essay about philosophy of your life

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper

Research Paper

• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

My Personal Philosophy of Life, Essay Example

Pages: 6

Words: 1689

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

I am the third of five children: I have two older sisters and two younger brothers. My big family helped me to realize the importance of family relations and it has been a basis of my future convictions. Person is an indivisible part of the family. Another thing about my childhood is that I have been involved in the nursing field from the time I could work. I started my nursing practice as a nurse aid at the age of sixteen. Strange as it may seem, I never seriously thought about being a nurse until many years later and many failed attempts at other careers. My transcript speaks for itself. I went a long way to nursing: I did not become a nurse until I was thirty one and pregnant at the time with twins. My professional choice is thoughtful and I do know what I want to get from the course.

I am not a light-minded girl and I have my own life principle, and I always try to adhere to it. My philosophy of life is “life is not always easy and you have to work hard for what you want.” Though for someone it may sound like a commonplace, in fact it is not. Such philosophy came as a result of my life, of my experience, and I believe that it helps me to withstand difficult situations.

As English proverb claims, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride, and I totally agree with it. Usually, tangible achievements come as a result of long and hard work. I perceive difficult tasks just like challenges and I understand that they are beneficial to my skills and my experience. Nursing school was not easy, studying in Framingham state college is not easy, but I know that I will reap the benefits in the end. It takes some doing to achieve good results, but I know it is the way it always happens. And everyone has to work hard for what they have ‘everyone’. Nursing is not an easy profession but I do believe that it is a way to help people understand that they should work for their wellness too, they should cooperate with nurses and then any results are achievable.

My Professional Philosophy of Nursing

When I think back now as to why I went into nursing school, I cannot come up with any clear reason. May be, it was a moment of inspiration, because then I had no strong intention of being a nurse. However, now I know that this is what I was destined to do with my life. All careers I have tried failed to provide that certainty.

I have my own perception of nursing practice, and it is my own professional philosophy. I am here to help people live a healthier, happier, and longer life. I am not striving for lofty aims; neither do I resort to common knowledge. I just feel that it is the very thing that nurses should do. Though I have come up with this idea, it is difficult to adhere to it. I feel that frequently I fail to promote this philosophy and focus on the immediate task. And that is why I study more and hone my skills.

I work as an emergency room nurse now. Actually, it is rather hard to stand back and look at the patient as a whole when you are trying to fix him or her. When they are broken, say, their blood pressure is 70/40 and you need to focus on the I.V., fluids, and blood products, it is hardly impossible to concentrate on their integrity and reasons of their illness. Current and urgent actions outweigh philosophical questions and perceptual issues.

Now I realize that helping people to recover their health does not come to just fixing their blood pressure or their broken arm. While having them in the emergency room it is teaching that I perform to help them cope with their illness or limitations. In order to better serve the patient and the family I need to consider the person as a physiological, psychological, sociocultural, and developmental being. This concept is difficult in itself, but to make people think that they are able to recover, to communicate with their relatives, to provide help and support I should embody this concept.

Just corresponding to my nursing career my philosophy of nursing is always changing and evolving. New circumstances and new cases help me to concentrate on important psychological aspects of nursing, to realize needs of ill people and make necessary decisions. They make my understanding of human needs more profound, and this enables me to help them to live healthy, happy and long lives.

My Personal and Professional Philosophy Integrated With the Framingham State

Conceptual Framework

The Framingham state college philosophy states that we need to focus “on the person as a physiological, psychological, sociocultural, and developmental being who progresses through the life cycle as a unified whole within the environment.” I do believe that we need to look at the person and the family as a whole. According to the Framingham State College Philosophy “the faculty believes that the goal of nursing is to promote the person’s movement along the wellness-illness continuum toward high-level wellness.” The way we promote the movement along the wellness-illness continuum is through education of out patients. We as nurses do not necessarily need to change the patient or family environment. To say the least, it is a difficult task. But what we can do is help them to cope with the environment that they live in to promote wellness. But we must inform our patients about what the way to wellness looks like. We do need to let patient know that it is not always easy. There is no one pill that cures everything.

Here my own life philosophy coincides with the Framingham state college idea. I think that there are no easy ways to deal with serious illness or limitation. So in order to evaluate some compromise way to recover that would be easy to follow I explore the patient as a whole: his or her lifestyle, habits, environment, etc. I usually try to persuade people that in order to get better or prevent their illness they should change something: say, their behavior, habits, diet, or lifestyles.

As prevention is better that cure, the college emphasizes the importance of prevention. Whether prevention means reduction of risk of being ill or general promotion of wellness or it means in-time detection and prevention of further worsening, or even prevention of consequences of the existing illness, it is achieved through promotion of wellness. The philosophy of college claims that promotion of wellness is an important part of the cure, and my personal philosophy also supports this idea. Everyone has an ability to withstand the illness being provided with a professional and timely help. And then it is necessary to understand that nurses are able to provide that kind of help, but not everything can be done by nurses. Something is always left for the patient’s work.

The Framingham college course underlines the importance of nurses in preventive health care. Nurses can influence people and make decisions concerning their health conditions. It is not a part of usual nursing course, and it is important to integrate these principles of preventive health care into usual working practice. As I have mentioned, it is not that easy but in the long run worth doing. It requires new skills and knowledge of behavioral and natural sciences and change of attitude to the patient sometimes.

What is really important for the college philosophy is not just taking care of health, but providing education, assistance and advocacy to people. Nurses should not be just medical profession, they should communicate with their patients and involve them into decision making if necessary. But the role of nurse must be leading as nurses are responsible for all decisions. Also, nurses should hone their skills constantly in communities, within collectives, and strive for betterment of their nursing practice. Actually, promoting wellness is a complex mission and it requires certain skills and approaches.

I think that in general my personal philosophy does comply with the philosophy of the college. College philosophy requires nurses to learn constantly and to improve their skills, to change the professional attitude to patients from the medical to more humanistic, socioeconomic, etc. I understand that it is necessary and in the long run it will improve my nursing skills noticeably. Professional nurses should be able to help patients to withstand their illnesses, and not only by means of pills and injections. Promoting wellness is a part of prevention of future diseases. For me, this idea is really great and it is the very thing I need to study and promote. It corresponds to my idea of providing wellness through nursing, and to my philosophy of life.

Life is not easy, work is not easy, but we as nurses can ease lives of our patients and help them to recover. We are able to make the patient’s life healthier and better on the other level. All we need is improvement of nursing skills with social and humanities studies. Then patients face the reality and come up with idea that nothing comes without efforts. They realize that they are provided with extraordinary help but their wellness depends on their own efforts, too. So the philosophy of college, my personal professional philosophy and my philosophy of life are interwoven; though college idea of nursing is stable, my own convictions change as I learn more and improve my experience.

We as nurses are always working towards the highest level of wellness, either in our family, in our careers, or in our self. And we need to do the same for our patients, as we possess knowledge that is unavailable to our patients. We as nurses have an extraordinary influence on our patients and the public. We need to promote education and have the ability to promote compliance. We need to look at the patient or family as a whole and remember that at some point in time we will have someone in the health care system and could only wish the same care we would give.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

The Role of Modern Governor, Essay Example

Carter G. Woodson, Research Paper Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

What is Your Philosophy of Life? Here are 16 Principles of Mine

My friends have always seen me as a philosopher, so I thought it would be helpful to share my philosophy of life .

We need to let other people live their lives so we can live ours; we should always be open to experiences, learnings and be careful about choosing our battles. Nothing in life is stable, so being aware of the ups and downs will make matters easier. At the same time, we need to be personally responsible and willing to adjust to the situation.

Life is complicated, and we often come up with solutions without even realizing it.

You likely have a philosophy of life that you don’t think much about, so keep reading, as ew will share 16 principles that my life philosophy is based on.

Page Contents

1) Live and Let Live

Live and let live is probably the most crucial idea of all because it asks us to respect our lives and the lives of other people. But this idea also extends to letting people live freely and without unnecessary restrictions.

Within my worldview, I don’t like being told what to do, so I don’t like telling other people what to do either.

We need to have some rules in place so that things don’t get out of hand, but we should also try to avoid people who don’t share our core values as much as possible. While we can surely be upset when people wrong us, we also need to realize that it isn’t our business what other people do as long as they aren’t harming others in the process.

2) Always Be Learning

Learning isn’t about going to school or taking a class; it is about being curious and exploring the world. Learning from books is also essential as long as you like the books you are reading and aren’t being forced to read them.

Learning can also happen on the fly, during conversations with other people or by watching things happen in the world around us.

For myself, I’ve always been interested in learning about new things , but I can also appreciate that some people aren’t always like me. For this reason, I accept that some people aren’t built for learning, or at least aren’t as effective at it as others.

But learning is still an important value worth pursuing, so always be learning and willing to accept that you have been wrong; that way, you will always be moving forward.

3) Pick Your Battles

With any philosophy, you need to be open to the possibility that you’re mistaken or that people won’t always accept the truth. For this reason, I think it is imperative to know when a battle is worth fighting and when it is not.

Most battles aren’t worth the hassle because people don’t usually change, and arguments can hurt some people’s feelings.

At the same time, there are things worth fighting for, so we should stand up for them when we can. We all want to make the world a better place , but we also all have different ideas about getting there; this means that sometimes it’s better to let things be.

I know a lot of stuff and can often explain situations with great detail, but that doesn’t mean I know what to do or what the solution is.

Have humility and accept that you don’t always know the answers; it will make life easier and less stressful.

4) Stick With Your Decisions, Say No

Sometimes people push us to do things that we don’t want to do; this is why we need to stick with our decisions. For myself, I often know right away what I want, but due to pressure from other people, or a fear of letting them down, I might commit to things I don’t believe in.

The problem is that if we don’t want to do something, our heart isn’t going to be in it, so the outcome will be half-assed.

Learning to say no is often a difficult skill to acquire because we are often told to say yes to adventure. When our hearts say no, the problem with saying yes is that we proceed in the wrong direction and get further away from our goals.

I’m not suggesting that you say no when your friend asks you for help, but at the same time, don’t always say yes either.

5) Trust Your Gut

Luckily, my philosophy of life doesn’t need to be restricted to things that can be proven by science, as we might have a little trouble with this one.

Trusting your gut is about following your intuitions and doing things that feel right even if you don’t have any proof, evidence or assurance that it is the right choice.

If you’ve done a Myer Briggs assessment, you might have found that you are intuitive or not. We can’t expect everyone to follow their guts, but I know that I do. While my intuition has been controversial at times, it has often led me in the right direction and has helped me enjoy many different experiences.

Regardless of our personality type, we need to have faith in our own ability to make decisions .

6) There Are Ups and Down

We might like to think that life is all about successes and celebrations, but there are regular ups and downs to everything. I’ve learned over the years that life seems to follow cycles, and these cycles seem to be outside of my conscious understanding of the world.

This means that we need to be open to the possibilities and accept what life throws at us.

There can’t be sweet without sour, so there also can’t be the good without the bad. Often we don’t have much control over what is happening, so we have to learn as best as we can to live with it. Learn to accept the ups and downs, and life will be easier.

