The Meaning of Lives Essay Example for Free

The nub of Lives EssayIn her oblige The Meaning of Lives, Susan wolf, a moral philosopher and philosopher of action, investigates whether heart and soul apprize exist in chokes without postulating the existance of matinee idol. wildcat establishes her fleck on this philosophical question from an agnostic perspective and rationally argues that such a question can in fact fit inwardly a negative or agnostic view nigh the core of liveness (Wolf 63). With this paper, I leave first summarize the prominent points of Wolfs article then highlight and expound upon areas of her design that contradict her line of argue. Lastly, I will introduce the theistical perspective on importeeful lives along with presenting Wolfs reason and melodic phrase as supporting evidence for the theistic view. In the Meaning of Lives, Susan Wolf opens briefly with an evaluation of the philosophically ambiguous question, What is the center of disembodied spirit? She argues this particular q uestion is impossible to rationalize because it dependents upon a postulation for the macrocosm of immortal.Wolf claims it is necessary to postulate the existence of beau opinionl in clubhouse to argue this original question because if God does exist, then He may hold back created us for a reason, with a plan in mind(Wolf 63). Thus, if God exists then in that location would be purpose and import to human existence dependent upon the creator God. Wolf does non deny the existence of God she apparently suggests that a divine existence is improvable. Therefore the question of a grand purpose and meaning in liveliness is an unnecessary and an improvable argument to disclose an answer to, due to the improvable nature of God.However, she does believe that meaning in lives is non contingent upon the existence of God stating, Meaningfulness is an explicit feature to be sought-after(a) in life and that a positive view about the possibility of meaning in lives can fit with a neg ative or agnostic view about the meaning of life(Wolf 63). She expounds on this argument in terzetto distinct sections. The first part of Wolfs argument observes three different examples of meaningless life-style. Wolf articulates that learning from three paradigms of meaningless lives, wiz can construct an thought for meaningfulness.She begins with a lifestyle she labeled the Blob. The Blob is define by a lifestyle that is lived in hazy passivity unconnected to anyone or any function, going nowhere, achieving nothing (Wolf 64). Wolf deduces from the Blobs meaningless lifestyle, that in fix of magnitude to impinge on a meaningful life one mustiness be engaged in a realise, which can include tellingships. The second meaningless lifestyle, in dividing line to the Blobs lifestyle of passivity, is regarded as the Useless life a life whose dominant activities seem pointless, useless or empty (Wolf 65).After reviewing the lifestyle of the Useless life, a life void of worth, t o chance on meaning one must be engaged in a project or projects that have some positive care for (Wolf 65). The final category of a meaningless life would be the lifestyle of the Bankrupt, someone who is engaged or even dedicated, to a project that is ultimately revealed as bankrupt, not because the persons values are shallow or misguided, but because the project fails(Wolf 65).Ultimately, Wolf concludes that in order to achieve meaningfulness one must not only be engaged in a project of positive value but that project must be in some way successful. After providing a working explanation for a meaningful life, Wolf raises the question as to what constitutes positive value and who has the right to objectively delay value. Similarly to Wolfs construction of meaningfulness, she argues reasons for why an individual is unequal to(p) of objectively hold back positive value.This incap cogency for determining objective value is due to the individuals subjectivity and interest in livi ng a life that feels or seems meaningful(Wolf 66). Therefore, because an individual is incapable of distinguishing objective positive value from interest, it is unlikely that the individual can distinguish what is required for a meaningful life. She argues that objective value is determined and achieved finished sight value in other peoples lives.Wolf clarifies that the objective good she is referring to is not compared to moral goodness, benefiting or honoring humanity (Wolf 67). Wolf claims that meaningfulness is not contingent upon moral value. Instead, Wolf suggests that man there are examples of lives exhibiting ample moral value, such as Mother Teresa and Gandhi, that are full of meaning there are also examples of other lives, such as artists, scholars, musicians and athletes, that possess great meaning, not based upon their moral value.These lives are considered valuable and meaningful due to their ability to develop our skills and our consciousness of the world which gi ve meaning to our lives- but they do not give moral value to them (Wolf 67). A greater understanding of our proclaim worth and the Universe is what Wolf constitutes for lives to have meaning. The final stage in Wolfs argument poses the question what is the good, after all, of living a meaningful life(Wolf 67)? Wolf does not wish to define goodness, but rather discusses the advantages for living a life full of meaning.Wolf makes the final stand, that in order to grasp meaningfulness and understand how one can achieve it in their life an individual must become enlightened to their status in the world as a tiny speck in a vast universe (Wolf 69). This description of where