what is the good life essay

What Is The Good Life & How To Attain It

Yet with more than 8 billion people on this planet, there are probably just as many opinions about what the good life entails.

Positive psychology began as an inquiry into the good life to establish a science of human flourishing and improve our understanding of what makes life worth living (Lopez & Snyder, 2011).

We will begin this article by exploring definitions of the good life, before presenting a brief history of philosophical theories of the good life. Then we’ll introduce a few psychological theories of the good life and methods for assessing the quality of life, before discussing how you can apply these theories to live a more fulfilling life.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Happiness & Subjective Wellbeing Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients identify sources of authentic happiness and strategies to boost wellbeing.

This Article Contains:

What is the good life, what is the good life in philosophy, theories about the good life, assessing your quality of life, how to live the good life, positivepsychology.com resources, a take-home message.

The word ‘good’ has a very different meaning for very many people; however, there are some aspects of ‘the good life’ that most people can probably agree on such as:

Material comfort
Engagement in meaningful activities/work,
Loving relationships (with partners, family, and friends)
Belonging to a community.

Together, a sense of fulfillment in these and other life domains will lead most people to flourish and feel that life is worth living (Vanderweele, 2017).

However, the question ‘what is the good life?’ has been asked in many fields throughout history, beginning with philosophy. Let’s look at where it all began.

According to Socrates

Interestingly enough, the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates never wrote anything down. His student Plato reported his speeches in published dialogues that demonstrate the Socratic method. Key to Socrates’ definition of the good life was that “the unexamined life is not worth living” (Ap 38a cited in West, 1979, p. 25).

Socrates argued that a person who lives a routine, mundane life of going to work and enjoying their leisure without reflecting on their values or life purpose had a life that wasn’t worth living.

Download 3 Free Happiness Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will equip you or your clients with tools to discover authentic happiness and cultivate subjective well-being.

Download 3 Free Happiness Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

Email Address *
Your Expertise * Your expertise Therapy Coaching Education Counseling Business Healthcare Other
Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

According to Plato

Plato’s view of the good life was presented in The Republic (Plato, 380-375 BCE/2007) and supported the views of his teacher, Socrates. The Republic examines virtue and the role of philosophy, community, and the state in creating the conditions needed to live well.

In this dialogue, Socrates is asked why a person ought to be virtuous to live a good life, rather than merely appear to be virtuous by cultivating a good reputation. Socrates answers that the good life doesn’t refer to a person’s reputation but to the state of a person’s soul.

The role of philosophy is essential because philosophers are educated in using reason to subdue their animal passions. This creates noble individuals who contribute to a well-ordered and humane society. A person who is unable to regulate their behavior will be unstable and create suffering for themselves and others, leading to a disordered society.

Therefore, educated reason is crucial for cultivating virtuous conduct to minimize human suffering, both individually and socially. For Socrates and Plato, rational reflection on the consequences of our actions is key to establishing virtuous conduct and living the good life, both inwardly and outwardly.

For a fuller account check out the Wireless Philosophy video by Dr. Chris Surprenant below.

According to Aristotle

For Plato’s student Aristotle, the acquisition of both intellectual and character virtues created the highest good, which he identified with the Greek word eudaimonia , often translated as happiness (Aristotle, 350 BCE/2004).

Aristotle believed a person achieves eudaimonia when they possess all the virtues; however, acquiring them requires more than studying or training. External conditions are needed that are beyond the control of individuals, especially a form of state governance that permits people to live well.

It was Aristotle’s option that state legislators (part of Greek governance) should create laws that aim to improve individual character, which develops along a spectrum from vicious to virtuous. To cultivate virtue, reason is required to discern the difference between good and bad behavior.

For more on Aristotle’s version of the good life, click out the Wireless Philosophy video by Dr. Chris Surprenant below.

According to Kant

Immanuel Kant was a Prussian-born German philosopher active during the Enlightenment period of the late 18th century (Scruton, 2001). He is best known for his seminal contributions to ethics, moral philosophy, and metaphysics.

For Kant, a capacity for virtue is unique to human beings, because the ability to resist bodily desires requires the exercise of reason. Kant claims that human reason makes us worthy of happiness by helping us become virtuous (Kant, 1785/2012).

Kant’s argument describes the relationship between morality, reason, and freedom. One necessary condition of moral action is free choice.

An individual’s action is freely chosen if their reasoning determines the right course of action. Conduct is not freely chosen if it is driven by bodily desires like hunger, lust, or fear, or behavioral coercion that applies rewards and punishments to steer human actions.

For Kant, individuals should act only if they can justify their action as universally applicable, which he termed the categorical imperative (Kant, 1785/2012). He argued that all our behavioral choices can be tested against the categorical imperative to see if they are consistent with the demands of morality. If they fail, they should be discarded.

A virtuous person must exercise reason to identify which principles are consistent with the categorical imperative and act accordingly. However, Kant claimed that reason can only develop through education in a civilized society that has secured the external conditions required for an individual to become virtuous.

For example, an individual who lives in fear of punishment or death lacks the freedom required to live virtuously, therefore authoritarian societies can never produce virtuous individuals. Poverty also erodes an individual’s freedom as they will be preoccupied with securing the means of survival.

For a deeper examination of these ideas view the Wireless Philosophy video by Dr. Chris Surprenant below.

According to Dr. Seligman

Dr. Martin Seligman is widely regarded as one of the founding fathers of positive psychology. For Seligman, the good life entails using our character strengths to engage in activities we find intrinsically fulfilling, during work and play and in our relationships.

For Seligman, ‘the good life’ has three strands,

Positive emotions
Eudaimonia and flow

Dr. Seligman’s work with Christopher Peterson (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) helped to develop the VIA system of signature strengths . When we invest our strengths in the activities of daily living, we can develop the virtues required to live ‘the good life’; a life characterized by positive emotional states, flow, and meaning.

Here is a video to learn more from Dr. Seligman about how cultivating your unique strengths is essential for living the good life.

Theories about what constitutes the good life and how to live it abound. This section will look at some of the most recent psychological theories about what contributes to the good life.

World’s Largest Positive Psychology Resource

The Positive Psychology Toolkit© is a groundbreaking practitioner resource containing over 500 science-based exercises , activities, interventions, questionnaires, and assessments created by experts using the latest positive psychology research.

Updated monthly. 100% Science-based.

“The best positive psychology resource out there!” — Emiliya Zhivotovskaya , Flourishing Center CEO

Set-Point Theory

Set-point theory argues that while people have fluctuating responses to significant life events like getting married, buying a new home, losing a loved one, or developing a chronic illness, we generally return to our inner ‘set point’ of subjective wellbeing (SWB) after a few years (Diener et al., 1999). This is largely inherited and tied in with personality type.

In terms of the Big Five personality traits , those predisposed to neuroticism will tend more toward pessimism and negative perceptions of events, while those who are more extroverted and open to experience will tend more toward optimism.

According to set-point theory, the efforts we make to achieve our life goals will have little lasting effect on our overall SWB given we each have our own ‘happiness set point’ (Lyubomirsky, 2007).

Furthermore, set point theory suggests that there’s little we can do for people who have been through a difficult time like losing their spouse or losing their job because they will eventually adapt and return to their previous set point.

This implies that helping professionals who believe they can improve people’s SWB in the longer term may be misguided. Or does it?

Other research provides evidence that achieving life goals can have a direct effect on a person’s overall contentment (Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2021). Specifically, pursuing non-competitive goals such as making a family, building friendships, helping others in our community, and engaging in social justice activities improve our sense of wellbeing.

On the other hand, pursuing competitive life goals like building a career and monetary wealth exclusively undermines SWB.

For set-point theory, the good life depends more on innate personality traits than education. For a surprising account of this, using a practical example, view the video below.

Life-Satisfaction Theory

Typically, life satisfaction refers to a global evaluation of what makes life worth living rather than focusing on success in one area of life like a career or intimate relationship, or the fleeting sense of pleasure we often call happiness (Suikkanen, 2011).

However, there tend to be two dominant theories of what causes life satisfaction: bottom-up theories and top-down theories.

Bottom-up theories propose that life satisfaction is a consequence of a rounded overall sense of success in highly valued life domains . Valued life domains differ from person to person. For a professional athlete, sporting achievement may be highly valued, while for a committed parent having a good partnership and stable family life will be super important (Suikkanen, 2011).

Of course, these are not mutually exclusive. For most people, multiple life domains matter equally. However, if we are satisfied with the areas that we value, a global sense of life satisfaction results (Suikkanen, 2011).

Top-down theories propose that our happiness set-point has a greater influence on life satisfaction than goal achievement. In other words, personality traits like optimism have a positive impact on a person’s satisfaction with life regardless of external circumstances, whereas neuroticism undermines contentment.

The debate continues, and life satisfaction is likely influenced by a combination of nature and nurture as with other areas of psychology (Suikkanen, 2011). You can read an extended discussion of the evidence in our related article on life satisfaction .

So, while life satisfaction is associated with living a good life, it’s not necessarily related to education, the exercise of reason, or the cultivation of virtues as proposed by the philosophers mentioned above. For example, a successful financial criminal may be highly satisfied with life but would be deemed a corrupt human being by such lofty philosophical standards.

Hedonic treadmill

Meanwhile, the concept of the hedonic treadmill proposes that no matter what happens, good or bad, a person will eventually return to their baseline emotional state. For example, if someone gets married, moves to a new home, is promoted, loses a job, or is seriously injured in an accident, eventually, they will default to their innate set point (Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2012).

This has also been termed hedonic adaptation theory (Diener et al., 2006). It means that no matter how hard we chase happiness or try to avoid suffering, ultimately, our innate tendencies toward pessimism or optimism return us to our baseline level, either dysphoria or contentment (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005).

If you tend to see the glass as half empty rather than half full, don’t be discouraged, because recent research by Sheldon and Lyubomirsky (2021) acknowledges that while we each have a happiness set point, we can also cultivate greater happiness. We’ve offered some tips in the ‘how to’ section below.

Nevertheless, assessing the quality of life has led to an abundance of international research using quality of life indicators (QoLs) in a variety of scales and questionnaires (Zheng et al., 2021).

Gill and Feinstein identified at least 150 QoL assessment instruments back in the mid-1990s (Gill & Feinstein, 1994). Since then, scales have been refined to measure the quality of life in relation to specific health conditions, life events, and demographic factors like age, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (Zheng et al., 2021).

Our article Quality of Life Questionnaires and Assessments explains this in more detail and guides you on how to choose the best instrument for your clients.

Meanwhile, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ( OECD ) has developed the Better Life Index to measure how people from different demographics define a high quality of life. You can find out more in the brief video below.

How can each of us live the good life today given our array of differences? Below are five steps you can take to clarify what the good life means to you, and how you can apply your strengths to set goals that will lead to greater fulfillment.

1. Clarify your values

Clarifying what is important to you helps invest your life with meaning. Download our values clarification worksheet to get started.

2. Identify valued life domains

Investing in activities in valued life domains is intrinsically rewarding. Download our valued life domains worksheet to find out more.

3. Invest in your strengths

You can find out your character strengths by taking the free survey here . Playing to your strengths helps you overcome challenges and achieve your goals leading to greater life satisfaction. Read our article about how to apply strengths-based approaches to living well.

4. Set valued goals

Finally, we all benefit when we set goals and make practical plans to achieve them. Try our setting valued goals worksheet for guidance.

5. Ensure high-quality relationships

Healthy relationships with partners, family, friends, and colleagues are essential for living the good life and achieving your goals. To assess the quality of your relationships, take a look at our article on healthy relationships with free worksheets.

You can also look at our healthy boundaries article with more free resources. Healthy boundaries support you in living the good life in all life domains, while poor boundaries will leave you feeling unfulfilled.

17 Exercises To Increase Happiness and Wellbeing

Add these 17 Happiness & Subjective Well-Being Exercises [PDF] to your toolkit and help others experience greater purpose, meaning, and positive emotions.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

We have an excellent selection of resources you might find useful for living the good life.

First, take a look at our Meaning & Valued Living Masterclass for positive psychology practitioners. This online masterclass follows a practical process of identifying values, investing in strengths and then applying them to living a more fulfilled life.

In addition, we have two related articles for you to enjoy while exploring the role of meaning in the good life:

Realizing Your Meaning: 5 Ways to Live a Meaningful Life
15 Ways to Find Your Purpose of Life & Realize Your Meaning

Next, we have an article explaining the role of human flourishing in living the good life.

What Is Flourishing in Positive Psychology? (+8 Tips & PDF)

Finally, we have an article on how to apply values-driven goal-setting to living the good life.

How to Set and Achieve Life Goals The Right Way

We also have worksheets you may find useful aids to living the good life:

Our How Joined Up is Your Life? worksheet can help your client identify their interests and passions, assess how authentically they are living their life, and identify any values that remain unfulfilled.

This Writing Your Own Mission Statement worksheet can help clients capture what they stand for, their aims, and objectives. Having a personal mission statement can be useful to return to periodically to assess our alignment with our values and goals.

Finally, this How to Get What You Deserve in Life worksheet can help clients identify what they want as well as justify why they deserve a good life.

If you’re looking for more science-based ways to help others develop strategies to boost their wellbeing, this collection contains 17 validated happiness and wellbeing exercises . Use them to help others pursue authentic happiness and work toward a life filled with purpose and meaning.

We all want to live the good life, whatever that means to us individually. The concept has preoccupied human beings for millennia.

If you currently struggle, which we all do at different times, we hope you’ll consider trying some of the science-based strategies suggested above to steer your way through.

All the evidence we have shared above shows that you can improve your life satisfaction and subjective wellbeing by living in line with your values. But you have to be clear about what’s important to you.

Values-based living invests your life with more meaning and purpose and is key to living the good life.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Happiness Exercises for free .

Aristotle. (2004). Nicomachean ethics (Tredennick, H & Thomson, J.A.K., Trans.). Penguin. Original work published 350 BCE.
Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. N. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. American Psychologist , 61(4), 305–314.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin , 125(2), 276–302.
Gill, T. M., & Feinstein, A. R. (1994). A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements . Jama, 272(8), 619-626.
Kant, I. (2012). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals . Cambridge University Press. Original work published 1785.
Lopez, S. L. & Snyder, C. R. (2011). The Oxford handbook of positive psychology . Oxford University Press.
Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology , 9, 111–131.
Lyubomirsky, S. (2007). The how of happiness: A scientific approach to getting the life you want . Penguin.
Plato. (2007). The Republic (D. Lee, Trans.; 2nd ed.). Penguin. Original work published 380-375 BCE.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.
Scruton, R. (2001). Kant: A very short introduction . Oxford.
Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2012). The challenge of staying happier: Testing the hedonic adaptation prevention model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 38(5), 670–680.
Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2021). Revisiting the sustainable happiness model and pie chart: Can happiness be successfully pursued? The Journal of Positive Psychology , 16(2), 145–154.
Suikkanen, J. (2011). An improved whole life satisfaction theory of happiness. International Journal of Wellbeing , 1(1), 149-166
Vanderweele, T. J. (2017). On the promotion of human flourishing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 114(31), 8148–8156.
West, T. G. (1979). Plato’s “Apology of Socrates”: an interpretation, with a new translation . Cornell University Press.
Zheng, S., He, A., Yu, Y., Jiang, L., Liang, J. & Wang, P. (2021). Research trends and hotspots of health-related quality of life: a bibliometric analysis from 2000 to 2019. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 19 , 130.

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

For me a happy life is having the necessary things to have a good life in the physical aspect, economic aspect ,social aspect, achievement and also family, love and health . The luxuries are also good but they are extra things in life. The most important thing in life is love and peace.

This article made my day. Thank you for putting it together.

I lost approximately 14,000 dollars because of a bank fraud. This money is a product of my hardwork as a nurse and I have been saving it so I have a money when I travel back to be with partner. And the bank refused to refund my money. This incidence has made me feel devastated about life. It affected me emotionally and mentally. But I tried to contain this emotion for a few months and avoided to work and avoided my friends. But I am lucky that my parents, my sisters and especially my partner have been very supportive and understanding to me. They showed me the love and care I needed especially those tough times. Only a few days ago that I realised I should start to help myself and this is why I started to listen to a different talks and read articles that will help me to stay positive in life. Having this article read, it reminded me that I should be grateful that I am surrounded with great people. So thank you for sharing this article and making it accessible to everyone.

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Embracing JOMO: Finding Joy in Missing Out

We’ve probably all heard of FOMO, or ‘the fear of missing out’. FOMO is the currency of social media platforms, eager to encourage us to [...]

The True Meaning of Hedonism: A Philosophical Perspective

“If it feels good, do it, you only live once”. Hedonists are always up for a good time and believe the pursuit of pleasure and [...]

Happiness Economics: Can Money Buy Happiness?

Do you ever daydream about winning the lottery? After all, it only costs a small amount, a slight risk, with the possibility of a substantial [...]

Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

3 Happiness Exercises Pack [PDF]

How to Achieve a Good Life? Essay

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

Introduction

A good life, moral virtues.

Life is a mode of existence and it reflects the experiences of living that characterize human beings whether they are good or bad. It is confounding to describe what a good life is, since it applies to both material life and moral life. For instance, having immense wealth and ability to enjoy every form of pleasure that ever existed on earth can mean that one is living a good life.

On the other hand, living in accordance with the social, religious, and personal morals and ethics means that one is also living a good life. The latter description of good life applies across the board since everybody has the ability to achieve it for everyone has the capacity to think and act morally. This essay explores what a good life is and describes plan of achieving it in terms of integrity, honesty, responsibility, and state obligation.

Living a good life morally means living in accordance with the ethics and morals of the society. A person living a good life expresses virtues such integrity, honesty, responsibility, and obligation to the rules of the state. Although human beings pursue material and intellectual gains as they struggle towards self-actualization, these gains cannot earn them the virtue of being good, but they will rather pass for hardworking individuals.

The rich people have wealth because of their hardworking character and they can access good things of life that bring happiness and pleasure, and live a good life materially; nevertheless, this does not make them good. A poor person can live a miserable life of poverty but with good moral life, while on the contrary, a rich person can live a good life of pleasure and happiness, but with bad moral life. Therefore, when “good” describes virtues, pleasure and happiness due to money cannot make life good.

Morals and ethics that individuals observe to express virtues in life cause them to lead a good life. Integrity and honesty are two virtues that enhance people’s lives and they are inseparable because one cannot have integrity without being honesty or vice versa. Educationally, integrity is a skill that demands learning and continued practice in order to internalize the virtue.

The development of integrity is a life-long process that needs patience and endurance since it is a skill. If likened to a building, honesty and truth are two central pillars that support integrity as a virtue throughout the life of an individual. To develop this virtue of integrity in life, one must always adhere to its two pillars, because integrity is not a discrete achievement but a continuous achievement that needs constant efforts to maintain it.

Responsibility is a powerful virtue which if exercised well by an individual, it does not only yield great benefits to the individual, but also to other people and the entire society. The golden rule demands that there must be reciprocal responsibility in the society to enable people live harmoniously.

Sense of responsibility in the society lessens the impacts of problems experienced because of collective response that lead to immediate solution. Becoming part of the solution in the society is being responsible and the excuse of blaming others would not arise. Since rights and responsibility relate to one another, it requires one to act within the limits of rights to become responsible. Therefore, the rights that govern social norms and regulations give one the degree of responsibility to struggle and attain good life for the benefit of all.

Citizens have a moral obligation to respect and advocate for the common interests of all people. For justice and peace to flourish in the society, citizens have great moral obligation to ensure they report criminal activities, help the poor, and conserve the environment. By doing this, they foster their states’ bid to build justice and a peace in society where virtues spring up, and thus a good life.

Like responsibility, adherence to the laws of the land will enable one to develop a sense of obligation to the state. It is a great obligation of the citizens to help the state fight vices in the society and the best way to do it is by becoming loyal to the laws and being active in enforcing them. The concerted efforts of the state and its citizens will improve the lives of the people resulting into a good life.

To achieve good life based on observance of moral principles demands strict observance and application of ethics in everything. Complete observance of ethics yields virtues that make life good in any community.

The goodness of a person cannot result from material wealth, but it emerges from the good moral qualities that one has achieved in life. Virtues like integrity, honesty, responsibility, and obligation to the state are attributes of an individual and have no material value attached to them. This means that, a good life does not mean wealthy living.

Teleological and Deontological Theories of Ethics Definition
Introduction to the Utilitarianism Theory
The Importance of Academic Honesty
Aristotle’s Account of Pleasure
Debate on Drug Legalization: A Matter of Responsibility and Honesty
Aristotle’s Ethical Theory
Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Sides of Abortion
Which is Basic in Ethics: Happiness or Obligation
The NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct
Moral Dilemma Between the Right Thing to Do and What Is Good Argumentative
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, August 4). How to Achieve a Good Life? https://ivypanda.com/essays/life/

"How to Achieve a Good Life?" IvyPanda , 4 Aug. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/life/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'How to Achieve a Good Life'. 4 August.

IvyPanda . 2018. "How to Achieve a Good Life?" August 4, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/life/.

1. IvyPanda . "How to Achieve a Good Life?" August 4, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/life/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "How to Achieve a Good Life?" August 4, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/life/.

What Does It Mean to Live the Good Life?

Golf & Spa

Philosophical Theories & Ideas
Major Philosophers
Ph.D., Philosophy, The University of Texas at Austin
M.A., Philosophy, McGill University
B.A., Philosophy, University of Sheffield

What is “the good life”? This is one of the oldest philosophical questions . It has been posed in different ways—How should one live? What does it mean to “live well”?—but these are really just the same question. After all, everyone wants to live well, and no one wants “the bad life.”

But the question isn’t as simple as it sounds. Philosophers specialize in unpacking hidden complexities, and the concept of the good life is one of those that needs quite a bit of unpacking.

The Moral Life

One basic way we use the word “good” is to express moral approval. So when we say someone is living well or that they have lived a good life, we may simply mean that they are a good person, someone who is courageous, honest, trustworthy, kind, selfless, generous, helpful, loyal, principled, and so on.

They possess and practice many of the most important virtues. And they don’t spend all their time merely pursuing their own pleasure; they devote a certain amount of time to activities that benefit others, perhaps through their engagement with family and friends, or through their work, or through various voluntary activities.

This moral conception of the good life has had plenty of champions. Socrates and Plato both gave absolute priority to being a virtuous person over all other supposedly good things such as pleasure, wealth, or power.

In Plato’s dialogue Gorgias , Socrates takes this position to an extreme. He argues that it is much better to suffer wrong than to do it; that a good man who has his eyes gouged out and is tortured to death is more fortunate than a corrupt person who has used wealth and power dishonorably.

In his masterpiece, the Republic , Plato develops this argument in greater detail. The morally good person, he claims, enjoys a sort of inner harmony, whereas the wicked person, no matter how rich and powerful he may be or how many pleasure he enjoys, is disharmonious, fundamentally at odds with himself and the world.

It is worth noting, though, that in both the Gorgias and the Republic , Plato bolsters his argument with a speculative account of an afterlife in which virtuous people are rewarded and wicked people are punished.

Many religions also conceive of the good life in moral terms as a life lived according to God’s laws. A person who lives this way—obeying the commandments and performing the proper rituals—is pious . And in most religions, such piety will be rewarded. Obviously, many people do not receive their reward in this life.

But devout believers are confident that their piety will not be in vain. Christian martyrs went singing to their deaths confident that they would soon be in heaven. Hindus expect that the law of karma will ensure that their good deeds and intentions will be rewarded, while evil actions and desires will be punished, either in this life or in future lives.

The Life of Pleasure

The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus was one of the first to declare, bluntly, that what makes life worth living is that we can experience pleasure. Pleasure is enjoyable, it’s fun, it’s...well...pleasant! The view that pleasure is the good, or, to put I another way, that pleasure is what makes life worth living, is known as hedonism .

The word “hedonist,” when applied to a person, has slightly negative connotations. It suggests that they are devoted to what some have called the “lower” pleasures such as sex, food, drink, and sensual indulgence in general.

Epicurus was thought by some of his contemporaries to be advocating and practicing this sort of lifestyle, and even today an “epicure” is someone who is especially appreciative of food and drink. But this is a misrepresentation of Epicureanism. Epicurus certainly praised all kinds of pleasures. But he didn’t advocate that we lose ourselves in sensual debauchery for various reasons:

Doing so will probably reduce our pleasures in the long run since over-indulgence tends to cause health problems and limit the range of pleasure we enjoy.
The so-called “higher” pleasures such as friendship and study are at least as important as “pleasures of the flesh."
The good life has to be virtuous. Although Epicurus disagreed with Plato about the value of pleasure, he fully agreed with him on this point.

Today, this hedonistic conception of the good life is arguably dominant in Western culture. Even in everyday speech, if we say someone is “living the good life,” we probably mean that they enjoying lots of recreational pleasures: good food, good wine, skiing, scuba diving, lounging by the pool in the sun with a cocktail and a beautiful partner.

What is key to this hedonistic conception of the good life is that it emphasizes subjective experiences . On this view, to describe a person as “happy” means that they “feel good,” and a happy life is one that contains many “feel good” experiences.

The Fulfilled Life

If Socrates emphasizes virtue and Epicurus emphasizes pleasure, another great Greek thinker, Aristotle , views the good life in a more comprehensive way. According to Aristotle, we all want to be happy.

We value many things because they are a means to other things. For instance, we value money because it enables us to buy things we want; we value leisure because it gives us time to pursue our interests. But happiness is something we value not as a means to some other end but for its own sake. It has intrinsic value rather than instrumental value.

So for Aristotle , the good life is a happy life. But what does that mean? Today, many people automatically think of happiness in subjectivist terms: To them, a person is happy if they are enjoying a positive state of mind, and their life is happy if this is true for them most of the time.

There is a problem with this way of thinking about happiness in this way, though. Imagine a powerful sadist who spends much of his time gratifying cruel desires. Or imagine a pot-smoking, beer-guzzling couch potato who does nothing but sit around all day watching old TV shows and playing video games. These people may have plenty of pleasurable subjective experiences. But should we really describe them as “living well”?

Aristotle would certainly say no. He agrees with Socrates that to live the good life one must be a morally good person. And he agrees with Epicurus that a happy life will involve many and varied pleasurable experiences. We can’t really say someone is living the good life if they are often miserable or constantly suffering.

But Aristotle’s idea of what it means to live well is objectivist rather than subjectivist. It isn’t just a matter of how a person feels inside, although that does matter. It’s also important that certain objective conditions be satisfied.

