1

This may be a very basic question but I haven’t seen it arise here at stack exchange, so I thought I’d ask.

Do humans necessarily have purpose or meaning? Can we function without it?

If not, then how do we explain people who claim to get along just fine without it (as well as those who don’t get along so well)? How could we justify to such people that they in fact have, need and/or are seeking purpose/meaning in their lives?

If we can get along without it, then why do some feel the need for it so strongly and/or claim everyone has or needs it?

Brian Connelly
  • 31
  • 4
  • Could you focus your question by focusing on the one thing you care about most? Such as: "Assuming there is no external purpose, and humans can function without...". Else answers need to cover too many possible cases. – tkruse Apr 17 '22 at 09:16
  • This question seems similar https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/45103 – tkruse Apr 17 '22 at 09:19
  • It might also help if you could explain why this question is interesting to you. – tkruse Apr 17 '22 at 09:19
  • I left it open intentionally, as I’m trying to sort out three questions really: do people necessarily have/need purpose, if so how do we know that, if not how do they function without it? – Brian Connelly Apr 17 '22 at 13:24
  • 1
    After answering [a question on the nature of values](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/90639/what-are-personal-values-more-exactly/90652#90652), I got to thinking, perhaps *meaning* is *that subset of values one designates to survive oneself*. Presumably, as a person faces death or its reminders, that person places greater emphasis on which values are the designated survivors. Yet some persons, whether from faith, nihilism, personality, or otherwise, may not worry about the future, instead staying focused on the values of the now. – Michael Apr 18 '22 at 07:06
  • We don't need purpose and meaning. They are egoic delusions. – Scott Rowe Apr 20 '22 at 10:57

2 Answers2

2

In this context, meaning is essentially a long-term, or persistent, goal or aim. These, in turn, are more or less desires to change or maintain some state of affairs. One question is whether or why some have while others lack such desires. Another question is whether a person can be happy without having such desires.

If a person were to live in pure reaction, without long-term goal or plan, presumably the only meaning or purpose would be that implied by one's nature. In such "pursuit", one's purpose is essentially deferred to instinct. If one has faith that instinct knows the way, perhaps one can be happy in this path.

Moving away from pure instinct, one might defer purpose to ideology, religion, or God. A further option is allowing another person or group -- say a charismatic leader -- to guide the way. If one should fully trust the wisdom of someone or something else, why worry about the meaning of it all?

But for those poor souls having high need for cognition, a more involved approach may beckon. These creatures may be left to ask the hard questions, wanting to know the whats and whys of life and universe. Should one choose a belief system, that system must be understood in-depth. Purpose may become a deep personal affair.

The thing is, meaning is perhaps always present, even if only per instinct; yet it seems not everyone desires to dissect or systemise meaning. The technical difference may be one of instrumental depth, or how far removed or abstracted a goal or aim is from raw instinct.

For example, say we have two men of opposite persuasion who both desire to reproduce. On the one end, man A sows his oats and is thereafter fully satisfied. He feels good, and the job is done. On the other end, man B decides he has to find the perfect mate, after various schooling, followed by finding the right position in the right area. Then, after the children are born, he feels the strong need to help arrange the right schools, followed by seeking to provide guidance and other support for as long as possible.

In the first case, minimal instrumental depth is partaken; while in the latter, maximal. Both cases involve meaning. Both times instinct is the driver. But only one involves extensive cognitive consideration. Naturally we would expect most people to take a more middle road on their instinct-instrumental continua.

Heuristically, a correlation might exist between high instrumental abstraction and long-term thinking; yet in theory, these traits are independent.

On the topic of whether we can function without meaning, an important predicament ought be mentioned. If a person thinks long-enough-term, or with sufficient abstraction, sometimes conventional goals can appear or become futile. For example, if one's goal is to have an everlasting legacy, the thought of the Sun burning out may create a barrier in one's aim. In cases like this, a long-term minded person may need to modify or abandon certain plans and expectations, which may leave one wanting of purpose. Generally, these types of problems begin cropping up when we start questioning instinct -- when we seek too much certainty, or otherwise abandon faith.

