Imagine a world in which the vast majority of people are devoid of passion, ambition, and creativity. All they think about is comfort, security, some pleasures in the morning and some pleasures at night, just enough to be distracted from the emptiness of their existence. Any person who expresses a desire for greatness and standing out is ridiculed and laughed at, as conformity to the herd characterized by stagnation and mediocrity is the norm.
The herd is complacent, without a sense of purpose or direction beyond maintaining their daily routines and satisfying their most basic needs. Such a world resembles Nietzsche’s society of the “Last Man,” a sad state of affairs that he feared to be the consequence of religious decline. Nietzsche stated: The earth has become small, and on it hops the Last Man, who makes everything small.
His species is ineradicable as the flea; the Last Man lives longest. “We have discovered happiness” – say the Last Men, and they blink. End quote.
Looking at today’s circumstances, the experience of meaninglessness seems to be widespread. As Nietzsche had predicted, the decline of religion has created a void. For many, there’s no clear, indisputable goal in life anymore.
There’s no all-encompassing, superhuman authority – an undeniable creator – that decides what’s good or bad and how we should live and, thus, provides us with ultimate meaning. And so, indeed, it seems that many are lost. “What’s my purpose?
” people ask. Many try to forget the pointlessness of it all by indulging in sensual pleasure, like drinking, partying, and binge-watching series. Others stick with their religions despite their decline and the scientific claims in conflict with them or flock to new religious movements for guidance.
And some embrace the idea that we’re here for no reason, that there’s no one to save us, and ultimate morality is non-existent. Nonetheless, they want to thrive but are unsure how. And others can’t take the meaninglessness of their lives anymore and call it quits.
Philosophers have been dealing with the problem of meaninglessness for centuries. Their ideas about life (or how to live well in a meaningless universe) could be valuable to those struggling with a lack of meaning in their lives. Can we live well as humans when life has no inherent purpose?
According to several philosophers: yes, we can. And, according to some, we should. After all, if life loses meaning, there’s still life.
This video explores different ways by different philosophers to combat meaninglessness. The impact of traditional religious ideas is waning as we move closer toward modernity. Søren Kierkegaard, a Danish philosopher, noted this pattern and realized how it would affect people’s sense of meaning and purpose.
He observed that as religious belief declined, people were left to face existential dilemmas independently without the support that one could find in religion. According to Kierkegaard, we cannot find true meaning and purpose in the realm of reason. Instead, we must commit to a specific belief system, even though this decision is irrational, defying logic and reason.
For Kierkegaard, this “leap of faith” meant an embrace of religious life, a belief in God (and commitment to God) despite the irrationality and contradictions from a purely logical perspective. Through this embrace, one transcends the chaos of meaninglessness, the many existential questions that could never be answered, and the persisting doubt of why we are here and what we should do. Again, it may not be the most logical and rational decision.
Still, according to Kierkegaard’s view, when we place ultimate trust and confidence in God and embrace a religious value system, we solve the problems of despair and meaninglessness. But, such a step involves radical trust in the unknown – it requires faith. Also, it demands us to part with logic and reason, which many people aren’t willing to do.
Especially in the Western World, after people have been collectively distancing themselves from religion, they might not be too eager to return to it as a means to solve their existential angst. So, can’t we overcome life’s meaninglessness without a belief in God? “What’s left to do when life is pointless?
” so thought an adolescent woman, lounging in her cozy living room, about to watch her favorite TV show, the same show her friends and colleagues watch and talk about on social media. Even though she thoroughly enjoyed the show, while eating a bag of potato chips, she felt that emptiness afterward; a sensation cutting through the bone, which she had learned to suppress simply by engaging in another pleasure. Then, Zarathustra appeared, interrupting her endless cycle of shallow pursuits.
He gazed into her eyes and saw the unfulfilled potential within her. He said her feelings of emptiness result from a lack of strong meaning and ambition and that short-term pleasures will never solve this. Instead, she should create her own meaning in life and forge her own path.
Among many others, the woman had personified the “Last Man,” an archetype created by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche: a consequence of religious decline and the lack of purpose that arose from it. The Last Man is characterized by indifference, self-satisfaction, and an absence of ambition, creative spirit, and purpose; he has regressed into a mere pleasure-seeking creature amidst a stagnant mass of meek, complacent zombies. Nietzsche’s solution to the problem of meaninglessness lies in becoming an “Übermensch” or “Overman,” which we explored more in-depth in a previous video.
But, in short, Nietzsche saw the Overman as an individual who creates their own values and meaning, rejecting the herd mentality and conventional morality and shaping his own destiny. He didn’t specifically describe a single ‘purpose’ one should follow, implying that it’s up to the individual to determine. But we could assume that it’s one considered significant enough to dedicate one’s life to, be it a work of art, scientific discovery, or philosophical insight.
Not so different from Kierkegaard, Nietzsche’s idea of meaning lies in one’s dedication to something bigger, albeit not in religion but in something authentically belonging to ourselves – God is dead, after all, Nietzsche proclaimed. When we examine our surroundings, we discover that most objects – or human inventions, if you will – have been created for a reason. Take, for example, a fork.
This tableware has been invented for a purpose, namely, to simplify the act of eating. But could we say this of a human being as well? Were we, like the fork, designed with a specific purpose in mind?