For instance:

Virtue: They must be morally virtuous.
Health: They should enjoy good health and reasonably long life.
Prosperity: They should be comfortably off (for Aristotle this meant affluent enough so that they don’t need to work for a living doing something that they would not freely choose to do.)
Friendship: They must have good friends. According to Aristotle human beings are innately social; so the good life can’t be that of a hermit , a recluse, or a misanthrope.
Respect: They should enjoy the respect of others. Aristotle doesn’t think that fame or glory is necessary; in fact, a craving for fame can lead people astray, just as the desire for excessive wealth can. But ideally, a person’s qualities and achievements will be recognized by others.
Luck: They need good luck. This is an example of Aristotle’s common sense. Any life can be rendered unhappy by tragic loss or misfortune.
Engagement: They must exercise their uniquely human abilities and capacities. This is why the couch potato is not living well, even if they report that they are content. Aristotle argues that what separates human beings from the other animals is the human reason. So the good life is one in which a person cultivates and exercises their rational faculties by, for instance, engaging in scientific inquiry, philosophical discussion, artistic creation, or legislation. Were he alive today he might well include some forms of technological innovation.

If at the end of your life you can check all these boxes then you could reasonably claim to have lived well, to have achieved the good life. Of course, the great majority of people today do not belong to the leisure class as Aristotle did. They have to work for a living.

But it’s still true that we think the ideal circumstance is to be doing for a living what you would choose to do anyway. So people who are able to pursue their calling are generally regarded as extremely fortunate.

The Meaningful Life

Recent research shows that people who have children are not necessarily happier than people who don’t have children. Indeed, during the child-raising years, and especially when children have turned into teenagers, parents typically have lower levels of happiness and higher levels of stress. But even though having children may not make people happier, it does seem to give them the sense that their lives are more meaningful.

For many people, the well-being of their family, especially their children and grandchildren, is the main source of meaning in life. This outlook goes back a very long way. In ancient times, the definition of good fortune was to have lots of children who do well for themselves.

But obviously, there can be other sources of meaning in a person’s life. They may, for instance, pursue a particular kind of work with great dedication: e.g. scientific research, artistic creation, or scholarship. They may devote themselves to a cause: e.g. fighting against racism or protecting the environment. Or they may be thoroughly immersed in and engaged with some particular community: e.g. a church, a soccer team, or a school.

The Finished Life

The Greeks had a saying: Call no man happy until he’s dead. There is wisdom in this. In fact, one might want to amend it to: Call no man happy until he’s long dead. For sometimes a person can appear to live a fine life, and be able to check all the boxes—virtue, prosperity, friendship, respect, meaning, etc.—yet eventually be revealed as something other than what we thought they were.

A good example of this Jimmy Saville, the British TV personality who was much admired in his lifetime but who, after he died, was exposed as a serial sexual predator.

Cases like this bring out the great advantage of an objectivist rather than a subjectivist notion of what it means to live well. Jimmy Saville may have enjoyed his life. But surely, we would not want to say that he lived the good life. A truly good life is one that is both enviable and admirable in all or most of the ways outlined above.

An Introduction to Virtue Ethics
What Is Philosophy?
Humpty Dumpty's Philosophy of Language
Moral Philosophy According to Immanuel Kant
Existentialism Essay Topics
Top 10 Beatles Songs With Philosophical Themes
Arguments Against Relativism
3 Stoic Strategies for Becoming Happier
Three Basic Principles of Utilitarianism, Briefly Explained
The Philosophy of Honesty
What Does Nietzsche Mean When He Says That God Is Dead?
How Can I Be Happy? An Epicurean and Stoic Perspective
Socratic Wisdom
On Being Cynical
Philosophical Quotes on Lying

Reason and Meaning

Philosophical reflections on life, death, and the meaning of life, aristotle on the good life.

Aristotle’s views on living well begin with a consideration of ends and means. Suppose I want a car—the car is my end or goal . I can earn, borrow, or steal the money to get the car—these are my means . The means I choose depends on which is easier, quicker, likelier to succeed, etc. Thinking about the goal we are aiming at, and the means we will employ to reach that goal is practical thinking . But such thinking bears no fruit until it results in purposeful action , which is acting with some end, goal, or purpose in mind. Purposeful action contrasts with aimless or thoughtless action, which is action with no end in view.

Now suppose I get my car? That is itself a means to another end, say of getting to school or work. And of course, getting to school or work is the means to another end, getting a degree or a job. And these are the means of making money, which is itself a means of buying food, clothing, and shelter, which are the means of staying alive. Such considerations led Aristotle to wonder whether there is any ultimate or final end , an end for which everything else is a means, an end that is not a means to anything else. In short, he wanted to know if there is an ultimate end, goal, or purpose for human life.

Aristotle argued that as we mature, we act less aimlessly and more purposefully. We try to develop a plan for living that unites all our various purposes. Without a plan for living, we don’t know what we are trying to do or why we’re trying to do it. Moreover, not just any plan will do—we need the right plan, which is one that aims at the final or ultimate end. But what is the final end of human life, the end that all of us ought to aim at?

For Aristotle, the final end of human life is to flourish, to live well, to have a good life. All actions should aim at this end. Of course, in order to live at all we need food, clothing, and shelter, but living is itself the means to the end of living well. And what is living well a means to? Aristotle says that living well is the final end for humans; it is not a means to anything else. Aristotle thinks this is obvious because few people want to live poorly.

But now another question arises: don’t people differ about what constitutes a good life? For some it may consist of accumulating wealth; for others, it is having power or being famous or experiencing pleasure. But if people construe the good life differently, if they have different desires, how can there be one right plan for living well? How can there be one final end that we all ought to seek?

To answer these questions Aristotle argued that not all desires are the same. There are acquired desires , which differ between individuals, and natural desires , which are the same for everyone. Acquired desires—say for caviar—are things we want , whereas natural desires—say for food—are things we need . Acquired desires or wants correspond to apparent goods ; things that appear good because we want them. Natural desires or needs correspond to real goods ; things that are good for us whether we want them or not.

With these considerations in mind, Aristotle states that the good life consists in the possession, over the course of a lifetime, of all those things that are really good for us. Moreover, what is really good for each of us corresponds to the natural needs that are the same for all of us. Thus what is good for one person is good for another; in other words, there is a right plan for living well. What are these real goods that we should all seek to obtain in order to live well? According to Aristotle, they are:

1) bodily goods – health, vitality, vigor, and pleasure; 2) external goods – food, drink, shelter, clothing, and sleep; and 3) goods of the soul – knowledge, skill, love, friendship, aesthetic enjoyment, self-esteem, and honor.

The first two types of goods are limited goods —we can have more of them than we need. Goods of the soul are unlimited goods —we cannot have more of them than we need. But surely the knowledge of the good life isn’t sufficient to actually living a good life? I may know, for example, that drinking alcohol is bad for me but do it anyway. So how do we learn to desire these real goods?

Aristotle argued that the way to bridge the gap between knowledge of the good life and actually living it was through the development of a good moral character . And this entails developing good habits . A good habit allows us to perform certain actions without effort. We can have a good habit for playing the piano, studying hard, hitting golf balls, or thinking well. We can also habitually make good choices to avoid overeating or drinking too much.

Aristotle calls good habits excellences or virtues . Virtues of the mind are intellectual virtues ; while virtues exemplified by a regular disposition to choose correctly are moral virtues. For Aristotle, wisdom is the most important intellectual virtue but moral virtue plays a special role in living well. The reason moral virtue—the habit of making the right choices—is so important is that our choices determine whether we live well. In other words, if we make too many bad choices we will live poorly.

So we need to develop the good habits or virtues which help us obtain what is really good for us, as opposed to bad habits or vices which lead us toward things that merely appear good. Good habits or moral virtues are the principal means to having good lives because they allow us to habitually make the choices that both constitute and lead to good lives.

The most important moral virtues or habits are moderation, courage, and justice . Moderation keeps us from overindulging in pleasure or seeking too much of the limited goods. Courage is having the disposition to do what it takes to live a good life, and justice is the virtue that allows us to have friends and enjoy the benefits of cooperation.

However, both knowledge of the good life and good habits may not be enough to ensure that we have good lives because living well is not completely within our control. Why? First, some real goods, like wealth or health, are not completely within our power to possess. And second, we didn’t create the initial conditions of our birth or the environment into which we were born. Thus moral virtue, while necessary, doesn’t guarantee a good life. We also need to be fortunate or lucky. But if we are wise, morally virtuous, and fortunate we will likely have good, meaningful lives. 1

Postscript – Aristotle’s Politics

Finally, while possessing both virtue and luck gives us a good chance of having good lives, of being happy, it doesn’t completely guarantee it . Why? Because the quality of our lives also depends in large part on the quality of our society and government . It is exceedingly hard to have good lives in societies with bad governments despite our best efforts, and no amount of virtue and good fortune completely compensates for a tyrannical or despotic government. Put simply, we have a much better chance of living good, happy, and meaningful lives in societies with good governments than we do in societies with bad ones.

So what is the end, goal, or purpose of the state? Aristotle says the purpose of the state is to provide the conditions under which all its citizens can flourish. This implies that some governments are better than others—good governments fulfill their purpose whereas bad ones either fail to help or actively hinder their citizen’s chances of living well. Just as a bad family doesn’t care for its children’s well-being, a bad government ignores the well-being of many of its citizens. We have a right to expect more.

In fact, we have a right to expect that the state uses its power to provide the conditions under which all its citizens can flourish. However, a just government cannot guarantee that we will attain moral virtue or have good lives, that is up to us . Nevertheless, a good or just government can and should provide the conditions under which living well, a good life, or human flourishing is possible, thereby alleviating much of the injustice caused by misfortune or bad luck. 2

______________________________________________________________________

1 This essay owes much to my reading, almost forty years ago, of Mortimer Adler’s Aristotle for Everybody: Difficult Thought Made Easy , and to trying to make Aristotle accessible for generations of college students. 2 Obviously there are other threats to living a good life that Aristotle wasn’t aware of such as climate change, nuclear war, asteroids, and more.

What is the Good Life? Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, & Kant’s Ideas in 4 Animated Videos

in Animation , Philosophy | December 28th, 2015 14 Comments

We all have some vision of what the good life should look like. Days filled with reading and strolls through museums, retirement to a tropical island, unlimited amounts of time for video games…. Whatever they may be, our concepts tend toward fantasy of the grass is greener variety. But what would it mean to live the good life in the here and now, in the life we’re given, with all its warts, routines, and daily obligations? Though the work of philosophers for the past hundred years or so may seem divorced from mundane concerns and desires, this was not always so. Thinkers like Plato , Aristotle , Immanuel Kant , and Friedrich Nietzsche once made the question of the good life central to their philosophy. In the videos here, University of New Orleans philosophy professor Chris Surprenant surveys these four philosophers’ views on that most consequential subject.

The view we’re likely most familiar with comes from Socrates (as imagined by Plato), who, while on trial for corrupting the youth, tells his inquisitors, “the unexamined life is not worth living.” Pithy enough for a Twitter bio, the statement itself may too often go unexamined. Socrates does not endorse a life of private self-reflection; he means that “an individual become a master of himself,” says Surprenant,”using his reason to reign in his passions, as well as doing what he can to help promote the stability of his community.” In typical ancient Greek fashion, Plato and his mentor Socrates define the good life in terms of reasonable restraint and civic duty.

The Platonic version of the good life comes in for a thorough drubbing at the hands of Friedrich Nietzsche, as do Aristotelian, Kantian, and Judeo-Christian ideals. Nietzsche’s declaration that “God is dead,” and in particular the Christian god, “allows us the possibility of living more meaningful and fulfilling lives,” Surprenant says. Nietzsche, who describes himself as an “amoralist,” uses the proposed death of god—a metaphor for the loss of religious and metaphysical authority governing human behavior—to stage what he calls a “revaluation of values.” His critique of conventional morality pits what he calls life-denying values of self-restraint, democracy, and compassion (“slave morality”) against life-affirming values.

For Nietzsche, life is best affirmed by a striving for individual excellence that he identified with an idealized aristocracy. But before we begin thinking that his definition of the good life might accord well with, say, Ayn Rand’s, we should attend to the thread of skepticism that runs throughout all his work. Despite his contempt for traditional morality, Nietzsche did not seek to replace it with universal prescriptions, but rather to undermine our confidence in all such notions of universality. As Surprenant points out, “Nietzsche is not looking for followers,” but rather attempting to “disrupt old conceptual schemes,” in order to encourage us to think for ourselves and, as much as it’s possible, embrace the hand we’re dealt in life.

For contrast and comparison, see Surprenant’s summaries of Aristotle and Kant’s views above and below. This series of animated videos comes to us from Wireless Philosophy (Wi-Phi for short), a project jointly created by Yale and MIT in 2013. We’ve previously featured video series on metaphysical problems like free will and the existence of god and logical problems like common cognitive biases . The series here on the good life should give you plenty to reflect on, and to study should you decide to take up the challenge and read some of the philosophical arguments about the good life for yourself, if only to refute them and come up with your own. But as the short videos here should make clear, thinking rigorously about the question will likely force us to seriously re-examine our comfortable illusions.

For many more open access philosophy videos, check out the Wi Phi Youtube channel . You can also find complete courses by Prof. Surprenant in our collection of Free Online Philosophy Courses .

Add a comment

Free Courses

Art & Art History
Classics/Ancient World
Computer Science
Data Science
Engineering
Environment
Political Science
Writing & Journalism
All 1700 Free Courses

Receive our Daily Email

Free updates, get our daily email.

Get the best cultural and educational resources on the web curated for you in a daily email. We never spam. Unsubscribe at any time.

FOLLOW ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Free Movies

1150 Free Movies Online
Free Film Noir
Silent Films
Documentaries
Martial Arts/Kung Fu
Free Hitchcock Films
Free Charlie Chaplin
Free John Wayne Movies
Free Tarkovsky Films
Free Dziga Vertov
Free Oscar Winners
Free Language Lessons
All Languages

Free eBooks

700 Free eBooks
Free Philosophy eBooks
The Harvard Classics
Philip K. Dick Stories
Neil Gaiman Stories
David Foster Wallace Stories & Essays
Hemingway Stories
Great Gatsby & Other Fitzgerald Novels
HP Lovecraft
Edgar Allan Poe
Free Alice Munro Stories
Jennifer Egan Stories
George Saunders Stories
Hunter S. Thompson Essays
Joan Didion Essays
Gabriel Garcia Marquez Stories
David Sedaris Stories
Stephen King
Golden Age Comics
Free Books by UC Press
Life Changing Books

Free Audio Books

700 Free Audio Books
Free Audio Books: Fiction
Free Audio Books: Poetry
Free Audio Books: Non-Fiction

Free Textbooks

Free Physics Textbooks
Free Computer Science Textbooks
Free Math Textbooks

K-12 Resources

Free Video Lessons
Web Resources by Subject
Quality YouTube Channels
Teacher Resources
All Free Kids Resources

Free Art & Images

All Art Images & Books
The Rijksmuseum
Smithsonian
The Guggenheim
The National Gallery
The Whitney
LA County Museum
Stanford University
British Library
Google Art Project
French Revolution
Getty Images
Guggenheim Art Books
Met Art Books
Getty Art Books
New York Public Library Maps
Museum of New Zealand
Smarthistory
Coloring Books
All Bach Organ Works
All of Bach
80,000 Classical Music Scores
Free Classical Music
Live Classical Music
9,000 Grateful Dead Concerts
Alan Lomax Blues & Folk Archive

Writing Tips

William Zinsser
Kurt Vonnegut
Toni Morrison
Margaret Atwood
David Ogilvy
Billy Wilder
All posts by date

Personal Finance

Open Personal Finance
Amazon Kindle
Architecture
Artificial Intelligence
Comics/Cartoons
Current Affairs
English Language
Entrepreneurship
Food & Drink
Graduation Speech
How to Learn for Free
Internet Archive
Language Lessons
Most Popular
Neuroscience
Photography
Pretty Much Pop
Productivity
UC Berkeley
Uncategorized
Video - Arts & Culture
Video - Politics/Society
Video - Science
Video Games

Great Lectures

Michel Foucault
Sun Ra at UC Berkeley
Richard Feynman
Joseph Campbell
Jorge Luis Borges
Leonard Bernstein
Richard Dawkins
Buckminster Fuller
Walter Kaufmann on Existentialism
Jacques Lacan
Roland Barthes
Nobel Lectures by Writers
Bertrand Russell
Oxford Philosophy Lectures

Sign up for Newsletter

Open Culture scours the web for the best educational media. We find the free courses and audio books you need, the language lessons & educational videos you want, and plenty of enlightenment in between.

Great Recordings

T.S. Eliot Reads Waste Land
Sylvia Plath - Ariel
Joyce Reads Ulysses
Joyce - Finnegans Wake
Patti Smith Reads Virginia Woolf
Albert Einstein
Charles Bukowski
Bill Murray
Fitzgerald Reads Shakespeare
William Faulkner
Flannery O'Connor
Tolkien - The Hobbit
Allen Ginsberg - Howl
Dylan Thomas
Anne Sexton
John Cheever
David Foster Wallace

Book Lists By

Neil deGrasse Tyson
Ernest Hemingway
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Allen Ginsberg
Patti Smith
Henry Miller
Christopher Hitchens
Joseph Brodsky
Donald Barthelme
David Bowie
Samuel Beckett
Art Garfunkel
Marilyn Monroe
Picks by Female Creatives
Zadie Smith & Gary Shteyngart
Lynda Barry

Favorite Movies

Kurosawa's 100
David Lynch
Werner Herzog
Woody Allen
Wes Anderson
Luis Buñuel
Roger Ebert
Susan Sontag
Scorsese Foreign Films
Philosophy Films
August 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006

Advertise with Us
Copyright Policy
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use

Get the latest content and program updates from Life Time.

Unsubscribe

The Better Good Life: An Essay on Personal Sustainability

Imagine a cherry tree in full bloom, its roots sunk into rich earth and its branches covered with thousands of blossoms, all emitting a lovely fragrance and containing thousands of seeds capable of producing many more cherry trees. The petals begin to fall, covering the ground in a blanket of white flowers and scattering the seeds everywhere.

Some of the seeds will take root, but the vast majority will simply break down along with the spent petals, becoming part of the soil that nourishes the tree — along with thousands of other plants and animals.

Looking at this scene, do we shake our heads at the senseless waste, mess and inefficiency? Does it look like the tree is working too hard, showing signs of strain or collapse? Of course not. But why not?

Well, for one thing, because the whole process is beautiful, abundant and pleasure producing: We enjoy seeing and smelling the trees in bloom, we’re pleased by the idea of the trees multiplying (and producing delicious cherries ), and everyone for miles around seems to benefit in the process.

The entire lifecycle of the cherry tree is rewarding, and the only “waste” involved is an abundant sort of nutrient cycling that only leads to more good things.

The entire lifecycle of the cherry tree is rewarding, and the only “waste” involved is an abundant sort of nutrient cycling that only leads to more good things. Best of all, this show of productivity and generosity seems to come quite naturally to the tree. It shows no signs of discontent or resentment — in fact, it looks like it could keep this up indefinitely with nothing but good, sustainable outcomes.

The cherry-tree scenario is one model that renowned designer and sustainable-development expert William McDonough uses to illustrate how healthy, sustainable systems are supposed to work. “Every last particle contributes in some way to the health of a thriving ecosystem,” he writes in his essay (coauthored with Michael Braungart), “The Extravagant Gesture: Nature, Design and the Transformation of Human Industry” (available at).

Rampant production in this scenario poses no problem, McDonough explains, because the tree returns all of the resources it extracts (without deterioration or diminution), and it produces no dangerous stockpiles of garbage or residual toxins in the process. In fact, rampant production by the cherry tree only enriches everything around it.

In this system and most systems designed by nature, McDonough notes, “Waste that stays waste does not exist. Instead, waste nourishes; waste equals food.”

If only we humans could be lucky and wise enough to live this way — using our resources and energy to such good effect; making useful, beautiful, extravagant contributions; and producing nothing but nourishing “byproducts” in the process.

If only we humans could be lucky and wise enough to live this way — using our resources and energy to such good effect; making useful, beautiful, extravagant contributions ; and producing nothing but nourishing “byproducts” in the process. If only our version of rampant production and consumption produced so much pleasure and value and so little exhaustion, anxiety, depletion and waste.

Well, perhaps we can learn. More to the point, if we hope to create a decent future for ourselves and succeeding generations, we must. After all, a future produced by trends of the present — in which children are increasingly treated for stress, obesity, high blood pressure and heart disease, and in which our chronic health problems threaten to bankrupt our economy — is not much of a future.

We need to create something better. And for that to happen, we must begin to reconsider which parts of our lives contribute to the cherry tree’s brand of healthy vibrance and abundance, and which don’t.

The happy news is, the search for a more sustainable way of life can go hand in hand with the pursuit of a healthier, more rewarding life. And isn’t that the kind of life most of us are after?

In Search of Sustainability and Satisfaction

McDonough’s cherry-tree model represents several key principles of sustainability — including lifecycle awareness, no-waste nutrient cycling and a commitment to “it’s-all-connected” systems thinking (see “ See the Connection “). And it turns out that many of these principles can be usefully applied not just to natural resources and ecosystems, but to all systems — from frameworks for economic and industrial production to blueprints for individual and collective well-being.

For example, when we look at our lives through the lens of sustainability, we can begin to see how unwise short-term tradeoffs (fast food, skipped workouts, skimpy sleep, strictly-for-the-money jobs) produce waste (squandered energy and vitality, unfulfilled personal potential, excessive material consumption) and toxic byproducts (illness, excess weight , depression, frustration, debt).

We can also see how healthy choices and investments in our personal well-being can produce profoundly positive results that extend to our broader circles of influence and communities at large.

Conversely, we can also see how healthy choices and investments in our personal well-being can produce profoundly positive results that extend to our broader circles of influence and communities at large. When we’re feeling our best and overflowing with energy and optimism, we tend to be of greater service and support to others. We’re clearer of mind, meaning we can identify opportunities to reengineer the things that aren’t working in our lives. We can also more fully appreciate and emphasize the things that are (as opposed to feeling stuck in a rut , down in the dumps, unappreciated or entitled to something we’re not getting).

When you look at it this way, it’s not hard to see why sustainability plays such an important role in creating the conditions of a true “ good life ”: By definition, sustainability principles discourage people from consuming or destroying resources at a greater pace than they can replenish them. They also encourage people to notice when buildups and depletions begin occurring and to correct them as quickly as possible.

As a result, sustainability-oriented approaches tend to produce not just robust, resilient individuals , but resilient and regenerative societies — the kind that manage to produce long-term benefits for a great many without undermining the resources on which those benefits depend. (For a thought-provoking exploration of how and why this has been true historically, read Jared Diamond’s excellent book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed .)

The Good Life Gone Bad

So, what exactly is a “good life”? Clearly, not everyone shares the same definition, but most of us would prefer a life filled with experiences we find pleasing and worthwhile and that contribute to an overall sense of well-being.

We’d prefer a life that feels good in the moment, but that also lays the ground for a promising future — a life, like the cherry tree’s, that contributes something of value and that benefits and enriches the lives of others, or at least doesn’t cause them anxiety and harm.

Unfortunately, historically, our pursuit of the good life has focused on increasing our material wealth and upgrading our socioeconomic status in the short term (learn more at “ What Is Affluenza? “). And, in the big picture, that approach has not turned out quite the way we might have hoped.

For too many, the current version of “the good life” involves working too-long hours and driving too-long commutes. It has us worrying and running ourselves ragged.

For too many, the current version of “the good life” involves working too-long hours and driving too-long commutes. It has us worrying and running ourselves ragged, overeating to soothe ourselves, watching TV to distract ourselves, binge-shopping to sate our desire for more, and popping prescription pills to keep troubling symptoms at bay. This version of “the good life” has given us only moments a day with the people we love, and virtually no time or inclination to participate as citizens or community members.

It has also given us anxiety attacks; obesity; depression ; traffic jams; urban sprawl; crushing daycare bills; a broken healthcare system; record rates of addiction, divorce and incarceration; an imploding economy; and a planet in peril.

From an economic standpoint, we’re more productive than we’ve ever been. We’ve focused on getting more done in less time. We’ve surrounded ourselves with technologies designed to make our lives easier, more comfortable and more amusing.

Yet, instead of making us happy and healthy, all of this has left a great many of us feeling depleted, lonely, strapped, stressed and resentful. We don’t have enough time for ourselves, our loved ones, our creative aspirations or our communities. And in the wake of the bad-mortgage-meets-Wall-Street-greed crisis, much of the so-called value we’ve been busy creating has seemingly vanished before our eyes, leaving future generations of citizens to pay almost inconceivably huge bills.

The conveniences we’ve embraced to save ourselves time have reduced us to an unimaginative, sedentary existence that undermines our physical fitness and mental health and reduces our ability to give our best gifts.

Meanwhile, the quick-energy fuels we use to keep ourselves going ultimately leave us feeling sluggish, inflamed and fatigued. The conveniences we’ve embraced to save ourselves time have reduced us to an unimaginative, sedentary existence that undermines our physical fitness and mental health and reduces our ability to give our best gifts. (Not sure what your best gift is? See “ Play to Your Strengths ” for more.)

Our bodies and minds are showing the telltale symptoms of unsustainable systems at work — systems that put short-term rewards ahead of long-term value. We’re beginning to suspect that the costs we’re incurring could turn out to be unacceptably high if we ever stop to properly account for them, which some of us are beginning to do.

Accounting for What Matters

Defining the good life in terms of productivity, material rewards and personal accomplishment is a little like viewing the gross domestic product (GDP) as an accurate measurement of social and economic progress.

In fact, the GDP is nothing more than a gross tally of products and services bought and sold, with no distinctions between transactions that enhance well-being and transactions that diminish it, and no accounting for most of the “externalities” (like losses in vitality, beauty and satisfaction) that actually have the greatest impact on our personal health and welfare.

We’d balk if any business attempted to present a picture of financial health by simply tallying up all of its business activity — lumping income and expense, assets and liabilities, and debits and credits together in one impressive, apparently positive bottom-line number (which is, incidentally, much the way our GDP is calculated).

Yet, in many ways, we do the same kind of flawed calculus in our own lives — regarding as measures of success the gross sum of the to-dos we check off, the salaries we earn, the admiration we attract and the rungs we climb on the corporate ladder.

But not all of these activities actually net us the happiness and satisfaction we seek, and in the process of pursuing them, we can incur appalling costs to our health and happiness. We also make vast sacrifices in terms of our personal relationships and our contributions to the communities, societies and environments on which we depend.