an individual lies in relation to the vastness of the Universe, lets the reality that meaning in lives cannot logically be contingent upon the desires and benefits for the individual, due to humanities insignificance.It seems illogical to Wolf, that a person who seeks to find meaning in their life could conclude tha t is dependent upon their breakaway happiness claiming, to devote oneself wholly to ones own satisfaction seems to me to fly in the face of truth, to act as if one is the only thing that matters, or perhaps, more, that ones own psychology is the only source of (determining) what matters (Wolf 70). The truth, to which Wolf refers, is the reality that individuals have really little significance in relation to the value of the vast Universe.It is because of this truth that a self-center and egocentric life goes against of logic after such a truth is realized. Wolf argues that instead of egocentric priorities to achieve meaning, an individual should alternatively be focused on the needs of the Universe and others. She understands that you are just one person among others, equally real- is the source of practical reason-in this case, it gives you reason to take the pains of others to constitute reasons for actionreason to care about the pain of others that is grounded, not in our own p sychologies, but a fact about the world(Wolf 70).In this section, I will address three areas of Wolfs reasoning I find to be inconsistent with her argument as a whole. A concern that I have regarding Wolfs argument is her use of the word meaning, in regards to the meaning of lives. A very different connotation of the word meaning suggested by the philosophical question, What is the meaning of life? Wolf states that the question, What is the meaning of life? requires an individual to postulate the existence of God because it implies their ultimate aim to find a purpose or a point to human existence(Wolf 63).However, Wolf also argues, whether or not God exists, the fact remains that some objects, activities and ideas are better than others. Whether or not God exists some ways of living are more worthwhile than others(Wolf 72). At the beginning of Wolfs argument about the meaning of lives, suggests that she uncomplete denies nor rejects the existence of God. She argues this as true because she believes the question behind the meaning in lives can be answered as an intelligible feature to be sought in life and that it is at least sometimes attainable but not everywhere assured(Wolf 63).Wolf reduces the meaning of lives to that which can be determined by human reasoning a finite measurement of this transitory world. Thus Wolf, who has neither denied nor rejected the existence of God has unreasonably eliminated the question of origin of lives, as irrelevant to meaning in lives. She focuses how certain types of lives merit significance in existence and consequently refers to the word meaning as synonymous with value. Finally, Wolf argues that there is value in human lives that can fit with a negative or agnostic view about the meaning of life(Wolf 66).This statement is far less controversial than her attempts to argue that meaning in lives is achievable without the postulation of God. Logically, to seek meaning in lives, one must consider the beginning of life, w hich must have been constructed either by accident or by a creator. Meaning cannot be cited as more or less significant at a particular point in an individuals life. Thus, the point that one comes into existence must be regarded for defining meaning within an individuals life. The second problem in Wolfs argument comes in her evaluation of what is considered a project of positive value.An individual who is engaged in a project of positive value is central to Wolfs definition of a meaningful life. Although, projects of positive value can add to meaning in an individuals life, Wolfs reasoning as to who is to square off which projects have positive value is vague and inconsistent with her earlier positions (Wolf 66). Wolf concludes that individuals are incapable of objectively deciding what has positive value, due to subjective interests, which skewed their understanding of objective value.Wolf deduces that in order for an individual to understand projects of positive value, which wi ll eventually adds meaning to heir lives, they must experience an epiphany to the perception that our life to date has been meaningless (Wolf 66). This comment is completely inconsistent with Wolfs fundamental goal to acquire an understanding of meaning in lives from an intelligible process of reason. The understanding for projects of positive value through an epiphany is inconsistent with her pervious arguments because it depends she suggests that understanding meaning comes from an unintelligible source of knowledge.Who is to say that that epiphany is not guided by a supreme higher being? The irony of Wolfs conclusion about the necessary epiphany, is that her statement It is the sort of experience that one magnate describe in terms of scales falling from ones eyes, compares closely to the allusion found in Acts 918 (Wolf 66). The verse reads And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized (NIV 1000). The language of scales falling from the eyes in order to gain true understanding is regarded in both(prenominal) versions as an act depended upon a supernatural entity enabling the change.This very interesting comment by Wolf, suggests that understanding how an individual recognizes truth through epiphany is beyond the capabilities of human accommodate and intellect. Her attempted arguments about how a meaningful