The idea that “existence precedes essence” captures Jean-Paul Sartre’s belief that we are born without a predefined purpose and that it is up to us to define our own meaning in life. The existentialist philosophy of this French philosopher emphasizes the freedom and responsibility of each individual to establish their own standards, objectives, and meaning. As we don’t have a predestined purpose when we’re born, we’re like empty canvasses waiting to be filled, which is a purpose ascribed to ourselves.
Sartre believed that people are inherently free and capable of making decisions that mold their lives and give them meaning. This freedom can be a double-edged sword, though, as it means that we are fully accountable for our decisions and the results that come from those decisions. Sartre stated: “He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself.
Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing – as he wills to be after that leap towards existence.
Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism. ” End quote.
From Sartre’s viewpoint, unlike the fork, we aren’t designed with a purpose. But, quite tragically, perhaps, humans tend to long intensely for it. Unfortunately, the seemingly indifferent universe doesn’t provide us with a universal meaning or purpose that could satisfy this longing, which can be both liberating and terrifying.
Only after accepting this inherent human lack of purpose can we take responsibility for our lives and confidently create authentic and personal meaning. But, in doing so, we should always mind the consequences for ourselves and others, according to Sartre. “Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does,” Sartre stated, implying both the blessing and burden of the human condition.
Viktor Frankl, an Austrian psychiatrist, and Holocaust survivor, presented a unique perspective on the search for meaning in his groundbreaking book, “Man’s Search for Meaning. ” Frankl, through his intense suffering, came to a profound realization that it was meaning, rather than pleasure or power, that was the true driving force behind human action. His view on how we, as humans, acquire this meaning is different from the existentialist viewpoints of Nietzsche and Sartre, who both encourage us to “create” meaning.
According to Frankl, meaning “ensues” from our engagement with the world and our response to the circumstances we find ourselves in. He believed that even in the most challenging and seemingly hopeless situations, we can still discover meaning by taking responsibility for our choices, attitudes, and actions. In other words, it’s not about the circumstances themselves but how we choose to respond to them that ultimately determines the meaning we derive from life.
An example of this he finds in his horrible experiences in the concentration camps when, at some point, one’s destiny is to suffer. In that situation, accepting and enduring this suffering becomes one’s task, wherein the meaning lies hidden. Frankl calls this a unique opportunity in which a person can choose how he will bear his burden.
Similarly, we could apply this finding of meaning in suffering to illness, going through a breakup, or, for example, a loss of a loved one. So, we don’t create meaning, according to Frankl, but we find meaning in our circumstances. “Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather must recognize that it is he who is asked.
In a word, each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for his own life; to life he can only respond by being responsible. ” End quote. Drwing on his experiences in Nazi concentration camps, Frankl developed a therapeutic approach called ‘logotherapy,’ which posits that our primary motivation in life is to find meaning rather than seek pleasure or avoid pain.
His theory of logotherapy proposes that we can discover meaning in three ways. Firstly, through creating a work or doing a deed – our professional pursuits, hobbies, and contributions to society. Then, there’s the meaning to be found in love: by experiencing something – a piece of art, nature, or another person – we can find meaning.
And most profoundly, in our attitudes in the face of unavoidable suffering. Albert Camus, a French-Algerian philosopher, considered life to be inherently meaningless. As he observed the world around him, he noticed that the human desire to find meaning often clashed with the irrational and indifferent nature of the universe.
The universe seems not to provide meaning at all, but at the same time, human beings crave meaning. This confrontation, according to Camus, is the essence of the Absurd. The tragic pursuit of meaning in a meaningless universe could make people despair.
And so Camus proposed three ways to respond to this despair: physical suicide, philosophical suicide, and acceptance. “There is only one really serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide,” wrote Albert Camus in his essay “The Myth of Sisyphus. ” Camus saw the act of suicide as a natural response to the Absurd.
Stating this shows the urgency of this philosophical problem and the seriousness of the question of meaning. After all, it’s a matter that could lead to people ending their lives. Then, he distinguished “philosophical suicide,” which is the utterly tempting adoption of a belief system; it’s the “leap of faith,” Kierkegaard wrote about but, according to Camus, a means to escape the Absurd.
Both physical and philosophical suicide Camus saw as the rejection of freedom that the Absurd gives us. Hence, he proposed a third way, which is acceptance and revolt. Through acceptance and revolt, we remain aware of the discrepancy between the meaning-craving human and the meaningless universe and don’t try to sugarcoat this reality.
At the same time, Camus urges us to reject the search and hope for meaning and live lucidly in the present moment by focusing on life itself, like having a good time with friends, eating a nice meal, going for a run, whatever it takes not to fall into the trap of despair and the eventual attempt to escape the Absurd. That’s the revolt, the rebellion against the Absurd, to live well despite it. Camus took inspiration from the Greek myth of Sisyphus, who was condemned to eternally push a boulder up a hill, only for it to roll back down each time it neared the top.
He argued that, despite the apparent futility of Sisyphus’s task, one could imagine him finding joy in his labor. Similarly to Sisyphus, we can embrace the Absurd by living our lives with passion and intensity, despite our predicament. When the universe grants us no ultimate meaning of life, despite our desire and pursuits to establish it, then what’s left is life.
In that case, what else can we do than live it? Thank you for watching.