Also, understand that you can’t control everythin g, and you will find more control in the things you can.

7) Be Real and Trust Yourself

Often, we adjust who we are to the situation we find ourselves in, and at times this is necessary. I can’t wholly be myself at work because, otherwise, I might not have a job. But we can still be ourselves; if we are willing to get guidance from our guts and stick with what we believe in and enjoy.

Sometimes we also need to take the long road, and as long as we stick to it, we will find the satisfaction that we seek.

Being authentic is about trusting yourself and going with what you know about yourself and who you are. This means being honest with people when you are talking and true to your wishes and dreams . But the most difficult situations are those that challenge us and cause us to doubt ourselves or question our judgment.

So when push comes to shove, we need to stick with what we believe and trust ourselves.

8) Go For What You Want

If you are used to not getting what you want, you might not try to get it. In other words, part of what it takes to be true to ourselves and our philosophy is going after what we want. It is easy to ignore what you want and chase what you think you are supposed to want.

But to live life right, we need to go after what we truly want, and we need to have a plan or at least a destination.

Having a dream means having an ideal or goal that is larger than life, which is all fine and dandy, but it doesn’t mean anything unless you go for it. While our views on what we want might say something about us as thinkers, what matters is taking action and working towards a goal that we believe in.

If you aren’t chasing your goals and dreams, you aren’t living by my philosophy of life .

9) Make It Work and Find a Solution

When our shower broke, my first intuition was to open it up and see if I could figure out what was wrong. After a quick google search, it was all sorted out, and the next day I replaced the broken part and fixed the shower. When I told my friends about this, they said they would have called a plumber.

We can always work out our situation, even when we don’t know how to right off the bat.

The most important characteristic here is having the dedication to solving the problem or having the sense to stick with it till you find a solution. Every problem in our lives can often be broken down into solvable circumstances.

I don’t mean to make lite of your situation cause I don’t understand it, but I can say that it is possible to commit to making anything work, and it will.

10) Personally Responsible is Crucial

So many people blame the world for the things that are wrong with their lives. I can’t speak for all of them, but I know everyone has their challenges, but I also know that many of them can be worked out.

Taking personal responsibility is about looking at your situation and asking, “how can I make this better?”

If we take responsibility for our situation, we might blame ourselves for everything, but that is only partially true. It is important to realize that you don’t control the situation, but you control your reactions to it. Meaning we are personally responsible for our response, not to the situations themselves.

Blaming other people gives away our power; taking responsibility takes that power and puts it back in our hands.

11) Learn From Failure

We all make mistakes; we have all failed, and there will always be times when we could have done better. However, if we keep dwelling on those sorts of things, we only get pain; we want to learn from our failures and move forward.

When it comes to living our lives the right way, and in line with our philosophy, we must always improve and progress.

There was this study where a professor gave his pottery class an assignment. Half of the class would present one piece of work and be marked on it; the other half would be judged by how many pieces they created. Who do you think made the best pieces?

It turns out that we evolve with our mistakes, so the more pieces people created, the better their pottery turned out.

12) Be A Lover of Fate

There have been times in my life where I felt like I had no control over the direction my life was going. When we are young, we are impatient; we want everything to happen immediately, so we can’t seem to wait. However, now that I’m older, I see how everything that happened before was necessary for me to be where I am now.

There is so much that we can’t control, and as I mentioned before, we can often only control our response .

So to go through life and feel like it is all a part of a plan seems believable. I’m not making any claim to god or things unproven, just to the possibility that if we decided to see things as a holistic narrative, it makes things feel more genuine.

Rather than trying to fight the future, try to embrace it, it will make life much easier, and you will get to the same place in the end.

13) Remember Your Lessons

When people tell us stories, or we read novels about strangers’ lives, we might be exposed to all sorts of lessons. Some will be good, and some will be bad, but in the end, we will mostly forget them because they aren’t ours. We must always remember our lessons as we learnt them for a reason, and they happened so that we would figure something out.

Our lives are our own stories, they are filled with ups and downs, good and bad choices and everything in between, but no matter what, they are ours.

As we go through life, we are constantly being shown the way, so have faith, follow through with it, but don’t make the same mistakes twice.

Continually be improving, and you will always be learning from the lessons of the past.

14) Explore and Be Open to Opportunities

Figuring out what you want to do with your life is always a challenge, especially when you don’t know what you want to do. The only way to figure out what you like is to try lots of different things. I only discovered that rice was a great food when I moved to Korea to teach English.

I had to take a big risk in my life and travel to a new place to learn all sorts of things about myself.

While discovering how delicious rice is might not be everyone’s cup of tea, being open to experiences has always been a personality trait of mine. For this reason, I respect it and appreciate it in others, which is why it’s an important part of my philosophy of life.

I realize that everyone is different, regardless, some of us will need to push ourselves harder to try new things, but I guarantee it will be worth it in the long run.

15) Keep on Dreaming

We are often told to wake up and quit dreaming, but dreams are important, and we should keep them in our minds as we go through life. On the other hand, some of us have daydreams about what our future lives might look like.

While we can’t predict the future, having an idea of where we would like to go can always help by guiding us.

As long as we keep dreaming of something better, we always have the motivation to keep trying and working towards a destination. While sometimes our dreams can get us down if they are unrealistic, if we focus on what is realistic, even things that might seem extreme, they will always be within the realm of possibilities.

There is nothing wrong with dreaming about a better life, but you can’t just dream; you need to be willing to work towards it.

16) Stick to The Plan

While everything so far has been a principle of my philosophy of life, this last one is different cause it connects them all. There are many other ideas here, and it might be challenging to remember them all, but having an idea of what you want and what you should do gives you the advantage of consistency.

Every choice can’t always be our best choice, but if we know where we want to go and have a rough sense of how we should get there, it will always be more manageable.

Come up with a plan, even a simple one and stick to it, you might not always be correct, but you will at least be throwing darts at the same dartboard.

We might not always have the best plan, but having something is better than having nothing. So figure out what you want out of your life and stick to the plan.

Live a Meaningful Life; Here is How

I've put together a 42 item guide on how to live a meaningful life by appreciating what we are already doing. Get your copy by entering your email address below.

Email address:

Robert Carr

Over the years, I've learnt to see things in a different light. This website is my place to share those insights and give my unique perspective on living a meaningful life.

Recent Posts

The world is fake

It is difficult to know what fake even means these days. If you are like me, you might have noticed that the world around us appears fake. It seems like everything is an advertisement for a...

It is important to be true to yourself

You will feel more regret that you didn't try, rather than if you had failed. We all find ourselves in this senseless world, trying to live a respectable way, but what way is that? The only answer...

Philosophy Break Your home for learning about philosophy

Introductory philosophy courses distilling the subject's greatest wisdom.

Reading Lists

Curated reading lists on philosophy's best and most important works.

Latest Breaks

Bite-size philosophy articles designed to stimulate your brain.

Enrich Your Personal Philosophy with these 6 Major Philosophies for Life

Build and enrich your personal philosophy with the help of 6 of the world's wisest philosophies for living, including Stoicism, Buddhism, and Existentialism.

17 -MIN BREAK  

This article is a modified extract from my How to Live a Good Life guide , which unpacks and compares the practical wisdom of 7 major philosophies, including Stoicism, Existentialism, and Buddhism.

A personal philosophy is a set of explanations, values, and principles by which we navigate existence: it’s a framework that describes both what we think about the world and how we can best live in it.

Crucially, whether we’re conscious of it or not, we each already have a philosophy for life.

Our personal philosophies may have been shaped by our families, cultures, religions — or perhaps we’ve formed and affirmed them ourselves.

The point is this: wherever they came from, and regardless of the extent to which we actively reflect on them, we all have a set of values and principles that underpin everything we do — from the careers we choose, to the people we like and dislike; from the politicians we vote for, to the activities that fill our free time.

What questions should a personal philosophy help us answer?

I n our day-to-day lives, our personal philosophies typically sit in the background unchallenged. As Heidegger observes , it is at moments of crisis, or when wrestling with the more abstract mysteries of life, that the fundamental principles by which we navigate existence come under the spotlight.

For an established, battle-tested personal philosophy should help us answer questions like the following:

• How can I face up to my own mortality, as well as that of my loved ones?
• What does it mean to live a good life, and how can I live one?
• What is worth my time? What isn’t? What’s the most important thing to prioritize?
• What do I owe to other people, and how can I cultivate better relationships?
• Am I seeing the reality of my situation in life clearly?
• How can I stop worrying about the future and derive more meaning and fulfillment from the here and now?
• When I encounter problems, what guiding principles should I use to forge the best path forward?
• Are there any enhancements I can make to my outlook or way of life?

Given their fundamental importance, then, the question is: are our personal philosophies working for us?

Are they justified? Do we need to better define them? Do we need to radically overhaul them? Are there any enhancements we could make that would empower us to live happier, more meaningful lives, and provide better answers to the questions above?

Building a personal philosophy: 6 example philosophies for life

T hankfully, when it comes to shaping our personal philosophies, we do not need to start from scratch. Philosophers have been sharing incredibly insightful answers to life’s big questions for thousands of years.

In the remainder of this article, we’ll consider six of the world’s wisest and most influential philosophies for living.

By exploring and discussing the wisdom of Aristotle, Epicureanism, Stoicism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Existentialism, we’ll understand why millions of people have been guided by these philosophies throughout history — and see if they offer anything we want to incorporate into our own way of life.

Hopefully, then, by the end of this article, we’ll come away with clearer ideas not just about some of the most important intellectual frameworks in history, but also about our own personal philosophies.

First up, we travel back to ancient Greece...

1. Aristotle: achieving excellence

A ristotle (384 - 322 BCE) was an ancient Greek philosopher who, like his legendary teacher Plato (and his legendary teacher, Socrates), is considered to be one of the most significant figures in the history of Western philosophy.

One of the key innovations of Aristotle’s philosophy for life — and why it remains so enduring today — is that it’s a philosophy grounded entirely in the human world: it doesn’t look beyond everyday human experience in order to declare what’s good.

That might sound like a relatively uncontroversial approach. But many major philosophies and religions typically do look beyond the everyday to advise on what goodness is — say at a transcendent idea, realm, or God.

By contrast, Aristotle thinks the good life simply emerges from our behavior.

Born in 384 BC in Northern Greece, Aristotle joined Plato’s Academy in Athens when he was approximately 17 years old, quickly becoming Plato’s most brilliant student. He studied under Plato until the latter’s death 20 years later, whereupon Aristotle left Athens and became tutor to a young Alexander the Great. Transforming most of the subjects he investigated ― from metaphysics and ethics to politics and biology ― Aristotle is considered to be one of the most signficant figures in the history of Western philosophy.

We are not born perfect beings; we are not born evil. Almost all of us are capable of good lives, and the more we try to act according to excellence or ‘virtue’ over the course of our lifetimes, the happier we’ll be.

A key concept for Aristotle’s philosophy of the good life is eudaimonia , a Greek word broadly meaning happiness or flourishing.