life is realized are sound up until the point about epiphany. Lastly, Wolfs argument for meaning in lives lacks any discussion of immortality as a necessary property for meaning. Wolf reasons that there are certain lifestyles that are more meaningful than others.This argument for certain lifestyle having greater meaning has limited relevance because as she rationalizes, lives are finite and terminable as are the lives of others whom we must focus in our acknowledgement of the truth that we are just a speck in the vast Universe(Wolf 69). Wolf does a fine job at articulating the insig nificance and temporary state of human life. However, she fails to recognize that in her attempts to construct a logical framework for meaning in finite lives she disregards the possibility for immortality to give further meaning to lives.Thus, she reduces the idea of meaning as an avoidance of an egocentric lifestyle and recognizes insignificance and meaning within an individuals life alone. Wolfs claim that meaning is attainable through certain actions only satisfies temporary lives for a finite amount of time. This argument surrounding meaning as dependent upon an inward realization of insignificance manifesting into outward actions, is simply a cycle of meaningless people helping other meaningless people, and causes only a temporary blow.In an argument for the importance of immortality to meaning in lives, Gianluca Di Muzio states, If a human being dies and her actions have no lasting effect, because the world itself perished, then her life was meaningless. If, in the end, all comes to nothing, then it does not matter in the first place whether a particular person existed or not (Di Muzio 2). In order for actions and lives to be meaningful, they must have a lasting impact or something to gain, and propose for others in a way that is not reducible to the finite and temporary world. Thus, achievable immortality must exist for meaning to be possible.Although she attempts to determine the meaning in lives for an agnostic world, I would argue that Wolfs argument actually supports many theistic views regarding the meaning of lives. though many of Wolfs arguments do not adequately provide understanding for meaning in lives from an agnostic perspective, many of her points parallel to the theistic view of purpose theory. onwards I expound on these similarities, an understanding of the theistic view regarding the meaning of must be addressed. According to Borchert, the theistic view argues that, life is meaningful to that degree as one fulfills a purpose that G od has assigned (Borchert 295).In Confession, Leo Tolstoy discusses meaning in life from the theistic perspective and claims now I see clearly that my faith-my only real faith-that which apart from my animal instincts gave impulse to my life- was a belief in perfecting myself (Klemke 2). Tolstoy sought such perfection in artistic achievements and loving his family. In trying to find meaning in family and people, Tolstoy ultimately realizes that My family wife and children are also human. They are move just as I am they must either live in a lie or see the terrible truth (Klemke 10).In other words, Tolstoy realizes that if meaning resides in the finite and temporary nature of humanity, meaning in any case will die along with the life. Tolstoy further suggests that meaning cannot reside within artistic modes when he writes Art, poetry? Under the influence of success and the praise of men, I had long assured myself that this was a thing one could do though death was bill of excha nge near death which destroys all things, including my work and its remembrance but soon I saw that that too was a fraud (Klemke 10).This declaration further supports Tolstoys theistic belief that everything of and in this world cannot be the ultimate source of meaning in lives. Although, the substance of this world may increase value within life, it cannot supply ultimate, enduring meaning. Tolstoy finally declares, To know God and to live is one and the same thing. God is life- Live seeking God, and then you will not live without God (Klemke 11). This passage concludes with his theistic assertion that without a divine plan for the world, then all efforts come to nothing, because everything comes to nothing. Hence our lives are meaningless without God (Metz 293).though Wolf attempts to support an agnostic view for the question, is there meaning in lives? her central points mirror those of the theistic view and supports many of its claims. This final section will concentrate on ce ntral points within Wolfs argument that support a theistic view for understanding meaning in lives. To begin, she claims that a life has meaning insofar as it is engaged in a project or projects that have some positive value (Wolf 65). Although this statements seems logical, Wolf fails to provide an intelligible source for acquiring knowledge about whether or not a project has positive value and which projects do not.She betrays the agnostic attempt to provide an understanding of meaning in lives through reason, by suggesting that realization of projects with positive value relies upon an epiphany. The concept of an epiphany for realization is inconsistent with her attempts to rationalize. However, when Wolfs definition is placed against the theistic view, it is logically consistent with theological beliefs. Theists believe that an individual must be actively engaged in positively affecting peoples lives with in the world, while ultimately contributing to Gods divine plan in order f or their lives to have meaning.This concept is articulated beautifully in