This is the essence of unsustainability , the equivalent of a cherry tree sucking up nutrients and resources and growing nothing but bare branches, or worse — ugly, toxic, foul-smelling blooms. So what are our options?

Asking the Right Questions

In the past several years, many alternative, GDP-like indexes have emerged and attempted to more accurately account for how well (or, more often, how poorly) our economic growth is translating to quality-of-life improvements.

Measurement tools like the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), developed by Redefining Progress, a nonpartisan public-policy and economic think tank, factor in well-being and quality-of-life concerns by considering both positive and negative impacts of various products and services. They also measure more impacts overall (including impacts on elements of “being” and “doing” vs. just “having”). And they evaluate whether various financial expenditures represent a net gain or net loss — not just in economic terms, but also in human, social and ecological ones (see “Sustainable Happiness,” below).

Perhaps it’s time to consider our personal health and well-being in the same sort of broader context — distinguishing productive activities from destructive ones, and figuring the true costs and unintended consequences of our choices into the assessment of how well our lives are working.

To that end, we might begin asking questions like these:

Where, in our rush to accomplish or enjoy “more” in the short run, are we inadvertently creating the equivalent of garbage dumps and toxic spills (stress overloads, health crises, battered relationships, debt) that will need to be cleaned up later at great (think Superfund) effort and expense?
Where, in our impatience to garner maximum gains in personal productivity, wealth or achievement in minimum time, are we setting the stage for bailout scenarios down the road? (Consider the sacrifices endured by our families, friends and colleagues when we fall victim to a bad mood, much less a serious illness or disabling health condition.)
Where, in an attempt to avoid uncertainty, experimentation or change , are we burning through our limited and unrenewable resource of time (staying at jobs that leave us depleted, for example), rather than striving to harness our bottomless stores of purpose-driven enthusiasm (by, say, pursuing careers or civic duties of real meaning)?
Where are we making short-sighted choices or non-choices (about our health, for example) that sacrifice the resources we need (energy, vitality, clear focus) to make progress and contributions in other areas of our lives?

In addition to these assessments, we can also begin imagining what a better alternative would look like:

What might be possible if we embraced a different version of the good life — the kind of good life in which the vast majority of our choices both feel good and do good?
What if we took a systems view of our life , acknowledging how various inputs and outputs play out (for better or worse) over time? What if we fully considered how those around us are affected by our choices now and in the long term?
What if we embraced more choices that honor our true nature, that gave us more opportunities to use our talents and enthusiasms in the service of a higher purpose?

One has to wonder how many of our health and fitness challenges would evaporate under such conditions — how many compensatory behaviors (overeating, hiding out, numbing out) would simply no longer have a draw.

How many health-sustaining behaviors would become easy and natural choices if each of us were driven by a strong and joyful purpose , and were no longer saddled with the stress and dissatisfaction inherent in the lives we live now?

Think about the cherry-tree effect implicit in such a scenario: each of us getting our needs met, fulfilling our best potential, living at full vitality, and contributing to healthy, vital, sustainable communities in the process.

If it sounds a bit idealistic, that’s probably because it describes an ideal distant enough from our current reality to provoke a certain amount of hopelessness. But that doesn’t mean it’s entirely unrealistic. In fact, it’s a vision that many people are increasingly convinced is the only kind worth pursuing.

Turning the Corner

Maybe it has something to do with how many of our social, economic and ecological systems are showing signs of extreme strain. Maybe it’s how many of us are sick and tired of being sick and tired — or of living in a culture where everyone else seems sick and tired. Maybe it’s the growing realization that no matter how busy and efficient we are, if our efforts don’t feed us in a deep way, then all that output may be more than a little misguided. Whatever the reason, a lot of us are asking: If our rampant productivity doesn’t make us happy, doesn’t allow for calm and creativity, doesn’t give us an opportunity to participate in a meaningful way — then, really, what’s the point?

These days, it seems that more of us are taking a keen interest in seeking out better ways, and seeing the value of extending the lessons of sustainability beyond the natural world and into our own perspectives on what the good life is all about.

In her book MegaTrends 2010: The Rise of Conscious Capitalism , futurist Patricia Aburdene describes a hopeful collection of social and economic trends shaped by a large and influential subset of the American consuming public. What these 70 million individuals have in common, she explains, are some very specific values-driven behaviors — most of which revolve around seeking a better, deeper, more meaningful and sustainable quality of life (discover the four pillars or meaning at “ How to Build a Meaningful Life “).

[“Conscious Consumers” balance] short-term desires and conveniences with long-term well-being — not just their own, but that of their local and larger communities, and of the planet as a whole.

These “Conscious Consumers,” as Aburdene characterizes them, are more carefully weighing material and economic payoffs against moral and spiritual ones. They are balancing short-term desires and conveniences with long-term well-being — not just their own, but that of their local and larger communities, and of the planet as a whole. They are acting, says Aburdene, out of a sort of “enlightened self-interest,” one that is deeply rooted in concerns about sustainability in all its forms.

“Enlightened self-interest is not altruism,” she explains. “It’s self-interest with a wider view. It asks: If I act in my own self-interest and keep doing so, what are the ramifications of my choices? Which acts — that may look fine right now — will come around and bite me and others one year from now? Ten years? Twenty-five years?”

In other words, Conscious Consumers are not merely consumers, but engaged and concerned individuals who think in terms of lifecycles, who perceive the subtleties and complexities of interconnected systems .

As John Muir famously said: “When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world.” Just as the cherry tree is tethered in a complex ecosystem of relationships, so are we.

Facing Reality

When we live in a way that diminishes us or weighs us down — whether as the result of poor physical health and fitness, excess stress and anxiety, or any compromise of our best potential — we inevitably affect countless other people and systems whose well-being relies on our own.

For example, if we don’t have the time and energy to make food for ourselves and our families, we end up eating poorly, which further diminishes our energy, and may also result in our kids having behavior or attention problems at school, undermining the quality of their experience there, and potentially creating problems for others.

As satisfaction and well-being go down, need and consumption go up.

If we skimp on sleep and relaxation in order to “get more done,” we court illness and depression, risking both our own and others’ productivity and happiness in the process and diminishing the creativity with which we approach challenges.

At the individual level, unsustainable choices create strain and misery. At the collective level, they do the same thing, with exponential effect. Because, when not enough of us are living like thriving cherry trees, cycles of scarcity (rather than abundance) ensue. Life gets harder for everyone. As satisfaction and well-being go down, need and consumption go up. Our sense of “enough” becomes distorted.

Taking Full Account

The basic question of sustainability is this: Can you keep doing what you’re doing indefinitely and without ill effect to yourself and the systems on which you depend — or are you (despite short-term rewards you may be enjoying now, or the “someday” relief you’re hoping for) on a likely trajectory to eventual suffering and destruction?

When it comes to the ecology of the planet, this question has become very pointed in recent years. But posed in the context of our personal lives, the question is equally instructive: Are we living like the cherry tree — part of a sustainable and regenerative cycle — or are we sucking up resources, yet still obsessed with what we don’t have? Are we continually generating new energy, vitality, generosity and personal potential , or wasting it?

We can work just so hard and consume just so much before we begin to experience both diminishing personal returns and increasing degenerative costs.

The human reality, in most cases, isn’t quite as pretty as the cherry tree in full bloom. We can work just so hard and consume just so much before we begin to experience both diminishing personal returns and increasing degenerative costs. And when enough of us are in a chronically diminished state of well-being, the effect is a sort of social and moral pollution — the human equivalent of the greenhouse gasses that threaten our entire ecosystem.

Accounting for these soft costs, or even recognizing them as relevant externalities, is not something we’ve been trained to do well. But all that is changing — in part, because many of us are beginning to realize that much of what we’ve been sold in the name of “progress” is now looking like anything but. And, in part, because we’re starting to believe that not only might there be a better way, but that the principles for creating it are staring us right in the face.

By making personal choices that respect the principles of sustainability, we can interrupt the toxic cycles of overconsumption and overexertion. Ultimately, when confronted with the possibility of a better quality of life and more satisfying expression of our potential, the primary question becomes not just can we continue living the way we have been, but perhaps just as important, why would we even want to ?

If the approach we’ve been taking appears likely to make us miserable (and perhaps extinct), then it makes sense to consider our options. How do we want to live for the foreseeable and sustainable future, and what are the building blocks for that future? What would it be like to live in a community where most people were overflowing with vitality and looking for ways to be of service to others?

While no one expert or index or council claims to have all the answers to that question, when it comes to discerning the fundamentals of the good life, nature conveniently provides most of the models we need. It suggests a framework by which we can better understand and apply the principles of sustainability to our own lives. Now it’s up to us to apply them.

Make It Sustainable

Here are some right-now changes you can make to enhance and sustain your personal well-being:

1. Rethink Your Eating.

Look beyond meal-to-meal concerns with weight. Aim to eat consciously and selectively in keeping with the nourishment you want to take in, the energy and personal gifts you want to contribute, and the influence you want to have on the world around you.

To that end, you might start eating less meat, or fewer packaged foods, or you might start eating regularly so that you have enough energy to exercise (and so that your low blood sugar doesn’t negatively affect your mood and everyone around you).

You also might start packing your lunch, suggests money expert Vicki Robin: Not only will you have more control over what and how you eat, but the money you’ll save over the course of a career can amount to a year’s worth of work. “Bringing your lunch saves you a year of your life,” she says.

2. Set a Regular Bedtime

Having a target bedtime can help you get the sleep you need to be positive and productive, and to avoid becoming depleted and depressed. Research confirms that adequate sleep is essential to clear thinking, balanced mood, healthy metabolism, strong immunity, optimal vitality and strong professional performance.

Research also shows that going to bed earlier provides a higher quality of rest than sleeping in, so get your hours at the start of the night. By taking care of yourself in this simple way, you lay the groundwork for all kinds of regenerative (vs. depleting) cycles.

3. Own Your Outcomes

If there are parts of your life you don’t like — parts that feel toxic, frustrating or wasteful to you — be willing to trace the outcomes back to their origins, including your choices around self-care , seeking help, balancing priorities and sticking to your core values.

Also examine the full range of outputs and impacts: What waste or damage is occurring as a result of this area of unresolved challenge? Who else and what else in your life might be paying too-high a price for the scenario in question? If you’re unsure about whether or not a choice or an activity you’re involved in is sustainable, ask yourself the following questions:

Given the option, would I do or choose this again? Would I do it indefinitely?
How long can I keep this up, and at what cost — not just to me, but to the other people and systems I care about?
What have I sacrificed to get here; what will it take for me to continue? Are the rewards worth it, even if the other areas of my life suffer?

Sustainable Happiness

Not all growth and productivity represent progress, particularly if you consider happiness and well-being as part of the equation. The growing gap between our gross domestic product and Genuine Progress Indicator (as represented below) suggests we could be investing our resources with far happier results.

Data source: Redefining Progress, rprogress.org . Chart graphic courtesy of Yes! magazine.

Learn more about the most reliable, sustainable sources of happiness and well-being in the Winter 2009 issue of Yes! magazine, available at www.yesmagazine.org .

Learning From Nature

What can we learn from ecological sustainability about the best ways to balance and sustain our own lives? Here are a few key lessons:

Everything is in relationship with everything else. So overdrawing or overproducing in one area tends to negatively affect other areas. An excessive focus on work can undermine your relationship with your partner or kids. Diminished physical vitality or low mood can affect the quality of your work and service to others.
What comes around goes around. Trying to “cheat” or “skimp” or “get away with something” in the short term generally doesn’t work because the true costs of cheating eventually become painfully obvious. And very often the “cleanup” costs more and takes longer than it would have to simply do the right thing in the first place.
Waste not, want not. Unpleasant accumulations or unsustainable drains represent opportunities for improvement and reinvention. Nature’s models of nutrient cycling show us that what looks like waste can become food for a process we simply haven’t engaged yet: Anxiety may be nervous energy that needs to be burned off, or a nudge to do relaxation and self-inquiry exercises that will churn up new insights and ideas. Excess fat may be fuel for enjoyable activities we’ve resisted doing or haven’t yet discovered — or a clue that we’re hungry for something other than food. The clutter in our homes may represent resources that we haven’t gotten around to sharing. Look for ways to put waste and excess to work, and you may discover all kinds of “nutrients” just looking for attention. (See “ The Emotional Toll of Clutter “.)

The Sustainable Self

Connie Grauds, RPh, is a pharmacist who combines her Western medical training with shamanic teachings, and in her view, we get caught in wearying patterns primarily because of fear . “Energy-depleting thoughts and feelings underlie energy-depleting habits,” Grauds writes in her book The Energy Prescription , cowritten with Doug Childers. She says that we often burn ourselves out because we’re unconsciously afraid of what will happen if we don’t.

Grauds uses the shamanic term “susto” to describe our anxious response to external situations we can’t control — the traffic jam, the work deadline, the pressure to buy stuff we don’t really need. “Susto” triggers the body’s fight-or-flight response, which encourages short-term, unconscious reactions to stress. When we shift to a more internal focus, tuning in to our body’s physical and emotional signals more reflectively, we act from what Grauds calls our “sustainable self.” She says the sustainable self can be accessed anytime with a simple four-step process:

Take a deep breath ;
Feel your body;
Notice your thoughts, and then;
Recognize that you are connected to a larger network of energy .

“A sustainable self recognizes and embraces its interdependent relationship to life,” she says, explaining that when we get our energy from controlling external circumstances we’re bound to collapse eventually, but when we’re connected to our internal reserves, we can be much more effective. “By consistently doing things that replenish us and not doing things that needlessly deplete us,” Grauds writes, “we access and conduct the energy we need to make and sustain positive changes and function at peak levels.”

Thoughts to share?

This Post Has 0 Comments

More Like This

a woman stands looking out on a mountain lake with her arms outstretched

How to Develop a ‘Stretch’ Mindset

Working with what you have can be the key to more sustainable success. Adopting a “stretch” mindset can help.

The Power of Intention: Learning to Co-Create Your World Your Way

Thought-provoking takeaways from Wayne Dyer’s classic guide to conscious living.

6 Keys to a Happy and Healthy Life

A functional-medicine pioneer explains how to make small choices that build lasting well-being.

The Good Life: A Discussion with Dr. Robert Waldinger

Dr. Waldinger began by exploring what people think makes a good life. Many across the world, especially millennials, believe that the answer can be found with fame and fortune. In a recent survey of millennials, when asked what they wanted in their adult life, over 80% said they wanted to get rich, 50% said they wanted to get famous, and 50% said they wanted high career achievements.

However, studies show that as many western countries, including the US, have become wealthier, general happiness levels have decreased . $75,000 a year average household income is the level at which happiness seems to peak— the level at which the basic economic needs of food, housing, healthcare, child support, etc. can be met. When people’s annual income became higher than that sum, their happiness levels didn’t go up much. The difference between $75,000 and $75 million was hardly significant.

Dr. Waldinger believes that the reason many hold this false belief in the power of money to improve happiness is because the good life is defined for us, not by us . This is a result of the digital revolution, social media, unrealistic standards, and omnipresent advertising. Ads tell us that consumption ought to make us happy, that we ought to look and act a certain way. We judge our everyday lives against the curated lives of others, and young people, who are more deeply entrenched in digital media than any generation before them, are particularly vulnerable to this constant self-comparison. “As a mentor of mine once said,” stated Dr. Waldinger, “‘ we are always comparing our insides to other people’s outsides. ’”

The Harvard Study of Adult Development

So what do we really need for a good life? As Director of the Harvard Study of Adult Development, Dr. Waldinger was ideally placed to search for an answer. This 85-year study started in 1938 as two studies. One followed a group of 19-year-old Harvard students, while the other followed a younger group of juvenile delinquents. Both groups were exclusively white, male, and based out of Boston. The two studies were combined to make up a group of 725 men. As time passed, their wives were brought into the study, and then their children. The group even included John F Kennedy. Participants’ physical, mental, and emotional health were studied. They were photographed, audiotaped, and videotaped. Their blood was drawn, their brains were scanned, and their DNA was studied.

The study found that the people who stayed healthiest and lived longest were the people who had the strongest connections to others . The warmth of these connections had a direct positive impact on their health and well-being. Good relationships meant participants were less likely to develop heart disease, diabetes, or arthritis. Broader social networks and more social activity resulted in later onset and slower rates of cognitive decline. The study even found that married people lived longer—an average of 5-12 years longer for women, and 7-17 years longer for men .

Interestingly, the study also found that participants became happier as they aged . From middle age onward, participants paid more attention to positive information than negative information, remembered the past more positively, became more selective about how they spent their time, and increasingly savored the present moment. Dr. Waldinger’s explanation for this trend was that “When we sense that time is limited, emotional well-being becomes a priority.” There is a downside to this, however—older brains are more responsive to positive information, and tend to disregard negative information, making them more susceptible to scams.

When the first round of participants were in their 80s, the interviewers asked them what they wished they had done differently, and what they were most proud of. The men replied that they wished they hadn’t spent as much time at work, but with the people they cared about. The women replied that they wished they hadn’t worried about what people thought of them. For both genders, their proudest achievements all had to do with relationships. Participants were proud of being a good parent, partner, friend, or mentor.

These findings affected Dr. Waldinger personally. He realized that he had to listen to his own research, and so instead of working 24/7, he began to intentionally reach out to his friends, telling him that he was thinking of them, inviting them to go out for a walk or get dinner. While he was proud of his work, he realized that his greatest source of satisfaction wasn’t the academic awards he had received, but instead maintaining vibrant connections with others.

Expounding on this, Dr. Waldinger added that when it came to work and relationships, he understood that it couldn’t be either or. He explained that people need enough money to be financially secure, to support themselves and their families. But the people who sacrifice everything for work end up feeling like they’ve given up too much in their lives. It may be tempting to focus on money or achievements because they’re measurable, and we tend to prioritize what we can measure. Relationships change all the time, and cannot be measured in the same way; but this does not make them any less important.

In terms of spending money to achieve happiness, Dr. Waldinger recommended paying for experiences, rather than material things. “ The best things in life aren’t things ,” he explained. “Material things lend themselves to comparisons. But experiences either strengthen pre-existing relationships with people, or help us meet new people.”

The Loneliness Pandemic

Developing and strengthening relationships with others is a skill that has decreased in the general US population since the 1950s, with the introduction of the television. Over the last 25 years, people have become half as likely to join clubs and civic organizations, while family dinners and vacations are down by a third. In 1983, 12% of Americans lacked a confidant, someone they could speak to about personal matters, while in 2003, 25% lacked a confidant. In a global poll of 15 million workers, only a third said they had a best friend at work, and of those, only 1 in 12 said they were engaged in their job. Half of CEOs report feeling lonely. Dr. Waldinger and many others believe that this loneliness pandemic was accelerated by the digital revolution. “We’re all on our phones, on our screens, so much of the time that we neglect each other, and we neglect the world around us.”

Studies have found that loneliness is as powerful a predictor of poor health as smoking half a pack of cigarettes a day, having high blood pressure, or being obese. Loneliness results in earlier cognitive and physical decline, stress-induced hypertension, impaired sleep, heightened cardiovascular reactivity, decreased immune function, and chronic inflammation.

How We Can Fix It

Dr. Waldinger began with a quote from one of his Zen teachers, John Tarrant, stating “ Attention is the most basic form of love. ” He went on to explain that “our undivided attention is the most valuable thing we have to give each other. It is also the most difficult thing, these days, to give each other, because screens are so programmed to take us away from each other. The path of least resistance seems to be driving us towards increasing social isolation, so we need to be intentional in structuring our lives both at home and at work to counter this trend. ”

Of course, there are other factors to consider, such as where an individual is on the scale of introversion to extroversion. Introverts may only need a few relationships, and become stressed out by too many, while extroverts need a wider circle. “Our culture tends to glorify extroverts, which is silly,” said Dr. Waldinger. “Other cultures glorify a more contemplative approach to life.” The answer to finding a good life isn’t one size fits all.

Then there is an individual’s baseline level mood to consider. People can have the exact same circumstances, and some can happier and others sadder. Dr. Waldinger explained that about 50% of happiness comes from genetically based, temperamental factors, about 10% comes from life circumstances, and about 40% can be changed.

As the webinar came to an end, Dr. Viswanath read a final comment from an attendee. “It seems that we are discovering things that women have always understood, valuing relationships and loving our people.” Dr. Waldinger responded that there had been people who responded to his TED talks with “duh”. He explained that women are typically socialized to care more about relationships. “I am not revealing something to this world that’s a shocker,” he concluded. “We just now have good scientific data to back up what our grandmothers always knew and were telling us all along.”

If you missed the seminar, you can watch a recording here .

Written by Ayla Fudala, Communications Coordinator

You must be logged in to post a comment.

What Does Aristotle Mean by the Good Life? And How Can We Practice It?

Aristotle’s good life is superior to all other kinds of existence. People who follow this path are satisfied with their lives and their accomplishments. Ultimately, this leads to eudaimonia, happiness, and purpose. But what does Aristotle mean by the good life? And how can we practice it? Below, I’ll explore three important aspects of Aristotle’s good life.

Aristotle’s view of the good life

Aristotle’s views of the good life are largely in agreement with the beliefs of Epicurus and Socrates. According to these philosophers, the good life requires virtue and morality, but a human’s happiness should be based on the pursuit of a variety of pleasant experiences. As such, Aristotle’s view of the good life is very objective. People who live the good life are characterized by a variety of virtues.

Aristotle argues that the life of a philosopher is superior to that of a politician because it requires less external equipment. However, he does not elaborate further on what constitutes pleasure. He assumes that a human being has the right to a healthy body, a virtuous soul, and an abundance of pleasure. While we all have a basic understanding of what is good, we must be aware that pleasure can be a very different thing for some people.

Aristotle’s view of the human soul is based on the idea that the human intellect is a separate part of the body. In fact, Aristotle acknowledges the immortal soul part of the human being. While Aristotle had a standard biological concept of the soul, he had a Platonic vision of the intellect, which states that it is separate from the body. Despite this discrepancy, no one has been able to reconcile these two strains in Aristotle’s view of the good life.

Aristotle mentions impetuosity and weakness. The word “eudaimon” means “life favored by god” and he never mentioned its etymology. Regardless of the etymology, he saw “eudaimon” as a substitute for eu zen . Aristotle equates “eu zen” with happiness and life satisfaction.

Its superiority to other kinds of life

Aristotle’s works include treatises on the natural sciences and other special subjects. These include cosmology, biology, psychology, and the philosophy of science . His writings are widely read and are still relevant to today’s philosophical discussions. Although he is credited with creating the concept of the good life, it is still controversial whether he was the first philosopher to articulate the term.

Aristotle argues that the good life is the best kind of human life because it involves exercising the rational faculties. He cites scientific inquiry and philosophical discussion as examples of the good life. He also lists artistic creation and legislation as good aspects of human life. Today, we may include technological innovation in the definition of the good life. Aristotle’s ethics is often understood as a naturalistic version of ancient Greek ethics.

Aristotle’s work is influenced by Platonic thought. His Ethics and Politicus contain arguments about the immortality of the psyche and the ideal stateman. In addition, his exoteric works are infused with the Platonic spirit. The Platonic assertion that the good life is the best kind of life is particularly evident in the Politicus.

Aristotle’s concept of the good life refers to the highest aims of a human being. This quality is called eudaimonia, and it is often translated as “well-being” or human flourishing. The good life is considered pleasant to a man of virtue, and moderate behavior, with appropriate appetites, is pleasant. Aristotle’s concept of the good life is derived from his philosophy of nature and the importance of the virtues in his world.

Its curability through training

According to Aristotle, a good life is one in which the individual is satisfied and happy. Many people interpret happiness in subjectivist terms, arguing that a person’s happiness is based on his or her own state of mind. However, Aristotle’s definition of happiness is objective and explains the reasons for our joy. In Aristotle’s view, a happy life is a life that involves a lot of positive experiences and morality.

In his Politics, Aristotle explains that city-states exist to pursue the good life. While it’s true that happiness is a desirable goal, it is also a bad habit. The good life, for Aristotle, involves a variety of relationships that aim at achieving this goal. The ideal friendship, for example, is formed when two people share a common interest and engage in a mutually satisfying activity. The enjoyment of this friendship can last only as long as the individuals involved in the friendship are willing to participate in that activity.

Its relation to eudaimonia

The term ‘eudaimonia’ consists of two parts: daimon (divinity) and eudaimon (spirit). According to Aristotle, eudaimonia means living well, favored by god. Despite its etymology, Aristotle viewed it as a synonym of eu zen, which is a definition of happiness.

Aristotle’s good life is the pursuit of virtues, which are morally ‘good’ ways of living a life. The pursuit of virtue contributes to happiness, but the intention to practice virtue is just as important as doing the actions. This is the idea behind eudaimonia, or eudaimonia in psychology.

The concept of eudaimonia has its roots in the ancient Greeks. In the first three chapters of the EN, Aristotle presents the formal specifications of human good. He asserts that the good life is the highest form of human happiness. According to the ancient Greeks, the ultimate good is happiness, which is the highest goal of human life.

Eudaimonia is often described as a state of psychological well-being, and there are a number of theories that attempt to define eudaimonia. Two of these theories are the self-determination theory and the model of psychological well-being. Both treat the notions of happiness and character traits. These theories were developed through empirical studies, and the results are still controversial.

Aristotle’s eudaimonia is a broader concept than eudaimonia alone. It addresses a fundamental question in human society: what is good? What are the conditions necessary to achieve the good life? For example, is it good to have friends? Is it desirable to be honored and courageous? The answer depends on how you measure happiness.

Its dependence on other goods

Aristotle’s argument that the good life is interdependent with other goods raises questions about the morality of pursuing virtue alone. Aristotle treats the desire to do good for others as a natural phenomenon and argues that it is compatible with one’s own happiness. The practical wisdom of pursuing virtue alone is incompatible with the virtuous activity of a friend. Ultimately, a person should pursue virtue in order to benefit himself.

The existence of other goods is critical to happiness. The good life cannot be achieved without them. While Aristotle posits that pleasure is the highest good, we must also acknowledge that other goods may interfere with our happiness. The highest good is impossible to attain without the other goods. In other words, we must prioritize pleasure and avoid extreme ugly. While these goods are essential for happiness, they are not sufficient by themselves.

The good life depends on the existence of other goods. Those goods include health, beauty, and material well-being. Others include relationships, friendship, and a place in political society. The good life, according to Aristotle, is a result of a full life, including all of these other goods. For example, one swallow of summer does not make a person happy. Similarly, one day does not make a man happy.

