fulfilled is up for debate, but ultimately it is up to each individual to find out what fulfills them and leads them towards their happiest moments.

Related Posts

Home — Essay Samples — Philosophy — Meaning of Life — Finding The True Purpose Of Life

Purpose in Life, Its Importance and Meaning

• Categories: Meaning of Life Philosophy of Life

About this sample

Words: 933 |

Published: Feb 12, 2019

Words: 933 | Page: 1 | 5 min read

Finding purpose in life (essay)

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Philosophy

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1376 words

2 pages / 839 words

3 pages / 1474 words

3 pages / 1417 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Meaning of Life

If the ultimate goal in life is to reach happiness, then I have met the most incredible of winners. To me he is the best example of true goodness. He does not judge by looks, does not occupy his mind with hateful thoughts, nor [...]

People are always in search of finding out their inner peace and also the peace of soul and you find this with the help of meditation. Life becomes more frustrated and uncomfortable because of so many changes in the world and [...]

The first examination of happiness gave satisfaction to a pleasant life, characterized by a majority of positive emotions, joy over sadness and a predominance of an optimistic mood compared to bad mood. This vision of happiness [...]

In Tess of the d'Urbervilles, Thomas Hardy primarily showcases man's inability to elude fate. Society's constraints highlight the futile nature of attempting to change the course of one's life, for the inability to transcend [...]

Marx defines the "underclass" as a social group, conscious of itself, that is being oppressed and exploited by the ruling class and thus possesses a common hostility towards this higher class. This concept is reflected in [...]

The conflict between good and evil is a prevalent theme in literature. Graham Greene incorporates the conflict throughout the text of his novel Brighton Rock. In order to do this he uses two prominent characters, Ida Arnold [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

How to Cultivate a Sense of Purpose

Here's how a sense of purpose drives mood and improves your life..

Posted May 17, 2024 | Reviewed by Davia Sills

• Having a sense of purpose boosts physical and mental health.
• Research shows that one's sense of purpose can fluctuate daily, similar to changes in mood.
• Despite daily variations, cultivating a sense of purpose is good for people.

The evidence clearly shows that having a sense of purpose—no matter what that is—is good for us. Research shows that having a sense of purpose leads to better health outcomes for older adults, improves our daily mood and physical well-being, and is even associated with increased financial earnings .

Now researchers are delving more into how having a sense of purpose plays out in the lives of individual people.

Gabrielle N. Pfund, a postdoctoral researcher at Northwestern University, recently teamed up with Anthony Burrow, a developmental psychologist at Cornell University, and Patrick Hill, an aging researcher at Washington University in St. Louis, on a study published earlier this year in the Journal of Research in Personality that asks some key questions about the value of purpose in our daily lives and looks for an evidence-based way to cultivate purpose.

“First, we wanted to better understand whether feeling purposeful was synonymous with feeling positive emotions and not feeling negative ones,” explained Pfund, whose research focuses on the intersection of personality and health.

For the study, more than 350 participants filled out surveys on their phones in the evening for 10 days. Researchers asked questions about how much drive or purpose they felt each day, such as, “Were you engaged in worthwhile activities?” and “Did you make progress toward your goals ?” They also asked participants to describe to what extent they felt specific emotions on a given day, including irritableness, peacefulness, sadness, and calm. Their goal was to determine how much an individual’s sense of purpose and mood varied from day to day.

They found that individual participants’ sense of purpose or drive varied greatly from day to day; despite these fluctuations, individuals tended to consistently feel purposeful in general or that they were making progress toward their life goals, even when they didn’t feel purposeful on any given day. On the whole, people’s daily sense of purpose tended to vary about as much as their daily moods.

“In this case, we found that purpose was more strongly tied to experiences of positive emotions, but it was more weakly associated with negative emotions,” Pfund said. “This was a fascinating finding because it communicates that there are times where we'll feel purposeful and also might experience negative feelings, as pursuing the things in our life goals and aims can sometimes require stress and challenge. Recognizing that purpose can help us feel good, but also may mean sometimes feeling bad, can assure people that experiencing negative emotions does not mean they are on the wrong track. The best things in life don't come easily.”