Importantly, Aristotle characterizes eudaimonia not as a feeling, but as an activity . Living a good, eudaimonic life means using our rationality to flourish and fulfill our potential for excellence in all that we do.

Aristotle tells us that while luck does have a significant part to play in determining how our lives will turn out, we are all responsible for improving our existences, and many of us are capable of excellence if we put our minds to it.

The reward for excellence is happiness, for far from a fleeting psychological state, happiness (eudaimonia) consists in good rational activity ― in knowing that we are living well and fulfilling our potential as human beings.

For Aristotle, living well thus means getting out into the world and acting excellently in the heat of day-to-day life. It means flourishing and fulfilling our potential in all that we do. It means forging deep and meaningful relationships with our fellow human beings, while maintaining self-sufficiency. It means using reason to navigate all that life throws at us, and creating happiness through the active, ongoing achievement of excellence.

Though he was writing over 2,300 years ago, Aristotle’s influence today looms larger than ever. As the philosopher Robert J. Anderson wrote in his 1986 essay Purpose and Happiness in Aristotle:

There is no ancient thinker who can speak more directly to the concerns and anxieties of contemporary life than can Aristotle. Nor is it clear that any modern thinker offers as much for persons living in this time of uncertainty.

If you’re interested in learning more about Aristotle’s hugely influential philosophy for the eudaimonic life, you might like these related reads:

• The ‘Golden Mean’: Aristotle’s Guide to Living Excellently
• Aristotle On Why Leisure Defines Us More than Work
• Aristotle On the 3 Types of Friendship (and How Each Enriches Life)
• Aristotle: the Best 9 Books to Read

2. Epicureanism: living for pleasure

A ristotle wasn’t the only ancient Greek with big ideas about how we should be living our lives. Epicurus (341 - 270 BCE), on whose teachings Epicureanism is based, disagreed with the demanding elitism of Aristotle’s ethics.

While excellence is important, it is not what happiness and the good life are really guided by. The reality is far simpler, Epicurus claims: the good life is one in which pleasure and tranquility are maximized, and pain is minimized…

Though Epicureanism is often mischaracterized as a debaucherous form of hedonism, Epicurus actually saw philosophy as a kind of therapy.

We make many mistakes about ourselves and reality, Epicurus thought, and these mistakes can cause us a great deal of anxiety.

Through careful use of philosophical reasoning, however, we can knock the wind out of our false beliefs, rid ourselves of the pain they cause, and live lives of pleasure and tranquility.

As the ancient Epicurean philosopher Lucretius tells us, Epicureans think the ultimate good for human nature is as follows:

To avoid bodily pain, to have a mind free from anxiety and fear, and to enjoy the pleasures of the senses.

This emphasis on simple pleasures distinguishes Epicurus from other ancient Greek thinkers of the time — including Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno’s Stoics — whose characterization of the good life, as we’ve seen with Aristotle, focuses less on pleasure and more on the pursuit of excellence and virtue.

Another distinguishing factor is that, unlike those rival schools, Epicurus’s Garden admitted women, and even one of Epicurus’s slaves.

The Garden of Epicurus in ancient Athens — the home for Epicureanism, in which Epicurus (341 - 270 BCE) and his followers discussed philosophy, and lived lives of tranquility.

This relatively liberal admissions policy alarmed Epicurus’s opponents, who spread a number of rather slanderous stories about him and his followers. (In their more extreme accusations, for instance, the Stoics said the Epicureans lived in conditions of depraved sexual perversion).

Far from a debaucherous party, however, it is thought life in The Garden was actually remarkably simple.

The prevailing diet consisted mainly of bread, water, beans, and a little wine, and the Epicureans spent their days learning, resting, cultivating friendships, avoiding public life, and discussing philosophy.

So, though often caricatured as a rather indulgent, pleasure-obsessed philosophy, Epicureanism is actually more about living life free from anxiety and bodily pain, and places a strong emphasis on friendship and community in the search for a meaningful, happy human life.

Epicurus offers a simple yet powerful recipe for happiness that allowed Epicurean communities all around the world to flourish centuries after his death, and which we might find to be a pleasing balm for the complexities of life today — one that certainty pleased figures like Thomas Jefferson, who in a letter to William Short wrote:

As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurean. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.

If you’re interested in learning more about Epicureanism, you might like these related reads:

• Epicureanism Defined: Philosophy is a Form of Therapy
• Epicurus’s Principal Doctrines: 40 Aphorisms for Living Well
• Epicurus On Why Death Should Not Concern Us
• Why Death is Nothing to Fear: Lucretius and Epicureanism
• Epicureanism: the Best 6 Books to Read

3. Stoicism: beating anxiety

L ike Epicureanism, Stoicism — the third and final philosophy for life we’ll consider from ancient Greece — suffers from being misunderstood.

Just as Epicureanism is often mischaracterized as involving reckless self-indulgence, so Stoicism is wrongly thought to be about repressing our emotions and living with a stiff upper lip.

But Stoicism’s approach is far more sophisticated than ‘grit your teeth’. In fact, Stoicism’s aim is to enhance our perspectives in such a way that we’ll never need to grit our teeth again…

In one concise email each Sunday, I break down a famous idea from philosophy. You get the distillation straight to your inbox:

💭 One short philosophical email each Sunday. Unsubscribe any time.

Stoicism was founded by the ancient Greek thinker Zeno, who arrived in Athens shortly before 300 BCE (around the same time Epicurus established The Garden).

Zeno began lecturing at the Painted Stoa (a covered walkway) in the center of Athens, and attracted a number of followers who, accordingly, came to be known as the Stoics.

Unfortunately, none of Zeno’s works survive — nor do those of his successors, Cleanthes and Chrysippus. We know of their work only through the quotations and summaries of subsequent authors.

Our knowledge of Stoicism thus mostly comes from its three major Roman practitioners and popularizers: Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius — each of whom knew the now lost ancient Greek works, and built upon them with their own hugely influential contributions.

Seneca (4 BCE - 65 CE), left; Epictetus (50 CE - 135 CE), center; and Marcus Aurelius (121 CE - 180 CE).

The three major Roman Stoics do not present many arguments for why Stoicism as a broader philosophy is true: they mostly presume it is true, and then go on to discuss its profound ethical and psychological lessons.

What are those lessons? Well, perhaps the three most important are the following:

• Being a good person is the only thing that matters.
• Anyone is capable of being a good person, regardless of circumstance.
• The most crucial contribution we can make to our wellbeing is understanding the dichotomy of control.

I discuss the dichotomy of control in detail here , but it’s summarized nicely by Marcus Aurelius when he writes in his Meditations:

You have power over your mind — not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.

The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer described Stoicism in glowing terms, writing in The World as Will and Representation :

Stoic philosophy is the most complete development of practical reason in the true and genuine sense of the word; it is the highest summit to which man can attain by the mere use of his reason…

To see why Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius continue to inspire millions of people around the world today, and how you might incorporate their lessons into your own personal philosophy, consider checking out these related reads:

• The 4 Cardinal Virtues: Stoicism’s Roadmap to the Best Life Possible
• The Dichotomy of Control: a Stoic Device for a Tranquil Mind
• Stoicism and Emotion: Don’t Repress Your Feelings, Reframe Them
• Seneca: To Find Peace, Stop Chasing Unfulfillable Desires
• Amor Fati: the Stoics’ and Nietzsche’s Different Takes on Loving Fate
• Seneca On Coping with the Shortness of Life
• Stoicism: the Best 6 Books to Read
• Marcus Aurelius: the Best 5 Books to Read

4. Buddhism: ending suffering

C enturies before the therapeutic philosophical approaches of Epicureanism and Stoicism, the Buddha was sharing his recommendations for how we can see the world clearly, banish suffering, and live good lives…

Buddhism is a philosophical tradition based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, a prince who lived in ancient India around 500 BCE (exact dates vary).

The historical Buddha was a man named Siddhartha Gautama who lived in northern India around 500 BCE. Siddhartha became the ‘Buddha’ (literally meaning ‘the awakened one’) when he achieved enlightenment following years of searching for the truth about reality. He spent the rest of his life traveling to share his lessons, inspiring the various Buddhist schools that exists across the world today.

It’s thought the Buddha’s teachings were originally transmitted orally, and only written down in the 1st century BCE in Sri Lanka, with further Buddhist branches spreading throughout India, China, Tibet, Japan, and South-East Asia.

Encompassing as it does a variety of traditions, beliefs, and spiritual practices, Buddhism can be viewed as both a religion and a philosophy.

However, unlike some other religions, its original philosophical teachings are not (necessarily) grounded in any appeals to ‘supernatural’ elements like a creator God or gods, resulting in the emergence of secular Buddhist movements that engender keen philosophical engagement.

Rather than persuade us to believe in anything in particular, the Buddha focuses like a laser on just one subject: teaching us how to alleviate dukkha , a Pali word often translated as ‘suffering’, but perhaps stronger than this, intended to capture all of life’s dissatisfaction, disappointment, unfulfilled hopes, and unhappiness.

Indeed, while the ancient Greeks broadly saw the goal of life as eudaimonia, excellence, and happiness, Buddhists think the purpose of life is enlightenment: seeing the world as it really is, and thus freeing ourselves from suffering.

The Buddha packages his core teachings in his Four Noble Truths , which can be summarized as follows:

• There is dukkha (suffering)
• Suffering has a cause
• Suffering can be eliminated
• There is a path to eliminating suffering (the Eightfold Path)

Suffering ultimately springs from desire or craving (tanha) , which arises from a fundamental mismatch between our worldview and how things really are.

To banish craving and eliminate suffering, the Buddha tells us, we must correct our worldview to see reality clearly.

Three concepts are central to the Buddha’s teaching here: dukkha (suffering), impermanence (everything ends), and anātman (there is no persisting soul or self). It is by truly internalizing these ‘Three Marks of Existence’ that we can, via the Eightfold Path, see reality clearly and achieve enlightenment.

As the Buddha puts it in his first sermon, The Setting in Motion of the Wheel of Teaching:

There is a path that leads to the cessation of suffering: it is, indeed, the Noble Eightfold Path: right views, right intentions, right speech, right actions, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.

While perhaps best known in the West for its advocation of detaching from our desires, as well as its practices like mindfulness and meditation, the core of Buddhist philosophy has much to offer on a broad range of topics, from metaphysics to ethics, and many different schools and doctrines have grown up around its original teachings.

As the scholar Richard Gombrich puts it in his book How Buddhism Began :

I do not see how one could exaggerate the importance of the Buddha’s ethicization of the world, which I regard as a turning point in the history of civilization.

If you’re interested in learning more about Buddhist philosophy, you might like these related reads:

• Anātman, the Buddhist Doctrine of No-Self: Why ‘You’ Do Not Really Exist
• The Buddha On Ending Suffering: the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow
• Buddhist Philosophy: the Best 7 Books to Read

5. Confucianism: growing morally

A round the same time the Buddha began spreading his teachings across ancient India, a key sage rose to prominence in ancient China: Confucius.

Confucianism stands in stark contrast with Buddhism. While the Buddha advocates detachment from desire and transcendence from the illusions of convention, Confucius encourages full-hearted attachment in our relationships — and deep commitment to our everyday social customs and rituals.

