The Meaning of Life Means Nothing
‘The Meaning of Life’ has become a clichéd phrase for a search to resolve the supposedly ultimate question that challenges humanity. It has also become a symbolic shorthand phrase describing an answer to a seeker’s current dissatisfaction with his or her life, implying an answer accessed from a ‘deeper’ source. Search-engine inquiry offers a vast array of entries for the phrase, ranging from complex academic philosophical or theological works to cartoon books perfect for the guest lavatory, and a multitude of famous comedy sketches. There are many works, both serious and comic, literally called ‘The Meaning of Life’. The classical division is between those who argue that meaning exists (typically theists), and that who believe that life is the random product of chance, having no ultimate meaning. My personal declaration is that I am a theist, however, I wish to suggest that regardless of my view, the question has no meaning and that the answer, if there is one, will not materially affect my life.
The Question is the Answer
The question has defied all attempts to find an objective answer and always will because it is tautological, and any answer is necessarily subjective. Theologians and philosophers have both struggled to solve the riddle. Religions, almost by definition, offer answers alleged to be objective; but, despite numerous attempts by theologians from the Middle Ages onwards, their solutions will only satisfy others of faith, or at best create new adherents. Whilst this can ensure contentment to followers (that they have found a meaning to their life that satisfies them), this is a personal perception, and the notion of an objective answer, similar to the large literature claiming to ‘prove’ the existence of God, remains contested as an objective answer.
The search for ‘meaning’, can also be found discussed at length in Greek philosophy, and the topic probably predates that by centuries or even millennia. Two schools of philosophical approach have dominated the logic of those claiming an objective answer. The purely philosophical approach is grounded in the, so far as we are aware, unique characteristic of human self-awareness. This has inspired a long line of philosophers from Descartes (‘Cogito Ergo Sum’) and Kant (‘the categorical imperative’) to modern variants of phenomenological thinking that posit our capacity to ask the question as itself proving that there is a meaning to life.
The second philosophical stream follows a similar rationale but contextualised by traditional theology. Typically, God’s gift of our power to think and question is cited as both evidencing his existence and affirming his relationship with man. The Hebrew Bible is arguably an excellent early illustration of Gestalt theory, the idea that something is more than the sum of its parts; that creation of a dialogical discourse is an essential component of validation of a relationship. In contrast to pagan unquestioning submission to one or more deities, it describes more than 40 episodes of human challenge to and questioning of God. Humanity’s role in the cosmos, to challenge its creator and then be his custodian of earth, is thus affirmed and re-enforced.
Friedrich Schleiermacher’s doctrine of knowledge, the combination of the transcendent soul and man’s knowledge was a ground-breaking attempt to reconcile the rise of eighteenth-century rationalism with religious belief; a quest pursued by modern theologians such as Karl Barth ever since. Both Schleiermacher and Barth point to our rationality as evidence of a God endowing our life with meaning but cannot escape the requirement of faith in ‘meaning’ as giving meaning. The influential Catholic theologian Karl Rahner illustrates the tautological nature of the question best. He argued that the existence of ‘Vorgriff’, or pre-apprehension, of the need within humans to search for proof of God, simultaneously proved God’s existence and established the purpose of humanity to seek meaning within the universe.
The Necessity of a Transcendent Solution
Any solution to ultimate meaning necessarily requires transcendency, and therefore a partially uncertain, answer. Otherwise, however ‘deep’ or comprehensive or apparently satisfying an answer is found, there will always be doubt as to whether there is a further layer to be unpeeled. As we are aware of time before and after us, a paramount answer must resolve the dilemma of our meaning within finitude. However, as no one has proven a return from either side of one lifespan, albeit that we are aware of time before and after us, any comprehensive answer must deal with this, but in so doing will necessarily incorporate an element of speculation.
Theistic solutions usually promise some form salvation in the next world resulting from and giving meaning to our behaviour in this world, although they can differ greatly in their beliefs of connection between them. Traditional Christian meaning focuses upon entry into Heaven or Hell. Buddhist life-meaning centres on the next life through progressively more favourable reincarnations until escape from the Wheel of Life. Judaism and Islam emphasise adherence to detailed behavioural prescription for achieving meaning in this life but are hazy on the prospects of reward in the next. Hybrid theologies such as Kierkegaardian Christian existentialism draw on the Jewish emphasis of this life but encourage meaning through advocacy of unswerving obedience to fundamentalist Christianity.
Paradoxically even Humanists, focused upon ensuring a meaningful life in this life, cannot avoid consideration of transcendence, even if only to reject anything beyond this life.
Why The Meaning of Life is Funny
It might seem counterintuitive to suggest that one of the foundational existential questions is a source of much humour. The humour surrounding the topic maybe further evidences the tautological nature of the question. Consider the evidence of the popular science presenter Professor Brian Cox who self-describes as “not an atheist, but someone who has no personal faith.” In one interview he tells us that he has been questioned, and often criticised, for smiling during his more apocalyptic programmes, describing how ultimately the universe itself will cease to exist and there will be “terrifying nothingness”. Cox’s reply is that he indeed finds the concept of the end of time and creation as funny because, in a curious echo of Judeo-Christian teaching, it demonstrates that all is vanity. Some may be shocked by his levity, but many may agree and even be comforted by this observation in the face of the mundane daily struggles of life.
Cox’s dismissive attitude is not an isolated one. Douglas Adam’s hugely successful Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series describes a tortuous search for the meaning of life that triumphantly ends with the discovery that the answer is ‘forty-two.’ Maybe this is less problematic for many because it is also a parody of the computer age and artificial intelligence, not just of the question itself. However, tellingly, what makes it so funny is the discovery of a simple and finite answer to a question that is accepted not to have one.
In summary, this piece should not be read as nihilistic, it is not an assertion that there is no meaning to life. It makes a positive observation, that the search for meaning to life itself creates meaning and that we should be content to accept the tautological nature of the question. However, it also claims that this is both an adequate and complete answer, and anything beyond that can only be speculation. The humour found in the subject affirms a very human way of dealing with uncertainty, and maybe even some fear.