Meaning in Life and Why It Matters (The University Center for Human Values Series)

The question of meaning in life has only been tackled by a select few philosophers in history, usually indirectly (such as asking what values are and how they ought to be structured). This is surprising. It is an interesting question and important. If there is no point in living life, no real meaning, why ought we keep living?Wolf does a good job of explicating this problem and defends her conception with clarity and rigor in this work which happens to be some lectures she gave on the topic plus a critical response section by some colleagues and a section that is a rejoinder by Wolf to these criticisms. I think she is mostly right but there are some problems.Wolf's thesis is that meaning in life come at the conjunction of "subjective attraction" meeting "objective attractiveness". That is, she thinks that there are two basic components of meaningful life activities. She calls her view the fitting fulfillment view. "Meaning" as used in this context means when one gets fulfillment (and she gives a list of all the specific subjective states this may mean) from doing or loving something that is worthy of love and attention. The worthy part is the objective aspect. Something has to be objectively worthy for the activity or thing to be a contributor of meaning to one's life. Here she is less clear on what indicates worthiness but Wolf offers interesting suggestions. She suggests that what accurately indicates worth is an activity that all of us discover through contributing our own perspectives in an continuous dialogue to see why it is objectively worthy. All sorts of activities may be deemed as such. She suggests that the test of history may also be a good test for anything that has staying power may accurately indicate that it has something that makes it important for us to engage in (say, the activity of philosophy itself which is as old as humankind) and thus, in some sense, it may rightly be deemed objectively valuable (or at least non-subjectively valuable). One may also get meaning from loving and caring for someone worthy of being loved (such as a child, spouse, friend or parent e.g.)Wolf satisfies my questions regarding this aspect of objectivity with some further discussions in some detail of the metaphysics and metaethics of what she means by "objectivity."Most people I would imagine may simply opt for a simple fulfillment view and see no need for the objectivity criterion. They may think that whatever fulfills someone is meaningful. Meaning in life is achieved simply by finding "one's bless" as it were, whatever that maybe, even if the activity or thing is seemingly trivial to most people (such as watching grass grow) it is meaningful to that person on the simple fulfillment view. I agree with Wolf here that there needs to be an objectivity criterion so that activities that are at least clearly silly like watching grass grow is ruled out as meaningful.I think the most serious objections has been voiced in the response section at the end of her lectures. I am most in agreement with Robert Adams. Adams suggests that the subjective criterion is superfluous and only the objective criterion is required for meaningful lives. Some people may live very meaningful and interesting lives but yet gain very little personally from living such a life. They may experience constant grief, disappointment and self-doubt but objectively, they may life incredibly meaningful lives. Adams gives two examples of people living such lives. Jesus Christ and von Steuffenberg. Jesus died on the cross according to the Bible and went to the grave thinking his struggle to save humanity was a failure and yet we don't want to say that Jesus lived a life without meaning. von Steuffenberg was a real-life, patriotic German citizen who had tried repeatedly to assassinate Hitler and overthrow the Nazi regime because he believed such a regime was destroying his beloved country. He failed. We would all probably say that this person lived a very meaningful life despite the fact that his life, during his long struggles with the Nazi regime, was replete with harsh, bitter, and disappointing setbacks ending only in his death. There was, in