According to Aristotle, there are three types of life. The first three do not act for their own sake but serve other purposes or perform a function. The other two are based on personal needs. The good life puts these desires into action, a form of bliss. Bliss is an activity that brings happiness and self-sufficiency. It is the good life, not the life of wealth or fame.

Doctor of Philosophy Requirements and Dissertation

A doctor of philosophy is the highest academic degree. The degree is awarded for programs spanning all academic disciplines. The typical requirements for a doctoral program are listed below. To learn more about this degree, read on! You’ll be amazed at the many advantages it offers. Before applying for a doctorate program, understand what the…

How to Write a Philosophy of Teaching

There are many ways to write a philosophy of teaching. You can use a template to help you get started. Be sure to personalize it to match your own teaching style. Many teaching philosophy templates include techniques for teaching, surveying students’ understanding, and ways to collaborate with students. Once you’ve developed your own teaching philosophy,…

Examples of Personal Philosophy

Personal philosophy is a person’s view on fundamental questions of life, such as meaning, purpose, and the nature of things. Examples can include skepticism, where knowledge and truth are unknowable and all judgement is unverifiable. For this person, the universe is not ours to understand, and we should not try to understand it. But the…

Do Existentialists Believe in God?

If you’ve ever wondered if Existentialists believe in God, you’re not alone. This article discusses why existentialists don’t believe in deities, and focuses on the individual. This belief is rooted in a philosophical principle called “analytic philosophy,” and emphasizes the importance of the individual over the existence of a deity. However, it is not a…

The Philosophy of Existentialism

What is existentialism? This philosophy of life focuses on man as a person, denies the existence of God, and stresses inauthenticity. These are all essential aspects of existentialism. We can learn more about this philosophy by reading this article. In addition to identifying the main aspects of existentialism, we can also understand its basic premises….

The Advantages and Disadvantages of a Philosophy Major

While there are many advantages to majoring in philosophy, you should know that it is not for everyone. The field is not only important to the study of human beings and the development of society, but it is also integral to science. It guides the way forward in matters of ethics and environmental sustainability. Unlike…

An old photograph of a man pulling a small cart with a child and belongings, followed by a woman and three children; one child is pushing a stroller.

Thinkers and theories

Rawls the redeemer

For John Rawls, liberalism was more than a political project: it is the best way to fashion a life that is worthy of happiness

Alexandre Lefebvre

A walking figure made of black shapes, with a pink ticket for “The Moviegoer” by Walker Percy as its body, on a yellow background.

Meaning and the good life

‘Everydayness is the enemy’ – excerpts from the existentialist novel ‘The Moviegoer’

A close-up drawing of a face with detailed patterns and a hand touching the face, using earthy tones and texture on a brown background.

Beyond authenticity

In her final unfinished work, Hannah Arendt mounted an incisive critique of the idea that we are in search of our true selves

Samantha Rose Hill

Black and white photo of people sitting at a café, taken through a window with reflections. A sign saying ‘BUFFET FROID’ is visible.

Philosophy was once alive

I was searching for meaning and purpose so I became an academic philosopher. Reader, you might guess what happened next

Pranay Sanklecha

A vibrant parade with people dressed in colourful, clown-like costumes riding decorated bicycles. They are smiling and laughing as they ride through a crowd of onlookers. Various decorations such as flowers, balloons, and banners add to the festive atmosphere. Trees line the background of the street.

Learning to be happier

In order to help improve my students’ mental health, I offered a course on the science of happiness. It worked – but why?

A man lies down with his head on a miniature model of buildings and streets, blending into the tiny, urban scene at night.

Biography and memoir

The unique life philosophy of Abdi, born in Somalia, living in the Netherlands

Stephen Fry stands at a podium, wearing a checkered blazer, pink shirt, and ‘Choose Love’ badge, speaking with an expressive gesture.

Why strive? Stephen Fry reads Nick Cave’s letter on the threat of computed creativity

German man wearing sunglasses and a black cap standing among tall, green cacti, with a serious expression on his face.

Beauty and aesthetics

The grit of cacti and the drumbeat of time shape a sculptor’s life philosophy

A close-up shot of one woman holding and comforting another grief-stricken woman

Ageing and death

Witness the pain

When loved ones are traumatically lost, bereaved families become accidental activists by turning grief into grievance

Chris Bobel

A shirtless man in jeans lies sleeping beside his 1970s era car on the sandy beach

Modern life subjects us to all-consuming demands. That’s why we should reflect on what it means to step away from it all

David J Siegel

Three toy cars made from colourful sweets on a wooden table. The car wheels are peppermint discs and chocolate coins.

Cognition and intelligence

Are you an artistic genius?

Maybe not, but if that’s the threshold you use for creativity in your life, you are coming at the problem all wrong

James C Kaufman

A person in a lab coat holds an alligator hand puppet and a mouse hand puppet, mimicking an interaction between them.

Even in modern secular societies, belief in an afterlife persists. Why?

A man in traditional attire with a colourful beaded headdress and a staff over his shoulder, standing outdoors.

Spirituality

Trek alongside spiritual pilgrims on a treacherous journey across Pakistan

A yellow taxi with its bonnet open; a person is lying underneath the vehicle, with only their legs visible.

Freedom at work

There is always a demand for more jobs. But what makes a job good? For that, Immanuel Kant has an answer

People walking towards a crashed aeroplane in a snowy field with trees in the background.

The world turns vivid, strange and philosophical for one plane crash survivor

Tourists walking on a foggy road with buses parked on the side and a driver standing beside a bus, partially obstructed by the fog.

Stories and literature

Solace and saudade

In the face of an inscrutable, indifferent universe, Pessoa suggests we cultivate a certain longing for the elusive horizon

Jonardon Ganeri & Sarah Seymour

Abstract painting with an eye, trees, a bird, arches, and a small house in a colourful, dream-like landscape.

Philosophy of religion

A new paganism

Now is the time to revitalise our relationship with nature and immerse ourselves in the little wonders of the universe

Cartoon philosopher explains nature with thought clouds, quotes “Listen, I’ve got this all figured out.” Below, a happy character gives thumbs up beside a pig.

Why Aristotle believed that philosophy was humanity’s highest purpose

A triptych with books, vases, and writing utensils. From left to right: stacks of books, vases with flowers, and various containers on decorated backgrounds.

Comparative philosophy

How to become wise

Practice is at the heart of Korean philosophy. In order to lead a good life, hone your daily rituals of self-cultivation

Kevin Cawley

Period painting of a woman in a domestic setting examining a child’s hair, with a dog sitting on the tiled floor and sunlight streaming through an open door.

Attuned to the aesthetic

The ultimate value of the world can be discovered if you are sensitive to what is beautiful

Tom Cochrane

A child playing in a fountain spray on a dark, wet surface, illuminated by sunlight, creating reflections from water droplets.

You’re astonishing!

Life can be better appreciated when you remember how wonderfully and frighteningly unlikely it is that you exist at all

Timm Triplett

A protester holds a sign reading ‘IT IS WORSE MUCH WORSE THAN YOU THINK’ amid a crowd in an urban setting.

Virtues and vices

Look on the dark side

We must keep the flame of pessimism burning: it is a virtue for our deeply troubled times, when crude optimism is a vice

Mara van der Lugt

Person sitting on a mountain ridge beside a backpack and a red flag on a stone cairn, overlooking snowy peaks under a clear blue sky.

The end of travel

Driven by the need for a storied life, I relished the opportunity for endless travel. Is that a moment in time, now over?

Henry Wismayer

A young woman leans against an older woman on a sofa with floral cushions and a painting on the wall behind.

To know or not to know? Lillian weighs the costs of a life-changing genetic test

Essays About Life: Top 5 Examples Plus 7 Prompts

Life envelops various meanings; if you are writing essays about life, discover our comprehensive guide with examples and prompts to help you with your essay.

What is life? You can ask anyone; I assure you, no two people will have the same answer. How we define life relies on our beliefs and priorities. One can say that life is the capacity for growth or the time between birth and death. Others can share that life is the constant pursuit of purpose and fulfillment. Life is a broad topic that inspires scholars, poets, and many others. It stimulates discussions that encourage diverse perspectives and interpretations.

IMAGE	PRODUCT
	Grammarly
	ProWritingAid

5 Essay Examples

1. essay on life by anonymous on toppr.com, 2. the theme of life, existence and consciousness by anonymous on gradesfixer.com, 3. compassion can save life by anonymous on papersowl.com, 4. a life of consumption vs. a life of self-realization by anonymous on ivypanda.com, 5. you only live once: a motto for life by anonymous on gradesfixer.com, 1. what is the true meaning of life, 2. my life purpose, 3. what makes life special, 4. how to appreciate life, 5. books about life, 6. how to live a healthy life, 7. my idea of a perfect life.

“…quality of Life carries huge importance. Above all, the ultimate purpose should be to live a meaningful life. A meaningful life is one which allows us to connect with our deeper self.”

The author defines life as something that differentiates man from inorganic matter. It’s an aspect that processes and examines a person’s actions that develop through growth. For some, life is a pain because of failures and struggles, but it’s temporary. For the writer, life’s challenges help us move forward, be strong, and live to the fullest. You can also check out these essays about utopia .

“… Kafka defines the dangers of depending on art for life. The hunger artist expresses his dissatisfaction with the world by using himself and not an external canvas to create his artwork, forcing a lack of separation between the artist and his art. Therefore, instead of the art depending on the audience, the artist depends on the audience, meaning when the audience’s appreciation for work dwindles, their appreciation for the artist diminishes as well, leading to the hunger artist’s death.”

The essay talks about “ A Hunger Artist ” by Franz Kafka, who describes his views on life through art. The author analyzes Kafka’s fictional main character and his anxieties and frustrations about life and the world. This perception shows how much he suffered as an artist and how unhappy he was. Through the essay, the writer effectively explains Kafka’s conclusion that artists’ survival should not depend on their art.

“Compassion is that feeling that we’ve all experienced at some point in our lives. When we know that there is someone that really cares for us. Compassion comes from that moment when we can see the world through another person’s eyes.”

The author is a nurse who believes that to be professional, they need to be compassionate and treat their patients with respect, empathy, and dignity. One can show compassion through small actions such as talking and listening to patients’ grievances. In conclusion, compassion can save a person’s life by accepting everyone regardless of race, gender, etc.

“… A life of self-realization is more preferable and beneficial in comparison with a life on consumption. At the same time, this statement may be objected as person’s consumption leads to his or her happiness.”

The author examines Jon Elster’s theory to find out what makes a person happy and what people should think and feel about their material belongings. The essay mentions a list of common activities that make us feel happy and satisfied, such as buying new things. The writer explains that Elster’s statement about the prevalence of self-realization in consumption will always trigger intense debate.

“Appreciate the moment you’ve been given and appreciate the people you’ve been given to spend it with, because no matter how beautiful or tragic a moment is, it always ends. So hold on a little tighter, smile a little bigger, cry a little harder, laugh a little louder, forgive a little quicker, and love a whole lot deeper because these are the moments you will remember when you’re old and wishing you could rewind time.”

This essay explains that some things and events only happen once in a person’s life. The author encourages teenagers to enjoy the little things in their life and do what they love as much as they can. When they turn into adults, they will no longer have the luxury to do whatever they want.

The author suggests doing something meaningful as a stress reliever, trusting people, refusing to give up on the things that make you happy, and dying with beautiful memories. For help with your essays, check out our round-up of the best essay checkers .

7 Prompts for Essays About Life

Essays About Life: What is the true meaning of life?

Life encompasses many values and depends on one’s perception. For most, life is about reaching achievements to make themselves feel alive. Use this prompt to compile different meanings of life and provide a background on why a person defines life as they do.

Take Joseph Campbell’s, “Life has no meaning. Each of us has meaning, and we bring it to life. It is a waste to be asking the question when you are the answer,” for example. This quote pertains to his belief that an individual is responsible for giving life meaning.

For this prompt, share with your readers your current purpose in life. It can be as simple as helping your siblings graduate or something grand, such as changing a national law to make a better world. You can ask others about their life purpose to include in your essay and give your opinion on why your answers are different or similar.

Life is a fascinating subject, as each person has a unique concept. How someone lives depends on many factors, such as opportunities, upbringing, and philosophies. All of these elements affect what we consider “special.”

Share what you think makes life special. For instance, talk about your relationships, such as your close-knit family or best friends. Write about the times when you thought life was worth living. You might also be interested in these essays about yourself .

Life in itself is a gift. However, most of us follow a routine of “wake up, work (or study), sleep, repeat.” Our constant need to survive makes us take things for granted. When we endlessly repeat a routine, life becomes mundane. For this prompt, offer tips on how to avoid a monotonous life, such as keeping a gratitude journal or traveling.

Many literary pieces use life as their subject. If you have a favorite book about life, recommend it to your readers by summarizing the content and sharing how the book influenced your outlook on life. You can suggest more than one book and explain why everyone should read them.

For example, Paulo Coelho’s “The Alchemist” reminds its readers to live in the moment and never fear failure.

Essays About Life: How to live a healthy life?

To be healthy doesn’t only pertain to our physical condition. It also refers to our mental, spiritual, and emotional well-being. To live a happy and full life, individuals must strive to be healthy in all areas. For this prompt, list ways to achieve a healthy life. Section your essay and present activities to improve health, such as eating healthy foods, talking with friends, etc.

No one has a perfect life, but describe what it’ll be like if you do. Start with the material things, such as your house, clothes, etc. Then, move to how you connect with others. In your conclusion, answer whether you’re willing to exchange your current life for the “perfect life” you described and why. See our essay writing tips to learn more!

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

The Meaning of Life

Many major historical figures in philosophy have provided an answer to the question of what, if anything, makes life meaningful, although they typically have not put it in these terms (with such talk having arisen only in the past 250 years or so, on which see Landau 1997). Consider, for instance, Aristotle on the human function, Aquinas on the beatific vision, and Kant on the highest good. Relatedly, think about Koheleth, the presumed author of the Biblical book Ecclesiastes, describing life as “futility” and akin to “the pursuit of wind,” Nietzsche on nihilism, as well as Schopenhauer when he remarks that whenever we reach a goal we have longed for we discover “how vain and empty it is.” While these concepts have some bearing on happiness and virtue (and their opposites), they are straightforwardly construed (roughly) as accounts of which highly ranked purposes a person ought to realize that would make her life significant (if any would).

Despite the venerable pedigree, it is only since the 1980s or so that a distinct field of the meaning of life has been established in Anglo-American-Australasian philosophy, on which this survey focuses, and it is only in the past 20 years that debate with real depth and intricacy has appeared. Two decades ago analytic reflection on life’s meaning was described as a “backwater” compared to that on well-being or good character, and it was possible to cite nearly all the literature in a given critical discussion of the field (Metz 2002). Neither is true any longer. Anglo-American-Australasian philosophy of life’s meaning has become vibrant, such that there is now way too much literature to be able to cite comprehensively in this survey. To obtain focus, it tends to discuss books, influential essays, and more recent works, and it leaves aside contributions from other philosophical traditions (such as the Continental or African) and from non-philosophical fields (e.g., psychology or literature). This survey’s central aim is to acquaint the reader with current analytic approaches to life’s meaning, sketching major debates and pointing out neglected topics that merit further consideration.

When the topic of the meaning of life comes up, people tend to pose one of three questions: “What are you talking about?”, “What is the meaning of life?”, and “Is life in fact meaningful?”. The literature on life's meaning composed by those working in the analytic tradition (on which this entry focuses) can be usefully organized according to which question it seeks to answer. This survey starts off with recent work that addresses the first, abstract (or “meta”) question regarding the sense of talk of “life’s meaning,” i.e., that aims to clarify what we have in mind when inquiring into the meaning of life (section 1). Afterward, it considers texts that provide answers to the more substantive question about the nature of meaningfulness (sections 2–3). There is in the making a sub-field of applied meaning that parallels applied ethics, in which meaningfulness is considered in the context of particular cases or specific themes. Examples include downshifting (Levy 2005), implementing genetic enhancements (Agar 2013), making achievements (Bradford 2015), getting an education (Schinkel et al. 2015), interacting with research participants (Olson 2016), automating labor (Danaher 2017), and creating children (Ferracioli 2018). In contrast, this survey focuses nearly exclusively on contemporary normative-theoretical approaches to life’s meanining, that is, attempts to capture in a single, general principle all the variegated conditions that could confer meaning on life. Finally, this survey examines fresh arguments for the nihilist view that the conditions necessary for a meaningful life do not obtain for any of us, i.e., that all our lives are meaningless (section 4).

1. The Meaning of “Meaning”

2.1. god-centered views, 2.2. soul-centered views, 3.1. subjectivism, 3.2. objectivism, 3.3. rejecting god and a soul, 4. nihilism, works cited, classic works, collections, books for the general reader, other internet resources, related entries.

One of the field's aims consists of the systematic attempt to identify what people (essentially or characteristically) have in mind when they think about the topic of life’s meaning. For many in the field, terms such as “importance” and “significance” are synonyms of “meaningfulness” and so are insufficiently revealing, but there are those who draw a distinction between meaningfulness and significance (Singer 1996, 112–18; Belliotti 2019, 145–50, 186). There is also debate about how the concept of a meaningless life relates to the ideas of a life that is absurd (Nagel 1970, 1986, 214–23; Feinberg 1980; Belliotti 2019), futile (Trisel 2002), and not worth living (Landau 2017, 12–15; Matheson 2017).

A useful way to begin to get clear about what thinking about life’s meaning involves is to specify the bearer. Which life does the inquirer have in mind? A standard distinction to draw is between the meaning “in” life, where a human person is what can exhibit meaning, and the meaning “of” life in a narrow sense, where the human species as a whole is what can be meaningful or not. There has also been a bit of recent consideration of whether animals or human infants can have meaning in their lives, with most rejecting that possibility (e.g., Wong 2008, 131, 147; Fischer 2019, 1–24), but a handful of others beginning to make a case for it (Purves and Delon 2018; Thomas 2018). Also under-explored is the issue of whether groups, such as a people or an organization, can be bearers of meaning, and, if so, under what conditions.

Most analytic philosophers have been interested in meaning in life, that is, in the meaningfulness that a person’s life could exhibit, with comparatively few these days addressing the meaning of life in the narrow sense. Even those who believe that God is or would be central to life’s meaning have lately addressed how an individual’s life might be meaningful in virtue of God more often than how the human race might be. Although some have argued that the meaningfulness of human life as such merits inquiry to no less a degree (if not more) than the meaning in a life (Seachris 2013; Tartaglia 2015; cf. Trisel 2016), a large majority of the field has instead been interested in whether their lives as individual persons (and the lives of those they care about) are meaningful and how they could become more so.

Focusing on meaning in life, it is quite common to maintain that it is conceptually something good for its own sake or, relatedly, something that provides a basic reason for action (on which see Visak 2017). There are a few who have recently suggested otherwise, maintaining that there can be neutral or even undesirable kinds of meaning in a person’s life (e.g., Mawson 2016, 90, 193; Thomas 2018, 291, 294). However, these are outliers, with most analytic philosophers, and presumably laypeople, instead wanting to know when an individual’s life exhibits a certain kind of final value (or non-instrumental reason for action).

Another claim about which there is substantial consensus is that meaningfulness is not all or nothing and instead comes in degrees, such that some periods of life are more meaningful than others and that some lives as a whole are more meaningful than others. Note that one can coherently hold the view that some people’s lives are less meaningful (or even in a certain sense less “important”) than others, or are even meaningless (unimportant), and still maintain that people have an equal standing from a moral point of view. Consider a consequentialist moral principle according to which each individual counts for one in virtue of having a capacity for a meaningful life, or a Kantian approach according to which all people have a dignity in virtue of their capacity for autonomous decision-making, where meaning is a function of the exercise of this capacity. For both moral outlooks, we could be required to help people with relatively meaningless lives.

Yet another relatively uncontroversial element of the concept of meaningfulness in respect of individual persons is that it is logically distinct from happiness or rightness (emphasized in Wolf 2010, 2016). First, to ask whether someone’s life is meaningful is not one and the same as asking whether her life is pleasant or she is subjectively well off. A life in an experience machine or virtual reality device would surely be a happy one, but very few take it to be a prima facie candidate for meaningfulness (Nozick 1974: 42–45). Indeed, a number would say that one’s life logically could become meaningful precisely by sacrificing one’s well-being, e.g., by helping others at the expense of one’s self-interest. Second, asking whether a person’s existence over time is meaningful is not identical to considering whether she has been morally upright; there are intuitively ways to enhance meaning that have nothing to do with right action or moral virtue, such as making a scientific discovery or becoming an excellent dancer. Now, one might argue that a life would be meaningless if, or even because, it were unhappy or immoral, but that would be to posit a synthetic, substantive relationship between the concepts, far from indicating that speaking of “meaningfulness” is analytically a matter of connoting ideas regarding happiness or rightness. The question of what (if anything) makes a person’s life meaningful is conceptually distinct from the questions of what makes a life happy or moral, although it could turn out that the best answer to the former question appeals to an answer to one of the latter questions.

Supposing, then, that talk of “meaning in life” connotes something good for its own sake that can come in degrees and that is not analytically equivalent to happiness or rightness, what else does it involve? What more can we say about this final value, by definition? Most contemporary analytic philosophers would say that the relevant value is absent from spending time in an experience machine (but see Goetz 2012 for a different view) or living akin to Sisyphus, the mythic figure doomed by the Greek gods to roll a stone up a hill for eternity (famously discussed by Albert Camus and Taylor 1970). In addition, many would say that the relevant value is typified by the classic triad of “the good, the true, and the beautiful” (or would be under certain conditions). These terms are not to be taken literally, but instead are rough catchwords for beneficent relationships (love, collegiality, morality), intellectual reflection (wisdom, education, discoveries), and creativity (particularly the arts, but also potentially things like humor or gardening).

Pressing further, is there something that the values of the good, the true, the beautiful, and any other logically possible sources of meaning involve? There is as yet no consensus in the field. One salient view is that the concept of meaning in life is a cluster or amalgam of overlapping ideas, such as fulfilling higher-order purposes, meriting substantial esteem or admiration, having a noteworthy impact, transcending one’s animal nature, making sense, or exhibiting a compelling life-story (Markus 2003; Thomson 2003; Metz 2013, 24–35; Seachris 2013, 3–4; Mawson 2016). However, there are philosophers who maintain that something much more monistic is true of the concept, so that (nearly) all thought about meaningfulness in a person’s life is essentially about a single property. Suggestions include being devoted to or in awe of qualitatively superior goods (Taylor 1989, 3–24), transcending one’s limits (Levy 2005), or making a contribution (Martela 2016).

Recently there has been something of an “interpretive turn” in the field, one instance of which is the strong view that meaning-talk is logically about whether and how a life is intelligible within a wider frame of reference (Goldman 2018, 116–29; Seachris 2019; Thomas 2019; cf. Repp 2018). According to this approach, inquiring into life’s meaning is nothing other than seeking out sense-making information, perhaps a narrative about life or an explanation of its source and destiny. This analysis has the advantage of promising to unify a wide array of uses of the term “meaning.” However, it has the disadvantages of being unable to capture the intuitions that meaning in life is essentially good for its own sake (Landau 2017, 12–15), that it is not logically contradictory to maintain that an ineffable condition is what confers meaning on life (as per Cooper 2003, 126–42; Bennett-Hunter 2014; Waghorn 2014), and that often human actions themselves (as distinct from an interpretation of them), such as rescuing a child from a burning building, are what bear meaning.

Some thinkers have suggested that a complete analysis of the concept of life’s meaning should include what has been called “anti-matter” (Metz 2002, 805–07, 2013, 63–65, 71–73) or “anti-meaning” (Campbell and Nyholm 2015; Egerstrom 2015), conditions that reduce the meaningfulness of a life. The thought is that meaning is well represented by a bipolar scale, where there is a dimension of not merely positive conditions, but also negative ones. Gratuitous cruelty or destructiveness are prima facie candidates for actions that not merely fail to add meaning, but also subtract from any meaning one’s life might have had.

Despite the ongoing debates about how to analyze the concept of life’s meaning (or articulate the definition of the phrase “meaning in life”), the field remains in a good position to make progress on the other key questions posed above, viz., of what would make a life meaningful and whether any lives are in fact meaningful. A certain amount of common ground is provided by the point that meaningfulness at least involves a gradient final value in a person’s life that is conceptually distinct from happiness and rightness, with exemplars of it potentially being the good, the true, and the beautiful. The rest of this discussion addresses philosophical attempts to capture the nature of this value theoretically and to ascertain whether it exists in at least some of our lives.

2. Supernaturalism

Most analytic philosophers writing on meaning in life have been trying to develop and evaluate theories, i.e., fundamental and general principles, that are meant to capture all the particular ways that a life could obtain meaning. As in moral philosophy, there are recognizable “anti-theorists,” i.e., those who maintain that there is too much pluralism among meaning conditions to be able to unify them in the form of a principle (e.g., Kekes 2000; Hosseini 2015). Arguably, though, the systematic search for unity is too nascent to be able to draw a firm conclusion about whether it is available.

The theories are standardly divided on a metaphysical basis, that is, in terms of which kinds of properties are held to constitute the meaning. Supernaturalist theories are views according to which a spiritual realm is central to meaning in life. Most Western philosophers have conceived of the spiritual in terms of God or a soul as commonly understood in the Abrahamic faiths (but see Mulgan 2015 for discussion of meaning in the context of a God uninterested in us). In contrast, naturalist theories are views that the physical world as known particularly well by the scientific method is central to life’s meaning.

There is logical space for a non-naturalist theory, according to which central to meaning is an abstract property that is neither spiritual nor physical. However, only scant attention has been paid to this possibility in the recent Anglo-American-Australasian literature (Audi 2005).

It is important to note that supernaturalism, a claim that God (or a soul) would confer meaning on a life, is logically distinct from theism, the claim that God (or a soul) exists. Although most who hold supernaturalism also hold theism, one could accept the former without the latter (as Camus more or less did), committing one to the view that life is meaningless or at least lacks substantial meaning. Similarly, while most naturalists are atheists, it is not contradictory to maintain that God exists but has nothing to do with meaning in life or perhaps even detracts from it. Although these combinations of positions are logically possible, some of them might be substantively implausible. The field could benefit from discussion of the comparative attractiveness of various combinations of evaluative claims about what would make life meaningful and metaphysical claims about whether spiritual conditions exist.

