The supreme value of human existence is often expressed in the form of an ultimate goal to which all private human interests and needs are subordinated. Among the many approaches to the solution of this complex problem, three main ones can be distinguished. Some people believe that the meaning of life is intrinsic to life in its deepest religious foundations. Others are convinced that it is to promote progress, to participate in the reorganization of the world on the principles of goodness and justice. Finally, there is also a point of view according to which people themselves create the meaning of life. By understanding the content and direction of life and their place in the world, people can judge that their existence has justification.
Many modern conceptions of the meaning of life date back to ideas of the past. Moreover, these beliefs, being an integral part of the spiritual culture of society, cannot be fruitfully researched in isolation from the socio-cultural situation that gave rise to them. The latter refers to the worldviews of a particular society and a particular historical era, with their stereotypes, values, and problems. Most people find the meaning of life in religion; for example, the Bible says that it is the soul’s salvation. However, since there is no conclusive evidence for the existence of God at this time, there is a possibility that he does not exist. Therefore, viewing people’s existence from an atheistic perspective is rational.
Today, the problems confronting philosophical anthropology and existentialism in the first third of the twentieth century cannot yet be called quite extinct; on the contrary, their acuteness is only increasing. The circle of questions of meaning and life generated by the spiritual turning point of the century remains as pressing today as ever. Philosophical anthropology and existentialist philosophy, united, become a common source and a solid foundation for uncovering the problem of man’s search for the meaning of life in its multidimensionality. This is why existential anthropology is an ontology of the human being, for which the central idea is the doctrine of the meaning of human existence, the possibility of its comprehension and understanding.
The views on what justifies human existence vary depending on what philosophy one holds. For example, followers of Tolstoy would be convinced that nonviolence and the service of God are ways to be happy. Others would disagree, saying that according to the ethics of objectivism, everyone should live solely for himself, thus quoting Ayn Rand (4). Some would turn to Schopenhauer and say that justification for human existence can only be found in creativity. Despite this ambiguity of opinion, one cannot but agree that the study of different philosophical trends can bring one closer to an understanding of the meaning of life.
For all existentialists, including Sartre, human existence is a completely unique reality to which no non-human yardstick of cause and effect is applicable. The philosopher believed that the external does not have power over man. The principle of Sartre’s existentialism is that people are responsible not only for themselves but for all people (29). In order to find out any truth about himself, one must go through the other. Thus, the other is necessary for man’s existence and self-knowledge. In this way, a man discovers a whole world called the inter-subject. Only in this inter-subjective world is it possible to understand one’s being.
Martin Heidegger was convinced that an understanding of being always exists, but it remains vague. In the concept of being, only its delimitation from the objective, empirical world, the world of being, is definite, and everything else is quite shaky and indefinite. According to Heidegger’s ontology (56), the question of existence implies a question posed by a being about existence. The ineffectiveness of the traditional inquiry of being is overcome by the philosopher’s analysis of the one who can ask. This can be an entity that is being and, at the same time, someone who reflects on being. The philosopher denotes the latter by the existential possibility of questioning on the part of the Da-sein. Heidegger refers to the structure of human existence in its entirety as care (297). Consequently, Martin Heidegger understood the meaning of human existence as Da-sein, the main characteristic of which was care.
Auguste Comte’s philosophy was based on his desire to generalize the exact and natural sciences’ achievements. He wanted to bring them together in a certain system and hierarchy and thus establish a connection between the subjects of the individual sciences (Comte 228). Each of the sciences explains facts and phenomena from a particular area of human knowledge, clarifies connections and regularities, derives laws and formulas. However, according to Comte (64), the need was ripe to make some final generalization of all the achieved knowledge, and it was this role that was assigned to positivism. The latter evolved into a philosophical doctrine that regarded the practical experience as the only source of reliable knowledge and denied the theoretical value of the scientific investigation. Since it is impossible to establish reliably what the meaning of human life is through practical research, in the author’s opinion, it is not worth searching for solutions to this problem.
The original Turing Test examines the peculiarities of computer implementation of dialogic intelligence, the form of thinking required to organize a coherent conversation with an interlocutor on any topic. When systems are tested for common sense, they are bound to fail the test because they are only capable of implementing the developers’ obsessions and have no internal mechanisms for knowledge growth. Turing believed that the idea of intelligence itself is emotional, not mathematical (434). The degree to which people perceive something as intelligent behavior is determined by their own state of mind. In this sense, the validity of life is a category about which only humans can reason according to the peculiarities of the brain (435). Thus, because of the limitations of the mind, the chance of discovering the answer is extremely small.
Wittgenstein’s answer to the meaning of life was that its essence lies in man’s ethical journey. Because life is self-evident and open to the human eye, people tend to neglect it. In his view, those who constantly ask why are reminiscent of tourists who, instead of enjoying the beauty of a building, prefer to read the guidebook of the place where they are. The philosopher respects the attempts to find the meaning of life, though he acknowledges their hopelessness (Wittgenstein 18). He does not say that one should give up the search for answers, nor does he ridicule them. But in his understanding, there is a certain futility in this, which follows from human nature and the peculiarities of human thinking.
The simplest way to justify the importance of life is through religion, namely the belief that the creation of human beings is God’s plan. However, in the absence of direct evidence of God’s existence, people have to look for other arguments. Reference to the works of philosophers reveals that the tendency to search for the meaning of life is only a property of the human brain. However, most authors agree that caring for others and ethical behavior make life meaningful.
Works Cited
Comte, Auguste. The Positive Philosophy. Batoche Books, 2000.
Heidegger, Martin. Sein and Zeit. SCM Press, 1962.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism is a Humanism. Methuen & Co, 1948.
Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness. New American Library, 1964.
Turing, Alan Mathison. “Computing Machinery and Intelligence.” Mind, vol. 59, no. 236, 1950, pp. 433–460.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig Josef Johann. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Trübner & Co, 1922.