Scan barcode
A review by nghia
Meaning in Life and Why It Matters: by Susan R. Wolf, Nomy Arpaly, John Koethe, Jonathan Haidt, Robert M. Adams
3.0
I first came across Wolf's theories on meaning in life (not the meaning of life) in Todd May's [b:A Significant Life: Human Meaning in a Silent Universe|22859686|A Significant Life Human Meaning in a Silent Universe|Todd May|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1418873464l/22859686._SY75_.jpg|42427570] where I wasn't especially convinced by his exposition on them. So I decided to go to the source. I really liked the structure of the book (and wish more non-fiction followed it). Wolf puts out her theory in two (not especially long) chapters. Then there are replies from four other people offering respectful criticism. Then Wolf responds to them in a final chapter.
Overall I really like the tone of Wolf and her contributors. Wolf doesn't push her theory too far -- frequently pointing out the flaws, gaps, and short-comings. The other contributors disagree with her in many ways but without the vitriol that has become all too common in our modern world.
Despite liking the tone & structure, Wolf's core thesis left me unconvinced. On the surface, it has a lot of intuitive appeal. As you dig deeper some many questions come up that you it begins to feel less like "okay, we'll fix one or two small problems but the overall argument is still fine" and more like "jeez, there are so many problems, I'm losing faith in the foundations of this effort".
To some extent, I think Wolf is okay with that. She frequently states that she's trying to start a conversation that barely exists within philosophy about meaning. Even if her theories are ultimately discarded but the conversation moves on, I think she would call that a victory of sorts.
She also frequently states that her real, primary goal isn't to defend this specific definition of meaningfulness in life but simply to show that there is more to life than morality and happiness.
I'm not sure anyone but philosophers really need to be convinced about that, so it isn't something the average reader is going to care about. I'm not sure even philosophers really believe it, so much as distilling human life down to just two things (often in tension) makes certain things easier to write about.
Wolf starts from the common popular claims about "do what you love" (a subjective path to meaning) and "be part of something bigger than yourself" (an objective path to meaning). Instead of taking them separately she combines into a single thing, roughly "do something you love that is bigger than yourself". But that initial, naive statement begins to show all the problems down this path.
There's a lot of current talk about how terrible "do what you love" is as advice. Things like pride, craftsmanship, doing what you're good at...all seem to be more important. In her concluding chapter Wolf realizes this problem.
Leaving aside the specific word chosen (was Oskar Schindler "fulfilled" or "excited" by activities?) to make matters worse, no one pretends that meaningful activities meet any of those criteria at every moment. There will always be long periods of boredom, disillusion, and so on. So what are we even talking about in the end?
When we turn to the "objective" side, the problems are even more numerous. Wolf is primarily concerned to have some criteria "outside of one's self". But is taking care of a single person somehow clearly better than taking care of one's self? What about taking care of two people? Is there some numerical threshold? What if there are clashes in the definition of value? What if one sub-group says something is valuable and another doesn't (say, white supremacists versus black civil rights advocates)? Wolf also leaves open the possibility that one can believe future generations will see the value, even if current ones don't. But what if you're wrong about that?
Again, I just feel...what are we even talking about anymore at this point? It is hard to feel much confidence that we are even on the right track with all of this.
Through much of her book I was continually frustrated by her typical philosopher's stance of never getting out in the real world. Get out from behind your desk! Partner with some psychologists of sociologists! Get some grant money! Go interview people about meaningfulness in life! See if any of your theories actually match up with the real world!
So it is little surprise that the reply I found most convincing was the one from non-philosopher Jonathan Haidt who is unconvinced about this quest for "objective value" and thinks that simple "vital engagement" along with "hive psychology" is a better foundation.
But I think his best arguments are about hive psychology. So much of western philosophy takes this very atomistic, hyper-rational approach to humanity that is completely at odds with the actual reality of humans as one of the only hyper-social species on the planet. We are more like bees and ants than a troupe of 10 chimpanzees.
From this perspective, Haidt argues the "how big question" becomes very relevant and "objective value" becomes less relevant. What matters to meaningfulness in life is being part of a relatively large group -- almost regardless of what their goals are. Of course, that opens up another can of worms. But, going back to Wolf's original goal that meaningfulness is a separate, and distinct, value from morality...there's nothing that says a meaningful life is a good (in the sense of good vs evil) life.
