The Meaning of Lives Essay Essay

essay A

Get Full Essay

Get access to this section to get all the help you need with your essay and educational goals.

Get Access

In her article The Meaning of Lives. Susan Wolf. a moral philosopher and philosopher of action. investigates whether intending can be in lives without contending the existance of God. Wolf establishes her place on this philosophical inquiry from an agnostic position and rationally argues that such a inquiry can in fact “fit within a negative or agnostic position about the significance of life” ( Wolf 63 ) . With this paper. I will foremost sum up the outstanding points of Wolf’s article so highlight and expound upon countries of her statement that contradict her line of ground.

Last. I will present the theistic position on meaningful lives along with showing Wolf’s ground and statement as back uping grounds for the theistic position. In the Meaning of Lives. Susan Wolf opens briefly with an rating of the philosophically equivocal inquiry. “What is the significance of life? ” She argues this peculiar inquiry is impossible to apologize because it dependents upon a predication for the being of God.

Wolf claims it is necessary to contend the being of God in order to reason this original inquiry because if God does be. so He “may hold created us for a ground. with a program in mind” ( Wolf 63 ) . Therefore. if God exists so there would be purpose and intending to human being dependant upon the Godhead God. Wolf does non deny the being of God ; she merely suggests that a Godhead being is improvable. Therefore the inquiry of a expansive intent and significance in life is an unneeded and an improvable statement to happen an reply to. due to the improvable nature of God.

However. she does believe that intending in lives is non contingent upon the being of God saying. “Meaningfulness is an apprehensible characteristic to be sought in life” and that “a positive position about the possibility of intending in lives can suit with a negative or agnostic position about the significance of life” ( Wolf 63 ) . She expounds on this statement in three distinguishable subdivisions. The first portion of Wolf’s statement observes three different illustrations of meaningless life style. Wolf articulates that larning from three paradigms of meaningless lives. one can build an apprehension for meaningfulness.

She begins with a lifestyle she labeled the Blob. The Blob is defined by a life style that “is lived in brumous passivity… unconnected to anyone or anything. traveling nowhere. accomplishing nothing” ( Wolf 64 ) . Wolf deduces from the Blobs meaningless life style. that in order to achieve a meaningful life one must be engaged in a undertaking. which can include relationships. The 2nd meaningless life style. in contrast to the Blob’s life style of passiveness. is regarded as the Useless life ; “a life whose dominant activities seem pointless. useless or empty” ( Wolf 65 ) .

After reexamining the life style of the Useless life. a life nothingness of worth. to accomplish intending “one must be engaged in a undertaking or undertakings that have some positive value” ( Wolf 65 ) . The concluding class of a nonmeaningful life would be the life style of the Bankrupt. “someone who is engaged or even dedicated. to a undertaking that is finally revealed as insolvent. non because the person’s values are shallow or misguided. but because the undertaking fails” ( Wolf 65 ) .

Ultimately. Wolf concludes that in order to accomplish meaningfulness one must non merely be engaged in a undertaking of positive value but that undertaking must be in some manner successful. After supplying a on the job definition for a meaningful life. Wolf raises the inquiry as to what constitutes “positive value” and who has the right to objectively find value. Similarly to Wolf’s building of meaningfulness. she argues grounds for why an person is incapable of objectively finding positive value.

This incapableness for finding nonsubjective value is due to the individual’s subjectiveness and “interest in populating a life that feels or seems meaningful” ( Wolf 66 ) . Therefore. because an person is incapable of separating nonsubjective positive value from involvement. it is improbable that the person can separate what is required for a meaningful life. She argues that nonsubjective value is determined and achieved through detecting value in other people’s lives.

Wolf clarifies that the nonsubjective good she is mentioning to is non compared to moral goodness. “benefiting or honouring humanity” ( Wolf 67 ) . Wolf claims that meaningfulness is non contingent upon moral value. Alternatively. Wolf suggests that while there are illustrations of lives exhibiting great moral value. such as Mother Teresa and Gandhi. that are full of significance ; there are besides illustrations of other lives. such as “artists. bookmans. instrumentalists and athletes” . that possess great significance. non based upon their moral value.

These lives are considered valuable and meaningful due to their ability to “develop our accomplishments and our apprehension of the world” which “give significance to our lives- but they do non give moral value to them ” ( Wolf 67 ) . A greater apprehension of our ain worth and the Universe is what Wolf constitutes for lives to hold significance. The concluding phase in Wolf’s statement poses the inquiry “what is the good. after all. of populating a meaningful life” ( Wolf 67 ) ? Wolf does non wish to specify goodness. but instead discusses the advantages for populating a life full of significance.

