For centuries on end, people have been trying to cognize and comprehend the essence of their existence in the world. The mystery of the meaning of life has been representing an everlasting challenge for those who give it a thought and philosophers have been striving to solve the riddle of the purport of life, each in his way, never achieving an answer which could be universal for the whole humankind. Among the seekers of the sense of life was the American metaphysician Robert Taylor, whose essay “The Meaning of Life” addresses the title issue in a thought-provoking way that involves a negative proof: in his search for meaningfulness Taylor goes from meaninglessness to meaning, and the latter is claimed to be dual thus dividing into subjective and objective meaning.
Contemplating the meaning of life, Taylor assumes that initially, life does not possess a meaning bestowed from without it comes from within, from living beings themselves, depending on what value they ascribe to their activities (28). The whole process of existence is compared by the philosopher to the famous legend about Sisyphus, who rolls endlessly a heavy stone up the hill — an activity never ceasing and leading to no result. The absence of result constitutes, according to Taylor, the absence of any objective meaning to Sisyphus’s activity, as his labors come to nothing (21). Does this mean that Sisyphus’s life, and in a broader sense, all life on earth is devoid of meaning at all? Answering this question, Taylor provides a ray of hope by stating that however senseless one’s activities may seem from an objective point of view, still, meaningfulness could “make an appearance” on condition that Sisyphus attaches personal importance to what he is doing, e.g. is driven by a “strange irrational impulse”, a “perverse desire to do something [objectively] pointless” (22). As soon as Sisyphus himself feels a desire to do precisely what he has been doomed to do due to objective circumstances, his activities and life, on the whole, acquires a mission and meaning of his fate (Taylor 22). Thus develops the concept of ‘subjective meaning’, which can be described as the personal importance ascribed by the doer to his activities.
Continuing his development of the ‘subjective meaning’ idea, Taylor envisages the whole range of diverse forms of life that are involved in ex fact ‘meaningless’ (i.e., devoid of objective meaning) actions that nevertheless constitute the meaning of life to those who accomplish them. Luminous worms inhabiting caves in New Zealand spend months in the damp environment, only to transform into an insect living a couple of days and dying after having laid a portion of eggs which in their turn will repeat the endless cycle of existence; fish and birds cover immense distances and overcome obstacles on the way, simply to ensure their future generations will do the same; people involved in daily activities mainly directed at “establishing and perpetuating home and family” (Taylor 23-24). All living beings take pains to achieve certain minor goals, most of which are transitory as upon accomplishment one sets forth for the next aims (Taylor 24). Thus, Taylor concludes, “the point of any living thing’s life is, evidently, nothing but life itself” (24).
Advancing from such definition of purpose and meaning of life, assuming that most activities are more appearances than perpetual achievements and judging them from the long-term perspective, Taylor arrives at the idea that if life since a value is nothing but itself then it can acquire no objective meaning, as it is quite impossible to create or attain something that would last long enough to be called objectively meaningful (24-25). Moreover, objective meaning is not only unattainable; it is also undesirable because even pursuing an activity which as a result has an accomplishment everlasting and perpetual, having achieved the desired goal one is left to rest and forever enjoy the result — and that would mean eternal boredom with lack in the meaning of existence expressed in constant strive for new accomplishments (Taylor 26).
However, at this point, Taylor’s contemplations become vague and lack grounding, as there emerges a question of what it ‘long enough’ according to the philosopher — a lifespan of a nation, a millennium, or eternity? The essay never answers it, as well as it does not reveal the ‘judge’ who should estimate the value of achievements against an objective scale. For certain large groups of living beings, one activity constitutes ‘objective meaning’ (or, rather, objective necessity); others see the objective meaning in something else. Taylor’s theory finds itself at a dead end: in fact, there cannot be any sufficient definition of objective meaning as it is unknown who should formulate the objective meaning of life if everything created by people is characterized by a high level of subjectivity. For one thing, whether a vast accumulation of subjective opinions results in the emergence of objective one is dubious; for another thing, the necessity for objective meaning is questionable, as if it does not reflect the interests and values of certain individuals, then it is no longer objective for them.
Being a fatalist, Taylor relies on the idea that “human actions and decisions have no influence on the future” and making a change is quite impossible as life is merely going with some cosmic flow” (qtd. in Ryerson). The value and meaning of things are considered such in so far as things are to be done and one possesses the will to accomplish them (Taylor 28). In saying so and adding the consideration that even worms are carrying on their seemingly meaningless activity with determination and will that impart value and meaning to that activity, Taylor evokes another problematic issue of whether all living beings possess a will and a conscious understanding of what ‘should be done (27). If by ‘will’ Taylor means instinct, then the meaning of worm’s activity becomes objective, as instinct is an objective quality conferred on animals by nature. Humankind still possesses insufficient knowledge of the presence of will in animals to fully and comprehensively answer that question.
For all their imperfections, which are inevitable in any theory produced by the human mind, Taylor’s views on life and its meaning still possess a core of good sense. Due to peculiarities of human nature, which is subjective in most cases, it appears quite impossible to establish any objective values, meanings, or other qualities of life: one can think of speculative concepts, but anyway they would be a product of the subjective mind. Thus it appears reasonable to seek the answers to the major issues of existence in the sphere of subjective, which is successfully done by Taylor. To his contemplations on the meaning of life consisting in life itself, it remains to add that there can exist a borderline case between objective and subjective meaning: when one’s activities are valued not only by oneself but also by others, life acquires an objective meaning formed by the accumulation of subjective opinion.
Works Cited
Ryerson, James. “Consider the Philosopher”. The New York Times. 2008: MM34.
Taylor, Richard. “The Meaning of Life”. Life, death & meaning: key philosophical readings on the big questions. Ed. David Benatar. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2004. 19-28.