Gianluca Di Muzios argument Theism and the Meaning of Life, in which he states, In order to have meaning, our lives must make a difference to a higher scheme. And theism sees human action as doing a sort of double duty. On one hand, they affect other people and events in this world, on the other, they further or hinder Gods ultimate plan (Di Muzio 2). This statement suggests that humanities actions in projects have the ability to have two different forms of significance, both relative and ultimate.Relative significance refers to the theistic perspective that, actions and events have relative significance when they only influence other actions and events(Di Muzio 3). Ultimate significance is when our actions and events bring in to Gods plan (Di Muzio 3). Both of these forms contribute to theistic view, however Wolfs argument focuses solely on relative significance. The theistic understanding of relative signif icance is paralleled to Wolfs understanding of meaning in lives. She believes that when individuals realize their insignificance and begin to seek beyond themselves for meaning by actively engaging in projects of positive value, they can acquire meaning.Though this insignificance is transient, it supports the theistic belief that, human beings have access to value without having to postulate the existence of God, because existence affords the luck to attain the kinds of goods that make a human life worthwhile and fulfilling (Di Muzio 5-6). Wolfs profound point that human life is just a speck in a vast universe lays the hind end for the theistic belief in ultimate significance (Wolf 71). Theists believe that there is A fundamental disproportion between aspirations and reality is a powerful source of the idea that our lives are absurd and meaningless.We think we matter, and yet we dont. The world is not intoned with our hope, desires and projects. The possibility of out destruction l ooms everywhere and human suffering, however enormous, seems to be nothing but a passing accident, a byproduct of the presence of sentient creatures in a world that merely tolerates them for a short time. (Di Muzio 9) This understanding of human insignificance plays a vital role in the theistic belief that despite human fragility, purpose and significance are achievable within the about tragic circumstances. Wolfs recognition of our insignificance implies our need to look beyond our own lives for meaning.If a life of meaning depends upon recognizing the truth about our insignificance and continuing to be actively engaged in a project of positive value, and one cannot perform these projects due to tragic circumstances, then within Wolfs reasoning their life can not have meaning. Wolfs understanding of meaning depends upon individual human performance. In trying times of suffering, whether great or small, this concept of looking outside of ones own circumstances is hard to accomplish and in some circumstances impossible, thus in such cases meaning cannot be unachieved.The theistic view of ultimate significance provides a hope that a life of suffering can have meaning and purpose too in that, the idea of God and hope for immortality can help us look again at the world and our fragile lives as meaningful(Di Muzio 9). The project of participating in Gods divine plan is the only project that has lasting and unwavering value for meaning in lives. Wolfs central argument concerning meaning in lives provides many logically convincing and sound points.However, Wolfs definition of a life of meaning is both disconnected from her original argument and lacks a consistent, authoritative source and process for achieving meaning. She attempts to suggest that meaning is an intelligible feature to be sought in life, then provides the solution for achieving this insight of through the unintelligible source of epiphany. Secondly, Wolfs argument for the realization of insignificanc e as the truth, unlocks the need for an individual to look beyond serving his or her own self-centered desires for meaning.However, though her point about insignificance seems valid, Wolf fails to provide examples or an understanding of how an individual can objectively determine how to look outside of themselves. In total, Wolf produces an understanding of meaning that depends upon an individuals abilities to undergo an epiphany and properly manifest their understanding of the need to look outside ones self and recognize Universal needs. The problem with this stance is that focusing on the Universe provides no lasting impact, or meaning to a particular life because the things of this Universe are finite and temporary.The individuals life will eventually end along with the actions and events they affected. Though existence can provide an opportunity for value, as understood in Wolfs argument and the theistic view, meaning is dependent upon a infinite being whose performance can not be temporary. An individual must not be reliant on their personal performances and finite experiences to obtain meaning, but rather is actively engaged in an eternal project of positive value, determined by an infinite and constant authority, God.Works Cited Borchert, Donald M. Theism. Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2nd ed. 10. Detroit Gale, 2006. Web. 25 Apr 2012. Di Muzio, Gianluca. Theism and the Meaning of Life lifes meaning? Ars Disputandi . 6. (2006) 1-12. Print. Klemke, E. D. The Meaning of Life. 2nd. New York Oxford University Press, 2000. Print. Metz, Thaddeus. Could Gods purpose be the source of lifes meaning? Cambridge Journals. (2000) 293-311. Print. Wolf, Susan. The Meaning Of Lives. 62-73. Print.