The AskPhilosophers logo.

Value

I have to write a persuasive essay in English class and the subject of my choice is the meaning of life. I knew ahead of time of the difficulties that will plague me in trying to properly define meaning and discuss the multiple views on the subject. My aim is to prove that a secular person can live a meaningful life. However, I want to know how I can argue for a meaningful life (more or less objectively, since it would have more grounding) without begging the question against the nihilist (who would claim that without a transcendent cause that there is no meaning at all)? It seems that to argue for a meaningful life I would have to presuppose that certain things have meaning, which they would deny. I could probably argue from analogy, and show that subjectively the fulfillment of someone's projects or the relationships we create with others have meaning to ourselves and that is enough (which I think it is) for someone to live meaningfully (or that without certain things, e.g. relationships our lives could be meaningless). But again wouldn't this be another presumption on my part that an external point such as the infamous "point of view of the universe" is the wrong one to take in measuring the meaning in our lives, and that we should take a view more closer to home. I just feel like there should be more grounding for these assumptions, and I would be really grateful if you could mention some good sources of information and try to answer my question. Thanks, I hope this counts as a question. I'm a long time reader, first time asker.
Accepted:
February 11, 2010

Comments

Jean Kazez
February 11, 2010 (changed February 11, 2010) Permalink

You'd be begging the question against the nihilist, and presupposing or presuming too much, if you simply declared that there can be meaningfulness without God, but didn't argue for it. If you can find a way to argue for your view, then you haven't committed any of those sins. Of course, not everyone will find your argument (whatever it is) persuasive, but you'd be doing much more than begging the question, etc.

So--how can you argue for your view? You'll surely want to discuss the meaning of "meaningful." What does "the other side" think it means? Once you've figured that out, you may be able to make objections. For example, the idea behind the popular book "The Purpose Driven Life" is that having a built in purpose is the key to our lives being meaningful. That can be questioned through the artful use of examples. If the truth is that aliens are growing us as a food source (to be harvested when we hit a world population of 7 billion), would that give our lives meaning? (This is a question asked by Thomas Nagel in "The Absurd.")

Once you've questioned the theist's notion of meaningfulness, of course you have to come up with an alternative. Again, examples can be helpful. If you just boldly declared that life is meaningful if we devote ourselves to a "transcendent ethical cause" (one view out there), it would sound like you're "just assuming." But if you back up that view with detailed examples, the view starts to be convincing. It would be awfully counterintuitive to think that ethically committed people like Bill Gates and Paul Farmer can't be living meaningful lives if there is no god.

A good anthology on the meaning of life is Klemke and Cahn, The Meaning of Life. Both theistic and non-theistic views are represented. My book The Weight of Things argues that God and religion are not necessities, but the focus is on "the good life" more than on "the meaningful life." I recommend Julian Baggini's book What's It All About? too.

  • Log in to post comments
Source URL: https://askphilosophers.org/question/3080?page=0
© 2005-2025 AskPhilosophers.org