If meaning came from satisfaction of basic needs, such as food, safety and physical pleasure, the question of meaning would, in itself, be meaningless. In such a universe, one could silence restless philosophers by feeding them. Many people do seek ultimate fulfillment through physical comfort. They seek pleasure through lifestyles centered around such things as accumulating possessions, focusing on their bodies, trying to maintain happiness at all times, but these so commonly fail to provide significant or lasting meaning that clichés such as, “Money can’t buy happiness,” are coined.
I should clarify that I don’t equate finding meaning in life with happiness or fulfillment. I would define happiness as an experience of pleasure at a given point in time. Martyrdom may be deeply meaningful to a person, but it’s certainly not a happy experience. Fulfillment or a deep sense of well-being encompasses other elements in addition to a sense of meaning, for example, the need for belonging to a group, for relational intimacy, to have value as a person, or a sense of purpose and productivity. Such elements are separate but interwoven, and if any of these elements are missing, most people will experience some negative impact.
Many of the most famous philosophers, despite coming from vastly different spiritual backgrounds, cultures and upbringings all came to what is in essence the same conclusion: that it is possible to find meaning in life, and that a meaningful life is one which pursues virtue. In other words, that which is meaningful in life must transcend mere meeting of physical needs or impulses.
• Plato referred to an objective called “eudaimonia,” “the good life,” which is what humans must strive for in order to be truly happy. Greeks philosophers believed everything has an “arete,” “virtue” or “excellence,” which is what gives it value. For example, a knife’s arete is its ability to cut well. Plato believed a human’s arete was virtue, which encompassed qualities such as wisdom, courage and justice.
• René Descartes said, “The supreme good consists in virtue, which is a firm and constant resolution to use the will well.” In a letter to Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia, Descartes presented his personal definition of “virtue” as being “a firm and constant resolution to carry out whatever reason recommends without being diverted by [one’s] passions or appetites.”
• Immanuel Kant likewise believed that human beings had a higher moral calling he dubbed “Categorical Imperative.” Kant believed that moral laws are universal and are centered around acting in the benefit of mankind.
As can be seen, it has been widely believed through the ages by different philosophers that a “meaningful” or “good” life (I believe the two terms are synonymous) comes from virtue, and therefore seeking to be virtuous will bring meaning to life. This virtue has included the idea of moral and ethical standards that apply to mankind as a whole, not unique to an individual or a particular society. An example of such a virtue is that of acting for the benefit of mankind even at the expense of one’s personal benefit. This is an indication that virtue is an objective concept which can be studied. Therefore, seeking to understand virtue, where it comes from, what it is, and implementing it into one’s life will bring meaning into one’s life.
I concede that my argument begs the question of the nature of virtue. The philosophers I have mentioned widely agreed on what encompasses virtue, and that it includes temperance, courage, justice, and wisdom. Plato believed these to be the four cardinal virtues from which all other good qualities stem. While applied in different ways, Plato’s cardinal virtues are held on a basic level in every culture throughout time, as far as can be known in history. This coincides with Kant’s idea that morality can be universally applied. Therefore, one can reasonably believe that there exists some form of objective morality. If this is the case, then it deserves to be studied.
Going a Step Further
A virtuous character is widely defined as, “How you act when nobody’s looking.” The pursuit of “good” behavior alone, the legalistic following of socially proscribed rules and ethics, however, may lead an individual to follow a set of dogma over the well-being of his or her fellow man. This may be seen, for example, when a soldier carries out the commander’s orders, but in doing so, commits atrocities against others. Virtue, then, becomes virtue only in relationship to others. To people of faith, “other” also includes God. The term that Christians would use to summarize the philosophers’ emphasis on virtue as following standards that apply to all people, for the good of people, carried out in relationship with people for their good, is “love.” Whether or not someone believes in God, most people will find themselves empty and dissatisfied if their sense of virtue doesn’t lead them to form healthy relationships with other human beings. This can be obtained by virtuous living as defined by acting in consideration for others. Therefore virtue brings life meaning insofar as it helps us to have healthy relationships with others.
From a Christian perspective, virtue must first connect a person with God in a loving relationship. God provides them with an objective standard of morality or virtue applicable to all mankind, and provides a model through His own actions. From a theist’s perspective, the belief that there is an omnipotent, benevolent God present in our lives with whom we can have a relationship is of great importance.
Lewis’ philosophies often echoed that of Blaise Pascal. Pascal said, “There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of each man which cannot be satisfied by any created thing but only by God the Creator, made known through Jesus Christ.” Pascal had some rather odd theology from a Christian point of view, but from a philosophical standpoint, I agree with his view that a relationship with God (by a conventional Christian definition) is the logical conclusion of what gives life meaning. Further, if someone believes in an afterlife and the immortality of the human soul, then that brings a deeper level of meaningfulness to our relationships in this life.