By paying careful attention to our social obligations and respectfully participating in the civilizations we are part of, Confucius says, we can cultivate our moral characters and live good, harmonious lives to the benefit of all.

Confucius (551 - 479 BCE) grew up within the fading force of the Zhou dynasty, and sought to understand what had made the dynasty lose its way.

A pertinent insight into Confucius’s philosophical project comes from his statement in The Analects that

I transmit rather than innovate. I trust in and love the ancient ways.

In other words, at a time on the cusp of great upheaval (Confucius lived just before China’s Warring States period), Confucius is intent on reaching back into the past, finding what worked, and transmitting the recipe for stability and wisdom to the present day.

So what exactly is Confucius promoting? What does the good life look like for Confucians, and what should we direct our efforts towards?

At its core, Confucianism is a system designed to help us maximize our moral development and live together in harmony. The good life is characterized by our loving relationships with our fellow human beings, and so being a good person largely comes down to how we interact with others and society at large.

Happiness is not such a prominent concept in most Chinese philosophies. Joy and pleasure are oft-mentioned, but eudaimonia or happiness — so important for the ancient Greek philosophies we’ve looked at — is not typically recognized as life’s end goal.

Perhaps the closest analogous role to eudaimonia in Chinese philosophy is the concept of dao.

For, just as everything is done in service to living a life in accordance with eudaimonia in much ancient Greek philosophy, so everything is done in service to living in accordance with dao in much ancient Chinese philosophy.

Dao is often translated to mean ‘the Way’, and it essentially refers to the way we ought to live: the optimal path we should follow to live the best, most harmonious life possible.

Indeed, it is outcomes like harmony and balance that are emphasized more than eudaimonia or happiness throughout Chinese philosophy.

For Confucians, dao is specifically a moral way, encapsulating how we should behave in society. It distills the exemplary behaviors of selfless heroes Confucius identifies from ancient China’s past.

Living in accordance with dao is not just valuable in this instrumental sense, however — i.e. it’s not just recommended because it promotes a lifestyle that benefits others.

Rather, living in accordance with dao is valuable for its own sake, for it means living a fully-realized human life.

Dao thus provides the path to the good life and Confucian sagehood, which represents supreme moral development — attaining a state of flawless, empathetic, spontaneous responsiveness to every possible situation.

Of course, we cannot all become sages overnight. Sometimes we’ll live in accordance with dao; sometimes we’ll fall off the path — and there are different stages of moral development along the way.

One of Confucianism’s most distinctive features is its suggestion for how we progress through these stages: namely, through observing ritual practice.

By following and perfecting particular traditions, say Confucians, we can shape our characters and better live according to the key Confucian virtues, perhaps the most important of which is ren.

Ren is notoriously difficult to translate. ‘Benevolence’ captures some of it, and it is sometimes translated as ‘humaneness’ or ‘human-heartedness’ too, but ren essentially means interacting with others guided by a sense of what’s good from their perspectives.

It means bringing the right affective state and attitude to all we do, being compassionately receptive to the needs of others in the pursuit of harmony. It is the attitude with which we expand the self to be respectful, reverent, and loyal to all.

Confucianism has shaped Chinese society more than any other philosophical framework. While scholars agree it had a ‘bad 20th century’ (Confucianism came under fire for promoting outdated and inefficient practices), contemporary Confucians think new life can be breathed into its ancient wisdom.

As the contemporary philosopher Stephen C. Angle notes in his book Growing Moral :

Even though Confucius lived more than two millennia ago… [his] teachings about how to live continue to resonate everywhere there are parents, children, and families; everywhere people feel stirrings of compassion for others, but sometimes selfishly ignore them; everywhere people wonder about how to interact with their environment… The Confucian tradition has undergone many changes as it has evolved over the centuries, and that process continues down to the present. At the heart of the tradition, though, are profound insights into the human condition that have much to teach us today.

If you’re interested in learning more about Confucian philosophy, you might like these related reads:

• Confucius: Rituals Grind Our Characters Like Pieces of Jade
• Mengzi vs. Xunzi On Human Nature: Are We Good or Evil?
• Confucius: the Best 6 Books to Read

6. Existentialism: overcoming nihilism

L eaving behind the ancient philosophies of east and west, we’re zooming forward to one of the most influential philosophies of the 20th and 21st centuries: existentialism.

Whereas Confucianism is all about respecting the familial and societal contexts in which you find yourself, existentialism is about defining yourself from a starting point of absolute freedom.

The frank insights of existentialism have hugely influenced popular culture, film, literature, art, and attitudes the world over — and continue to do so today.

Now, existentialism is not a set of fixed prescriptive principles; it does not strictly outline how we should live, and the thinkers labeled as ‘existentialist’ — from Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Heidegger to Sartre, Beauvoir, and Camus — differ greatly in their views.

French philosophers Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir in a Parisian cafe in 1946.

We might then wonder how existentialism can function as a guide to life.

Well, despite the disagreement among existentialist thinkers, there is much overlap in their thought — and their forensic analysis of the human condition sheds much light on our existential situation and how we might better think about it.

Indeed, existentialists tend to agree that traditional approaches to philosophy have not really focused enough on our individual lived experience. If they had done so, they would have realized that our realities do not fit into neat little conceptual boxes, and neither do our values.

Simply describing the cosmos, existentialists argue, gets us no closer to surviving it — and objectively defining ‘goodness’ with stale theory gets us no closer to embodying it.

The task of life is to each find a reason to live . A reason not that we simply subscribe to unthinkingly, nor that we adopt to live up to the expectations of others, but one that we ourselves affirm.

The chief guide to the good life for existentialism is thus authenticity.

To live a good life, we must forge our own paths according to what we affirm; not following the rulebooks of others, not conforming to societal norms, but deliberately carving our own paths through life.

As Nietzsche puts it in his book, Untimely Meditations :

Nobody can build you the bridge over which you must cross the river of life, nobody but you alone. True, there are countless paths and bridges and demigods that would like to carry you across the river, but only at the price of yourself; you would pledge yourself and lose it. In this world there is one unique path which no one but you may walk. Where does it lead? Do not ask; take it.

The richly diverse work of key existentialist philosophers can be brought together to offer a general picture of what it means to live a good, authentic human life from an existentialist perspective.

As contemporary philosopher Jennifer Anna Gosetti-Ferencei claims in her book On Being and Becoming :

If philosophy can be applied to spiritual ailments, existentialism is one of the most versatile prescriptions.

If you’re interested in learning more about existentialism, you might like these related reads:

• What is Existentialism? 3 Core Principles of Existentialist Philosophy
• Existence Precedes Essence: What Sartre Really Meant
• Authentic Love: Simone de Beauvoir on What Makes a Healthy Relationship
• Heidegger On Being Authentic in an Inauthentic World
• Sartre’s Waiter, ‘Bad Faith’, and the Harms of Inauthenticity
• Kierkegaard On Finding the Meaning of Life
• Albert Camus on Coping with Life's Absurdity
• Existentialism: the Best 9 Books to Read

What’s your personal philosophy for life?

I asked this question to Philosophy Break’s 15,000+ subscribers, as well as what they think makes life worth living, and their answers represent a goldmine of wisdom and life experience. I feature them in this article: How to Live a Fulfilling Life, According to Philosophy Break Subscribers .

Finally, the introductions above offer only a tiny insight into the depth and wisdom of the major philosophies covered. If you’re interested in cultivating a fuller understanding of how they can enrich your personal philosophy, you might like my self-paced guide, How to Live a Good Life , which explores and compares each philosophy across 56 concise lessons. Join 400+ members inside:

How to Live a Good Life (According to 7 of the World’s Wisest Philosophies)

Explore and compare the wisdom of Stoicism, Existentialism, Buddhism and beyond to forever enrich your personal philosophy.

★★★★★ (50+ reviews for our courses)

Get one mind-opening philosophical idea distilled to your inbox every Sunday (free):

About the author.

Jack Maden Founder Philosophy Break

Having received great value from studying philosophy for 15+ years (picking up a master’s degree along the way), I founded Philosophy Break in 2018 as an online social enterprise dedicated to making the subject’s wisdom accessible to all. Learn more about me and the project here.

If you enjoy learning about humanity’s greatest thinkers, you might like my free Sunday email. I break down one mind-opening idea from philosophy, and invite you to share your view.

Subscribe for free here , and join 15,000+ philosophers enjoying a nugget of profundity each week (free forever, no spam, unsubscribe any time).

Get one mind-opening philosophical idea distilled to your inbox every Sunday (free)

From the Buddha to Nietzsche: join 15,000+ subscribers enjoying a nugget of profundity from the great philosophers every Sunday:

★★★★★ (50+ reviews for Philosophy Break). Unsubscribe any time.

Take Another Break

Each break takes only a few minutes to read, and is crafted to expand your mind and spark your philosophical curiosity.

Albert Camus on Rebelling against Life’s Absurdity

6 -MIN BREAK

Hannah Arendt On Standing Up to the Banality of Evil

5 -MIN BREAK

Pantheism: Spinoza and the God that Einstein Believed In

2 -MIN BREAK

Mono No Aware: Beauty and Impermanence in Japanese Philosophy

4 -MIN BREAK

View All Breaks

PHILOSOPHY 101

• What is Philosophy?
• Why is Philosophy Important?
• Philosophy’s Best Books
• About Philosophy Break
• Support the Project
• Instagram   /   Threads   /   Facebook
• TikTok   /   Twitter

Philosophy Break is an online social enterprise dedicated to making the wisdom of philosophy instantly accessible (and useful!) for people striving to live happy, meaningful, and fulfilling lives. Learn more about us here . To offset a fraction of what it costs to maintain Philosophy Break, we participate in the Amazon Associates Program. This means if you purchase something on Amazon from a link on here, we may earn a small percentage of the sale, at no extra cost to you. This helps support Philosophy Break, and is very much appreciated.

Access our generic Amazon Affiliate link here

Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy

© Philosophy Break Ltd, 2024

Developing Your Personal Philosophy of Life

7 tensions to resolve..

Posted January 8, 2020 | Reviewed by Kaja Perina

From Plato to Stephen Covey, it’s long been argued that life is more meaningful if guided by a foundational personal philosophy .

To that end, here are seven tensions the resolutions of which can help you develop your personal philosophy. Of course, you could choose a moderate position within each of these polar pairs but often people choose to aim toward one side or the other.

Planning vs. living in the moment. Clichés exist on both poles. Ben Franklin said, “By failing to prepare, you’re preparing to fail.” On the other hand, Emily Dickinson wrote, “Forever is composed of nows.” In deciding which way you want to lean, it may help to look at your track record: To date, has your planning been worth it? Or has your planning too often been wrong? Has it shepherded you toward worthy paths or closed to you opportunities you should have taken? Or has your planning too often kept you from appreciating your present moments, always looking ahead as I foolishly did when, as a 20-year-old touring Paris, I raced through the Louvre so I could make it to the Tuilieries before closing time?