The study is important because it helps researchers better understand how to cultivate a sense of purpose in our daily lives, Pfund said.

“This data helps illustrate the benefits of simply focusing on, ‘How do I feel today? Did I make progress toward my goals? Did I feel like I was engaged in worthwhile activities?’” she said. “By tuning into your responses to those questions from one day to the next, you will be better able to figure out over time what gives you a sense of purpose, getting you one step closer to understanding what your purpose in life may be.”

The data in the study also illustrates that daily fluctuations in both mood and purpose are completely normal, Pfund said.

“In my mind, the other exciting aspect of our findings is being able to embrace the phrase of ‘this too shall pass,’” she said. “Just because someone doesn't feel purposeful today, tomorrow, or the day after that, does not mean they are bound to a life without purpose. Purposefulness waxes and wanes. Empirically, we are not bound to always feeling purposeful or never feeling purposeful. There will be good days and bad days, so too will there be purposeful ones versus not.”

The take-home message: It’s normal for your sense of purpose and your mood to vary from day-to-day; despite these oscillations, the best way to cultivate a sense of purpose in your life is to focus on your daily actions and whether they align with your long-term goals.

The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research at Cornell University is focused on using research findings to improve health and well-being of people at all stages of life.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• International
• New Zealand
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

How Strong Is Your Sense of Purpose in Life?

Do you feel like what you do and who you are in the world matters? Do you have a sense that your actions are meaningful, and contribute to or benefit something that you care about?

That’s your sense of purpose. According to research , having purpose staves off stress and can help you channel challenges toward learning and growth. Purpose fuels hope and optimism, and purposeful people tend to have better health and longevity. Older adults who report more purpose in life experience less functional decline (like weakened grip strength), less cognitive and memory impairment, and a lower risk of Alzheimer’s disease. People with greater purpose make healthier life choices, like exercise and more nutritious eating, and engage in more preventative behaviors, like cholesterol tests and cancer screenings.

In short, a sense of purpose is very strongly associated with mental and physical well-being—and that’s why it is core to most scientific definitions of what it means to be happy in life.

To highlight the topic and give people a chance to explore their sense of purpose, the Greater Good Science Center (GGSC) created an online Purpose in Life quiz , drawing on self-report questionnaires from published psychological science research. Since it was posted in late February 2021, just under 74,000 people have answered all 14 questions on this quiz. Here are some of the patterns of results. 

Purpose in Life Quiz

Do you have a long-term goal that's meaningful to yourself and the world?

A first observation to note is that 74,000 is a much larger number of quiz takers than typical for a GGSC quiz. Perhaps people were spending more time online in 2021–2022—thanks to the pandemic—and thus were more likely to see and willing to engage with an online quiz. It’s also possible that people have been particularly drawn to reflect upon and recalibrate their sense of purpose over the past year, given the unprecedented upsets and uncertainties of COVID-19.  The average score from everyone who completed the GGSC Purpose in Life quiz was 2.92/5, or 58%. This means most people were choosing responses between the middle (usually “somewhat” or “sometimes”) and the next higher endorsement (usually “very” or “frequently”) to questions like “How excited are you about carrying out the plans that you set for yourself?” and “How often do you learn something new so that you can help others?” 

While folks may have been modest in their responses, this number also suggests that GGSC quiz takers might be questioning their purpose anew given the disruption to established pre-pandemic routines and life trajectories, and they could benefit from increasing their sense of purpose.

Finding Purpose Across the Lifespan

This article is part of a GGSC initiative on “ Finding Purpose Across the Lifespan ,” supported by the John Templeton Foundation. In a series of articles, podcast episodes, and other resources, we’re exploring why and how to deepen your sense of purpose at different stages of life.

Thankfully, purpose scientists have offered some promising ways for attuning to and strengthening our sense of purpose in life, including practices like Affirming Important Values , Best Possible Self , and Life Crafting —all of which are featured on our website Greater Good in Action.