other words, no subjective fulfillment for von Steuffenberg in any sense of the term but his life's work, despite its failures, seems (albeit tragically) very meaningful.I am not convinced of Wolf's rejoinder to Adam's criticisms defending her subjective criterion.I also have my own reservations about some principle philosophical arguments in her argument. In establishing an objective criterion, Wolf argues that one way we may distinguish truly worthy projects and things from not worthy (or less worthy) ones is through a 'proportionality" constraint. This constraint is designed to not allow activities such as a life devoted to the well-being of some goldfish as meaningful. Wolf suggests that the effort, care, and emotional commitment required to devote one's life to one goldfish may not be proportionate to the good that results (a very content goldfish if successful). However, this constraint seems to imply a hierarchy or at least a spectrum of objective worthiness. There is not simply worthy and unworthy things but things tend to be on a continuum.But this is seriously problematic if we are to construe any normativity in meaningful lives. That is, as Wolf seems to suggest, that more worthy projects and things have some normative pull away from less worthy projects and things. If devoting all one's care for the well-being of a future Nobel Peace prize winner is more meaningful than taking care of a goldfish, then her thesis seems to imply that we ought then to focus less on the goldfish so as to devote more to the well-being of the future Nobel winner. There is then a serious further implication. The normative pull may then imply that we ought to devote all our attention to only the *most worthy* activities we can establish through our collective discovering which activities are meaningful. There may be many activities that are tied for most meaningful but certainly, many activities that we engage in daily for fun would then be completely ruled out. I see no way around this implication. Her thesis seems to imply an austerity and restriction towards many life's interesting activities because it implies a pull towards the worthy away from activities that are less so but ones we none-the-less do for some personal reasons (maybe even goldfish raising). If Wolf denies that there is ant normative force towards more worthiness then it is unclear to me why she brought up the proportionality criterion in the first place and what she can muster against the goldfish fanatic.In short, I identify with Wolf's views about the objective criterion (but not the subjective criterion) but I also see significant philosophical problems with it. I am thus rather conflicted but the book does a good job of showing me my conflict. Wolf also makes an important and insightful distinction between what is meaningful and happiness and morality. Philosophers who have engaged in the question of meaning in life often assume that happiness and morality are the only two values worth considering in talking about meaningfulness in life but Wolf shows that many of our most meaningful projects may not fall under either categories. I'm not so sure about this claim but it is in interesting distinction to keep in mind.I also think that there are relevant meanings of "meaning" that ought to be covered in any work on meaning in life but has not been in this one. Wolf is certainly correct that what people mean by meaning in life or "life's meaning" is quite different that the meaning of words (semantic meaning). What people mean by "meaning in life" is something like ultimate purpose or significance or what makes life really worth living, it's highest value, etc. But some people may be thinking of something else entirely too. They may believe in something like "fate" or 'destiny" in life and think of this as the meaning of life. Of course, there is also a related hermeneutic meaning of life for many religious people who tend to think that God or some Higher Power may have some intended course for the world and that this is the meaning of life. I wish Wolf's analysis could have taken into account these alternative possible meanings of meaning even if to reject them as either untrue or not of real value to us even if true.