Michael
  • 1,221
  • 1
  • 7
  • 13
  • This is precisely the sort of response I was looking for. I’ll take the time to further consider this and see if I come up with any new questions. Thank you! – Brian Connelly Apr 17 '22 at 13:27
  • In the meantime do you have any references you’d recommend? – Brian Connelly Apr 17 '22 at 13:27
  • @BrianConnelly -- This answer uses ideas from all over; but at the moment, I might recommend [terror management theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory). – Michael Apr 17 '22 at 13:44
  • I think that if people cognize enough they must realize that very little is in one's personal control, perhaps 1% of what confronts us. If people study past responses of humans to all the kinds of things that happen, they must realize that the various responses usually don't help or succeed only by luck. Yielding to despair makes everything worse and harms others, so, as the little blue book said, "cheerfulness must be the rule." There is no viable alternative than to do one's best and go forward. Not sure why there is any debate. – Scott Rowe Apr 19 '22 at 23:22
  • @ScottRowe -- The reality of personal control may be limited, but the desire for control, or [Will to Power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_to_power), seems unbounded. Practically it makes sense to want one's efforts not to be wasted, so it makes sense to seek persistence, whether in genetic, cultural, or material legacy. As mentioned in my other comment, desire for meaning seems to be desire for having *something we value*, which presumably we contributed to during our lifetime, *outlive our person*. Reminders of death remind us to check for that special something, our designated purpose. – Michael Apr 20 '22 at 02:22
  • It seems to me that people don't realize that their human scale efforts take place with a much larger background: persistent things will be destroyed by forces in the universe, and contributions will be utterly forgotten in probably 100 to 200 years. If roughly 30 billion humans have been born so far, what proportion have we no information about whatsoever? It seems to me that these considerations would help us decide what is worth doing while we are alive. Deluded ideas of permanence or influence are most likely a big part of human problems. Didn't people say all this like 3000 years ago? – Scott Rowe Apr 20 '22 at 10:52
  • I guess what I'm saying is: *face the despair and futility right away*. Then get over yourself and contribute, but not out of ego or delusion. – Scott Rowe Apr 20 '22 at 10:55
  • @ScottRowe -- Is it inherently wrong to seek actions with longer-term benefit, assuming a noble cause? Might consideration of meaning act as a mental exercise toward that aim? – Michael Apr 20 '22 at 12:20
  • Sure, help people now, help people in the future. But when we think abstractly in terms of values, morals, goals, causes etc. then I suspect that we lose the thread. Just look at a prospective action and do it, or not and move on. Purpose is an abstraction. It is more straightforward to consider what one likes to do, then do that in a way that is helpful. If everything you like is harmful, then find some new likes. – Scott Rowe Apr 20 '22 at 18:18
  • @ScottRowe -- One must consider an important role of abstraction in decision making. As talked about in [my answer to another question](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/90220/is-winning-competition-inherently-unethical/90225#90225), abstraction can be key in resolving moral dilemmas, or cases where two immediate values cannot be satisfied simultaneously. For example, if one desires to help others now, but doing so would result in less total help long-term, one has a moral dilemma. Should one use honest premises and sound logic, can the use of abstraction here be inherently bad? – Michael Apr 22 '22 at 10:37
  • I think I would need to be confronted with an actual situation, then I would just choose what seemed best at the time. For example, I was vegetarian for more than a decade, but experienced various health issues at one point, not all related to diet, and found that I felt massively better eating some meat. So, having better health and energy made most of my life better, and me more able to work and help. But me withholding that from myself probably wouldn't have made even one animal's life longer or better. Some better solution must be found, and it's not my job description. Done. – Scott Rowe Apr 22 '22 at 13:21
  • Sorry to reply so late, I'm still figuring out how to use this site. I'm familiar with TMT and, after I reflected on your responses again I can see how TMT definitely has something to say regarding meaning in life. In particular your comments regarding a person's need for cognition and Leontiev's six "levels of logic". – Brian Connelly May 01 '22 at 21:44
1

While the meaning of life may be a matter of philosophy or theology, the common search for it might be rather a matter of psychology.

It would seem to me that human life regularly has personal crisis, such as the midlife or quarter life crisis. Or regular events like death of a close person. Those are times when previous life choices are regularly questioned and new decisions must be made involving lots of uncertainty about the future.

That leads to similar mental pressures in many people and similar coping mechanism. Some coping mechanisms, when seemingly successful in some way, would then be shared and spread in society like other memes. One might also argue that this makes individuals susceptible to all kind of profiteers, the tobacco industry, big pharma, esoteric cults.

This view would not indicate a need for meaning common to all humans, but rather an economic demand in many humans in certain situations of life.

tkruse
  • 3,397
  • 6
  • 21