After the 14 questions for assessing Purpose in Life, the GGSC quiz has seven questions about the quiz takers themselves, like age and educational attainment. While not diagnostic or causal (in other words, being a woman does not cause you to have more purpose in life), the associations between people’s responses to these life questions and scores on the quiz raise interesting questions about different factors that can shape anyone’s sense of purpose in life.

Women report more purpose in life than men

As tends to be the pattern with nearly every GGSC quiz, women scored higher than men (2.96 vs 2.87). People who identified as gender non-binary reported lower purpose than people who identified either as women or men.

Purpose in life grows with time

Confirming popular ideas about wisdom later in life—and in agreement with several studies that have reported increasing purpose with age —GGSC quiz results showed persistent increases in purpose with each decade of life.

The data also show a flattening of the decade-to-decade increase in purpose after 60, which may simply reflect a crisis of purpose after retirement. Studies suggest that maintaining flexibility about our role, identity, and experiences later in life can keep that sense of purpose growing strong.

What about ethnic background?

Differences in GGSC purpose quiz scores related to ethnic background were smaller than differences associated with other factors that we analyzed, with all falling within one-tenth of a point on the scale.

Scores from people who identified as white, Latino, and multiethnic were higher than those from people who identified as Asian, followed by people who identified as African American and Middle Eastern. (There were too few people in the Native American ethnic group to make meaningful conclusions about their score relative to the other ethnic backgrounds.)

Ethnicity-based differences on the GGSC purpose quiz scores do not reflect innate potential or generalizable patterns of purpose in society. Rather, they suggest a need to further examine whether the manner of asking about or assessing purpose in life aligns with multiple cultural ideals.

More schooling, more purpose

Neighborhood makes a small difference

While the difference is small (less than one-tenth of a point), people who live in big cities reported higher purpose than all other neighborhoods: small city, suburban, and rural.

Some argue that people in large, metropolitan areas harbor extra self-importance compared to people in smaller cities or rural areas. Perhaps this mindset could bump up responses to questions like: “I know how I can use my talents to make a meaningful contribution to the larger world,” which might be more difficult to endorse for people who do not feel as much contact with “the larger world.”

This data point highlights a couple potential boundary conditions for purpose. The first is illusory: that purpose must be about playing a hugely influential role in a world-changing issue. In fact, purpose can be local, proximal, and connected to tiny steps, like planting flowers or offering a kindness to someone in need. And while purpose is typically beneficial, we should be wary of pursuing purpose so single-mindedly that we end up making no room for spontaneity or unstructured experience, or getting drawn into purposeful but harmful pursuits .

Strong political views are associated with stronger purpose

People in some professions are more purposeful than others

About the Author

Emiliana R. Simon-Thomas

Emiliana R. Simon-Thomas, Ph.D. , is the science director of the Greater Good Science Center, where she directs the GGSC's research fellowship program and serves as a co-instructor of its Science of Happiness and Science of Happiness at Work online courses.

Can the Science of Purpose Help Explain White Supremacy?

How I’m Finding Purpose and Connection in a Pandemic

How to Find Your Purpose in Life

Seven Ways to Find Your Purpose in Life

How Purpose Changes Across Your Lifetime

How to Find Your Purpose in Midlife

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Three Dimensions of a Good Life