Practical vs. idealistic. We have been preached both: “Be realistic,” and on the other hand, “Dream big. Follow your passion.” Which side to tilt toward may depend on your self-efficacy : Bright, driven, non-procrastinators have a better chance of achieving their idealistic dreams or at least, as suggested in another cliché: “Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars,” (Norman Vincent Peale).

Disciplined vs. laid-back. Many people find it more pleasurable to be laid-back. The question is whether that will contribute, net, to your success and contentment, or at minimum, will the decrement to your success be worth it? On the other hand, some people enjoy the process of being disciplined or at least are willing to be disciplined in the service of more successful outcomes. The question is, “How about you?”

Reflective vs. impulsive. Some of this is hard-wired. Impulsivity has a significant genetic component , but it’s not completely genetic. Again, look at your track record: Have you been more successful by making quick decisions and thus getting more done? Or have you been more successful when taking your time, reflecting, considering more of the implications?

Just vs. merciful. Solid arguments can be made for leaning either way. Justice, by definition, means that people get what, on the merits, they deserve. How primary is that to you? Other people prefer a life tilted more toward mercy: Even if, on the merits, a person deserves less, the mercy-centric person leans toward giving people a break. How about you?

Self-critical vs. self-accepting. Some people feel it’s worth being hard on themselves: being self-critical and ever trying to improve. On the other hand, other people feel that’s too big a price to pay and/or that enough of who they are is hard-wired or has been molded by early experience and current externalities that they’d rather focus on self-acceptance.

Self-reliant vs. communitarian. There are quotable quotes at both poles. Charlotte Bronte in Jane Eyre wrote, “I care for myself. The more solitary, the more friendless, the more unsustained I am, the more I will respect myself.” In contrast, Hillary Clinton famously said, “It takes a village.” Again, look at your track record. Has your reliance on other people yielded more benefit than liability to you and perhaps to them? Or have you done better by focusing on self-reliance?

The takeaway

So, do you want to write bullets or a paragraph or two describing your personal philosophy? If so, yes, consider the aforementioned seven tensions but there may be other factors that merit consideration. A few possible examples: the role of spirituality or religion? Your work or relationship non-negotiables? Your ethical red line in the sand?

If you might find a model helpful, I offer my philosophy of life here.

Most people don’t follow their personal philosophy assiduously, but developing one can create guideposts that can help you live the life you want to live.

I read this aloud on YouTube.

Marty Nemko, Ph.D ., is a career and personal coach based in Oakland, California, and the author of 10 books.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Life Philosophy 101 – An Introduction

Personal life philosophies are not a common subject and quality information on them can be difficult to find. They can tend to be grouped with other more prescriptive philosophies or reduced to personal slogans like bumper stickers or t-shirts.

Personal Life Philosophies are unique in that there are as many of them as there are individuals. Just as no two people are alike, no two life philosophies are the same. We each have our own basis for understanding ourselves, our lives and the world and our own aspirations for how we seek them to be.

This introduction touches on the essential knowledge that everyone should have to understand personal life philosophies, why they are essential life tools and how they can enrich your life.

Introduction to Life Philosophy Resources

These key concepts establish a common foundation of knowledge.  This foundation will be helpful as you develop and live your personal life philosophy.

Start here if you are unfamiliar with life philosophy or want a refresher. Expand each of the sections if you would like more in depth information.

Life philosophy can be a tricky subject to embrace. There are common misconceptions that can bias your understanding and lead you to avoid the whole topic.  

Understanding these misconceptions can stop them from preventing knowing and embracing your unique personal philosophy.

Just as we all have our own life philosophy; we all have our own way of learning.

If you prefer, choose the topics you want to cover in the order that works best for you.

Key Concepts about Personal Philosophies

• What is a personal philosophy?

A personal life philosophy is your unique understanding of and perspective on the world and life including how you think life should be lived and the world should be.

Why does this matter? Your personal philosophy is a way to crystalize and make real your understanding of the world and life to help you make sense of it, know what is essential, sharpen your vision and bring clarity to a complex world.

The concept of a personal philosophy is something that is unique and something that is not generally well known or widespread, at least personal philosophies that are well developed and that can bring real value to one’s life. One can wonder why this is so, especially considering the importance of one’s personal philosophy . 

In general, personal philosophies include things like your most essential truths and insights about, and highest aspirations, for life and the world. They bring value to your life both through the process of developing them and through helping make more definite thoughts and feelings that can be abstract and difficult to readily access and use in your life.

A personal philosophy encapsulates what is most essential, of great consequence, vital, enlightening and imperative. It is based upon what captures your imagination, demands your attention, comes naturally to you, incites you to action, inspires you, infuriates you, drives you or frees you to the greatest degree.

Personal philosophies are typically stated in a written form such as a set of principles or tenets and sometimes are written in an essay format, though they can take any from that you find useful.

Note: There are a series of related terms used for referring to personal philosophies including personal philosophy on life, living philosophy.  Just about every conceivable combination and variation of the words philosophy, life and personal that are used to refer to personal philosophies.  Here, the terms personal philosophy, personal life philosophy and life philosophy are used interchangeably.

• What is life philosophy?

Life philosophy is the development and application of your personal philosophy to your life.  Life philosophy includes two primary components: your personal philosophy and the ongoing act of making it real through developing and living it.

Why does this matter? Personal philosophies that cannot be or are not used in one’s life, may be interesting to contemplate and discuss over an adult beverage, but they cannot enrich your life unless you actually use them in it.

Beyond the potentially transformational experience of developing a personal philosophy, most of its value is realized through living it. A personal philosophy that is only vague concepts or even one is well formed but unused is of little value. Your personal philosophies can be of great value, but only if it is clear to you and made real in your life. Living your personal philosophy is how you realize the value of it for yourself and the world. There are a wealth of practical and enriching ways that your personal philosophy can be used in your life .

• Why should I put effort into developing my personal philosophy?

Although each of us naturally has the basis for our personal philosophy, most of us do not understand our basis in ways that help us or in ways that we can make use of. Developing your personal philosophy clarifies it for you and helps you gain active knowledge of it.

Why does this matter?   The experience of developing your personal philosophy includes connecting with what is essential to you in the world, which is a rewarding and enriching experience itself. Most importantly developing and actively knowing your personal philosophy enables you to use it in your life and realize the value it can bring .

When following a good approach for developing yours, you start to realize the value early in the process. Because of the nature of personal philosophies, you necessarily need to consider your perspective on the world and to understand your thoughts and feelings about it.  Most of us do not take the time or invest the effort into actively working to understand our perspective on the world and ourselves. Developing your personal philosophy gives you an opportunity to indulge in doing so in a way that gets around much of the challenge of being too actively introspective, or touchy-feely. With the right approach, getting in touch with your perspective on the world and yourself is rewarding, freeing and simply enjoyable. You may even find it an experience that is affirmational or transformational.

Beyond the enriching personal experience, developing your personal philosophy will clarify your unique understanding of the world and life for you and make it something that you actively know. A personal philosophy that is just thoughts and feelings floating around in your mind has about as much value as a personal desire to become Yoda. It may be an interesting thought, but it probably won’t go much further than that. Your personal philosophy needs to be clear to you and something that you actively know. Clarity is critical so that when you need to use it in your life you don’t have to sort through it to figure out how it applies. Actively knowing your personal philosophy allows you to use it in your life. Not being able to clearly remember your personal philosophy makes it difficult to use in the moment. If you have to refer back to it in some written form it probably doesn’t have the clarity needed to be a real and present part of your life. Part of developing your personal philosophy is crafting it to be clear so that you can and actively know and use it in your life in large and small ways.

The importance (value) of your personal philosophy in life.

Your personal philosophy begins to bring value to your life through the experience of developing it and continues to do so for the rest of your life. It will help you make sense of the world, understand what is meaningful to you, clarify your insights, motivate and inspire you, and help you find and maintain your direction.

What does this mean to me?  Your personal philosophy is a real-world life tool. Without it you are in many ways unequipped for life in an increasingly complex and difficult world for you as an individual.

The process of developing your personal philosophy necessarily requires being in touch with the world and yourself.  The experience of doing so in a concerted, intentional way helps you crystalize what is meaningful in the world to you.  This is one part of the reason why you should put the effort into developing your personal philosophy .

Beyond the experience of developing your personal philosophy, the real importance of a personal philosophy is that it equips you for life in a complex world in ways that can be difficult to do otherwise. Knowing and understanding your essential truths about, and aspirations for, life and the world as well as what you value and what is meaningful to you helps you with some of the most challenging aspects of life. Many of the traditional sources that people have relied upon for these answers are outdated and not relevant in today’s world. Without a personal philosophy you can be left searching for answers when challenges in life arise. Your personal philosophy helps you make sense of life and the challenges you encounter. It also helps you identify things you do that are out of sync with what you place value in and be a source of strength for changing them. It will help you fend off the constant barrage from others trying to make you do and think what they want you to. It provides a clear source of personal direction that can help with difficult or important decisions that you need to make in life. It can help you better understand your unique insights about life and the world and make the most of them. It can even inspire you to do something that is wildly aspirational that you would likely not do without the clarity, vision and meaning that your personal philosophy makes real for you. Knowing and living your personal philosophy will help you be more effective in the world and help you to contribute to realizing the things that you aspire for life and the world to be.What

Why aren't personal philosophies taught on a wider basis?

The primary purpose of education in most parts of the world is to produce individuals that are effective members of society and productive workers. Secondarily the concept of personal philosophies and the individual or “self” are relatively new (see the brief history of personal philosophies ).

Why should I care about this? A personal philosophy is something that is not needed to be a productive worker or effective member of society. It is needed if you are going to live an engaged, meaningful life that aligns with who you are and what you seek for your life and the world to be.

The value of education cannot be overstated. Knowledge is empowering. Self-knowledge, like that used in one’s personal philosophy, is an especially powerful form of knowledge. Unfortunately, self-knowledge is something that most of us must learn on our own without significant guidance or education about it. 

An important part of developing a personal philosophy is quality self-knowledge. While some education systems do seek to develop the individual, but even they do not overtly educate individuals on developing self-knowledge. The concept of personal philosophies, the self and self-knowledge are relatively new. Most education systems are based upon century old theory and have not kept up with these concepts or integrated them into their method and curriculum. Imagine if our education systems sought to help people become self-aware, develop self-knowledge and become more enlightened about life and the world, instead of just seeking to produce productive contributing members of society. 

A personal philosophy is something that can help you get beyond the narrow vision and relatively low expectations that many educational systems have for you. It can help you become more self-aware, more knowledgeable and more enlightened about life and the world.

What can be included in your personal philosophy?

Anything that you think or feel is essential to your understanding of and perspective on life and the world. 

Why is the point?   There are some things that can be helpful to include to make your unique personal philosophy more valuable in your life, but in the end, it is up to you. 

A personal philosophy is the encapsulation of one’s most essential truths about, and aspirations for, the world, life and one’s self. That said, you can choose what to include in yours. To be able to apply your personal philosophy to your life, it is helpful if one includes things that you uniquely understand about life and the world, or your truths, and how you would like to see the world be, or your aspirations. The two together create a view of what you know about the world that is most significant to you, how you think life and the world should be and your desires for them. Your personal philosophy can include anything you find essential such as what you place value in and find especially meaningful. If there are other aspects of your understanding of yourself, life or the world that you think are substantive, you should include them.