Over the past 15 years or so, two different types of supernaturalism have become distinguished on a regular basis (Metz 2019). That is true not only in the literature on life’s meaning, but also in that on the related pro-theism/anti-theism debate, about whether it would be desirable for God or a soul to exist (e.g., Kahane 2011; Kraay 2018; Lougheed 2020). On the one hand, there is extreme supernaturalism, according to which spiritual conditions are necessary for any meaning in life. If neither God nor a soul exists, then, by this view, everyone’s life is meaningless. On the other hand, there is moderate supernaturalism, according to which spiritual conditions are necessary for a great or ultimate meaning in life, although not meaning in life as such. If neither God nor a soul exists, then, by this view, everyone’s life could have some meaning, or even be meaningful, but no one’s life could exhibit the most desirable meaning. For a moderate supernaturalist, God or a soul would substantially enhance meaningfulness or be a major contributory condition for it.

There are a variety of ways that great or ultimate meaning has been described, sometimes quantitatively as “infinite” (Mawson 2016), qualitatively as “deeper” (Swinburne 2016), relationally as “unlimited” (Nozick 1981, 618–19; cf. Waghorn 2014), temporally as “eternal” (Cottingham 2016), and perspectivally as “from the point of view of the universe” (Benatar 2017). There has been no reflection as yet on the crucial question of how these distinctions might bear on each another, for instance, on whether some are more basic than others or some are more valuable than others.

Cross-cutting the extreme/moderate distinction is one between God-centered theories and soul-centered ones. According to the former, some kind of connection with God (understood to be a spiritual person who is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful and who is the ground of the physical universe) constitutes meaning in life, even if one lacks a soul (construed as an immortal, spiritual substance that contains one’s identity). In contrast, by the latter, having a soul and putting it into a certain state is what makes life meaningful, even if God does not exist. Many supernaturalists of course believe that God and a soul are jointly necessary for a (greatly) meaningful existence. However, the simpler view, that only one of them is necessary, is common, and sometimes arguments proffered for the complex view fail to support it any more than the simpler one.

The most influential God-based account of meaning in life has been the extreme view that one’s existence is significant if and only if one fulfills a purpose God has assigned. The familiar idea is that God has a plan for the universe and that one’s life is meaningful just to the degree that one helps God realize this plan, perhaps in a particular way that God wants one to do so. If a person failed to do what God intends her to do with her life (or if God does not even exist), then, on the current view, her life would be meaningless.

Thinkers differ over what it is about God’s purpose that might make it uniquely able to confer meaning on human lives, but the most influential argument has been that only God’s purpose could be the source of invariant moral rules (Davis 1987, 296, 304–05; Moreland 1987, 124–29; Craig 1994/2013, 161–67) or of objective values more generally (Cottingham 2005, 37–57), where a lack of such would render our lives nonsensical. According to this argument, lower goods such as animal pleasure or desire satisfaction could exist without God, but higher ones pertaining to meaning in life, particularly moral virtue, could not. However, critics point to many non-moral sources of meaning in life (e.g., Kekes 2000; Wolf 2010), with one arguing that a universal moral code is not necessary for meaning in life, even if, say, beneficent actions are (Ellin 1995, 327). In addition, there are a variety of naturalist and non-naturalist accounts of objective morality––and of value more generally––on offer these days, so that it is not clear that it must have a supernatural source in God’s will.

One recurrent objection to the idea that God’s purpose could make life meaningful is that if God had created us with a purpose in mind, then God would have degraded us and thereby undercut the possibility of us obtaining meaning from fulfilling the purpose. The objection harks back to Jean-Paul Sartre, but in the analytic literature it appears that Kurt Baier was the first to articulate it (1957/2000, 118–20; see also Murphy 1982, 14–15; Singer 1996, 29; Kahane 2011; Lougheed 2020, 121–41). Sometimes the concern is the threat of punishment God would make so that we do God’s bidding, while other times it is that the source of meaning would be constrictive and not up to us, and still other times it is that our dignity would be maligned simply by having been created with a certain end in mind (for some replies to such concerns, see Hanfling 1987, 45–46; Cottingham 2005, 37–57; Lougheed 2020, 111–21).

There is a different argument for an extreme God-based view that focuses less on God as purposive and more on God as infinite, unlimited, or ineffable, which Robert Nozick first articulated with care (Nozick 1981, 594–618; see also Bennett-Hunter 2014; Waghorn 2014). The core idea is that for a finite condition to be meaningful, it must obtain its meaning from another condition that has meaning. So, if one’s life is meaningful, it might be so in virtue of being married to a person, who is important. Being finite, the spouse must obtain his or her importance from elsewhere, perhaps from the sort of work he or she does. This work also must obtain its meaning by being related to something else that is meaningful, and so on. A regress on meaningful conditions is present, and the suggestion is that the regress can terminate only in something so all-encompassing that it need not (indeed, cannot) go beyond itself to obtain meaning from anything else. And that is God. The standard objection to this relational rationale is that a finite condition could be meaningful without obtaining its meaning from another meaningful condition. Perhaps it could be meaningful in itself, without being connected to something beyond it, or maybe it could obtain its meaning by being related to something else that is beautiful or otherwise valuable for its own sake but not meaningful (Nozick 1989, 167–68; Thomson 2003, 25–26, 48).

A serious concern for any extreme God-based view is the existence of apparent counterexamples. If we think of the stereotypical lives of Albert Einstein, Mother Teresa, and Pablo Picasso, they seem meaningful even if we suppose there is no all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good spiritual person who is the ground of the physical world (e.g., Wielenberg 2005, 31–37, 49–50; Landau 2017). Even religiously inclined philosophers have found this hard to deny these days (Quinn 2000, 58; Audi 2005; Mawson 2016, 5; Williams 2020, 132–34).

Largely for that reason, contemporary supernaturalists have tended to opt for moderation, that is, to maintain that God would greatly enhance the meaning in our lives, even if some meaning would be possible in a world without God. One approach is to invoke the relational argument to show that God is necessary, not for any meaning whatsoever, but rather for an ultimate meaning. “Limited transcendence, the transcending of our limits so as to connect with a wider context of value which itself is limited, does give our lives meaning––but a limited one. We may thirst for more” (Nozick 1981, 618). Another angle is to appeal to playing a role in God’s plan, again to claim, not that it is essential for meaning as such, but rather for “a cosmic significance....intead of a significance very limited in time and space” (Swinburne 2016, 154; see also Quinn 2000; Cottingham 2016, 131). Another rationale is that by fulfilling God’s purpose, we would meaningfully please God, a perfect person, as well as be remembered favorably by God forever (Cottingham 2016, 135; Williams 2020, 21–22, 29, 101, 108). Still another argument is that only with God could the deepest desires of human nature be satisfied (e.g., Goetz 2012; Seachris 2013, 20; Cottingham 2016, 127, 136), even if more surface desires could be satisfied without God.

In reply to such rationales for a moderate supernaturalism, there has been the suggestion that it is precisely by virtue of being alone in the universe that our lives would be particularly significant; otherwise, God’s greatness would overshadow us (Kahane 2014). There has also been the response that, with the opportunity for greater meaning from God would also come that for greater anti-meaning, so that it is not clear that a world with God would offer a net gain in respect of meaning (Metz 2019, 34–35). For example, if pleasing God would greatly enhance meaning in our lives, then presumably displeasing God would greatly reduce it and to a comparable degree. In addition, there are arguments for extreme naturalism (or its “anti-theist” cousin) mentioned below (sub-section 3.3).

Notice that none of the above arguments for supernaturalism appeals to the prospect of eternal life (at least not explicitly). Arguments that do make such an appeal are soul-centered, holding that meaning in life mainly comes from having an immortal, spiritual substance that is contiguous with one’s body when it is alive and that will forever outlive its death. Some think of the afterlife in terms of one’s soul entering a transcendent, spiritual realm (Heaven), while others conceive of one’s soul getting reincarnated into another body on Earth. According to the extreme version, if one has a soul but fails to put it in the right state (or if one lacks a soul altogether), then one’s life is meaningless.

There are three prominent arguments for an extreme soul-based perspective. One argument, made famous by Leo Tolstoy, is the suggestion that for life to be meaningful something must be worth doing, that something is worth doing only if it will make a permanent difference to the world, and that making a permanent difference requires being immortal (see also Hanfling 1987, 22–24; Morris 1992, 26; Craig 1994). Critics most often appeal to counterexamples, suggesting for instance that it is surely worth your time and effort to help prevent people from suffering, even if you and they are mortal. Indeed, some have gone on the offensive and argued that helping people is worth the sacrifice only if and because they are mortal, for otherwise they could invariably be compensated in an afterlife (e.g., Wielenberg 2005, 91–94). Another recent and interesting criticism is that the major motivations for the claim that nothing matters now if one day it will end are incoherent (Greene 2021).

A second argument for the view that life would be meaningless without a soul is that it is necessary for justice to be done, which, in turn, is necessary for a meaningful life. Life seems nonsensical when the wicked flourish and the righteous suffer, at least supposing there is no other world in which these injustices will be rectified, whether by God or a Karmic force. Something like this argument can be found in Ecclesiastes, and it continues to be defended (e.g., Davis 1987; Craig 1994). However, even granting that an afterlife is required for perfectly just outcomes, it is far from obvious that an eternal afterlife is necessary for them, and, then, there is the suggestion that some lives, such as Mandela’s, have been meaningful precisely in virtue of encountering injustice and fighting it.

A third argument for thinking that having a soul is essential for any meaning is that it is required to have the sort of free will without which our lives would be meaningless. Immanuel Kant is known for having maintained that if we were merely physical beings, subjected to the laws of nature like everything else in the material world, then we could not act for moral reasons and hence would be unimportant. More recently, one theologian has eloquently put the point in religious terms: “The moral spirit finds the meaning of life in choice. It finds it in that which proceeds from man and remains with him as his inner essence rather than in the accidents of circumstances turns of external fortune....(W)henever a human being rubs the lamp of his moral conscience, a Spirit does appear. This Spirit is God....It is in the ‘Thou must’ of God and man’s ‘I can’ that the divine image of God in human life is contained” (Swenson 1949/2000, 27–28). Notice that, even if moral norms did not spring from God’s commands, the logic of the argument entails that one’s life could be meaningful, so long as one had the inherent ability to make the morally correct choice in any situation. That, in turn, arguably requires something non-physical about one’s self, so as to be able to overcome whichever physical laws and forces one might confront. The standard objection to this reasoning is to advance a compatibilism about having a determined physical nature and being able to act for moral reasons (e.g., Arpaly 2006; Fischer 2009, 145–77). It is also worth wondering whether, if one had to have a spiritual essence in order to make free choices, it would have to be one that never perished.

Like God-centered theorists, many soul-centered theorists these days advance a moderate view, accepting that some meaning in life would be possible without immortality, but arguing that a much greater meaning would be possible with it. Granting that Einstein, Mandela, and Picasso had somewhat meaningful lives despite not having survived the deaths of their bodies (as per, e.g., Trisel 2004; Wolf 2015, 89–140; Landau 2017), there remains a powerful thought: more is better. If a finite life with the good, the true, and the beautiful has meaning in it to some degree, then surely it would have all the more meaning if it exhibited such higher values––including a relationship with God––for an eternity (Cottingham 2016, 132–35; Mawson 2016, 2019, 52–53; Williams 2020, 112–34; cf. Benatar 2017, 35–63). One objection to this reasoning is that the infinity of meaning that would be possible with a soul would be “too big,” rendering it difficult for the moderate supernaturalist to make sense of the intution that a finite life such as Einstein’s can indeed count as meaningful by comparison (Metz 2019, 30–31; cf. Mawson 2019, 53–54). More common, though, is the objection that an eternal life would include anti-meaning of various kinds, such as boredom and repetition, discussed below in the context of extreme naturalism (sub-section 3.3).

3. Naturalism

Recall that naturalism is the view that a physical life is central to life’s meaning, that even if there is no spiritual realm, a substantially meaningful life is possible. Like supernaturalism, contemporary naturalism admits of two distinguishable variants, moderate and extreme (Metz 2019). The moderate version is that, while a genuinely meaningful life could be had in a purely physical universe as known well by science, a somewhat more meaningful life would be possible if a spiritual realm also existed. God or a soul could enhance meaning in life, although they would not be major contributors. The extreme version of naturalism is the view that it would be better in respect of life’s meaning if there were no spiritual realm. From this perspective, God or a soul would be anti-matter, i.e., would detract from the meaning available to us, making a purely physical world (even if not this particular one) preferable.

Cross-cutting the moderate/extreme distinction is that between subjectivism and objectivism, which are theoretical accounts of the nature of meaningfulness insofar as it is physical. They differ in terms of the extent to which the human mind constitutes meaning and whether there are conditions of meaning that are invariant among human beings. Subjectivists believe that there are no invariant standards of meaning because meaning is relative to the subject, i.e., depends on an individual’s pro-attitudes such as her particular desires or ends, which are not shared by everyone. Roughly, something is meaningful for a person if she strongly wants it or intends to seek it out and she gets it. Objectivists maintain, in contrast, that there are some invariant standards for meaning because meaning is at least partly mind-independent, i.e., obtains not merely in virtue of being the object of anyone’s mental states. Here, something is meaningful (partially) because of its intrinsic nature, in the sense of being independent of whether it is wanted or intended; meaning is instead (to some extent) the sort of thing that merits these reactions.

There is logical space for an orthogonal view, according to which there are invariant standards of meaningfulness constituted by what all human beings would converge on from a certain standpoint. However, it has not been much of a player in the field (Darwall 1983, 164–66).

According to this version of naturalism, meaning in life varies from person to person, depending on each one’s variable pro-attitudes. Common instances are views that one’s life is more meaningful, the more one gets what one happens to want strongly, achieves one’s highly ranked goals, or does what one believes to be really important (Trisel 2002; Hooker 2008). One influential subjectivist has recently maintained that the relevant mental state is caring or loving, so that life is meaningful just to the extent that one cares about or loves something (Frankfurt 1988, 80–94, 2004). Another recent proposal is that meaningfulness consists of “an active engagement and affirmation that vivifies the person who has freely created or accepted and now promotes and nurtures the projects of her highest concern” (Belliotti 2019, 183).

Subjectivism was dominant in the middle of the twentieth century, when positivism, noncognitivism, existentialism, and Humeanism were influential (Ayer 1947; Hare 1957; Barnes 1967; Taylor 1970; Williams 1976). However, in the last quarter of the twentieth century, inference to the best explanation and reflective equilibrium became accepted forms of normative argumentation and were frequently used to defend claims about the existence and nature of objective value (or of “external reasons,” ones obtaining independently of one’s extant attitudes). As a result, subjectivism about meaning lost its dominance. Those who continue to hold subjectivism often remain suspicious of attempts to justify beliefs about objective value (e.g., Trisel 2002, 73, 79, 2004, 378–79; Frankfurt 2004, 47–48, 55–57; Wong 2008, 138–39; Evers 2017, 32, 36; Svensson 2017, 54). Theorists are moved to accept subjectivism typically because the alternatives are unpalatable; they are reasonably sure that meaning in life obtains for some people, but do not see how it could be grounded on something independent of the mind, whether it be the natural or the supernatural (or the non-natural). In contrast to these possibilities, it appears straightforward to account for what is meaningful in terms of what people find meaningful or what people want out of their lives. Wide-ranging meta-ethical debates in epistemology, metaphysics, and the philosophy of language are necessary to address this rationale for subjectivism.

There is a cluster of other, more circumscribed arguments for subjectivism, according to which this theory best explains certain intuitive features of meaning in life. For one, subjectivism seems plausible since it is reasonable to think that a meaningful life is an authentic one (Frankfurt 1988, 80–94). If a person’s life is significant insofar as she is true to herself or her deepest nature, then we have some reason to believe that meaning simply is a function of those matters for which the person cares. For another, it is uncontroversial that often meaning comes from losing oneself, i.e., in becoming absorbed in an activity or experience, as opposed to being bored by it or finding it frustrating (Frankfurt 1988, 80–94; Belliotti 2019, 162–70). Work that concentrates the mind and relationships that are engrossing seem central to meaning and to be so because of the subjective elements involved. For a third, meaning is often taken to be something that makes life worth continuing for a specific person, i.e., that gives her a reason to get out of bed in the morning, which subjectivism is thought to account for best (Williams 1976; Svensson 2017; Calhoun 2018).

Critics maintain that these arguments are vulnerable to a common objection: they neglect the role of objective value (or an external reason) in realizing oneself, losing oneself, and having a reason to live (Taylor 1989, 1992; Wolf 2010, 2015, 89–140). One is not really being true to oneself, losing oneself in a meaningful way, or having a genuine reason to live insofar as one, say, successfully maintains 3,732 hairs on one’s head (Taylor 1992, 36), cultivates one’s prowess at long-distance spitting (Wolf 2010, 104), collects a big ball of string (Wolf 2010, 104), or, well, eats one’s own excrement (Wielenberg 2005, 22). The counterexamples suggest that subjective conditions are insufficient to ground meaning in life; there seem to be certain actions, relationships, and states that are objectively valuable (but see Evers 2017, 30–32) and toward which one’s pro-attitudes ought to be oriented, if meaning is to accrue.

So say objectivists, but subjectivists feel the pull of the point and usually seek to avoid the counterexamples, lest they have to bite the bullet by accepting the meaningfulness of maintaining 3,732 hairs on one’s head and all the rest (for some who do, see Svensson 2017, 54–55; Belliotti 2019, 181–83). One important strategy is to suggest that subjectivists can avoid the counterexamples by appealing to the right sort of pro-attitude. Instead of whatever an individual happens to want, perhaps the relevant mental state is an emotional-perceptual one of seeing-as (Alexis 2011; cf. Hosseini 2015, 47–66), a “categorical” desire, that is, an intrinsic desire constitutive of one’s identity that one takes to make life worth continuing (Svensson 2017), or a judgment that one has a good reason to value something highly for its own sake (Calhoun 2018). Even here, though, objectivists will argue that it might “appear that whatever the will chooses to treat as a good reason to engage itself is, for the will, a good reason. But the will itself....craves objective reasons; and often it could not go forward unless it thought it had them” (Wiggins 1988, 136). And without any appeal to objectivity, it is perhaps likely that counterexamples would resurface.

Another subjectivist strategy by which to deal with the counterexamples is the attempt to ground meaningfulness, not on the pro-attitudes of an individual valuer, but on those of a group (Darwall 1983, 164–66; Brogaard and Smith 2005; Wong 2008). Does such an intersubjective move avoid (more of) the counterexamples? If so, does it do so more plausibly than an objective theory?

Objective naturalists believe that meaning in life is constituted at least in part by something physical beyond merely the fact that it is the object of a pro-attitude. Obtaining the object of some emotion, desire, or judgment is not sufficient for meaningfulness, on this view. Instead, there are certain conditions of the material world that could confer meaning on anyone’s life, not merely because they are viewed as meaningful, wanted for their own sake, or believed to be choiceworthy, but instead (at least partially) because they are inherently worthwhile or valuable in themselves.

Morality (the good), enquiry (the true), and creativity (the beautiful) are widely held instances of activities that confer meaning on life, while trimming toenails and eating snow––along with the counterexamples to subjectivism above––are not. Objectivism is widely thought to be a powerful general explanation of these particular judgments: the former are meaningful not merely because some agent (whether it is an individual, her society, or even God) cares about them or judges them to be worth doing, while the latter simply lack significance and cannot obtain it even if some agent does care about them or judge them to be worth doing. From an objective perspective, it is possible for an individual to care about the wrong thing or to be mistaken that something is worthwhile, and not merely because of something she cares about all the more or judges to be still more choiceworthy. Of course, meta-ethical debates about the existence and nature of value are again relevant to appraising this rationale.

Some objectivists think that being the object of a person’s mental states plays no constitutive role in making that person’s life meaningful, although they of course contend that it often plays an instrumental role––liking a certain activity, after all, is likely to motivate one to do it. Relatively few objectivists are “pure” in that way, although consequentialists do stand out as clear instances (e.g., Singer 1995; Smuts 2018, 75–99). Most objectivists instead try to account for the above intuitions driving subjectivism by holding that a life is more meaningful, not merely because of objective factors, but also in part because of propositional attitudes such as cognition, conation, and emotion. Particularly influential has been Susan Wolf’s hybrid view, captured by this pithy slogan: “Meaning arises when subjective attraction meets objective attractiveness” (Wolf 2015, 112; see also Kekes 1986, 2000; Wiggins 1988; Raz 2001, 10–40; Mintoff 2008; Wolf 2010, 2016; Fischer 2019, 9–23; Belshaw 2021, 160–81). This theory implies that no meaning accrues to one’s life if one believes in, is satisfied by, or cares about a project that is not truly worthwhile, or if one takes up a truly worthwhile project but fails to judge it important, be satisfied by it, or care about it. A related approach is that, while subjective attraction is not necessary for meaning, it could enhance it (e.g., Audi 2005, 344; Metz 2013, 183–84, 196–98, 220–25). For instance, a stereotypical Mother Teresa who is bored by and alienated from her substantial charity work might have a somewhat significant existence because of it, even if she would have an even more significant existence if she felt pride in it or identified with it.

There have been several attempts to capture theoretically what all objectively attractive, inherently worthwhile, or finally valuable conditions have in common insofar as they bear on meaning in a person’s life. Over the past few decades, one encounters the proposals that objectively meaningful conditions are just those that involve: positively connecting with organic unity beyond oneself (Nozick 1981, 594–619); being creative (Taylor 1987; Matheson 2018); living an emotional life (Solomon 1993; cf. Williams 2020, 56–78); promoting good consequences, such as improving the quality of life of oneself and others (Singer 1995; Audi 2005; Smuts 2018, 75–99); exercising or fostering rational nature in exceptional ways (Smith 1997, 179–221; Gewirth 1998, 177–82; Metz 2013, 222–36); progressing toward ends that can never be fully realized because one’s knowledge of them changes as one approaches them (Levy 2005); realizing goals that are transcendent for being long-lasting in duration and broad in scope (Mintoff 2008); living virtuously (May 2015, 61–138; McPherson 2020); and loving what is worth loving (Wolf 2016). There is as yet no convergence in the field on one, or even a small cluster, of these accounts.

One feature of a large majority of the above naturalist theories is that they are aggregative or additive, objectionably treating a life as a mere “container” of bits of life that are meaningful considered in isolation from other bits (Brännmark 2003, 330). It has become increasingly common for philosophers of life’s meaning, especially objectivists, to hold that life as a whole, or at least long stretches of it, can substantially affect its meaningfulness beyond the amount of meaning (if any) in its parts.

For instance, a life that has lots of beneficence and otherwise intuitively meaning-conferring conditions but that is also extremely repetitive (à la the movie Groundhog Day ) is less than maximally meaningful (Taylor 1987; Blumenfeld 2009). Furthermore, a life that not only avoids repetition but also ends with a substantial amount of meaningful (or otherwise desirable) parts seems to have more meaning overall than one that has the same amount of meaningful (desirable) parts but ends with few or none of them (Kamm 2013, 18–22; Dorsey 2015). Still more, a life in which its meaningless (or otherwise undesirable parts) cause its meaningful (desirable) parts to come about through a process of personal growth seems meaningful in virtue of this redemptive pattern, “good life-story,” or narrative self-expression (Taylor 1989, 48–51; Wong 2008; Fischer 2009, 145–77; Kauppinen 2012; May 2015, 61–138; Velleman 2015, 141–73). These three cases suggest that meaning can inhere in life as a whole, that is, in the relationships between its parts, and not merely in the parts considered in isolation. However, some would maintain that it is, strictly speaking, the story that is or could be told of a life that matters, not so much the life-story qua relations between events themselves (de Bres 2018).

There are pure or extreme versions of holism present in the literature, according to which the only possible bearer of meaning in life is a person’s life as a whole, and not any isolated activities, relationships, or states (Taylor 1989, 48–51; Tabensky 2003; Levinson 2004). A salient argument for this position is that judgments of the meaningfulness of a part of someone’s life are merely provisional, open to revision upon considering how they fit into a wider perspective. So, for example, it would initially appear that taking an ax away from a madman and thereby protecting innocent parties confers some meaning on one’s life, but one might well revise that judgment upon learning that the intention behind it was merely to steal an ax, not to save lives, or that the madman then took out a machine gun, causing much more harm than his ax would have. It is worth considering how far this sort of case is generalizable, and, if it can be to a substantial extent, whether that provides strong evidence that only life as a whole can exhibit meaningfulness.

Perhaps most objectivists would, at least upon reflection, accept that both the parts of a life and the whole-life relationships among the parts can exhibit meaning. Supposing there are two bearers of meaning in a life, important questions arise. One is whether a certain narrative can be meaningful even if its parts are not, while a second is whether the meaningfulness of a part increases if it is an aspect of a meaningful whole (on which see Brännmark 2003), and a third is whether there is anything revealing to say about how to make tradeoffs between the parts and whole in cases where one must choose between them (Blumenfeld 2009 appears to assign lexical priority to the whole).

Naturalists until recently had been largely concerned to show that meaning in life is possible without God or a soul; they have not spent much time considering how such spiritual conditions might enhance meaning, but have, in moderate fashion, tended to leave that possibility open (an exception is Hooker 2008). Lately, however, an extreme form of naturalism has arisen, according to which our lives would probably, if not unavoidably, have less meaning in a world with God or a soul than in one without. Although such an approach was voiced early on by Baier (1957), it is really in the past decade or so that this “anti-theist” position has become widely and intricately discussed.

One rationale, mentioned above as an objection to the view that God’s purpose constitutes meaning in life, has also been deployed to argue that the existence of God as such would necessarily reduce meaning, that is, would consist of anti-matter. It is the idea that master/servant and parent/child analogies so prominent in the monotheist religious traditions reveal something about our status in a world where there is a qualitatively higher being who has created us with certain ends in mind: our independence or dignity as adult persons would be violated (e.g., Baier 1957/2000, 118–20; Kahane 2011, 681–85; Lougheed 2020, 121–41). One interesting objection to this reasoning has been to accept that God’s existence is necessarily incompatible with the sort of meaning that would come (roughly stated) from being one’s own boss, but to argue that God would also make greater sorts of meaning available, offering a net gain to us (Mawson 2016, 110–58).

Another salient argument for thinking that God would detract from meaning in life appeals to the value of privacy (Kahane 2011, 681–85; Lougheed 2020, 55–110). God’s omniscience would unavoidably make it impossible for us to control another person’s access to the most intimate details about ourselves, which, for some, amounts to a less meaningful life than one with such control. Beyond questioning the value of our privacy in relation to God, one thought-provoking criticism has been to suggest that, if a lack of privacy really would substantially reduce meaning in our lives, then God, qua morally perfect person, would simply avoid knowing everything about us (Tooley 2018). Lacking complete knowledge of our mental states would be compatible with describing God as “omniscient,” so the criticism goes, insofar as that is plausibly understood as having as much knowledge as is morally permissible.