Contributed by Stephanie Staples at Your Life Unlimited

I read with interest, this paper by Oishi & Westgate in the American Psychological Association on a psychologically rich life and they talked about the Three Dimensions of a Good Life being: A Happy Life (comfort, joy, security), the outcome of which is life satisfaction. A Meaningful Life (significance, purpose, coherence), the outcome of which is societal contribution. A Psychologically Rich Life (variety, interest, perspective change), the outcome of which is wisdom. It makes me happy just reading these. If we are fortunate enough to have our basic needs met (thank you Maslow), putting some time, thought, and energy into these three dimensions may go a long way. Personally… A happy life includes security by living within my means and being content with that, joy by experiencing awe and appreciation in little things and comfort in nurturing special relationships. These Littles (pictured above) are a BIG part of my #HappyLife! A meaningful life includes contributions to community – locally and globally, being a good citizen of the world, picking up litter, being part of a service club (Rotary), participating in challenging events, donating time, money, and talent and feeling that my job as a keynote speaker makes a positive difference in the world. A psychologically rich life includes: continuing my monthly challenges, participating in events that cause me to train and stretch myself, investing in ongoing learning and personal/professional development, traveling, reading, being curious, and opening my mind to new ideas and opinions. Now…your life, your version, your plan…

If you have room for improvement in your life and you are willing to do something different to get it, one place to start would be noticing if one of these areas is lacking in your life.  Which one, given a bit more time and attention, might help you thrive? Explore how each of the dimensions shows up in your world. Writing those short paragraphs about how the three dimensions show up in your life is a great exercise. Sharing would be a cool topic around your dinner table, or on date night.  Explore how each of the dimensions shows up in your world. Getting ideas from other people may inspire you to do something a little different. If all three areas are tickety-boo for you, now would be a great time to practice extreme gratitude!  Continued success as you enjoy your journey to a happy, meaningful, and psychologically rich life, Steph *** Getting beyond ‘What’s new?’! (<2 minutes)

What's Trending

• Member Login
• Red Deer and Area
• Entertainment
• Community News
• Events Calendar
• Local Sports
• RDP Athletics
• Everything Lifestyle
• Business Profile
• Featured Content
• Ripley's Weird
• Your Life Unlimited
• Real Estate
• Contest Rules
• Advertise With Us
• Submission Guidelines
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy
• Accessibility

Church Life Journal

A Journal of the McGrath Institute for Church Life

• Home ›

A Very Short Guide to Understanding the Scope, Purpose, and Doctrinal Weight of Papal Documents

by Elizabeth Huddleston March 25, 2024

W hen the pope speaks, Catholics tend to listen. Confusion often arises, however, when we do not have the tools to know how to properly listen. Using examples from Pope Francis’s pontificate (and some from other pontificates) we will outline the various types of papal writings in their scope, purpose, and doctrinal weight. One way to approach reading papal documents is to think of them as differing genres. Much like one would not read a newspaper, a poem, and a cookbook the same way, one also should avoid thinking of an apostolic constitution, a brief, and a homily in the same fashion. As you will notice, though, there is a complexity to sorting papal documents due to the inherent overlap in authoritative lens, style, and reasons for publishing the document. Many documents will fit within more than one category, which makes interpreting the document and the nature of its authority all the more difficult.