C.S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity, “If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark.” Lewis believed that the meaning of life was in the pursuit of what he called “Joy,” a sense of wonder and fulfillment, which could only be derived from knowing God. In The Weight of Glory, he wrote, “It would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.”
A little girl once wrote Lewis’ friend and colleague, J.R.R Tolkien a letter asking, “What is the purpose of life?” Tolkien’ answered’s reply was, “So it may be said that the chief purpose of life for any one of us, is to increase according to our capacity our knowledge of God by all the means we have, and to be moved by it to praise and thanks.” His reasoning was that if the Creator of the universe made us with a purpose, knowing Him would reveal to us all meaning.
Delving into the beliefs of these philosophers, it can be deduced that the answer to the question, “What is the meaning of life?” is simply to have a loving relationship with God. Our textbook asks, “Why has God created us, and why us in particular? What does God expect from us? Some people think that God created us as something special, not only ‘in His own image’ but with a mission to accomplish for him here on earth. But why would he do that, if he can do anything?”
The only thing God cannot do (from a logical standpoint) is to force us to love Him, because love cannot, by definition, be forced. He created us with the potential to have a relationship with Him for our mutual joy. We engage in this relationship in much the same way we engage in human relationships. We can talk to God (via prayer), listen to Him (via meditation and the study of scripture), and act out of consideration for Him (which entails acting out of consideration for the other people He created). Christians, specifically, consider a relationship with God to be based on love, which offers a sense of security.
Nihilism
An opposing view would be nihilism; the belief that life is without meaning. If life is without meaning, it’s very strange that we should even question it. For what purpose would the human organism evolve to have a sense of existentialism if our lives had no inherent meaning? Nihilism as a philosophy contradicts human nature, which is strange in and of itself if nihilism is true.
The idea of nihilism can be a comforting idea to fall back on, because it means that the individual can simply choose a purpose for life as it happens to suit the person in the moment. Hedonism is a logical conclusion to come to: if we choose life’s meaning, why not live to indulge our every pleasure?
But imagine a society where everyone took that concept to the extreme. There would be no inherent value to acts of charity, helping others, or even common courtesy. A society of nihilists would be a society of incredibly self-centered and rude or even abusive people, and would quickly become dysfunctional. The only logical reason that a nihilist would not ignore others’ boundaries in order to please self would be fear of some sort of retribution.
The most emotionally intelligent and well-liked nihilists are those who take pleasure in being kind to others. If the nihilists who derive their meaning from acts of virtue are the most healthy, sociable and fulfilled, isn’t that rather telling? Thus, exploring the inevitable outcome of nihilism brings one back to an inherent sense of virtue.
A Side Note
I would strongly differentiate between what makes a person’s life meaningful and what gives them value as a person. A person who goes out, does remarkable works of charity and has lots of healthy relationships might have a “fuller” life than an antisocial couch-potato, but that does not necessarily mean they are more valuable as a human being. This premise of inherent value comes from my Christian theology and the belief in souls, but others may make the same argument stemming from the human capability for empathy and compassion. Anyone who thinks their value is in how well they put virtue into practice will inevitably end up feeling burned-out and weighed down by guilt, as none of us can live up to our ideals.
Conclusion
These are reasons for concluding that virtue is an objective concept which brings meaning to life as a means of developing healthy relationships, and subsequently, healthier societies. Virtue does not equate a human’s inherent value, but it simply gives a sense of purpose and fulfillment. A relationship with God is the ultimate source of fulfillment.
Sources:
Plato – Dialogue form | Britannica. (2019). In Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Plato/Dialogue-form#ref281699
Reporter, E. (2022, January 9). René Descartes: The Meaning of Life — Virtue, Mind & Doubt. https://excellencereporter.com/2022/01/09/rene-descartes-the-meaning-of-life-virtue-mind-doubt/
Noa Naaman-Zauderer. (2015). Virtue. Cambridge University Press EBooks, 747–753. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511894695.255
Johnson, R., & Cureton, A. (2004, February 23). Kant’s Moral Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy;
Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/
Clarke, D. (2007, August 21). Blaise Pascal (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Stanford.edu. Blaise Pascal (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)Lewis, C. S. (2012). Mere Christianity. William Collins.
Lewis, C. S. (2009). The Weight of Glory.
Pascal, Blaise, 1623-1662. ( 1966). Pascal’s Pensées. Harmondsworth, England :Penguin Books,
Tolkien, J. R. R. (1981). The letters of J.R.R. Tolkien. Houghton Mifflin.
Anna Sojourning 