Turn, now, to major arguments for thinking that having a soul would reduce life’s meaning, so that if one wants a maximally meaningful life, one should prefer a purely physical world, or at least one in which people are mortal. First and foremost, there has been the argument that an immortal life could not avoid becoming boring (Williams 1973), rendering life pointless according to many subjective and objective theories. The literature on this topic has become enormous, with the central reply being that immortality need not get boring (for more recent discussions, see Fischer 2009, 79–101, 2019, 117–42; Mawson 2019, 51–52; Williams 2020, 30–41, 123–29; Belshaw 2021, 182–97). However, it might also be worth questioning whether boredom is sufficient for meaninglessness. Suppose, for instance, that one volunteers to be bored so that many others will not be bored; perhaps this would be a meaningful sacrifice to make. Being bored for an eternity would not be blissful or even satisfying, to be sure, but if it served the function of preventing others from being bored for an eternity, would it be meaningful (at least to some degree)? If, as is commonly held, sacrificing one’s life could be meaningful, why not also sacrificing one’s liveliness?

Another reason given to reject eternal life is that it would become repetitive, which would substantially drain it of meaning (Scarre 2007, 54–55; May 2009, 46–47, 64–65, 71; Smuts 2011, 142–44; cf. Blumenfeld 2009). If, as it appears, there are only a finite number of actions one could perform, relationships one could have, and states one could be in during an eternity, one would have to end up doing the same things again. Even though one’s activities might be more valuable than rolling a stone up a hill forever à la Sisyphus, the prospect of doing them over and over again forever is disheartening for many. To be sure, one might not remember having done them before and hence could avoid boredom, but for some philosophers that would make it all the worse, akin to having dementia and forgetting that one has told the same stories. Others, however, still find meaning in such a life (e.g., Belshaw 2021, 197, 205n41).

A third meaning-based argument against immortality invokes considerations of narrative. If the pattern of one’s life as a whole substantially matters, and if a proper pattern would include a beginning, a middle, and an end, it appears that a life that never ends would lack the relevant narrative structure. “Because it would drag on endlessly, it would, sooner or later, just be a string of events lacking all form....With immortality, the novel never ends....How meaningful can such a novel be?” (May 2009, 68, 72; see also Scarre 2007, 58–60). Notice that this objection is distinct from considerations of boredom and repetition (which concern novelty ); even if one were stimulated and active, and even if one found a way not to repeat one’s life in the course of eternity, an immortal life would appear to lack shape. In reply, some reject the idea that a meaningful life must be akin to a novel, and intead opt for narrativity in the form of something like a string of short stories that build on each other (Fischer 2009, 145–77, 2019, 101–16). Others, though, have sought to show that eternity could still be novel-like, deeming the sort of ending that matters to be a function of what the content is and how it relates to the content that came before (e.g., Seachris 2011; Williams 2020, 112–19).

There have been additional objections to immortality as undercutting meaningfulness, but they are prima facie less powerful than the previous three in that, if sound, they arguably show that an eternal life would have a cost, but probably not one that would utterly occlude the prospect of meaning in it. For example, there have been the suggestions that eternal lives would lack a sense of preciousness and urgency (Nussbaum 1989, 339; Kass 2002, 266–67), could not exemplify virtues such as courageously risking one’s life for others (Kass 2002, 267–68; Wielenberg 2005, 91–94), and could not obtain meaning from sustaining or saving others’ lives (Nussbaum 1989, 338; Wielenberg 2005, 91–94). Note that at least the first two rationales turn substantially on the belief in immortality, not quite immortality itself: if one were immortal but forgot that one is or did not know that at all, then one could appreciate life and obtain much of the virtue of courage (and, conversely, if one were not immortal, but thought that one is, then, by the logic of these arguments, one would fail to appreciate limits and be unable to exemplify courage).

The previous two sections addressed theoretical accounts of what would confer meaning on a human person’s life. Although these theories do not imply that some people’s lives are in fact meaningful, that has been the presumption of a very large majority of those who have advanced them. Much of the procedure has been to suppose that many lives have had meaning in them and then to consider in virtue of what they have or otherwise could. However, there are nihilist (or pessimist) perspectives that question this supposition. According to nihilism (pessimism), what would make a life meaningful in principle cannot obtain for any of us.

One straightforward rationale for nihilism is the combination of extreme supernaturalism about what makes life meaningful and atheism about whether a spiritual realm exists. If you believe that God or a soul is necessary for meaning in life, and if you believe that neither is real, then you are committed to nihilism, to the denial that life can have any meaning. Athough this rationale for nihilism was prominent in the modern era (and was more or less Camus’ position), it has been on the wane in analytic philosophical circles, as extreme supernaturalism has been eclipsed by the moderate variety.

The most common rationales for nihilism these days do not appeal to supernaturalism, or at least not explicitly. One cluster of ideas appeals to what meta-ethicists call “error theory,” the view that evaluative claims (in this case about meaning in life, or about morality qua necessary for meaning) characteristically posit objectively real or universally justified values, but that such values do not exist. According to one version, value judgments often analytically include a claim to objectivity but there is no reason to think that objective values exist, as they “would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe” (Mackie 1977/1990, 38). According to a second version, life would be meaningless if there were no set of moral standards that could be fully justified to all rational enquirers, but it so happens that such standards cannot exist for persons who can always reasonably question a given claim (Murphy 1982, 12–17). According to a third, we hold certain beliefs about the objectivity and universality of morality and related values such as meaning because they were evolutionarily advantageous to our ancestors, not because they are true. Humans have been “deceived by their genes into thinking that there is a distinterested, objective morality binding upon them, which all should obey” (Ruse and Wilson 1986, 179; cf. Street 2015). One must draw on the intricate work in meta-ethics that has been underway for the past several decades in order to appraise these arguments.

In contrast to error-theoretic arguments for nihilism, there are rationales for it accepting that objective values exist but denying that our lives can ever exhibit or promote them so as to obtain meaning. One version of this approach maintains that, for our lives to matter, we must be in a position to add objective value to the world, which we are not since the objective value of the world is already infinite (Smith 2003). The key premises for this view are that every bit of space-time (or at least the stars in the physical universe) have some positive value, that these values can be added up, and that space is infinite. If the physical world at present contains an infinite degree of value, nothing we do can make a difference in terms of meaning, for infinity plus any amount of value remains infinity. One way to question this argument, beyond doubting the value of space-time or stars, is to suggest that, even if one cannot add to the value of the universe, meaning plausibly comes from being the source of certain values.

A second rationale for nihilism that accepts the existence of objective value is David Benatar’s (2006, 18–59) intriguing “asymmetry argument” for anti-natalism, the view that it is immoral to bring new people into existence because doing so would always be on balance bad for them. For Benatar, the bads of existing (e.g., pains) are real disadvantages relative to not existing, while the goods of existing (pleasures) are not real advantages relative to not existing, since there is in the latter state no one to be deprived of them. If indeed the state of not existing is no worse than that of experiencing the benefits of existence, then, since existing invariably brings harm in its wake, it follows that existing is always worse compared to not existing. Although this argument is illustrated with experiential goods and bads, it seems generalizable to non-experiential ones, including meaning in life and anti-matter. The literature on this argument has become large (for a recent collection, see Hauskeller and Hallich 2022).

Benatar (2006, 60–92, 2017, 35–63) has advanced an additional argument for nihilism, one that appeals to Thomas Nagel’s (1986, 208–32) widely discussed analysis of the extremely external standpoint that human persons can take on their lives. There exists, to use Henry Sidgwick’s influential phrase, the “point of view of the universe,” that is, the standpoint that considers a human being’s life in relation to all times and all places. When one takes up this most external standpoint and views one’s puny impact on the world, little of one’s life appears to matter. What one does in a certain society on Earth over 75 years or so just does not amount to much, when considering the billions of temporal years and billions of light-years that make up space-time. Although this reasoning grants limited kinds of meaning to human beings, from a personal, social, or human perspective, Benatar both denies that the greatest sort of meaning––a cosmic one––is available to them and contends that this makes their lives bad, hence the “nihilist” tag. Some have objected that our lives could in fact have a cosmic significance, say, if they played a role in God’s plan (Quinn 2000, 65–66; Swinburne 2016, 154), were the sole ones with a dignity in the universe (Kahane 2014), or engaged in valuable activities that could be appreciated by anyone anywhere anytime (Wolf 2016, 261–62). Others naturally maintain that cosmic significance is irrelevant to appraising a human life, with some denying that it would be a genuine source of meaning (Landau 2017, 93–99), and others accepting that it would be but maintaining that the absence of this good would not count as a bad or merit regret (discussed in Benatar 2017, 56–62; Williams 2020, 108–11).

Finally, a distinguishable source of nihilism concerns the ontological, as distinct from axiological, preconditions for meaning in life. Perhaps most radically, there are those who deny that we have selves. Do we indeed lack selves, and, if we do, is a meaningful life impossible for us (see essays in Caruso and Flanagan 2018; Le Bihan 2019)? Somewhat less radically, there are those who grant that we have selves, but deny that they are in charge in the relevant way. That is, some have argued that we lack self-governance or free will of the sort that is essential for meaning in life, at least if determinism is true (Pisciotta 2013; essays in Caruso and Flanagan 2018). Non-quantum events, including human decisions, appear to be necessited by a prior state of the world, such that none could have been otherwise, and many of our decisions are a product of unconscious neurological mechanisms (while quantum events are of course utterly beyond our control). If none of our conscious choices could have been avoided and all were ultimately necessited by something external to them, perhaps they are insufficient to merit pride or admiration or to constitute narrative authorship of a life. In reply, some maintain that a compatibilism between determinism and moral responsibility applies with comparable force to meaning in life (e.g., Arpaly 2006; Fischer 2009, 145–77), while others contend that incompatibilism is true of moral responsibility but not of meaning (Pereboom 2014).

Agar, N., 2013, Humanity’s End: Why We Should Reject Radical Enhancement , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Alexis., A., 2011, The Meaning of Life: A Modern Secular Answer to the Age-Old Fundamental Question , CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Arpaly, N., 2006, Merit, Meaning, and Human Bondage , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Audi, R., 2005, “Intrinsic Value and Meaningful Life”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 331–55.
Ayer, A. J., 1947, “The Claims of Philosophy”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 219–32.
Baier, K., 1957, “The Meaning of Life”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 101–32.
Barnes, H., 1967, An Existentialist Ethics , New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Belliotti, R., 2019, Is Human Life Absurd? A Philosophical Inquiry into Finitude, Value, and Meaning . Leiden: Brill.
Belshaw, C., 2021, The Value and Meaning of Life , London: Routledge.
Benatar, D., 2006, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence , New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2017, The Human Predicament , New York: Oxford University Press.
Bennett-Hunter, G., 2014, Ineffability and Religious Experience , Oxford: Routledge.
Blumenfeld, D., 2009, “Living Life over Again”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 79: 357–86.
Bradford, G., 2015, Achievement , New York: Oxford University Press.
Brännmark, J., 2003, “Leading Lives”, Philosophical Papers , 32: 321–43.
Brogaard, B. and Smith, B., 2005, “On Luck, Responsibility, and the Meaning of Life”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 443–58.
Calhoun, C., 2018, Doing Valuable Time: The Present, the Future, and Meaningful Living , New York: Oxford University Press.
Campbell, S., and Nyholm, S., 2015, “Anti-Meaning and Why It Matters”, Journal of the American Philosophical Association , 1: 694–711.
Caruso, G. and Flanagan, O. (eds.), 2018, Neuroexistentialism: Meaning, Morals, and Purpose in an Age of Neuroscience , New York: Oxford University Press.
Cooper, D., 2003, Meaning . Durham: Acumen Publishing.
Cottingham, J., 2005, The Spiritual Dimension: Religion, Philosophy and Human Value , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
–––, 2016, “Meaningfulness, Eternity, and Theism”, in God and Meaning , J. Seachris and S. Goetz (eds.), New York: Bloomsbury Academic: 123–36.
Craig, W., 1994, “The Absurdity of Life Without God”, repr. in Exploring the Meaning of Life: An Anthology and Guide , J. Seachris (ed.), Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013: 153–72.
Danaher, J., 2017, “Will Life Be Worth Living in a World Without Work? Technological Unemployment and the Meaning of Life”, Science and Engineering Ethics , 23: 41–64.
Darwall, S., 1983, Impartial Reason , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Davis, W., 1987, “The Meaning of Life”, Metaphilosophy , 18: 288–305.
de Bres, H., 2018, “Narrative and Meaning in Life”, Journal of Moral Philosophy , 15: 545–71.
Dorsey, D., 2015, “The Significance of a Life’s Shape”, Ethics , 125: 303–30.
Egerstrom, K., 2015, “ Practical Identity and Meaninglessness ”, PhD Dissertation, Syracuse University.
Ellin, J., 1995, Morality and the Meaning of Life , Ft. Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Evers, D., 2017, “Meaning in Life and the Metaphysics of Value”, De Ethica , 4: 27–44.
Feinberg, J., 1980, “Absurd Self-Fulfillment,” repr. in Freedom and Fulfillment: Philosophical Essays , Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992: 297–330.
Ferracioli, L., 2018, “Procreative-parenting, Love’s Reasons, and the Demands of Morality”, The Philosophical Quarterly , 68: 77–97.
Fischer, J. M., 2009, Our Stories: Essays on Life, Death, and Free Will , New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2019, Death, Immortality, and Meaning in Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
Frankfurt, H., 1988, The Importance of What We Care About , New York: Cambridge University Press.
–––, 2004, The Reasons of Love , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gewirth, A., 1998, Self-Fulfillment , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Goetz, S., 2012, The Purpose of Life: A Theistic Perspective , New York: Continuum.
Goldman, A., 2018, Life’s Values: Pleasure, Happiness, Well-Being, and Meaning , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Greene, P., 2021, “It Doesn’t Matter Because One Day It Will End”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 24: 165–82.
Hanfling, O., 1987, The Quest for Meaning , New York: Basil Blackwell Inc.
Hare, R. M., 1957, “Nothing Matters”, repr. in Applications of Moral Philosophy , London: Macmillan, 1972: 32–47.
Hauskeller, M. and Hallich, O. (eds.), 2022, “Would It Be Better if We Had Never Existed? David Benatar's Anti-Natalism”, special issue of The Journal of Value Inquiry , 56: 1–151.
Hooker, B., 2008, “The Meaning of Life: Subjectivism, Objectivism, and Divine Support”, in The Moral Life: Essays in Honour of John Cottingham , N. Athanassoulis and S. Vice (eds.), New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 184–200.
Hosseini, R., 2015, Wittgenstein and Meaning in Life: In Search of the Human Voice , New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kahane, G., 2011, “Should We Want God to Exist?”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 82: 674–96.
–––, 2014, “Our Cosmic Insignificance”, Noûs , 48: 745–72.
Kamm, F. M., 2013, Bioethical Prescriptions: To Create, End, Choose, and Improve Lives , New York: Oxford University Press.
Kass, L., 2002, Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics , San Francisco: Encounter Books.
Kauppinen, A., 2012, “Meaningfulness and Time”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 82: 345–77.
Kekes, J., 1986, “The Informed Will and the Meaning of Life”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 47: 75–90.
–––, 2000, “The Meaning of Life”, in Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Volume 24; Life and Death: Metaphysics and Ethics , P. French and H. Wettstein (eds.), Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers: 17–34.
Kraay, K. (ed.), 2018, Does God Matter? Essays on the Axiological Consequences of Theism , New York: Routledge.
Landau, I., 1997, “Why Has the Question of the Meaning of Life Arisen in the Last Two and a Half Centuries?”, Philosophy Today , 41: 263–70.
–––, 2017, Finding Meaning in an Imperfect World , New York: Oxford University Press.
Le Bihan, B., 2019, “The No-Self View and the Meaning of Life”, Philosophy East and West , 69: 419–38.
Levinson, J., 2004, “Intrinsic Value and the Notion of a Life”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 62: 319–29.
Levy, N., 2005, “Downshifting and Meaning in Life”, Ratio , 18: 176–89.
Lougheed, K., 2020, The Axiological Status of Theism and Other Worldviews , New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mackie, J. L., 1977, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong , repr. London: Penguin Books, 1990.
Markus, A., 2003, “Assessing Views of Life, A Subjective Affair?”, Religious Studies , 39: 125–43.
Martela, F., 2017, “Meaningfulness as Contribution”, Southern Journal of Philosophy , 55: 232–56.
Matheson, D., 2017, “The Worthwhileness of Meaningful Lives”, Philosophia , 48: 313–24.
–––, 2018, “Creativity and Meaning in Life”, Ratio , 31: 73–87.
Mawson, T., 2016, God and the Meanings of Life , London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
–––, 2019, Monotheism and the Meaning of Life , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
May, T., 2009, Death , Stocksfield: Acumen.
–––, 2015, A Significant Life: Human Meaning in a Silent Universe , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McPherson, D., 2020, Virtue and Meaning: A Neo-Aristotelian Perspective , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Metz, T., 2002, “Recent Work on the Meaning of Life”, Ethics , 112: 781–814.
–––, 2013, Meaning in Life: An Analytic Study , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2019, God, Soul and the Meaning of Life , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mintoff, J., 2008, “Transcending Absurdity”, Ratio , 21: 64–84.
Moreland, J. P., 1987, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity , Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
Morris, T., 1992, Making Sense of It All: Pascal and the Meaning of Life , Grand Rapids, MI: Willliam B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Mulgan, T., 2015, Purpose in the Universe: The Moral and Metaphysical Case for Ananthropocentric Purposivism , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Murphy, J., 1982, Evolution, Morality, and the Meaning of Life , Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.
Nagel, T., 1970, “The Absurd”, Journal of Philosophy , 68: 716–27.
–––, 1986, The View from Nowhere , New York: Oxford University Press.
Nozick, R., 1974, Anarchy, State and Utopia , New York: Basic Books.
–––, 1981, Philosophical Explanations , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
–––, 1989, The Examined Life , New York: Simon and Schuster.
Nussbaum, M., 1989, “Mortal Immortals: Lucretius on Death and the Voice of Nature”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 50: 303–51.
Olson, N., 2016, “Medical Researchers’ Ancillary Care Obligations”, Bioethics , 30: 317–24.
Pereboom, D., 2014, Free Will, Agency, and Meaning in Life , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pisciotta, T., 2013, “ Determinism and Meaningfulness in Lives ”, PhD Dissertation, University of Melbourne.
Purves, D. and Delon, N., 2018, “Meaning in the Lives of Humans and Other Animals”, Philosophical Studies , 175: 317–38.
Quinn, P., 2000, “How Christianity Secures Life’s Meanings”, in The Meaning of Life in the World Religions , J. Runzo and N. Martin (eds.), Oxford: Oneworld Publications: 53–68.
Raz, J., 2001, Value, Respect, and Attachment , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Repp, C., 2018, “Life Meaning and Sign Meaning”, Philosophical Papers , 47: 403–27.
Ruse, M. and Wilson, E., 1986, “Moral Philosophy as Applied Science”, Philosophy , 61: 173–92.
Scarre, G., 2007, Death . Stocksfield: Acumen.
Schinkel, A., De Ruyter, D., and Aviram, A., 2015, “Education and Life’s Meaning”, Journal of Philosophy of Education , 50: 398–418.
Seachris, J., 2011, “Death, Futility, and the Proleptic Power of Narrative Ending”, Religious Studies , 47: 141–63.
–––, 2013, “General Introduction”, in Exploring the Meaning of Life: An Anthology and Guide , J. Seachris (ed.), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell: 1–20.
–––, 2016, “From the Meaning Triad to Meaning Holism: Unifying Life’s Meaning”, Human Affairs , 29: 363–78.
Singer, I., 1996, Meaning in Life, Volume 1: The Creation of Value , Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Singer, P., 1995, How Are We to Live? Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Smith, Q., 1997, Ethical and Religious Thought in Analytic Philosophy of Language , New Haven: Yale University Press.
–––, 2003, “Moral Realism and Infinite Spacetime Imply Moral Nihilism”, in Time and Ethics: Essays at the Intersection , H. Dyke (ed.), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 43–54.
Smuts, A., 2011, “Immortality and Significance”, Philosophy and Literature , 35: 134–49.
–––, 2018, Welfare, Meaning, and Worth , New York: Routledge
Solomon, R., 1993, The Passions: Emotions and the Meaning of Life , Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Street, S., 2015, “Does Anything Really Matter or Did We Just Evolve to Think So?”, in The Norton Introduction to Philosophy , G. Rosen et al. (eds.), New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.: 685–95.
Svensson, F., 2017, “A Subjectivist Account of Meaning in Life”, De Ethica , 4: 45–66.
Swenson, D., 1949, “The Dignity of Human Life”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 21–30.
Swinburne, R., 2016, “How God Makes Life a Lot More Meaningful”, in God and Meaning , J. Seachris and S. Goetz (eds.), New York: Bloomsbury Academic: 151–63.
Tabensky, P., 2003, “Parallels Between Living and Painting”, The Journal of Value Inquiry , 37: 59–68.
Tartaglia, J., 2015, Philosophy in a Meaningless Life , London: Bloomsbury.
Taylor, C., 1989, Sources of the Self , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
–––, 1992, The Ethics of Authenticity , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Taylor, R., 1970, “The Meaning of Life”, in Good and Evil , repr. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Boooks, 2000: 319–34.
–––, 1987, “Time and Life’s Meaning”, The Review of Metaphysics , 40: 675–86.
Thomas, J., 2018, “Can Only Human Lives Be Meaningful?”, Philosophical Papers , 47: 265–97.
–––, 2019, “Meaningfulness as Sensefulness”, Philosophia , 47: 1555–77.
Thomson, G., 2003, On the Meaning of Life , South Melbourne: Wadsworth.
Tooley, M., 2018, “Axiology: Theism Versus Widely Accepted Monotheisms”, in Does God Matter? Essays on the Axiological Consequences of Theism , K. Kraay, (ed.), New York: Routledge: 46–69.
Trisel, B. A., 2002, “Futility and the Meaning of Life Debate”, Sorites , 14: 70–84.
–––, 2004, “Human Extinction and the Value of Our Efforts”, The Philosophical Forum , 35: 371–91.
–––, 2016, “Human Extinction, Narrative Ending, and Meaning of Life”, Journal of Philosophy of Life , 6: 1–22.
Velleman, J. D., 2015, Beyond Price: Essays on Birth and Death , Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.
Visak, T., 2017, “Understanding ‘Meaning of Life’ in Terms of Reasons for Action”, The Journal of Value Inquiry , 51: 507–30.
Waghorn, N., 2014, Nothingness and the Meaning of Life: Philosophical Approaches to Ultimate Meaning through Nothing and Reflexivity , London: Bloomsbury.
Wielenberg, E., 2005, Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wiggins, D., 1988, “Truth, Invention, and the Meaning of Life”, rev. edn. in Essays on Moral Realism , G. Sayre-McCord (ed.), Ithaca: Cornell University Press: 127–65.
Williams, B., 1973, “The Makropulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality”, in Problems of the Self , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 82–100.
–––, 1976, “Persons, Character and Morality”, in The Identities of Persons , A. O. Rorty (ed.), Berkeley: University of California Press: 197–216.
Williams, C., 2020, Religion and the Meaning of Life: An Existential Approach , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wolf, S., 2010, Meaning in Life and Why It Matters , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
–––, 2015, The Variety of Values: Essays on Morality, Meaning, and Love , New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2016, “Meaningfulness: A Third Dimension of the Good Life”, Foundations of Science , 21: 253–69.
Wong, W., 2008, “Meaningfulness and Identities”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 11: 123–48.
Buber, M., 1923, I and Thou , W. Kaufmann (tr.), New York: Simon & Schuster Inc., 1970.
Camus, A., 1942, The Myth of Sisyphus , J. O’Brian (tr.), London: H. Hamilton, 1955.
James, W., 1899, “What Makes a Life Significant?”, in On Some of Life’s Ideals , New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1900.
Jaspers, K., 1931, Man in the Modern Age , E. Paul and C. Paul (tr.), New York: Routledge, 2010.
Kant, I., 1791, Critique of the Power of Judgment , P. Guyer and E. Mathews (tr.), New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Kierkegaard, S., 1849, The Sickness unto Death , H. V. Hong and E. H. Hong (tr.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980.
Marx, K., 1844, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts , in Karl Marx Selected Writings, 2 nd Ed. , D. McLellan (ed., tr.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Nietzsche, F., 1885, Thus Spoke Zarathustra , in The Portable Nietzsche , W. Kaufmann (ed., tr.), New York: Viking Press, 1954.
Sartre, J.-P., 1946, Existentialism Is a Humanism , P. Mairet (tr.), London: Methuen & Co, 1948.
Schlick, M., 1927, “ On the Meaning of Life ”, P. Heath (tr.).
Schopenhauer, A., 1851, Parerga and Paralipomena: Short Philosophical Essays, Volume 2 , E. F. J. Payne (tr.), New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.
Tolstoy, L., 1884, A Confession , L. Maude and A. Maude (tr.).
Wittgenstein, L., 1929, Lecture on Ethics , E. Zamuner et al. (eds.), Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2014.
Benatar, D. (ed.), 2016, Life, Death & Meaning, 3 rd Ed. , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Cottingham, J. (ed.), 2007, Western Philosophy: An Anthology, 2 nd Ed. , Oxford: Blackwell: pt. 12.
Garcia, R. and King, N. (eds.), 2009, Is Goodness Without God Good Enough? Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Klemke, E. D. and Cahn, S. M. (eds.), 2018, The Meaning of Life: A Reader, 4 th Ed. , New York: Oxford University Press.
Kolodny, N. (ed.), 2013, Death and the Afterlife , New York: Oxford University Press.
Leach, S. and Tartaglia, J. (eds.), 2018, The Meaning of Life and the Great Philosophers , London: Routledge.
Morioka, M. (ed.), 2015, Reconsidering Meaning in Life , Saitama: Waseda University.
––– (ed.), 2017, Nihilism and the Meaning of Life , Saitama: Waseda University.
Seachris, J. (ed.), 2013, Exploring the Meaning of Life: An Anthology and Guide , Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Seachris, J. and Goetz, S. (eds.), 2016, God and Meaning: New Essays , New York: Bloombsury Academic.
Baggini, J., 2004, What’s It All About?: Philosophy and the Meaning of Life , London: Granta Books.
Belliotti, R., 2001, What Is the Meaning of Life? , Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Belshaw, C., 2005, 10 Good Questions About Life and Death , Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Cottingham, J., 2003, On the Meaning of Life , London: Routledge.
Eagleton, T., 2007, The Meaning of Life: A Very Short Introduction , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fischer, J. M., 2019, Death, Immortality, and Meaning in Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
Ford, D., 2007, The Search for Meaning: A Short History , Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hauskeller, M., 2020, The Meaning of Life and Death: Ten Classic Thinkers on the Ultimate Question , London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Martin, M., 2002, Atheism, Morality, and Meaning , Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Messerly, J., 2012, The Meaning of Life: Religious, Philosophical, Transhumanist, and Scientific Approaches , Seattle: Darwin and Hume Publishers.
Ruse, M., 2019, A Meaning to Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
Young, J., 2003, The Death of God and the Meaning of Life , New York: Routledge.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Delon, N., 2021, “ The Meaning of Life ”, a bibliography on PhilPapers.
Metz, T., 2021, “ Life, Meaning of ”, in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy , E. Mason (ed.).
O’Brien, W., 2021, “ The Meaning of Life: Early Continental and Analytic Perspectives ”, in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy , J. Fieser and B. Dowden (eds.).
Seachris, J., 2021, “ Meaning of Life: The Analytic Perspective ”, in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy , J. Fieser and B. Dowden (eds.).