• Papal Bulls represent one of the oldest and most solemn forms of papal documents. Derived from the leaden seal (bulla) traditionally attached to them with silken cords, bulls are reserved for weighty matters such as canonizations, declarations of dogma, establishment of dioceses, or granting of privileges. They possess a formal and authoritative tone, typically beginning with the pope’s name, followed by the phrase “episcopus servus servorum Dei” and closing with “Datum Romae” (given at Rome) followed by the date and the pope’s name. Notable examples include the Bull Unam Sanctam by Pope Boniface VIII asserting papal supremacy and the bull Inter Caetera by Pope Alexander VI dividing the New World between Spain and Portugal. Pope Francis’s most extensive papal bull to date is Misericordiae Vultus .
• Apostolic Constitutions are solemn papal decrees that establish or modify laws and regulations within the Church. They possess a legislative character and are often used to promulgate or amend the Code of Canon Law or other ecclesiastical statutes. These documents are issued under the pope’s own name and are considered binding doctrinal (or even dogmatic) statements, and they may include provisions for their enforcement. Apostolic Constitutions can be issued as bulls and deal with matters of official doctrine. An example is Pope Francis’s Apostolic Constitution Vultum Dei Quaerere , which provides norms for contemplative women religious communities.
• Encyclicals are pastoral letters from the pope to all the bishops of the Catholic Church to be dispersed to all the faithful. These letters form part of the pope’s ordinary teaching authority. They cover a wide range of topics, including matters of faith and morals, social issues, and instructions for the faithful. Encyclicals are characterized by their didactic nature, offering comprehensive teaching and guidance on contemporary issues. While they lack the formal legal status of bulls, they carry significant doctrinal weight and are often considered authoritative sources of Catholic teaching. Notable examples include Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum on social justice and Pope John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae on the sanctity of life. Pope Francis’s three encyclicals to date are Lumen Fidei , Laudato Si’ , and Fratelli Tutti .
• Apostolic Exhortations are documents that encourage and exhort the faithful to undertake specific actions or attitudes in light of particular circumstances. They often follow synods or assemblies of bishops and reflect the pope’s reflections on the discussions and outcomes of such gatherings, though they do not contain dogmatic definitions and are not considered legislative. Apostolic Exhortations combine elements of teaching, encouragement, and pastoral guidance, aiming to foster spiritual renewal and missionary zeal among the faithful. While they lack the legislative force of Apostolic Constitutions, they carry significant moral and pastoral authority. Notable examples include Pope Benedict XVI’s Verbum Domini (The Word of God) and Pope Francis’s Amoris Laetitia (on the family).
• Apostolic Letters encompass various types of correspondence issued by the pope. These letters are called apostolic epistles when addressed to specific groups of people. They can range from brief messages to formal decrees, depending on their purpose and audience. Apostolic Letters may address matters of doctrine, discipline, or pastoral concern, and they are often used for administrative purposes within the Church, though they are not considered legislative. While they may lack the solemnity of Bulls or the comprehensive teaching of Encyclicals, Apostolic Letters serve as important instruments of communication and governance in the papal ministry. Examples include Pope Paul VI's Solemni Hac Liturgia establishing the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and Pope Benedict XVI’s Porta Fidei announcing the Year of Faith. Pope Francis has issued numerous Apostolic Letters, many of which were declared “Motu Proprio.”
• Motu proprio , “of his own impulse,” or “by his own hand,” are documents that aim to explain already existing doctrine or canon law. Unlike Apostolic Constitutions, these documents do not set out new doctrines, but rather further explain doctrines that are already considered binding on the conscience of Catholics. These documents are issued by the pope personally, expressing his own initiative, decision, or opinion on a particular matter. Motu Proprio can cover a wide range of subjects, including changes to Church law, organizational restructuring, or personal reflections. They often carry significant weight as they directly reflect the pope’s personal judgment and authority. Motu Proprio are typically brief and straightforward, lacking the extensive elaboration found in other types of papal documents. Examples include Pope Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum , which relaxed restrictions on the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass, and Pope Francis's Motu Proprio Magnum Principium , which shifted authority over liturgical translations to local bishops’ conferences.
• Decretal letters are authoritative writings issued by the pope or other high-ranking Church officials, typically in response to specific queries or requests for clarification on matters of canon law or ecclesiastical discipline. Historically, decretals contained papal administrative decisions, and by the Middle Ages were often issued in the form of papal bulls. Today decretals are associated with the extraordinary magisterium of the pope, though they are not considered to be legislative. These letters serve to interpret existing laws, resolve disputes, or provide guidance on legal or procedural issues within the Church. Decretals can be addressed to individuals, such as bishops or religious communities, or to broader audiences, including the entire Church. Today, decretal letters can denote dogmatic definitions, though they are typically used for the proclamation of beatifications and canonizations. While not as formal or solemn as papal bulls, decretal letters nonetheless carry significant authority and are binding on those to whom they are addressed. Examples of decretal letters include Pope Gregory IX's Decretales Gregorii , a collection of papal decrees and legal opinions that became a foundational text of canon law. Incorporating decretal letters into the classification of papal documents underscores their importance in shaping the legal and procedural framework of the Church. While they may not always receive the same level of attention as other types of papal documents, decretals play a crucial role in clarifying and interpreting canonical norms, ensuring the orderly governance and administration of the Church’s affairs.