Wolf makes the concluding base. that in order to hold on meaningfulness and understand how one can accomplish it in their life ; an person must go enlightened to their position in the universe as “a bantam pinpoint in a huge universe” ( Wolf 69 ) . This description of where an single prevarications in relation to the enormousness of the Universe. provides the world that intending in lives can non logically be contingent upon the desires and benefits for the person. due to humanistic disciplines insignificance.

It seems unlogical to Wolf. that a individual who seeks to happen significance in their life could reason that is dependent upon their independent felicity claiming. “to devote oneself entirely to one’s ain satisfaction seems to me to wing in the face of truth. to move as if one is the lone thing that affairs. or possibly. more. that one’s ain psychological science is the lone beginning of ( finding ) what matters” ( Wolf 70 ) . The truth. to which Wolf refers. is the world that persons have really small significance in relation to the value of the huge Universe.

It is because of this truth that a self-center and egoistic life goes against of logic after such a truth is realized. Wolf argues that alternatively of egoistic precedences to accomplish significance. an person should instead be focused on the demands of the Universe and others. She understands that “you are merely one individual among others. every bit real- is the beginning of practical reason-in this instance. it gives you ground to take the strivings of others to represent grounds for action…reason to care about the hurting of others that is grounded. non in our ain psychological sciences. but a fact about the world” ( Wolf 70 ) .

In this subdivision. I will turn to three countries of Wolf’s concluding I find to be inconsistent with her statement as a whole. A concern that I have sing Wolf’s statement is her usage of the word “meaning” . in respects to the significance of lives. A really different intension of the word “meaning” suggested by the philosophical inquiry. “What is the significance of life? ” Wolf provinces that the inquiry. “What is the significance of life? ” requires an single to contend the being of God because it implies their ultimate purpose “to find a intent or a point to human existence” ( Wolf 63 ) .

However. Wolf besides argues. “whether or non God exists. the fact remains that some objects. activities and thoughts are better than others. Whether or non God exists some ways of life are more worthwhile than others” ( Wolf 72 ) . At the beginning of Wolf’s statement about the significance of lives. suggests that she neither denies nor rejects the being of God. She argues this as true because she believes the inquiry behind the significance in lives can be answered as “an apprehensible characteristic to be sought in life and that it is at least sometimes come-at-able but non everyplace assured” ( Wolf 63 ) .

Wolf reduces the significance of lives to that which can be determined by human concluding a finite measuring of this ephemeral universe. Therefore Wolf. who has neither denied nor rejected the being of God has unreasonably eliminated the inquiry of beginning of lives. as irrelevant to intending in lives. She focuses how certain types of lives merit significance in being and accordingly refers to the word “meaning” as synonymous with value. Finally. Wolf argues that there is value in human lives that “can tantrum with a negative or agnostic position about the significance of life” ( Wolf 66 ) .

This statement is far less controversial than her efforts to reason that intending in lives is accomplishable without the predication of God. Logically. to research significance in lives. one must see the beginning of life. which must hold been constructed either by accident or by a Godhead. Meaning can non be cited as more or less important at a peculiar point in an individual’s life. Therefore. the point that one comes into being must be regarded for specifying significance within an individual’s life. The 2nd job in Wolf’s statement comes in her rating of what is considered a undertaking of positive value.

An person who is engaged in a undertaking of positive value is cardinal to Wolf’s definition of a meaningful life. Although. undertakings of positive value can add to intending in an individual’s life. Wolf’s concluding as to “who is to make up one’s mind which undertakings have positive value” is obscure and inconsistent with her earlier places ( Wolf 66 ) . Wolf concludes that persons are incapable of objectively make up one’s minding what has positive value. due to subjective involvements. which skew their apprehension of nonsubjective value.

Wolf deduces that in order for an person to understand undertakings of positive value. which will finally adds intending to heir lives. they must see an “epiphany… to the acknowledgment that our life to day of the month has been meaningless” ( Wolf 66 ) . This remark is wholly inconsistent with Wolf’s cardinal end to get an apprehension of significance in lives from an apprehensible procedure of ground. The apprehension for undertakings of positive value through an epiphany is inconsistent with her pervious statements because it depends she suggests that understanding intending comes from an unintelligible beginning of cognition.

Who is to state that that epiphany is non guided by a supreme higher being? The sarcasm of Wolf’s decision about the necessary epiphany. is that her statement “It is the kind of experience that one might depict in footings of graduated tables falling from 1s eyes” . compares closely to the allusion found in Acts 9:18 ( Wolf 66 ) . The poetry reads “And instantly something like graduated tables fell from his eyes. and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized” ( NIV 1000 ) . The linguistic communication of graduated tables falling from the eyes in order to derive true apprehension is regarded in both versions as an act depended upon a supernatural entity enabling the alteration.