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

What Is a Good Life and How To Live It

Introduction.

Living the good life can have different connotations to different people though in basic form, living a good life involves exploration that gives a person joy and satisfaction. A good life may mean finding purpose as well as meaning in life and obtaining happiness from what one does. Almost everyone aspires to live a good life though people have different meanings for what good life means to them. As some seek wealth, power, or social status to live a good life, others think living a good life entails having an honest, joyful, and happy life. This particular paper seeks to understand good life and how to live it by exploring what good life for everyone, how every person should live, the requirement for living good life, and the challenges and rewards of a good life.

What is a good life for everyone?

Living the good life for any person entails living a life that sets someone free, a life that fulfills a person, gives joy, happiness, and a sense of purpose in one’s life. A good life for everyone needs to be a worthwhile life, and one must also contribute to society instead of just living a self-centered life. Besides, a person living a good life must avoid mundane engagements. Life makes more sense and turns out to be good for everyone when everyone lives a life that adds value and plays a significant role in making the world a better place to live (Fischer 12). Giving such contributes significantly benefit one, especially in terms of personal growth. Achievement of a high standard of living alone may not be fulfilling as such, and for everyone to have a good life, there is a need for everyone to attain what they seek in life, which makes everyone free and live a good life.

Although people have a different purpose on what they want in life, a good life would be attained when everyone lives a purposeful life. A purposeful life deals with moving towards a specific goal that helps one align with personal values, passions, and things that make one happy. However, it is significantly important to admit that having a purposeful life is than it may sound since many people struggle with living a purposeful life. Apart from having a purposeful life for everyone, life needs to be a life of pleasure to be considered good. Live is worth living when every member of the society can experience pleasure since pleasure is fun and pleasant.

How should everyone live?

After understanding what good life for everyone entails, there is a need to consider how everyone needs to live that good life. Some experts claim that living a good life is not a sprint but rather an exerting marathon of perseverance, purpose, patience, and passion. Everyone living a good life means something they are doing that gives them joy, helps one develop love towards others, and attain the intended success. Living a good life involves observing some golden rules that members of the community need to ensure they observe while living a good life.

Achieving good life for everyone in the community demands people to live in harmony and promote peace. By doing so, society can maintain social order and hence have the freedom to do some of the things that make one feel satisfied, fulfilled, and do your own things to fulfill the purpose (Manuel et al. 35). Secondly, for every community member to attain a good life, critical virtues and values need to be observed, particularly respect. Respect greatly help in bringing a conducive environment whereby everyone lives without overstepping boundaries or doing things that would affect other peoples’ joy and happiness.

Furthermore, for every member of the community to attain a good life, it demands all people to be selfless and avoid things like greed, which promotes self-interests to appoint of doing anything irrespective of moral concept to attain what one wishes. Through selfless life, one can attain what they have worked for and give others an opportunity to also attain what they wish through working hard and exploiting the available resources. Some members of society have engaged in corruption deals because of being selfish and want them to be the only persons who have everything and achieve social status.

Society significantly needs to develop laws that everyone must abide by and be aware of to avoid engaging in some behaviors that can definitely interfere with life of others. Laws should for maintain tranquility and order. Through laws, it becomes possible to discourage vices that may interfere with the good life of others, including robbery or stealing.

What is required to live such a life?

Achieving a good life, especially for every community member, is not a walk in the park and demands observation of some golden tips. One of them includes experiencing true pleasure, which means one needs to keep their life simple. Since every person is after pleasure, there is a need to avoid shallow and transient pleasure, which sometimes only lasts within a short period. To attain the purpose, one has and live a good life, there demand extra working hard and working towards achieving the goal one has. Without working hard or towards the goal, it turns out to be extremely difficult to access some of the things that facilitate living a good life (Sutton 20). Money is one of the things that help people to get anything they wish, and without working hard to get money, it becomes extremely difficult to attain basic needs like food and other basic needs.People should also avoid excess and live in harmony. Too much ambitions make a member of society interfere with the life of others by disturbing them, especially when one engages in things that demand consideration of morality questions. Living a happy life demands members of the be responsible human beings and avoid emerging in things that could adversely affect lower other peoples’ life way of living a good life. Take care of those around you as well as consider preserving the surroundings since it is the source of everything we enjoy including food. Time management is also another consideration that greatly influences good life. When time is effectively used, one manages to fulfill their dreams within the stipulated time.

What are the challenges and rewards of such a life?

Although attaining a good life is possible, some factors significantly hinder people from attaining a good life. one of them is the presence of disasters and accidents that sometimes entirely change one’s life. Attaining a good life can also render one into some behaviors that affect their lives. A good life like achieving goals and living a luxurious life can make a person engage in things like just sleeping, eating, and doing nothing can affect one’s health by gaining too much weight and exposing one to lifestyle like heart problems (Sutton 41). Being health is part of living a good health and this means that all people need to be concerned with their health, and avoid things that can affect their health. In such a scenario, instead of a person enjoying life and living a good life, they end up living a life full of frustrations due to pain and interference.

When only a portion of the community members attain a good life, others are left in distress and discouraged. Such frustrations have significantly contributed to mental health complications, which explains why the rate of suicidal cases is very apparent today. Good life for everyone is very rewarding in many ways, including living in harmony since everyone is enjoying life and has everything they need. Therefore, no need to engage in activities that could interfere with other peoples’ lives.

Conclusion

Living a good life has a different meaning to different people though some of the basic things that help to identify a good life mean living a free life, having happiness, and other things like purposeful life. The paper has managed to define what good life entails, the means of living a good life, and some of the considerations that favor good life before looking at some of the challenges and benefits that arise from having a good life. society members need to understand what good life entails and how attaining it is as simple as knowing what one wants life and working towards it.

Fischer, Edward F. The good life . Stanford University Press, 2020. Retrieved from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780804792615/html

Manuel, Tiffany. “How Does One Live the Good Life?: Assessing the State of Intersectionality in Public Policy.” The Palgrave handbook of intersectionality in public policy . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2019. 31-58. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-98473-5_2

Sutton, Anna. “Living the good life: A meta-analysis of authenticity, well-being and engagement.” Personality and Individual Differences 153 (2020): 109645.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Related Essays

The cinematic palette: exploring the psychological impact of color in denis villeneuve’s films, feminist media histories, assignment: the dignity of the human person, paper on the leadership themes of the old testament in the bible, research on tokyo city, contemporary art review, popular essay topics.

American Dream
Artificial Intelligence
Black Lives Matter
Bullying Essay
Career Goals Essay
Causes of the Civil War
Child Abusing
Civil Rights Movement
Community Service
Cultural Identity
Cyber Bullying
Death Penalty
Depression Essay
Domestic Violence
Freedom of Speech
Global Warming
Gun Control
Human Trafficking
I Believe Essay
Immigration
Importance of Education
Israel and Palestine Conflict
Leadership Essay
Legalizing Marijuanas
Mental Health
National Honor Society
Police Brutality
Pollution Essay
Racism Essay
Romeo and Juliet
Same Sex Marriages
Social Media
The Great Gatsby
The Yellow Wallpaper
Time Management
To Kill a Mockingbird
Violent Video Games
What Makes You Unique
Why I Want to Be a Nurse
Send us an e-mail

Project Types We Cover

Admissions Essay
PowerPoint Presentation
Research Paper
Book Reviews
Personal Statement
Ph.D Dissertation
Proofreading

Academic Fields & Subjects

Programming
Computer Science
Other projects we help with
Our Experts
Plagiarism Checker
Writing Tips

All the Essential Elements of the Good Life Philosophy Essay

By: Henrique Bertulino

Writing essays is a large component of studying philosophy. Much like the subject itself, philosophy essays are a blueprint for thought.

Preparing to Write Good Life Philosophy Essay

Start with an introduction, give a thesis statement, critically evaluate theories, concepts, and arguments, give a thorough conclusion, final thoughts.

A common topic of discussion in philosophy and moral philosophy is the concept of the good life. This article will discuss the basic mechanics of how a philosophy essay should be written and then apply these mechanics to a typical good life essay as an example.

Before you begin to write a philosophy essay, you must first do all the necessary reading on the topic beforehand. In most cases, you need to present at least three main arguments for the topic at hand. You will need to be able to

state these arguments accurately
include direct quotes, if possible, from relevant philosophers
cite the correct philosopher
have a thorough understanding of what these arguments are conveying
formulate criticisms and comparisons of these arguments

For a good life essay, we suggest that you read up on the essential Greek philosophers who have weighed in on the good life concept, such as:

Socrates and his disciple Plato and their high prioritizing of virtuosity. Their school of thought is centered around living a Moral Life . Though they also emphasized the quest for knowledge and understanding of one's self as part of human nature - "the unexamined life is a life not worth living".
Epicurus was the initial ancient Greek philosopher to define living a good life as living a Life of Pleasure or having a hedonistic lifestyle.
Aristotle and his defined checklist for a Fulfilled Life to be deemed a person's life well-lived. This checklist can be found in his work The Nicomachean Ethics, written in 350 BCE in Athens. Here he also highlights the idea that pursuits should not just be about practicality but for our own sake. In other words, the endeavors we undertake in life should be what we want to do and not just what we have to do.
Another extremely influential philosopher you could research is Nietzsche, who has also pondered over the good life. He believed a person's well-being relies on a meaningful life which he defines unsurprisingly using his famous God is Dead perspective. His views juxtapose the emphasis on morality and put forward the case that morality is a counter-productive way of life. Priority for Nietzsche is human life in pursuit of individual excellence and acknowledged because our values can only be subjectively evaluated, the meaning of life was also subjective.

Remember to always use reputable sources such as textbooks from the library or published ebooks and research papers and articles from Google scholar .

Create a Logical Structure

A philosophy essay is generally an argumentative essay. The idea is to present an overall stance that answers the philosophical question and demonstrating a clear defense of your stance via a well-informed discussion and analysis of existing theories and arguments on the subject matter.

By looking at the point-form outline, you will know exactly when and where each argument will be introduced in the essay and spot any structural issues or flaws in your argument more easily.

The introduction should give a basic definition of the topic proposed in the question and give a structural overview of the essay.

For a good life essay, you will typically aim to answer the question "what is the good life?" as a starting point. Some examples are:

The definition of the good life in philosophy has been argued by many since ancient times. The two primary yet somewhat opposing schools of thought center around one unifying concept – happiness. To define a good life is to define the subjective ideas of what it means to be happy. For some, it may mean possessing material wealth and luxuries, whereas, for others, it could mean immeasurable wealth, such as having a life filled with love, meaning, or purpose. But is it reductionist to simply state that a conception of the good life is equivalent to a happy life?
The good life is a term that conceptualizes the ideal conditions which One may consider to be "good". There are many arguments proposed for what it means to truly live a good life. One of these arguments is by the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus. In his argument, he states that a life of pleasure is a good life and that we should seek experiences that are indulgent and bring enjoyment, albeit in moderation.

This is a statement that directly answers the question and gives the stance or position you will take throughout the essay. It is the statement to be debated, and you will use the main body of the essay to prove your case for it.

For a Good Life essay, examples are:

In this essay, I will justify that a life of morality is a better choice than a life of pleasure for life philosophy by examining the arguments posed by Socrates and Plato and explaining why I am in agreement with them.
I believe that the good kind of life is a life of pleasure. In this essay, I will elaborate on my position by delving into various supporting arguments and deconstructing the criticisms against these arguments.
This essay aims to refute Nietzsche's argument for a good life by proving that asceticism is necessary.

Always give a brief summary of how you will proceed to justify your thesis/position.

For expository essays, the thesis statement is just the objective of the article. So for a good life expository essay, an example would be:

In this essay, I will be discussing various arguments on the good life concept and consider their strengths and weaknesses.

It is important to define technical or ambiguous terminology used in your thesis before stating the thesis statement to ensure the reader has full understanding. Sometimes, defining these terms is half of the exercise, and therefore a lot of your grade will depend on how well you define these terms. A clear and accurate definition without omission will be evidence of understanding. An example is as follows:

A major component of Nietzsche's argument is his opposition to asceticism. Asceticism is the act of self-discipline from indulgent behaviors. His belief that self-denial will cause us to sacrifice individual development, excellence, and nobility is flawed. This essay aims to refute Nietzsche's argument by proving that asceticism is necessary for individual lives.

This is done in the main body of the text. For every theory, concept or argument you introduce, you must be prepared to evaluate them by discussing not only the strengths but also the weaknesses.

From your research notes or your own opinions, you need to present:

the strength of the theory or arguments and the supporting reasoning provided by the philosopher
the logical justification that was provided by other philosophers or yourself
criticisms by other philosophers or yourself and why they make sense or why they are not valid
how the philosopher responded to these criticisms

Remember to always provide a full exposition and definitions of every new theory, concept, or argument first before launching into the evaluation.

For a good life essay, an example could be:

Although it is intuitive to agree that having moral virtue is synonymous with being good, there are various ways in which it could also be considered a hindrance to living a good life. Therefore, being a good man or woman does not guarantee you to live a good life. Much of morality is focused on sacrificing the self for "the greater good" or for other human beings. By such self-sacrifice, you may experience negative impacts that impede on the individual's happiness. One could argue that if you have taken action to reduce your happiness in your own life for the sake of being virtuous, are you then still living a good life? Self-professed amoralist Nietzsche would be inclined to answer no, as evidenced by his opposition against asceticism.

Discuss the impacts and limits of how you defended your decision, but the focus should be on how you established your points. You may wish to make a closing statement that declares your position to be correct if you felt you have confidently proved it or leave things more open-ended with a final pondering.

In conclusion, the major philosophers mentioned in this essay have all agreed upon the intrinsic necessity for virtuosity and eudaimonia, which is the Ancient Greek word for happiness. Only by fully realizing these two core needs, can one deem to have lived a good life. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle have highlighted that material wealth should be of a lesser priority than that of moral and intellectual virtues. They have also pointed out that happiness is acquired through the freedom to pursue activities by choice and not a necessity. We must also have the freedom to make our own decisions and have the ability to reason.

Hopefully, this article has given you plenty of ideas to jump-start your philosophy essay on the good life concept. This framework for philosophy essay writing can be applied to any other topic with relevant adjustments.

Check out our other web pages for more essay help and essay editing . Alternatively, you may wish to use our proofreading services for polishing and perfecting your essay to give you that extra grade boost!

User ratings:

User ratings is 4.4 stars.

4.4 /5 ( 8 Votes)

Head of Customer Success

I'm a medical doctor and brand manager. The process of getting into Med school and studying at it made me learn and apply many strategies to keep my productivity high while spending less time and effort. As a working student, I had to figure out how to study smarter, not harder. During this period, my interest in neurology and psychiatry, as well as my aspiration to help others, intensified. At Studybay, I use my knowledge, skills, and experience to develop helpful solutions for students and make their study paths more productive and fun.

Add Your Comment

We are very interested to know your opinion

Upgrade your writing skills!

Try our AI essay writer from Studybay today!

Your complimentary articles

You’ve read one of your four complimentary articles for this month.

You can read four articles free per month. To have complete access to the thousands of philosophy articles on this site, please

Question of the Month

What is the meaning of life, the following answers to this central philosophical question each win a random book. sorry if your answer doesn’t appear: we received enough to fill twelve pages….

Why are we here? Do we serve a greater purpose beyond the pleasure or satisfaction we get from our daily activities – however mundane or heroic they may be? Is the meaning of life internal to life, to be found inherently in life’s many activities, or is it external, to be found in a realm somehow outside of life, but to which life leads? In the internal view it’s the satisfaction and happiness we gain from our actions that justify life. This does not necessarily imply a selfish code of conduct. The external interpretation commonly makes the claim that there is a realm to which life leads after death. Our life on earth is evaluated by a supernatural being some call God, who will assign to us some reward or punishment after death. The meaning of our life, its purpose and justification, is to fulfill the expectations of God, and then to receive our final reward. But within the internal view of meaning, we can argue that meaning is best found in activities that benefit others, the community, or the Earth as a whole. It’s just that the reward for these activities has to be found here, in the satisfactions that they afford within this life, instead of in some external spirit realm.

An interesting way to contrast the internal and external views is to imagine walking through a beautiful landscape. Your purpose in walking may be just to get somewhere else – you may think there’s a better place off in the distance. In this case the meaning of your journey through the landscape is external to the experience of the landscape itself. On the other hand, you may be intensely interested in what the landscape holds. It may be a forest, or it may contain farms, villages. You may stop along the way, study, learn, converse, with little thought about why you are doing these things other than the pleasure they give you. You may stop to help someone who is sick: in fact, you may stay many years, and found a hospital. What then is the meaning of your journey? Is it satisfying or worthwhile only if you have satisfied an external purpose – only if it gets you somewhere else? Why, indeed, cannot the satisfactions and pleasures of the landscape, and of your deeds, be enough?

Greg Studen, Novelty, Ohio

A problem with this question is that it is not clear what sort of answer is being looked for. One common rephrasing is “What is it that makes life worth living?”. There are any number of subjective answers to this question. Think of all the reasons why you are glad you are alive (assuming you are), and there is the meaning of your life. Some have attempted to answer this question in a more objective way: that is to have an idea of what constitutes the good life . It seems reasonable to say that some ways of living are not conducive to human flourishing. However, I am not convinced that there is one right way to live. To suggest that there is demonstrates not so much arrogance as a lack of imagination.

Another way of rephrasing the question is “What is the purpose of life?” Again we all have our own subjective purposes but some would like to think there is a higher purpose provided for us, perhaps by a creator. It is a matter of debate whether this would make life a thing of greater value or turn us into the equivalent of rats in a laboratory experiment. Gloster’s statement in King Lear comes to mind: “As flies to wanton boys we are to the gods – they kill us for their sport.” But why does there have to be a purpose to life separate from those purposes generated within it? The idea that life needs no external justification has been described movingly by Richard Taylor. Our efforts may ultimately come to nothing but “the day was sufficient to itself, and so was the life.” ( Good and Evil , 1970) In the “why are we here?” sense of the question there is no answer. It would be wrong, however, to conclude that life is meaningless. Life is meaningful to humans, therefore it has meaning.

Rebecca Linton, Leicester

When the question is in the singular we search for that which ties all values together in one unity, traditionally called ‘the good’. Current consideration of the good demands a recognition of the survival crises which confront mankind. The threats of nuclear war, environmental poisoning and other possible disasters make it necessary for us to get it right. For if Hannah Arendt was correct concerning the ‘banality of evil’ which affected so many Nazi converts and contaminated the German population by extension, we may agree with her that both Western rational philosophy and Christian teaching let the side down badly in the 20th century.

If we then turn away from Plato’s philosophy, balanced in justice, courage, moderation and wisdom; from Jewish justice and Christian self-denial; if we recognize Kant’s failure to convince populations to keep his three universal principles, then shall we look to the moral relativism of the Western secular minds which admired Nietzsche? Stalin’s purges of his own constituents in the USSR tainted this relativist approach to the search for the good. Besides, if nothing is absolute, but things have value only relative to other things, how do we get a consensus on the best or the worst? What makes your social mores superior to mine – and why should I not seek to destroy your way? We must also reject any hermit, monastic, sect or other loner criteria for the good life. Isolation will not lead to any long-term harmony or peace in the Global Village.

If with Nietzsche we ponder on the need for power in one’s life, but turn in the opposite direction from his ‘superman’ ideal, we will come to some form of the Golden Rule [‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’]. However, we must know this as an experiential reality. There is life-changing power in putting oneself in the place of the other person and feeling for and with them. We call this feeling empathy .

Persons who concentrate on empathy should develop emotional intelligence. When intellectual intelligence does not stand in the way of this kind of personal growth, but contributes to it, we can call this balance maturity . Surely the goal or meaning of human life is therefore none other than finding oneself becoming a mature adult free to make one’s own decisions, yet wanting everyone in the world to have this same advantage. This is good!

Ernie Johns, Owen Sound, Ontario

‘Meaning’ is a word referring to what we have in mind as ‘signification’, and it relates to intention and purpose. ‘Life’ is applied to the state of being alive; conscious existence. Mind, consciousness, words and what they signify, are thus the focus for the answer to the question. What seems inescapable is that there is no meaning associated with life other than that acquired by our consciousness, inherited via genes, developed and given content through memes (units of culture). The meanings we believe life to have are then culturally and individually diverse. They may be imposed through hegemony; religious or secular, benign or malign; or identified through deliberate choice, where this is available. The range is vast and diverse; from straightforward to highly complex. Meaning for one person may entail supporting a football team; for another, climbing higher and higher mountains; for another, being a parent; for another, being moved by music, poetry, literature, dance or painting; for another the pursuit of truth through philosophy; for another through religious devotions, etc. But characteristic of all these examples is a consciousness that is positively and constructively absorbed, engaged, involved, fascinated, enhanced and fulfilled. I would exclude negative and destructive desires; for example of a brutal dictator who may find torturing others absorbing and engaging and thus meaningful. Such cases would be too perverse and morally repugnant to regard as anything other than pathological.

The meaning of life for individuals may diminish or fade as a consequence of decline or difficult or tragic circumstances. Here it might, sadly, be difficult to see any meaning of life at all. The meaning is also likely to change from one phase of life to another, due to personal development, new interests, contexts, commitments and maturity.

Colin Brookes, Woodhouse Eaves, Leicestershire

It is clearly internet shopping, franchised fast food and surgically-enhanced boobs. No, this is not true. I think the only answer is to strip back every layer of the physical world, every learnt piece of knowledge, almost everything that seems important in our modern lives. All that’s left is simply existence. Life is existence: it seems ‘good’ to be part of life. But really that’s your lot! We should just be thankful that our lifespan is longer than, say, a spider, or your household mog.

Our over-evolved human minds want more, but unfortunately there is nothing more. And if there is some deity or malignant devil, then you can be sure they’ve hidden any meaning pretty well and we won’t see it in our mortal lives. So, enjoy yourself; be nice to people, if you like; but there’s no more meaning than someone with surgically-enhanced boobs, shopping on the net while eating a Big Mac.

Simon Maltman, By email

To ask ‘What is the meaning of life?’ is a poor choice of words and leads to obfuscation rather than clarity. Why so?

To phrase the question in this fashion implies that meaning is something that inheres in an object or experience – that it is a quality which is as discernible as the height of a door or the solidity of matter. That is not what meaning is like. It is not a feature of a particular thing, but rather the relationship between a perceiver and a thing, a subject and an object, and so requires both. There is no one meaning of, say, a poem, because meaning is generated by it being read and thought about by a subject. As subjects differ so does the meaning: different people evaluate ideas and concepts in different ways, as can be seen from ethical dilemmas. But it would be wrong to say that all these meanings are completely different, as there are similarities between individuals, not least because we belong to the same species and are constructed and programmed in basically the same way. We all have feelings of fear, attachment, insecurity and passion, etc.

So to speak of ‘the meaning of life’, is an error. It would be more correct to refer to the ‘meanings of life’, but as there are currently around six billion humans on Earth, and new psychological and cultural variations coming into being all the time, to list and describe all of these meanings would be a nigh on impossible task.

To ‘find meaning in life’ is a better way of approaching the issue, ie, whilst there is no single meaning of life, every person can live their life in a way which brings them as much fulfilment and contentment as possible. To use utilitarian language, the best that one can hope for is a life which contains as great an excess of pleasure over pain as possible, or alternatively, a life in which as least time as possible is devoted to activities which do not stimulate, or which do nothing to promote the goals one has set for oneself.

Steve Else, Swadlincote, Derbyshire

The meaning of life is not being dead.

Tim Bale, London

The question is tricky because of its hidden premise that life has meaning per se . A perfectly rational if discomforting position is given by Nietzsche, that someone in the midst of living is not in a position to discern whether it has meaning or not, and since we cannot step outside of the process of living to assess it, this is therefore not a question that bears attention.

However, if we choose to ignore the difficulties of evaluating a condition while inside it, perhaps one has to ask the prior question, what is the meaning of meaning ? Is ‘meaning’ given by the greater cosmos? Or do we in our freedom construct the category ‘meaning’ and then fill in the contours and colours? Is meaning always identical with purpose? I might decide to dedicate my life to answering this particular question, granting myself an autonomously devised purpose. But is this identical with the meaning of my life? Or can I live a meaningless life with purpose? Or shall meaning be defined by purpose? Some metaphysics offer exactly this corollary – that in pursuing one’s proper good, and thus one’s meaning, one is pursuing one’s telos or purpose. The point of these two very brief summaries of approaches to the question is to show the hazards in this construction of the question.

Karen Zoppa, The University of Winnipeg

One thing one can hardly fail to notice about life is that it is self-perpetuating. Palaeontology tells us that life has been perpetuating itself for billions of years. What is the secret of this stunning success? Through natural selection, life forms adapt to their environment, and in the process they acquire, one might say they become , knowledge about that environment, the world in which they live and of which they are part. As Konrad Lorenz put it, “Life itself is a process of acquiring knowledge.” According to this interpretation of evolution, the very essence of life (its meaning?) is the pursuit of knowledge : knowledge about the real world that is constantly tested against that world. What works and is in that sense ‘true’, is perpetuated. Life is tried and proven knowledge that has withstood the test of geological time. From this perspective, adopting the pursuit of knowledge as a possible meaning of one’s life seems, literally, a natural choice. The history of science and philosophy is full of examples of people who have done just that, and in doing so they have helped human beings to earn the self-given title of Homo sapiens – man of knowledge.