One of the key attributes of your personal philosophy is that it draws upon your unique knowledge of the world and yourself. The types of knowledge that can be used in your life philosophy are those encompassed by knowledge in a broad sense. Often the concept of knowledge is constrained to specific types of knowledge such as that which is taught through formal education or that which can be attained through science and reason. While there are no hard rules about personal philosophies, constraining yourself to narrow definitions of knowledge is limiting. Including what you know beyond your capacity for reason and the realm of scientific proof, such that which you know through emotion and intuition, helps to create a personal philosophy that captures the nature of being human. Einstein’s essay in Living Philosophies is a great example of how this is true. If you are going to apply your personal philosophy to your life, it should be substantive and not oversimplify the nature of life to the point of being of little value in it. It also should not be limited to someone else’s definition of what a life philosophy should entail, or what it should be based upon.  Too, it should not be limited to systems thought and belief that have been formalized and categorized. In many ways, personal philosophy allows you to move beyond these prescribed ways of understanding and create a perspective that is rich in meaning to you.

Including those things that are the most significant to you, especially what sets you apart from others, is one approach. For instance, we all place high value on our families, health and livelihood. These are universal and stating them as a personal philosophy, while perfectly valid, may not be very insightful about your personal truths or aspirations for life and the world. In a similar way, a personal philosophy is not necessarily about defining universal truths or answering life’s big questions such as the purpose or meaning of life. These can be included if your knowledge of them is especially significant to you. Your personal philosophy is about understanding and expressing the things that stand out to you above all others.

• What do I need to know to develop my personal philosophy?

Having a reasonably broad view of life and the world is helpful, as is being able to connect with and understanding your perspective on it. An understanding of personal philosophies is also helpful.

Why does this matter to me?   While having a broad view of life and the world is important, you can never know, feel or experience everything. When you decide to develop your personal philosophy, it is important to use your perspective on the world to the greatest extent possible. Too, your personal philosophy will likely evolve as you and the world change.

Your personal philosophy necessarily draws upon your understanding of life and the world. If you have limited experience with life and the world, it can be helpful to work to expand your perspective. Even if you have an expansive perspective on the world, being in touch with that perspective is important. You may find it helpful to spend some time reconnecting with your perspective on the world as you craft your personal philosophy. Too, you continue to learn and change throughout your life and the world continues to change at a rapid pace. An effective approach for crafting your personal philosophy should help you connect with what is essential in the world to and to understand why throughout your life.

Having a good connection with yourself is also helpful. This connection allows you to understand your perspective on the world including your thoughts and feelings about it. You may find it necessary to work to create this connection, or to reconnect with yourself if you have lost touch. One of the challenges with creating and maintaining it is the constant barrage we are under from others wanting us to think and do what they want us to. A good connection with yourself helps cut through this barrage. An effective approach for developing your personal philosophy will also help.

Like with most things that you undertake, a good understanding of what you are taking on and what is involved with accomplishing it is advisable. Having an understanding of personal philosophies and what is involved with developing one can help you successfully craft yours so that it is valuable in your life.

• Where did the concept of personal philosophies come from?

While the roots of personal philosophies, individual’s interpretations on what is important in the world, can be seen even in the earliest artwork and myths, personal philosophies per se arrived on the scene much more recently.  They appear to have come into general use within the last century or so.

Like most forms of modern thinking, the roots of personal philosophies appear to have evolved along with human thought. Prehistoric evidence for personal views on the world and what is most significant in it are likely captured in the earliest myths and paintings. These early forms of expression undoubtedly included some personal interpretation of the world for practical use. Yet, considering them to be statements of personal philosophy is a stretch at best. The first formal thinking related to personal philosophies dates back to the time of the early thinkers on human condition and the nature of the world that we live in. Religious beliefs and religions evolved from individuals’ personal understanding of the world. Confucius’s writings can be considered a good example of how this happened. Undoubtedly, many of those who have focused their life on the pursuit of philosophy necessarily include what would constitute their own philosophy on life in their work including the first recognized philosophers in the 600-500 BC period. One perspective on philosophy itself is that it can be considered the pursuit of making sense of life and the world. Beyond those who pursued philosophy per se, many great thinkers and people who have put their imprint upon the course of history have recorded their philosophical perspective behind their thinking and actions. Abraham Lincoln is a familiar, notable example, and there are many more. Yet none of these can be considered a personal philosophy per se.

Personal philosophies in the context used here, are prevalent in modern times. In 1931 a volume of Living Philosophies was published by Simon & Schuster and includes short essays about their philosophy on life from notable figures including Albert Einstein. These insightful essays capture their perspective on the world including their beliefs and ideals. Two subsequent volumes were published with essays from other notables, I Believe in 1942 and Living Philosophies in 1990. All of which are worth reading.  These essays seem to come the closest to the concept of personal philosophy as used here. Interestingly the concept of individual identity and the self appears to have come into prominence on a similar timeline, within the last century.

The rapid escalation of the challenges facing humanity in general, the shift away from traditional sources and authorities for answers to life’s important questions, the increasingly difficult global environmental and political situation and the escalating assault on our individuality through the ever-present screens we view all seem to be reasons why personal philosophies are becoming more prominent. In many ways, personal philosophies have become a vital form of empowerment for the individual actualizing their individuality.

Using your personal philosophy in your life.

There are virtually limitless ways that you can use your personal philosophy in your life.  How you do so will vary based upon where you are in life and what is happening in yours.

Your personal philosophy can be made part of your life in ways large and small. In looking at the importance (value) of your personal philosophy in life , we touched upon many of the ways your personal philosophy brings value to your life including as a source of meaning, a source of guidance for important decisions, a source of strength, a source of vision and insight, even a source of inspiration.

Through actively knowing your personal philosophy you can use it in your daily life as you make decisions and to help guide your actions to be in line with how you seek to be. It can be easy to take the path of least resistance or to succumb, even momentarily, to the toxic messaging constantly targeting you. Actively knowing your personal philosophy helps you be more intentional and fend off this and other forces working against you.

Making your personal philosophy a part of your daily life helps keep what you find essential, place value in, and draw meaning from present in your life. It also provides a reassuring sense of understanding and direction through your essential truths and aspirations.

Your life philosophy can help you better understand yourself and your perspective on just about everything and under any circumstances. Having a well-developed life philosophy also allows you to share and discuss it with others, if you choose to.  It can help them understand you and your actions.  Sharing your life philosophy or some part of it can be helpful in many situations such as when you have to explain choices that you make which are different from others or that don’t align with their expectations of you.

Your life philosophy can help you achieve a greater sense of meaning and fulfillment. Some think that it is only possible to achieve higher levels of meaning and happiness through the understanding and awareness that knowing and living a personal philosophy can provide.

Common Misconceptions About Personal Philosophies

• I don’t have or need a personal philosophy.

Short Answer : Everyone has some form of a personal philosophy. Most just have not developed it into something they actively know or use in their lives.

Each individuals’ personal philosophy, including yours, is their unique understanding of the world that is developed into a form that can be actively known and used in their life. When you consider the scope of the human experience, including what we can know and feel and how we can know and feel it, and the diversity of individuals, we all truly have our unique understanding of the world.

There is strength in diversity.  You as an empowered, self-actualized and enlightened individual build upon what it means to be human and for us to collectively be humanity. Understanding your unique knowledge and wisdom about life and the world will help you become an empowered, self-actualized and enlightened individual.

The kinds of changes that are confronting individuals and humanity require something more than for all of us to live and think the same way, or even subscribe to a defined set of philosophic and religious systems. The scales are tipped toward you becoming more like everyone else. The intentional attempt to control your thoughts and actions through messaging and artificial intelligence is invading all aspects of your life. It is an attempt to make you think and behave in ways that others seek for you to. Actively knowing your understanding of the world and your aspirations for it is not only essential for surviving in an increasingly complex and difficult world, it is key to advancing us as humanity and overcoming the crises that confront us now and in the future.

• Personal philosophies are only for big thinkers.

Short Answer : Each of us has a unique understanding of the world and the ability to define our own personal philosophy. Be wary of anyone or any entity that tries to make you think otherwise. Question their motives. 

Society puts undue importance on the personal philosophies of famous people and preserves their perspective through time disproportionally. Historically, this may have largely been a product of our ability to record and publish the thoughts of any one person. It may be no coincidence that as our ability to record our individual thinking and share it broadly the importance of the big thinkers’ thoughts is diminishing.

For some reason, we have a tendency to treat some and their thoughts effectively as idols. We often turn to those that we view as authorities for answers to life’s important questions when the reality is that they are just people and their answers are merely that, theirs. They are not better than the answers that we each have, yet we often place more value in them than our own. 

In the end, you determine your personal philosophy. If you decide to adopt a philosophy or components of a philosophy that is defined by someone else, that is your choice. The important thing is that you have explored the world enough to know what makes sense to you and works for you. Too, nothing in life is cast in stone. The world changes and we all grow and learn. As you do, your personal philosophy should as well.

But it is not only the famous who leave their marks.  Every single one of us has, I believe, a significant part to play in the scheme of things.  Some contributors that go unrecognized may nevertheless be of the utmost importance. 

– Jane Goodall in her personal philosophy within Living Philosophies 1990.

• A personal philosophy is a one sentence maxim.

Short Answer : You’re not a car and your personal philosophy shouldn’t be a bumper sticker.

Everyone likes a concise statement that captures the essence of a common experience in life. It’s also good to have simple rules in life to remind us of basic things we know. They have practical value in specific situations. That said, simple rules of life, even a collection of really good ones do not amount to a personal philosophy. 

An effective personal philosophy encompasses the scope of your unique perspective on life and the world. To be effective it needs to be able to help you make sense of a complex and dynamic world. It needs to be able to help you derive meaning from your life, understand what you value and what you seek for life and the world to be. If you truly can express your personal philosophy in one sentence, beyond likely being an amazing sentence, it would no longer be a maxim that is applicable only in specific situations. It would be a broad, robust expression of your unique perspective on the world and life including your truths about them and how you think they should be.

Like philosophy in general, personal philosophies are esoteric and don’t have practical value.

Short Answer : This misconception is completely understandable. Philosophy is generally something that can be challenging to convert to real world value. Personal philosophies are different as they are practical real-life tools.

Unfortunately, there is not a good substitute for the word “philosophy” in the English language that fully captures its meaning in the sense of being “a set of basic concepts and beliefs that are of value as guidance in practical ways.” When we hear or read the world philosophy, we most often think of one of the other meanings primarily “systems of thought” as in skepticism, pragmatism or existentialism and the famous men (typically) that professed their virtues and argued for their specific flavor as the one best perspective on the world and life. In many ways, personal philosophies are the antithesis of these systems of thought. Personal philosophies are individual perspectives meant to have meaning and value for one individual rather than general principles that apply to all. Applied practical value in life is one of the defining characteristics of personal life philosophies. If a personal philosophy is not of practical value in life, it is not much of a personal philosophy at all.