• Addresses/allocutions, “allocutions,” were historically used for solemn addresses from the pope to his cardinals. Today, however, these addresses can be less formal and are often published in the  Acta Apostolicae Sedis and elsewhere. Allocutions are formal speeches or addresses delivered by the pope on various occasions, such as to visiting dignitaries, at gatherings of the College of Cardinals, or during papal audiences. These speeches may cover a wide range of topics, including matters of doctrine, current events, social issues, or reflections on the Church's mission and ministry. While allocutions are not written documents in the traditional sense, they are often transcribed and published for wider dissemination. Allocutions serve as important vehicles for the pope to communicate his thoughts, vision, and guidance to the Church and the world. Allocutions may include homilies , general audiences , speeches , or the weekly Angelus .
• Rescripts are documents that typically answer specific petitions put before the Roman Curiae or the pope himself. Signed by the cardinal prefect and the secretary of the relevant congregation, papal rescripts bear the seal of the congregation issuing the document. Rescripts are official responses or decrees issued by the pope or Vatican authorities in reply to petitions or requests submitted to them. These responses may come from bishops, clergy, religious communities, or laypersons seeking clarification, dispensation, or favor in various matters. Rescripts can address a wide range of issues, including dispensations from canonical requirements, permissions for exceptions to Church law, or grants of privileges or favors. They are typically written in a formal style and may include specific conditions or instructions to be followed by the petitioner. Some rescripts are called “instructions,” which are issued by  Congregations with the pope’s approval. The purpose of these documents is to explain the proper implementation of the more authoritative documents. An example of this type of document is Redemptionis Sacramentum (On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist), which was authored by the Congregation for Divine Worship and explains the practical implications and instructions for the implementation of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia . Sometimes rescripts are presented in the form of Declarations. One such example that has received considerable press in recent months is Fiducia Supplicans (On the Pastoral Meaning of Bishops). Though this document was released in response to particular dubia, the scope of the theological reflection was much broader pastorally and theologically than the short answers provided in typical apostolic briefs; therefore, the response was presented in the form of a formal declaration.
• Apostolic Briefs, also known as “brevia,” are simple documents that deal with matters of minor importance. The contemporary term brief (brevia) replaced the “litterae,” which were used prior to Pope Martin V (1417–1431). Brevia, also known as papal briefs, are concise papal documents issued for specific administrative or procedural purposes. They may include appointments to ecclesiastical offices, grants of privileges, approvals of statutes or regulations, or responses to particular inquiries or petitions. Brevia are characterized by their brevity and simplicity, conveying the Pope's decision or instruction in a clear and straightforward manner. While less formal than other types of papal documents, brevia play a vital role in the day-to-day functioning of the Church, facilitating the smooth operation of its administrative and juridical processes. Often, apostolic briefs are used to speak to legislative questions (called  dubia ) that are brought before the Church for further explanation. These speak to very specific questions and thus are quite narrow in their responses. An example of this type of document is the Responsum published on 15 March 2021 to questions regarding blessings of the unions of same sex persons.

Reading and analyzing papal documents takes considerable practice, even for the most seasoned theologian. The nuances between the various types of papal documents are quite important when thinking through the meaning and significance of the particular pronouncement, though the complexity should not be understated. Personally, it felt at times like I was writing in circles when trying to articulate the various types of documents and how they are authoritative. That said, it is not enough to simply think about what the words themselves mean; one has to also think through how the words are being relayed. In other words, it is not just what the pope says, but how he says it that determines how one should explicate the papal teachings.

Featured Image: Velazquez, Portrait of Innocent X (c. 1650); Source: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Old-100.

Elizabeth Huddleston

Elizabeth Huddleston is Head of Research and Publications at the National Institute for Newman Studies and is a Teaching Fellow in the Department of Catholic Studies at Duquesne University.

Read more by Elizabeth Huddleston

A Deceptively Simple Papal Document

May 20, 2021 | Paul Tighe

Newsletter Sign up