Overall I really like the tone of Wolf and her contributors. Wolf doesn't push her theory too far -- frequently pointing out the flaws, gaps, and short-comings. The other contributors disagree with her in many ways but without the vitriol that has become all too common in our modern world.
Despite liking the tone & structure, Wolf's core thesis left me unconvinced. On the surface, it has a lot of intuitive appeal. As you dig deeper some many questions come up that you it begins to feel less like "okay, we'll fix one or two small problems but the overall argument is still fine" and more like "jeez, there are so many problems, I'm losing faith in the foundations of this effort".
To some extent, I think Wolf is okay with that. She frequently states that she's trying to start a conversation that barely exists within philosophy about meaning. Even if her theories are ultimately discarded but the conversation moves on, I think she would call that a victory of sorts.
She also frequently states that her real, primary goal isn't to defend this specific definition of meaningfulness in life but simply to show that there is more to life than morality and happiness.
In offering an account of meaning, I have been mainly concerned to bring out and illuminate this dimension of value in a life, distinct as it is from both happiness and morality.
I'm not sure anyone but philosophers really need to be convinced about that, so it isn't something the average reader is going to care about. I'm not sure even philosophers really believe it, so much as distilling human life down to just two things (often in tension) makes certain things easier to write about.
Wolf starts from the common popular claims about "do what you love" (a subjective path to meaning) and "be part of something bigger than yourself" (an objective path to meaning). Instead of taking them separately she combines into a single thing, roughly "do something you love that is bigger than yourself". But that initial, naive statement begins to show all the problems down this path.
There's a lot of current talk about how terrible "do what you love" is as advice. Things like pride, craftsmanship, doing what you're good at...all seem to be more important. In her concluding chapter Wolf realizes this problem.
In my lectures, I used a variety of terms to refer to the subjective dimension of meaningfulness: in addition to fulfillment, I spoke of subjective attraction, of being gripped or excited by one's projects and activities, and of loving them. Though there are connections and overlaps between these psychological conditions, they are hardly synonymous.
Leaving aside the specific word chosen (was Oskar Schindler "fulfilled" or "excited" by activities?) to make matters worse, no one pretends that meaningful activities meet any of those criteria at every moment. There will always be long periods of boredom, disillusion, and so on. So what are we even talking about in the end?
When we turn to the "objective" side, the problems are even more numerous. Wolf is primarily concerned to have some criteria "outside of one's self". But is taking care of a single person somehow clearly better than taking care of one's self? What about taking care of two people? Is there some numerical threshold? What if there are clashes in the definition of value? What if one sub-group says something is valuable and another doesn't (say, white supremacists versus black civil rights advocates)? Wolf also leaves open the possibility that one can believe future generations will see the value, even if current ones don't. But what if you're wrong about that?
[...] the day may come when others will understand and value it. [...] these last examples show that the relation [with something of value] may be indirect, perhaps even metaphorical.
Again, I just feel...what are we even talking about anymore at this point? It is hard to feel much confidence that we are even on the right track with all of this.
Through much of her book I was continually frustrated by her typical philosopher's stance of never getting out in the real world. Get out from behind your desk! Partner with some psychologists of sociologists! Get some grant money! Go interview people about meaningfulness in life! See if any of your theories actually match up with the real world!
So it is little surprise that the reply I found most convincing was the one from non-philosopher Jonathan Haidt who is unconvinced about this quest for "objective value" and thinks that simple "vital engagement" along with "hive psychology" is a better foundation.
Wolf bets everything on the existence, or at least intelligibility, of objective value. I would bet against her.
But I think his best arguments are about hive psychology. So much of western philosophy takes this very atomistic, hyper-rational approach to humanity that is completely at odds with the actual reality of humans as one of the only hyper-social species on the planet. We are more like bees and ants than a troupe of 10 chimpanzees.
But what would happen if we thought that the fundamental unit of society was not the individual but the group?
From this perspective, Haidt argues the "how big question" becomes very relevant and "objective value" becomes less relevant. What matters to meaningfulness in life is being part of a relatively large group -- almost regardless of what their goals are. Of course, that opens up another can of worms. But, going back to Wolf's original goal that meaningfulness is a separate, and distinct, value from morality...there's nothing that says a meaningful life is a good (in the sense of good vs evil) life.