I already know my personal philosophy. I don’t need to develop it.

Short Answer : If you have and know your personal philosophy, you should be able to state it now in a clear and concise way that you can apply in your life. If not, crafting it into a clear form to you and that you actively know will help you realize real-world value from it.

• I’m just one normal person, my personal philosophy is of no value to the world.

Short Answer : Humanity is a collective of unique individuals. Who we are, what we know, what we will become and what defines us our humanity is determined by the sum total of each of us. Your individuality, including your unique understanding of and perspective on life and the world, has real implications for humanity collectively.

It can be easy to sell oneself short considering the hype and focus given to people with power, money and fame. This is exactly what you are doing if you truly think that your personal philosophy is not of consequence to the world.

At the very least, understanding your unique perspective on the world and life, will hedge off the homogeneity we are being driven toward by the systems and institutions that we have created. Systems and institutions controlled by and for the benefit of those with power, money and fame. Systems, institutions and people that want you to think and act in ways that benefit them. Dismissing the value of your personal philosophy and not developing yours is playing their game. Their game of control lets them have power over you and makes you even more susceptible to thinking and acting like they want you to as long as you are passive to it.

Your personal philosophy will lead you to a better understanding of the world. That understanding will prompt you to take some action to make it better, at least within your immediate world. Developing and knowing your personal philosophy may even lead you to do something that you never thought you would. That action may have implications beyond what you expect, and makes a substantial difference in the lives of others and the course of the world.

Be better equipped to develop and live your personal philosophy.

On Terms of Your Own:

The Pursuit of Being and Fulfillment in a Challenging World.

Navigate 101 by Topic

Key Concepts :

• The importance (value) of a personal philosophy.
• Why aren’t personal philosophies taught on a wider basis?
• What can be included in a personal philosophy?
• Using my personal philosophy in my life .

Common Misconceptions :

• Like philosophy in general, personal philosophies are esoteric and don’t have any practical value.
• I already know my personal philosophy. I don’t need to formalize it.

We’re in Yellow Springs, Ohio

24/7 writing help on your phone

To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”

My Philosophy of Life

Save to my list

Remove from my list

My Philosophy of Life. (2016, Nov 25). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/my-philosophy-of-life-essay

"My Philosophy of Life." StudyMoose , 25 Nov 2016, https://studymoose.com/my-philosophy-of-life-essay

StudyMoose. (2016). My Philosophy of Life . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/my-philosophy-of-life-essay [Accessed: 13 Sep. 2024]

"My Philosophy of Life." StudyMoose, Nov 25, 2016. Accessed September 13, 2024. https://studymoose.com/my-philosophy-of-life-essay

"My Philosophy of Life," StudyMoose , 25-Nov-2016. [Online]. Available: https://studymoose.com/my-philosophy-of-life-essay. [Accessed: 13-Sep-2024]

StudyMoose. (2016). My Philosophy of Life . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/my-philosophy-of-life-essay [Accessed: 13-Sep-2024]

• Philosophy the Meaning of Life Pages: 8 (2150 words)
• Philosophy of Life of Zorba the Greek Pages: 2 (331 words)
• Sartre On Life Choices Philosophy Pages: 9 (2526 words)
• Hamlet's Philosophy of Life and Death in Shakespeare's Play Pages: 10 (2818 words)
• Epicurean Philosophy: Achieving a Life of Tranquility and Pleasure Pages: 17 (5042 words)
• The Meaning and Philosophy of Life Pages: 2 (501 words)
• Confucianism: More Than Just a Philosophy, A Way of Life Pages: 3 (611 words)
• Exploring Philosophy: Unveiling Life's Fundamental Questions Pages: 3 (673 words)
• Transformational Leadership as My Leadership Philosophy in Life Pages: 4 (1020 words)
• The Quest for Meaning: Philosophy and Human Life Pages: 3 (774 words)

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

The Meaning of Life

Many major historical figures in philosophy have provided an answer to the question of what, if anything, makes life meaningful, although they typically have not put it in these terms (with such talk having arisen only in the past 250 years or so, on which see Landau 1997). Consider, for instance, Aristotle on the human function, Aquinas on the beatific vision, and Kant on the highest good. Relatedly, think about Koheleth, the presumed author of the Biblical book Ecclesiastes, describing life as “futility” and akin to “the pursuit of wind,” Nietzsche on nihilism, as well as Schopenhauer when he remarks that whenever we reach a goal we have longed for we discover “how vain and empty it is.” While these concepts have some bearing on happiness and virtue (and their opposites), they are straightforwardly construed (roughly) as accounts of which highly ranked purposes a person ought to realize that would make her life significant (if any would).

Despite the venerable pedigree, it is only since the 1980s or so that a distinct field of the meaning of life has been established in Anglo-American-Australasian philosophy, on which this survey focuses, and it is only in the past 20 years that debate with real depth and intricacy has appeared. Two decades ago analytic reflection on life’s meaning was described as a “backwater” compared to that on well-being or good character, and it was possible to cite nearly all the literature in a given critical discussion of the field (Metz 2002). Neither is true any longer. Anglo-American-Australasian philosophy of life’s meaning has become vibrant, such that there is now way too much literature to be able to cite comprehensively in this survey. To obtain focus, it tends to discuss books, influential essays, and more recent works, and it leaves aside contributions from other philosophical traditions (such as the Continental or African) and from non-philosophical fields (e.g., psychology or literature). This survey’s central aim is to acquaint the reader with current analytic approaches to life’s meaning, sketching major debates and pointing out neglected topics that merit further consideration.

When the topic of the meaning of life comes up, people tend to pose one of three questions: “What are you talking about?”, “What is the meaning of life?”, and “Is life in fact meaningful?”. The literature on life's meaning composed by those working in the analytic tradition (on which this entry focuses) can be usefully organized according to which question it seeks to answer. This survey starts off with recent work that addresses the first, abstract (or “meta”) question regarding the sense of talk of “life’s meaning,” i.e., that aims to clarify what we have in mind when inquiring into the meaning of life (section 1). Afterward, it considers texts that provide answers to the more substantive question about the nature of meaningfulness (sections 2–3). There is in the making a sub-field of applied meaning that parallels applied ethics, in which meaningfulness is considered in the context of particular cases or specific themes. Examples include downshifting (Levy 2005), implementing genetic enhancements (Agar 2013), making achievements (Bradford 2015), getting an education (Schinkel et al. 2015), interacting with research participants (Olson 2016), automating labor (Danaher 2017), and creating children (Ferracioli 2018). In contrast, this survey focuses nearly exclusively on contemporary normative-theoretical approaches to life’s meanining, that is, attempts to capture in a single, general principle all the variegated conditions that could confer meaning on life. Finally, this survey examines fresh arguments for the nihilist view that the conditions necessary for a meaningful life do not obtain for any of us, i.e., that all our lives are meaningless (section 4).

1. The Meaning of “Meaning”

2.1. god-centered views, 2.2. soul-centered views, 3.1. subjectivism, 3.2. objectivism, 3.3. rejecting god and a soul, 4. nihilism, works cited, classic works, collections, books for the general reader, other internet resources, related entries.

One of the field's aims consists of the systematic attempt to identify what people (essentially or characteristically) have in mind when they think about the topic of life’s meaning. For many in the field, terms such as “importance” and “significance” are synonyms of “meaningfulness” and so are insufficiently revealing, but there are those who draw a distinction between meaningfulness and significance (Singer 1996, 112–18; Belliotti 2019, 145–50, 186). There is also debate about how the concept of a meaningless life relates to the ideas of a life that is absurd (Nagel 1970, 1986, 214–23; Feinberg 1980; Belliotti 2019), futile (Trisel 2002), and not worth living (Landau 2017, 12–15; Matheson 2017).

A useful way to begin to get clear about what thinking about life’s meaning involves is to specify the bearer. Which life does the inquirer have in mind? A standard distinction to draw is between the meaning “in” life, where a human person is what can exhibit meaning, and the meaning “of” life in a narrow sense, where the human species as a whole is what can be meaningful or not. There has also been a bit of recent consideration of whether animals or human infants can have meaning in their lives, with most rejecting that possibility (e.g., Wong 2008, 131, 147; Fischer 2019, 1–24), but a handful of others beginning to make a case for it (Purves and Delon 2018; Thomas 2018). Also under-explored is the issue of whether groups, such as a people or an organization, can be bearers of meaning, and, if so, under what conditions.

Most analytic philosophers have been interested in meaning in life, that is, in the meaningfulness that a person’s life could exhibit, with comparatively few these days addressing the meaning of life in the narrow sense. Even those who believe that God is or would be central to life’s meaning have lately addressed how an individual’s life might be meaningful in virtue of God more often than how the human race might be. Although some have argued that the meaningfulness of human life as such merits inquiry to no less a degree (if not more) than the meaning in a life (Seachris 2013; Tartaglia 2015; cf. Trisel 2016), a large majority of the field has instead been interested in whether their lives as individual persons (and the lives of those they care about) are meaningful and how they could become more so.

Focusing on meaning in life, it is quite common to maintain that it is conceptually something good for its own sake or, relatedly, something that provides a basic reason for action (on which see Visak 2017). There are a few who have recently suggested otherwise, maintaining that there can be neutral or even undesirable kinds of meaning in a person’s life (e.g., Mawson 2016, 90, 193; Thomas 2018, 291, 294). However, these are outliers, with most analytic philosophers, and presumably laypeople, instead wanting to know when an individual’s life exhibits a certain kind of final value (or non-instrumental reason for action).

Another claim about which there is substantial consensus is that meaningfulness is not all or nothing and instead comes in degrees, such that some periods of life are more meaningful than others and that some lives as a whole are more meaningful than others. Note that one can coherently hold the view that some people’s lives are less meaningful (or even in a certain sense less “important”) than others, or are even meaningless (unimportant), and still maintain that people have an equal standing from a moral point of view. Consider a consequentialist moral principle according to which each individual counts for one in virtue of having a capacity for a meaningful life, or a Kantian approach according to which all people have a dignity in virtue of their capacity for autonomous decision-making, where meaning is a function of the exercise of this capacity. For both moral outlooks, we could be required to help people with relatively meaningless lives.

Yet another relatively uncontroversial element of the concept of meaningfulness in respect of individual persons is that it is logically distinct from happiness or rightness (emphasized in Wolf 2010, 2016). First, to ask whether someone’s life is meaningful is not one and the same as asking whether her life is pleasant or she is subjectively well off. A life in an experience machine or virtual reality device would surely be a happy one, but very few take it to be a prima facie candidate for meaningfulness (Nozick 1974: 42–45). Indeed, a number would say that one’s life logically could become meaningful precisely by sacrificing one’s well-being, e.g., by helping others at the expense of one’s self-interest. Second, asking whether a person’s existence over time is meaningful is not identical to considering whether she has been morally upright; there are intuitively ways to enhance meaning that have nothing to do with right action or moral virtue, such as making a scientific discovery or becoming an excellent dancer. Now, one might argue that a life would be meaningless if, or even because, it were unhappy or immoral, but that would be to posit a synthetic, substantive relationship between the concepts, far from indicating that speaking of “meaningfulness” is analytically a matter of connoting ideas regarding happiness or rightness. The question of what (if anything) makes a person’s life meaningful is conceptually distinct from the questions of what makes a life happy or moral, although it could turn out that the best answer to the former question appeals to an answer to one of the latter questions.