This really interesting remark by Wolf. suggests that understanding how an single recognizes truth through epiphany is beyond the capablenesss of human control and mind. Her attempted statements about how a meaningful life is realized are sound up until the point about epiphany. Last. Wolf’s statement for intending in lives deficiencies any treatment of immortality as a necessary belongings for significance. Wolf grounds that there are certain life styles that are more meaningful than others.

This statement for certain lifestyle holding greater significance has limited relevancy because as she rationalizes. lives are finite and impermanent as are the lives of others whom we must concentrate in our recognition of the truth that we are merely a “speck in the huge Universe” ( Wolf 69 ) . Wolf does a all right occupation at jointing the insignificance and impermanent province of human life. However. she fails to acknowledge that in her efforts to build a logical model for intending in finite lives she disregards the possibility for immortality to give farther significance to lives.

Therefore. she reduces the thought of significance as an turning away of an egoistic life style and recognizes insignificance and significance within an individuals’ life entirely. Wolf’s claim that significance is come-at-able through certain actions merely satisfies impermanent lives for a finite sum of clip. This statement environing significance as dependent upon an inward realisation of insignificance attesting into outward actions. is merely a rhythm of meaningless people assisting other nonmeaningful people. and causes merely a impermanent impact.

In an statement for the importance of immortality to significance in lives. Gianluca Di Muzio provinces. “If a human being dies and her actions have no permanent consequence. because the universe itself perished. so her life was meaningless. If. in the terminal. all comes to nil. so it does non count in the first topographic point whether a peculiar individual existed or not” ( Di Muzio 2 ) . In order for actions and lives to be meaningful. they must hold a permanent impact or something to derive. and supply for others in a manner that is non reducible to the finite and impermanent universe. Thus. accomplishable immortality must be for intending to be possible.

Although she attempts to find the significance in lives for an agnostic universe. I would reason that Wolf’s statement really supports many theistic positions sing the significance of lives. Though many of Wolf’s statements do non adequately supply understanding for intending in lives from an agnostic position. many of her points analogue to the theistic position of “purpose theory. ” Before I expound on these similarities. an apprehension of the theistic position sing the significance of must be addressed. Harmonizing to Borchert. the theistic position argues that. “life is meaningful in so far as one fulfills a intent that God has assigned” ( Borchert 295 ) .

In “Confession” . Leo Tolstoy discusses significance in life from the theistic position and claims “now I see clearly that my faith-my merely existent faith-that which apart from my carnal inherent aptitudes gave impulse to my life- was a belief in honing myself” ( Klemke 2 ) . Tolstoy sought such flawlessness in artistic accomplishments and loving his household. In seeking to happen significance in household and people. Tolstoy finally realizes that “My household — married woman and kids — are besides human. They are placed merely as I am: they must either populate in a prevarication or see the awful truth” ( Klemke 10 ) .

In other words. Tolstoy realizes that if intending resides in the finite and impermanent nature of humanity. intending excessively will decease along with the life. Tolstoy farther suggests that intending can non shack within artistic manners when he writes “Art. poesy? “… Under the influence of success and the congratulations of work forces. I had long assured myself that this was a thing 1 could make though decease was pulling near — decease which destroys all things. including my work and its recollection ; but shortly I saw that that excessively was a fraud” ( Klemke 10 ) .

This declaration farther supports Tolstoy’s theistic belief that everything of and in this universe can non be the ultimate beginning of significance in lives. Although. the substance of this universe may increase value within life. it can non provide ultimate. digesting significance. Tolstoy eventually declares. “To know God and to populate is one and the same thing. God is life- Live seeking God. and so you will non populate without God” ( Klemke 11 ) . This transition concludes with his theistic averment that without a “divine program for the universe. so all attempts come to nil. because everything comes to nil. Hence our lives are meaningless without God” ( Metz 293 ) .

Though Wolf efforts to back up an agnostic position for the inquiry. “is there intending in lives? ” her cardinal points mirror those of the theistic position and supports many of its claims. This concluding subdivision will concentrate on cardinal points within Wolf’s statement that support a theistic position for understanding significance in lives. To get down. she claims that a life has intending in so far as it is “engaged in a undertaking or undertakings that have some positive value” ( Wolf 65 ) . Although this statements seems logical. Wolf fails to supply an apprehensible beginning for geting cognition about whether or non a undertaking has positive value and which undertakings do non.

She betrays the agnostic effort to supply an apprehension of significance in lives through ground. by proposing that realisation of undertakings with positive value relies upon an epiphany. The construct of an epiphany for realisation is inconsistent with her efforts to apologize. However. when Wolf’s definition is placed against the theistic position. it is logically consistent with theological beliefs. Theists believe that an single must be actively engaged in positively impacting peoples lives with in the universe. while finally lending to God’s Godhead program in order for their lives to hold significance.