Wolf's premise is that meaning in life comes from a combination of a passionate involvement in what you love subjectively, and an objective worthiness in what you're loving and chasing. It is an odd book from the standpoint that Wolf is a wonderful, funny, deep writer, yet she lets a few far less talented "contributors" support and criticize her position in about 30 pages of the 130 total in the book. That's philosophy for you, if you can't prove, try to convince. I'd rather have seen 30 more pages of HER wonderful analysis!The book is an important contribution to the Psych/Philosophy interface, although Wolf is quick to point out that the book isn't intended to have practical value ("As will be seen, however, what I have to say will be of little or no practical use."- p. 3). Like most of this book, that's an overly humble understatement, the book has a LOT of practical value in thinking about why we're happy and fulfilled and why we're not. Perhaps, as an intelligent academic, she doesn't want to lower the objective value or her work to "self help", like the "silly book on sale at the cashier's desk at Barnes and Noble" (her quote) purporting to relate meaning in life to loving your passion, doing what you love and loving what you do. She is on thin ice as a philosopher daring to consider what a lot of common folk value, in her discussion of meaning. Even so, she trash talks smoking dope and Sudoku, so how far behind can chess be? Be worried, be very worried.If you have a religious or spiritual view, you probably won't like this very much. Even though the reasoning is wonderful, and the logic and examples a fun read, you might find that Susan's bending over backwards to promote "doing what you love, but making it objectively worthy", is a lot of semantic work compared to just "love God with your whole heart." (Passion, cause, something REALLY big).Wolf seems a little unaware of the Eastern side of thinking on living in the moment, freedom from attachment, nothingness and objectivity when she discusses seeing things in frames outside the ego. She also doesn't get into the Neurological side of meaning as importance projected from the brain's essential role as an affective relevance detector and projector. If we substitute importance for meaning, it supports the objective worthiness side of her coin, and as Yoeli would point out in  King Ego: Clearing The Path To Happiness , many folks on the couch complaining that their lives lack meaning really are saying that their egos are bruised because they don't feel what they are doing (or living) is important enough.Still, it's pretty courageous and impressive for a philosopher to get as deeply into a topic like meaning as Wolf does, especially considering our everyday experience of loving objects, people, processes and causes rather than just a bunch of dead old guys moving semantics around, although there is plenty of that if you love it. She talks lovingly about passions as human as making her daughter a Halloween costume, and uses that simple example to deftly smash a profound shibboleth like the dichotomous frame of "meaning has to be ego or altruism" and convincingly argues that loving simple things like gardening can be objectively worthy (in the light of extremes like Ghandi and Sisyphus with his stone). Thank God she hasn't yet associated chess with Sudoku and Sisyphus. Just teasing a little, but it is fun to watch how she and her commentators try to get their arms around objective "worthiness" with "unworthy" passions like loving your dog, loving a goldfish, breeding horses... The group is intellectually honest enough to caution about elitism in making these judgments, and there is an entire section on abstract art that covers the topic convincingly. Another wonderful line of inquiry is whether we can be passionate and get meaning without referring to happiness or morality. In this way, Wolf tries to promote meaning (feeling important?) as a standard in itself, alongside morality and happiness. From an Eastern viewpoint, we'd probably also throw peace into the parameters, values, indices and standards.This isn't as deep a read as a Margolis, but Wolf's logic and wit are sharp, and her points are deceptively profound. "Serious" philosophers (translate: egotistic old men) have already trash talked the book a little professionally as too "common" in metaphors and examples. They are right, Wolf's examples do make the book much too readable, understandable, fun, enjoyable, human and valuable than just shuttling semantics around (although there is plenty of that). Her slightly elitist criticism of Sudoku can be forgiven when we realize that she's probably hooked like the rest of us. Funny she didn't bring up watching TV. Can an author really succeed on the talk show circuit if TV doesn't give life meaning? Hmmmm. Hang on to your Kakuro book and chess set.Will this book help us find meaning in life? If our objective standard for the answer to that is reason, logic, happiness, Scripture, helping the planet, or as Arendt says, "looking back on our death bed and seeing we've been happy" -- then, because of her insights about love and passion, absolutely yes, and far more so than the majority of philosophy books out there that begin and end with semantics. Of course this is not the book's purpose, but if we can be allowed a spoiler-- Wolf's book is far more valuable than many of the "self help" books in psych AND philosophy combined. Hope her colleagues don't read this, and hope Barnes doesn't discount it up at the cashier booth or on a Starbucks table, heaven forbid we should mention practical love for gardening in a philosophy book! Highly recommended, a fun read, and an important professional contribution to a philosophy topic that is often unjustly delegated to psych or Theology by the mainstream Philo community. Philo, as in love.

I love the basic idea in this book: to have a meaningful life, find a passion for something worthwhile. Once you know the basic idea, though, you really don't need to read the book. Usually I would give a low rating to a book where all you need to know is the basic idea, but in this case the basic idea is so strong that the book is worth 5* to me. The book is short, well written, and easy to read (unlike many books written by philosophy professors), so it wouldn't hurt to read it if you want a longer explanation of the basic idea.The book does not, however, explain how to find a passion or define what is worthwhile. For those two, crucial aspects of having a meaningful life, you're on you're own. But thanks to Susan Wolf, at least you know what to look for.

This book presents an analysis of the key philosophical rationales that have been put forward through the ages to explain how and why humans lives become meaningful. Particularly useful as a device to explore these issues is the author's inclusion of essays written by other philosophers that critique the thesis she presents, thereby drawing out implications that I missed in my first pass. Reading this book requires close attention because it's written in the style of an academic philosophy seminar, but it's well worth spending the time: incoming students at Princeton University were asked to read this book so they could think about how a person's choices shape the trajectory of a life before they chose a career--and as for me, a 70-year-old man, I found this book to be a profound aid in my own reflections about the past, present and future.

Ok, by all means. Thanks.