Axel Winter, Wynnum, Queensland

Life is a stage and we are the actors, said William Shakespeare, possibly recognizing that life quite automatically tells a story just as any play tells a story. But we are more than just actors; we are the playwright too, creating new script with our imaginations as we act in the ongoing play. Life is therefore storytelling. So the meaning of life is like the meaning of ‘the play’ in principle: not a single play with its plot and underlying values and information, but the meaning behind the reason for there being plays with playwright, stage, actors, props, audience, and theatre. The purpose of the play is self-expression , the playwright’s effort to tell a story. Life, a grand play written with mankind’s grand imagination, has this same purpose.

But besides being the playwright, you are the audience too, the recipient of the playwrights’ messages. As playwright, actor, and audience you are an heir to both growth and self-expression. Your potential for acquiring knowledge and applying it creatively is unlimited. These two concepts may be housed under one roof: Liberty. Liberty is the freedom to think and to create. “Give me liberty or give me death,” said Patrick Henry, for without liberty life has no meaningful purpose. But with liberty life is a joy. Therefore liberty is the meaning of life.

Ronald Bacci, Napa, CA

The meaning of life is understood according to the beliefs that people adhere to. However, all human belief systems are accurate or inaccurate to varying degrees in their description of the world. Moreover, belief systems change over time: from generation to generation; from culture to culture; and era to era. Beliefs that are held today, even by large segments of the population, did not exist yesterday and may not exist tomorrow. Belief systems, be they religious or secular, are therefore arbitrary. If the meaning of life is wanted, a meaning that will transcend the test of time or the particulars of individual beliefs, then an effort to arrive at a truly objective determination must be made. So in order to eliminate the arbitrary, belief systems must be set aside. Otherwise, the meaning of life could not be determined.

Objectively however, life has no meaning because meaning or significance cannot be obtained without reference to some (arbitrary) belief system. Absent a subjective belief system to lend significance to life, one is left with the ‘stuff’ of life, which, however offers no testimony as to its meaning. Without beliefs to draw meaning from, life has no meaning, but is merely a thing ; a set of facts that, in and of themselves, are silent as to what they mean. Life consists of a series of occurrences in an infinite now, divorced of meaning except for what may be ascribed by constructed belief systems. Without such beliefs, for many the meaning of life is nothing .

Surely, however, life means something . And indeed it does when an individual willfully directs his/her consciousness at an aspect of life, deriving from it an individual interpretation, and then giving this interpretation creative expression. Thus the meaning in the act of giving creative expression to what may be ephemeral insights. Stated another way, the meaning of life is an individual’s acts of creation . What, exactly is created, be it artistic or scientific, may speak to the masses, or to nobody, and may differ from individual to individual. The meaning of life, however, is not the thing created, but the creative act itself ; namely, that of willfully imposing an interpretation onto the stuff of life, and projecting a creative expression from it.

Raul Casso, Laredo, Texas

Rather than prattle on and then discover that I am merely deciding what ‘meaning’ means, I will start out with the assumption that by ‘meaning’ we mean ‘purpose.’ And because I fear that ‘purpose’ implies a Creator, I will say ‘best purpose.’ So what is the best purpose for which I can live my life? The best purpose for which I can live my life is, refusing all the easy ways to destroy. This is not as simple as it sounds. Refusing to destroy life – to murder – wouldn’t just depend on our lack of homicidal impulses, but also on our willingness to devote our time to finding out which companies have murdered union uprisers; to finding out whether animals are killed out of need or greed or ease; to finding the best way to refuse to fund military murder, if we find our military to be murdering rather than merely protecting. Refusing to destroy resources, to destroy loves, to destroy rights, turns out to be a full-time job. Oh sure, we can get cocky and say “Well, oughtn’t we destroy injustice? Or bigotry? Or hatred?” But we would be only fooling ourselves. They’re all already negatives: to destroy injustice, bigotry, and hatred is to refuse the destruction of justice, understanding, and love. So, it turns out, we finally say “Yes” to life, when we come out with a resounding, throat-wrecking “NO!”

Carrie Snider, By email

I propose that the knowledge we have now accumulated about life discloses quite emphatically that we are entirely a function of certain basic laws as they operate in the probably unique conditions prevailing here on Earth.

The behaviour of the most elementary forms of matter we know, subatomic particles, seems to be guided by four fundamental forces, of which electromagnetism is probably the most significant here, in that through the attraction and repulsion of charged particles it allows an almost infinite variation of bonding: it allows atoms to form molecules, up the chain to the molecules of enormous length and complexity we call as nucleic acids, and proteins. All these are involved in a constant interaction with surrounding chemicals through constant exchanges of energy. From these behaviour patterns we can deduce certain prime drives or purposes of basic matter, namely:

1. Combination (bonding).

2. Survival of the combination, and of any resulting organism.

3. Extension of the organism, usually by means of replication.

4. Acquisition of energy.

Since these basic drives motivate everything that we’re made of, all the energy, molecules and chemistry that form our bodies, our brains and nervous systems, then whatever we think, say and do is a function of the operation of those basic laws Therefore everything we think, say and do will be directed towards our survival, our replication and our demand for energy to fuel these basic drives. All our emotions and our rational thinking, our loves and hates, our art, science and engineering are refinements of these basic drives. The underlying drive for bonding inspires our need for interaction with other organisms, particularly other human beings, as we seek ever wider and stronger links conducive to our better survival. Protection and extension of our organic integrity necessitates our dependence on and interaction with everything on Earth.

Our consciousness is also necessarily a function of these basic drives, and when the chemistry of our cells can no longer operate due to disease, ageing or trauma, we lose consciousness and die. Since I believe we are nothing more than physics and chemistry, death terminates our life once and for all. There is no God, there is no eternal life. But optimistically, there is the joy of realising that we have the power of nature within us, and that by co-operating with our fellow man, by nurturing the resources of the world, by fighting disease, starvation, poverty and environmental degradation, we can all conspire to improve life and celebrate not only its survival on this planet, but also its proliferation. So the purpose of life is just that: to involve all living things in the common purpose of promoting and enjoying what we are – a wondrous expression of the laws of Nature, the power of the Universe.

Peter F. Searle, Topsham, Devon

“What is the meaning of life?” is hard to get a solid grip on. One possible translation of it is “What does it all mean?” One might spend a lifetime trying to answer such a heady question. Answering it requires providing an account of the ultimate nature of the world, our minds, value and how all these natures interrelate. I’d prefer to offer a rather simplistic answer to a possible interpretation of our question. When someone asks “What is the meaning of life?,” they may mean “What makes life meaningful?” This is a question I believe one can get a grip on without developing a systematic philosophy.

The answer I propose is actually an old one. What makes a human life have meaning or significance is not the mere living of a life, but reflecting on the living of a life.

Even the most reflective among us get caught up in pursuing ends and goals. We want to become fitter; we want to read more books; we want to make more money. These goal-oriented pursuits are not meaningful or significant in themselves. What makes a life filled with them either significant or insignificant is reflecting on why one pursues those goals. This is second-order reflection; reflection on why one lives the way one does. But it puts one in a position to say that one’s life has meaning or does not.

One discovers this meaning or significance by evaluating one’s life and meditating on it; by taking a step back from the everyday and thinking about one’s life in a different way. If one doesn’t do this, then one’s life has no meaning or significance. And that isn’t because one has the wrong sorts of goals or ends, but rather has failed to take up the right sort of reflective perspective on one’s life. This comes close to Socrates’ famous saying that the unexamined life is not worth living. I would venture to say that the unexamined life has no meaning.

Casey Woodling, Gainesville, FL

For the sake of argument, let’s restrict the scope of the discussion to the human species, and narrow down the choices to

1) There is no meaning of life, we simply exist;

2) To search for the meaning of life; and

3) To share an intimate connection with humankind: the notion of love.

Humans are animals with an instinct for survival. At a basic level, this survival requires food, drink, rest and procreation. In this way, the meaning of life could be to continue the process of evolution. This is manifested in the modern world as the daily grind.

Humans also have the opportunity and responsibility of consciousness. With our intellect comes curiosity, combined with the means to understand complex problems. Most humans have, at some point, contemplated the meaning of life. Some make it a life’s work to explore this topic. For them and those like them, the question may be the answer.

Humans are a social species. We typically seek out the opposite sex to procreate. Besides the biological urge or desire, there is an interest in understanding others. We might simply gain pleasure in connecting with someone in an intimate way. Whatever the specific motivation, there is something that we crave, and that is to love and be loved.

The meaning of life may never be definitively known. The meaning of life may be different for each individual and/or each species. The truth of the meaning of life is likely in the eye of the beholder. There were three choices given at the beginning of this essay, and for me, the answer is all of the above.

Jason Hucsek, San Antonio, TX

Next Question of the Month

The next question is: What Is The Nature Of Reality? Answers should be less than 400 words. Subject lines or envelopes should be marked ‘Question Of The Month’. You will be edited.

This site uses cookies to recognize users and allow us to analyse site usage. By continuing to browse the site with cookies enabled in your browser, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our privacy policy . X

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

Home — Essay Samples — Philosophy — Meaning of Life — Finding the Purpose: Why is Life Important

Finding The Purpose: Why Life is Important

Categories: Meaning of Life Purpose Trust

About this sample

Words: 1987 |

10 min read

Published: Nov 26, 2019

Words: 1987 | Pages: 4 | 10 min read

Introduction, why life is important, works cited.

Burnet, C. (n.d.). Only I Can Change My Life. [Quote]. Retrieved from Goodreads website: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8938229-only-i-can-change-my-life-no-one-can-do
Keller, H. (n.d.). Although the world is full of suffering, it is also full of the overcoming of it. [Quote]. Retrieved from Goodreads website: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/86764-although-the-world-is-full-of-suffering-it-is
Pele (n.d.). Success is no accident, it is perseverance, learning, sacrifice, and most of all loving what you're doing. [Quote].
Purpose Guide. (n.d.). The Importance of Finding Purpose in Life.
Purpose Fairy. (n.d.). 15 Powerful Lessons I've Learned from Life.
Segerstrom, S. C., & Vohs, K. D. (2009). Managing resources: Dual-task performance and resource allocation in normal adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(1), 101–126.
Seneca. (n.d.). Life is too important to be taken seriously. [Quote]. Retrieved from AZQuotes website: https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1136886
Silvia, P. J. (2006). Exploring the Psychology of Interest. Oxford University Press.
Wong, P. T. P. (2014). The Human Quest for Meaning: Theories, Research, and Applications (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

Expert in: Philosophy Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 452 words

2 pages / 923 words

1 pages / 670 words

3 pages / 1557 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Finding The Purpose: Why Life is Important Essay

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Meaning of Life

In the hustle and bustle of modern life, we often find ourselves caught in the whirlwind of the present moment, constantly seeking the next thrill or distraction. However, there is a profound and often overlooked potential in [...]

Frankl, Viktor E. 'Man's Search for Meaning.' Beacon Press, 2006.Dweck, Carol S. 'Mindset: The New Psychology of Success.' Ballantine Books, 2007.Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 'Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience.' Harper [...]

Smith, Adam. 'The Theory of Moral Sentiments.' 1759.

The question of the meaning of life has been a timeless and profound inquiry that has intrigued philosophers, thinkers, and individuals throughout history. In this essay, we will delve into the philosophical exploration of the [...]

Life can feel like a roller coaster ride, and I want you to climb into the front seat, throw your arms in the air, and have fun. The ups the downs, a minor lyric of the song pretty as the sun by prime circle but this lyric has a [...]

Living in a modern society has redefined the meaning of life in many ways. Nowadays, the most popular social networks have come to define the essence of existence as making others feel less critical by reducing [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Title Page Setup

A title page is required for all APA Style papers. There are both student and professional versions of the title page. Students should use the student version of the title page unless their instructor or institution has requested they use the professional version. APA provides a student title page guide (PDF, 199KB) to assist students in creating their title pages.

Student title page

The student title page includes the paper title, author names (the byline), author affiliation, course number and name for which the paper is being submitted, instructor name, assignment due date, and page number, as shown in this example.

Title page setup is covered in the seventh edition APA Style manuals in the Publication Manual Section 2.3 and the Concise Guide Section 1.6

Related handouts

Student Title Page Guide (PDF, 263KB)
Student Paper Setup Guide (PDF, 3MB)

Student papers do not include a running head unless requested by the instructor or institution.

Follow the guidelines described next to format each element of the student title page.


Paper title	Place the title three to four lines down from the top of the title page. Center it and type it in bold font. Capitalize of the title. Place the main title and any subtitle on separate double-spaced lines if desired. There is no maximum length for titles; however, keep titles focused and include key terms.
Author names	Place one double-spaced blank line between the paper title and the author names. Center author names on their own line. If there are two authors, use the word “and” between authors; if there are three or more authors, place a comma between author names and use the word “and” before the final author name.	Cecily J. Sinclair and Adam Gonzaga
Author affiliation	For a student paper, the affiliation is the institution where the student attends school. Include both the name of any department and the name of the college, university, or other institution, separated by a comma. Center the affiliation on the next double-spaced line after the author name(s).	Department of Psychology, University of Georgia
Course number and name	Provide the course number as shown on instructional materials, followed by a colon and the course name. Center the course number and name on the next double-spaced line after the author affiliation.	PSY 201: Introduction to Psychology
Instructor name	Provide the name of the instructor for the course using the format shown on instructional materials. Center the instructor name on the next double-spaced line after the course number and name.	Dr. Rowan J. Estes
Assignment due date	Provide the due date for the assignment. Center the due date on the next double-spaced line after the instructor name. Use the date format commonly used in your country.	October 18, 2020 18 October 2020
	Use the page number 1 on the title page. Use the automatic page-numbering function of your word processing program to insert page numbers in the top right corner of the page header.	1

Professional title page

The professional title page includes the paper title, author names (the byline), author affiliation(s), author note, running head, and page number, as shown in the following example.

Follow the guidelines described next to format each element of the professional title page.


Paper title	Place the title three to four lines down from the top of the title page. Center it and type it in bold font. Capitalize of the title. Place the main title and any subtitle on separate double-spaced lines if desired. There is no maximum length for titles; however, keep titles focused and include key terms.
Author names	Place one double-spaced blank line between the paper title and the author names. Center author names on their own line. If there are two authors, use the word “and” between authors; if there are three or more authors, place a comma between author names and use the word “and” before the final author name.	Francesca Humboldt
Author names	When different authors have different affiliations, use superscript numerals after author names to connect the names to the appropriate affiliation(s). If all authors have the same affiliation, superscript numerals are not used (see Section 2.3 of the for more on how to set up bylines and affiliations).	Tracy Reuter , Arielle Borovsky , and Casey Lew-Williams
Author affiliation	For a professional paper, the affiliation is the institution at which the research was conducted. Include both the name of any department and the name of the college, university, or other institution, separated by a comma. Center the affiliation on the next double-spaced line after the author names; when there are multiple affiliations, center each affiliation on its own line.	Department of Nursing, Morrigan University
Author affiliation	When different authors have different affiliations, use superscript numerals before affiliations to connect the affiliations to the appropriate author(s). Do not use superscript numerals if all authors share the same affiliations (see Section 2.3 of the for more).	Department of Psychology, Princeton University Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Purdue University
Author note	Place the author note in the bottom half of the title page. Center and bold the label “Author Note.” Align the paragraphs of the author note to the left. For further information on the contents of the author note, see Section 2.7 of the .	n/a
	The running head appears in all-capital letters in the page header of all pages, including the title page. Align the running head to the left margin. Do not use the label “Running head:” before the running head.	Prediction errors support children’s word learning
	Use the page number 1 on the title page. Use the automatic page-numbering function of your word processing program to insert page numbers in the top right corner of the page header.	1

Share full article

Supported by

Guest Essay

Do Politicians Realize How Difficult and Rare Immigrating to the U.S. Legally Actually Is?

An illustration of a figure going into and out of a green door. There is a sign on the wall that says “this way” with an arrow pointing to the right.

By Jorge Loweree

Mr. Loweree is the managing director of programs and strategy at the American Immigration Council.

During the Republican National Convention, speakers repeatedly tried to draw a contrast between asylum seekers who’ve crossed the southern border in recent years and immigrants who’ve entered the country through other channels. As Vivek Ramaswamy put it, legal immigrants like his parents “deserve the opportunity to secure a better life for your children in America.” Others deserve deportation, “because you broke the law.”

Elected leaders like to invoke this narrative that there’s an easy, “right” and a hard, “wrong” way to immigrate to the United States, because it makes the solution for fixing our broken immigration system seem simple. We just need more law-abiding people to get in the right line.

But the reality that is all too clear to immigrants navigating our byzantine system, and the lawyers and advocates who try to help them, is that there is no line to get into for a vast majority of people who wish to come to the United States. If the government is serious about securing the border, we have to make it easier for people to come through legal channels.

The U.S. admits a tiny fraction of people who want to immigrate

Number of people who said they want to immigrate or who legally applied, compared to those granted permanent residence

158 million people would like to immigrate to the U.S.

32 million people actually began the application process in 2021

family members

Only 900,000 people were allowed to enter legally

Sources: Gallup, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Note: Data was originally compiled in “ Why Legal Immigration Is Nearly Impossible ” by David Bier for the Cato Institute. The number of people who would like to immigrate is taken from a 2018 Gallup poll.

Our system of legal immigration isn’t set up to reward “good” choices. It is littered with arbitrary caps, bureaucratic delays and redundant processes that wring years of effort and money out of the precious few who qualify.

The current system is largely designed to favor those who have family ties here: namely, spouses, parents and adult children who are U.S. citizens and spouses and children of lawful permanent residents.

For some countries, the wait time to get a family-based visa stretches into centuries

Estimated wait time for family-sponsored visas in capped categories as of 2021

Visa for an unmarried adult child

Philippines

Married adult child

Sibling of adult citizens

YEARS TO PROCESS

All other countries

Sources: U.S. State Department, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Note: Data was originally compiled in “ Why Legal Immigration Is Nearly Impossible ” by David Bier for the Cato Institute. “All other countries” represents the average.

The green card approval rate is at a historic low point

Share of legal immigrants that were approved for permanent residency

GREEN CARD APPROVAL RATE

Until the 1920s, almost anyone could arrive in the U.S. and be granted permanent residency.

Rates rose during the 1960s when Congress added new visa categories and exceptions to allow more people to immigrate.

They fell in the 1980s after the creation of the green card lottery, as many more people began applying.

Sources: U.S. Department of State, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Note: Data was originally compiled in “ Why Legal Immigration Is Nearly Impossible ” by David Bier for the Cato Institute.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

IMAGES

💐 Life is so good essay. The Good Life Is A Happy Life. 2022-10-14
≫ Good Life in Aristotle Point of View Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com
life essay
STS
≫ Meaning of Good Life and Moral Life Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com
≫ Living “The Good Life” Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com

COMMENTS

What Is The Good Life & How To Attain It
The word 'good' has a very different meaning for very many people; however, there are some aspects of 'the good life' that most people can probably agree on such as: Material comfort. Wellbeing. Engagement in meaningful activities/work, Loving relationships (with partners, family, and friends) Belonging to a community.
How to Achieve a Good Life?
This essay explores what a good life is and describes plan of achieving it in terms of integrity, honesty, responsibility, and state obligation. A Good life. Living a good life morally means living in accordance with the ethics and morals of the society. A person living a good life expresses virtues such integrity, honesty, responsibility, and ...
What Does It Mean To Live The Good Life?
The Moral Life. One basic way we use the word "good" is to express moral approval. So when we say someone is living well or that they have lived a good life, we may simply mean that they are a good person, someone who is courageous, honest, trustworthy, kind, selfless, generous, helpful, loyal, principled, and so on.
Aristotle on the Good Life
1) bodily goods - health, vitality, vigor, and pleasure; 2) external goods - food, drink, shelter, clothing, and sleep; and. 3) goods of the soul - knowledge, skill, love, friendship, aesthetic enjoyment, self-esteem, and honor. The first two types of goods are limited goods—we can have more of them than we need.
Defining Happiness And What Makes A Good Life Philosophy Essay
The essay explores the different perspectives of Plato and Aristotle on how to live the good life and achieve happiness. It also gives examples of how to set and pursue goals, and how to overcome challenges and hardships in life.
What is the Good Life? Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, & Kant's Ideas in 4
But good life for a child, for a young person or for an old person are not the same philosophy. Not only the views are different but also the stakes and worries. I believe that good life concepts of Plato and Aristotle combined with Buddhist teachings can show us the path of perfect good life.
The Better Good Life: An Essay on Personal Sustainability
1. Rethink Your Eating. Look beyond meal-to-meal concerns with weight. Aim to eat consciously and selectively in keeping with the nourishment you want to take in, the energy and personal gifts you want to contribute, and the influence you want to have on the world around you.
The Good Life: A Discussion with Dr. Robert Waldinger
On February 27 th, Dr. Waldinger gave a virtual talk on his new book, The Good Life, a New York Times Bestseller which shares key findings from the Study of Adult Development. Dr. Waldinger was introduced by Dr. "Vish" Viswanath, Director of the Lee Kum Sheung Center for Health and Happiness, then gave a presentation, followed by an ...
Living a Good Life: [Essay Example], 579 words GradesFixer
Conclusion. In conclusion, living a good life encompasses various aspects, including physical and mental well-being, meaningful relationships, and personal growth. Taking care of our bodies, nurturing our mental health, cultivating strong relationships, and striving for personal growth are all essential for living a fulfilling and satisfying life.
What is a Good Life and How to Live It
Conclusion. In conclusion, a good life encompasses elements of well-being, meaningful relationships, personal values, and the pursuit of passions and meaningful activities. While societal and internal obstacles may pose challenges, individuals can overcome them by cultivating self-awareness, resilience, and adaptive strategies.
What Does Aristotle Mean by the Good Life? And How Can We Practice It?
The good life, according to Aristotle, is a result of a full life, including all of these other goods. For example, one swallow of summer does not make a person happy. Similarly, one day does not make a man happy. According to Aristotle, there are three types of life. The first three do not act for their own sake but serve other purposes or ...
Philosophy
Lillian weighs the costs of a life-changing genetic test. Philosophy Essays from Aeon. World-leading thinkers explore life's big questions and the history of ideas from Socrates to Simone de Beauvoir, political philosophy to philosophy of mind, the Western canon and the non-Western world.
The Views Of Plato And Aristotle On What Is A 'Good Life': [Essay
Both would also say that knowledge is something all people should strive for. To them, knowledge is the good life. For Plato, that means to gain knowledge is to transcend and understand true Form. Whereas Aristotle thought that knowledge is based on certainty. Keep in mind: This is only a sample.
Essays About Life: Top 5 Examples Plus 7 Prompts
7 Prompts for Essays About Life. 1. What Is The True Meaning Of Life. Use this prompt to compile different meanings of life and provide a background on why a person defines life as they do. Life encompasses many values and depends on one's perception.
The Meaning of Life
3. Naturalism. Recall that naturalism is the view that a physical life is central to life's meaning, that even if there is no spiritual realm, a substantially meaningful life is possible. Like supernaturalism, contemporary naturalism admits of two distinguishable variants, moderate and extreme (Metz 2019).
What Is a Good Life and How To Live It
Living the good life for any person entails living a life that sets someone free, a life that fulfills a person, gives joy, happiness, and a sense of purpose in one's life. A good life for everyone needs to be a worthwhile life, and one must also contribute to society instead of just living a self-centered life.
What is a Good Life?
The good life is a condition in which a person will be the most happy. Such happiness can be researched through a deductive perspective, which has been done by many philosophers over time (Wernqvist, 2007). Two such philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, deem the good life as the state in which a person exhibits total virtue.
Aristotle's Principles For a Good Life
Aristotle believed that people should strive to live well physically, mentally, and spiritually. His theory of the good life is based on four key principles: virtue, excellence, fulfilment, and ...
How to Write the Good Life Philosophy Essay
Preparing to Write Good Life Philosophy Essay. Create a Logical Structure. Start with an Introduction. A common topic of discussion in philosophy and moral philosophy is the concept of the good life. This article will discuss the basic mechanics of how a philosophy essay should be written and then apply these mechanics to a typical good life ...
What Is The Meaning Of Life?
Ernie Johns, Owen Sound, Ontario. 'Meaning' is a word referring to what we have in mind as 'signification', and it relates to intention and purpose. 'Life' is applied to the state of being alive; conscious existence. Mind, consciousness, words and what they signify, are thus the focus for the answer to the question.
The Importance Of A Good Life: A Life With Purpose
Good life is a life with purpose. It is a life where you make the most of everything in any kind of situation, be it good or bad, where in the toughest of times you stay calm, collected and are able to perceiver through. It is a life journeyed through with family, friends and other loved ones. It is one where you don't regret the decisions you ...
The Value Of Life Essays (pdf)
The Value Of Life Essays Crafting an essay on the topic "The Value of Life" can be both a challenging and introspective task. The difficulty lies not only in the depth of the subject matter but also in the personal perspectives and emotions it may evoke. Exploring the concept of life's value demands a careful balance between philosophical musings, ethical considerations, and real-world examples.
Finding The Purpose: Why Life is Important
You should use your freedom in a right way, don't abuse your freedom. The best example of abusing freedom is using a drugs on a wrong way. Life is important, using drugs in a wrong move can shorten your life. In real life, everything should have a limit. You can build your own future and your dream gave guidance to your efforts.
What Is the Good Life? Free Essay Example
Essay, Pages 7 (1705 words) Views. 17944. The "good life" is a phrase that is used to describe the ideal life for one to live. According to Aristotle, the good life should be free of any greed, full of virtue, pleasure, and friendships, as well as excellence in whatever you may do. I would agree with all of the things he believed in.
5 tips for living a good and happy life
Level up your social life Invest in your personal relationships. "Take care of your social fitness, if you will," Waldinger said. "If you feel that you need more connection with people, be ...
Title page setup
The student title page includes the paper title, author names (the byline), author affiliation, course number and name for which the paper is being submitted, instructor name, assignment due date, and page number, as shown in this example.
I Was Mad My Friend Was Getting Married. Then I Ruined Her Cake
"Where does the cake go?" I asked a bow-tied bartender, my voice tight and panicked. I was in my best cocktail dress and heels, trying to keep my grip on a box roughly the size, and weight, of ...
Opinion
The current system is largely designed to favor those who have family ties here: namely, spouses, parents and adult children who are U.S. citizens and spouses and children of lawful permanent ...