This construct is articulated attractively in Gianluca Di Muzio’s statement: Theism and the Meaning of Life. in which he states. “In order to hold significance. our lives must do a difference to a higher strategy. And theism sees human action as making a kind of dual responsibility. On one manus. they affect other people and events in this universe. on the other. they further or impede God’s ultimate plan” ( Di Muzio 2 ) . This statement suggests that humanistic disciplines actions in undertakings have the ability to hold two different signifiers of significance. both comparative and ultimate.

Relative significance refers to the theistic position that. “actions and events have comparative significance when they merely influence other actions and events” ( Di Muzio 3 ) . Ultimate significance is when our actions and events “contribute to God’s plan” ( Di Muzio 3 ) . Both of these signifiers contribute to theistic position. nevertheless Wolf’s statement focuses entirely on comparative significance. The theistic apprehension of comparative significance is paralleled to Wolf’s apprehension of significance in lives. She believes that when persons realize their insignificance and get down to seek beyond themselves for intending by actively prosecuting in undertakings of positive value. they can get significance.

Though this insignificance is transeunt. it supports the theistic belief that. “human existences have entree to value” without holding to contend the being of God. because “existence affords the chance to achieve the sorts of goods that make a human life worthwhile and fulfilling” ( Di Muzio 5-6 ) . Wolf’s profound point that human life is merely a “speck in a huge universe” lays the foundation for the theistic belief in ultimate significance ( Wolf 71 ) . Theists believe that there is A cardinal disproportion between aspirations and world is a powerful beginning of the thought that our lives are absurd and meaningless.

We think we matter. and yet we don’t. The universe is non intoned with our hope. desires and undertakings. The possibility of out devastation looms everyplace ; and human agony. nevertheless tremendous. seems to be nil but a ephemeral accident. a by-product of the presence of sentient animals in a universe that simply tolerates them for a short clip. ( Di Muzio 9 ) This apprehension of human insignificance plays a critical function in the theistic belief that despite human breakability. intent and significance are accomplishable within the most tragic fortunes. Wolf’s acknowledgment of our insignificance implies our demand to look beyond our ain lives for significance.

If a life of intending depends upon acknowledging the truth about our insignificance and go oning to be “actively engaged in a undertaking of positive value” . and one can non execute these undertakings due to tragic fortunes. so within Wolf’s concluding their life can non hold significance. Wolf’s apprehension of intending depends upon single human public presentation. In seeking times of enduring. whether great or little. this construct of looking outside of 1s ain fortunes is difficult to carry through and in some fortunes impossible. therefore in such instances intending can non be unachieved.

The theistic position of ultimate significance provides a hope that a life of enduring can hold significance and aim excessively in that. “the thought of God and hope for immortality can assist us look once more at the universe and our delicate lives as meaningful” ( Di Muzio 9 ) . The undertaking of take parting in God’s Godhead program is the lone undertaking that has lasting and firm value for intending in lives. Wolf’s cardinal statement refering significance in lives provides many logically converting and sound points.

However. Wolf’s definition of a life of significance is both staccato from her original statement and lacks a consistent. important beginning and procedure for accomplishing significance. She attempts to propose that significance is an “intelligible characteristic to be sought in life” . so provides the solution for accomplishing this penetration of through the unintelligible beginning of epiphany. Second. Wolf’s statement for the realisation of insignificance as the truth. unlocks the demand for an person to look beyond functioning his or her ain egoistic desires for significance.

However. though her point about insignificance seems valid. Wolf fails to supply illustrations or an apprehension of how an person can objectively find how to look outside of themselves. In entire. Wolf produces an apprehension of intending that depends upon an persons abilities to undergo an epiphany and decently manifest their apprehension of the demand to look outside one’s ego and acknowledge Universal demands. The job with this stance is that concentrating on the Universe provides no permanent impact. or intending to a peculiar life because the things of this Universe are finite and impermanent.

The individual’s life will finally stop along with the actions and events they affected. Though being can supply an chance for value. as understood in Wolf’s statement and the theistic position. significance is dependent upon a infinite being whose public presentation can non be impermanent. An single must non be reliant on their personal public presentations and finite experiences to obtain significance. but instead is actively engaged in an ageless undertaking of positive value. determined by an space and changeless authorization. God.

Plants Cited Borchert. Donald M. “Theism. ” Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2nd erectile dysfunction. 10. Detroit: Gale. 2006. Web. 25 Apr 2012. Di Muzio. Gianluca. “Theism and the Meaning of Life life’s significance? ” 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 God’s purpose be the beginning of life’s significance? ” Cambridge Journals. ( 2000 ) : 293-311. Print. Wolf. Susan. “The Meaning Of Lives. ” 62-73. Print.

Get instant access to
all materials

Become a Member
unlock