Supposing, then, that talk of “meaning in life” connotes something good for its own sake that can come in degrees and that is not analytically equivalent to happiness or rightness, what else does it involve? What more can we say about this final value, by definition? Most contemporary analytic philosophers would say that the relevant value is absent from spending time in an experience machine (but see Goetz 2012 for a different view) or living akin to Sisyphus, the mythic figure doomed by the Greek gods to roll a stone up a hill for eternity (famously discussed by Albert Camus and Taylor 1970). In addition, many would say that the relevant value is typified by the classic triad of “the good, the true, and the beautiful” (or would be under certain conditions). These terms are not to be taken literally, but instead are rough catchwords for beneficent relationships (love, collegiality, morality), intellectual reflection (wisdom, education, discoveries), and creativity (particularly the arts, but also potentially things like humor or gardening).

Pressing further, is there something that the values of the good, the true, the beautiful, and any other logically possible sources of meaning involve? There is as yet no consensus in the field. One salient view is that the concept of meaning in life is a cluster or amalgam of overlapping ideas, such as fulfilling higher-order purposes, meriting substantial esteem or admiration, having a noteworthy impact, transcending one’s animal nature, making sense, or exhibiting a compelling life-story (Markus 2003; Thomson 2003; Metz 2013, 24–35; Seachris 2013, 3–4; Mawson 2016). However, there are philosophers who maintain that something much more monistic is true of the concept, so that (nearly) all thought about meaningfulness in a person’s life is essentially about a single property. Suggestions include being devoted to or in awe of qualitatively superior goods (Taylor 1989, 3–24), transcending one’s limits (Levy 2005), or making a contribution (Martela 2016).

Recently there has been something of an “interpretive turn” in the field, one instance of which is the strong view that meaning-talk is logically about whether and how a life is intelligible within a wider frame of reference (Goldman 2018, 116–29; Seachris 2019; Thomas 2019; cf. Repp 2018). According to this approach, inquiring into life’s meaning is nothing other than seeking out sense-making information, perhaps a narrative about life or an explanation of its source and destiny. This analysis has the advantage of promising to unify a wide array of uses of the term “meaning.” However, it has the disadvantages of being unable to capture the intuitions that meaning in life is essentially good for its own sake (Landau 2017, 12–15), that it is not logically contradictory to maintain that an ineffable condition is what confers meaning on life (as per Cooper 2003, 126–42; Bennett-Hunter 2014; Waghorn 2014), and that often human actions themselves (as distinct from an interpretation of them), such as rescuing a child from a burning building, are what bear meaning.

Some thinkers have suggested that a complete analysis of the concept of life’s meaning should include what has been called “anti-matter” (Metz 2002, 805–07, 2013, 63–65, 71–73) or “anti-meaning” (Campbell and Nyholm 2015; Egerstrom 2015), conditions that reduce the meaningfulness of a life. The thought is that meaning is well represented by a bipolar scale, where there is a dimension of not merely positive conditions, but also negative ones. Gratuitous cruelty or destructiveness are prima facie candidates for actions that not merely fail to add meaning, but also subtract from any meaning one’s life might have had.

Despite the ongoing debates about how to analyze the concept of life’s meaning (or articulate the definition of the phrase “meaning in life”), the field remains in a good position to make progress on the other key questions posed above, viz., of what would make a life meaningful and whether any lives are in fact meaningful. A certain amount of common ground is provided by the point that meaningfulness at least involves a gradient final value in a person’s life that is conceptually distinct from happiness and rightness, with exemplars of it potentially being the good, the true, and the beautiful. The rest of this discussion addresses philosophical attempts to capture the nature of this value theoretically and to ascertain whether it exists in at least some of our lives.

2. Supernaturalism

Most analytic philosophers writing on meaning in life have been trying to develop and evaluate theories, i.e., fundamental and general principles, that are meant to capture all the particular ways that a life could obtain meaning. As in moral philosophy, there are recognizable “anti-theorists,” i.e., those who maintain that there is too much pluralism among meaning conditions to be able to unify them in the form of a principle (e.g., Kekes 2000; Hosseini 2015). Arguably, though, the systematic search for unity is too nascent to be able to draw a firm conclusion about whether it is available.

The theories are standardly divided on a metaphysical basis, that is, in terms of which kinds of properties are held to constitute the meaning. Supernaturalist theories are views according to which a spiritual realm is central to meaning in life. Most Western philosophers have conceived of the spiritual in terms of God or a soul as commonly understood in the Abrahamic faiths (but see Mulgan 2015 for discussion of meaning in the context of a God uninterested in us). In contrast, naturalist theories are views that the physical world as known particularly well by the scientific method is central to life’s meaning.

There is logical space for a non-naturalist theory, according to which central to meaning is an abstract property that is neither spiritual nor physical. However, only scant attention has been paid to this possibility in the recent Anglo-American-Australasian literature (Audi 2005).

It is important to note that supernaturalism, a claim that God (or a soul) would confer meaning on a life, is logically distinct from theism, the claim that God (or a soul) exists. Although most who hold supernaturalism also hold theism, one could accept the former without the latter (as Camus more or less did), committing one to the view that life is meaningless or at least lacks substantial meaning. Similarly, while most naturalists are atheists, it is not contradictory to maintain that God exists but has nothing to do with meaning in life or perhaps even detracts from it. Although these combinations of positions are logically possible, some of them might be substantively implausible. The field could benefit from discussion of the comparative attractiveness of various combinations of evaluative claims about what would make life meaningful and metaphysical claims about whether spiritual conditions exist.

Over the past 15 years or so, two different types of supernaturalism have become distinguished on a regular basis (Metz 2019). That is true not only in the literature on life’s meaning, but also in that on the related pro-theism/anti-theism debate, about whether it would be desirable for God or a soul to exist (e.g., Kahane 2011; Kraay 2018; Lougheed 2020). On the one hand, there is extreme supernaturalism, according to which spiritual conditions are necessary for any meaning in life. If neither God nor a soul exists, then, by this view, everyone’s life is meaningless. On the other hand, there is moderate supernaturalism, according to which spiritual conditions are necessary for a great or ultimate meaning in life, although not meaning in life as such. If neither God nor a soul exists, then, by this view, everyone’s life could have some meaning, or even be meaningful, but no one’s life could exhibit the most desirable meaning. For a moderate supernaturalist, God or a soul would substantially enhance meaningfulness or be a major contributory condition for it.

There are a variety of ways that great or ultimate meaning has been described, sometimes quantitatively as “infinite” (Mawson 2016), qualitatively as “deeper” (Swinburne 2016), relationally as “unlimited” (Nozick 1981, 618–19; cf. Waghorn 2014), temporally as “eternal” (Cottingham 2016), and perspectivally as “from the point of view of the universe” (Benatar 2017). There has been no reflection as yet on the crucial question of how these distinctions might bear on each another, for instance, on whether some are more basic than others or some are more valuable than others.

Cross-cutting the extreme/moderate distinction is one between God-centered theories and soul-centered ones. According to the former, some kind of connection with God (understood to be a spiritual person who is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful and who is the ground of the physical universe) constitutes meaning in life, even if one lacks a soul (construed as an immortal, spiritual substance that contains one’s identity). In contrast, by the latter, having a soul and putting it into a certain state is what makes life meaningful, even if God does not exist. Many supernaturalists of course believe that God and a soul are jointly necessary for a (greatly) meaningful existence. However, the simpler view, that only one of them is necessary, is common, and sometimes arguments proffered for the complex view fail to support it any more than the simpler one.

The most influential God-based account of meaning in life has been the extreme view that one’s existence is significant if and only if one fulfills a purpose God has assigned. The familiar idea is that God has a plan for the universe and that one’s life is meaningful just to the degree that one helps God realize this plan, perhaps in a particular way that God wants one to do so. If a person failed to do what God intends her to do with her life (or if God does not even exist), then, on the current view, her life would be meaningless.

Thinkers differ over what it is about God’s purpose that might make it uniquely able to confer meaning on human lives, but the most influential argument has been that only God’s purpose could be the source of invariant moral rules (Davis 1987, 296, 304–05; Moreland 1987, 124–29; Craig 1994/2013, 161–67) or of objective values more generally (Cottingham 2005, 37–57), where a lack of such would render our lives nonsensical. According to this argument, lower goods such as animal pleasure or desire satisfaction could exist without God, but higher ones pertaining to meaning in life, particularly moral virtue, could not. However, critics point to many non-moral sources of meaning in life (e.g., Kekes 2000; Wolf 2010), with one arguing that a universal moral code is not necessary for meaning in life, even if, say, beneficent actions are (Ellin 1995, 327). In addition, there are a variety of naturalist and non-naturalist accounts of objective morality––and of value more generally––on offer these days, so that it is not clear that it must have a supernatural source in God’s will.

One recurrent objection to the idea that God’s purpose could make life meaningful is that if God had created us with a purpose in mind, then God would have degraded us and thereby undercut the possibility of us obtaining meaning from fulfilling the purpose. The objection harks back to Jean-Paul Sartre, but in the analytic literature it appears that Kurt Baier was the first to articulate it (1957/2000, 118–20; see also Murphy 1982, 14–15; Singer 1996, 29; Kahane 2011; Lougheed 2020, 121–41). Sometimes the concern is the threat of punishment God would make so that we do God’s bidding, while other times it is that the source of meaning would be constrictive and not up to us, and still other times it is that our dignity would be maligned simply by having been created with a certain end in mind (for some replies to such concerns, see Hanfling 1987, 45–46; Cottingham 2005, 37–57; Lougheed 2020, 111–21).

There is a different argument for an extreme God-based view that focuses less on God as purposive and more on God as infinite, unlimited, or ineffable, which Robert Nozick first articulated with care (Nozick 1981, 594–618; see also Bennett-Hunter 2014; Waghorn 2014). The core idea is that for a finite condition to be meaningful, it must obtain its meaning from another condition that has meaning. So, if one’s life is meaningful, it might be so in virtue of being married to a person, who is important. Being finite, the spouse must obtain his or her importance from elsewhere, perhaps from the sort of work he or she does. This work also must obtain its meaning by being related to something else that is meaningful, and so on. A regress on meaningful conditions is present, and the suggestion is that the regress can terminate only in something so all-encompassing that it need not (indeed, cannot) go beyond itself to obtain meaning from anything else. And that is God. The standard objection to this relational rationale is that a finite condition could be meaningful without obtaining its meaning from another meaningful condition. Perhaps it could be meaningful in itself, without being connected to something beyond it, or maybe it could obtain its meaning by being related to something else that is beautiful or otherwise valuable for its own sake but not meaningful (Nozick 1989, 167–68; Thomson 2003, 25–26, 48).

A serious concern for any extreme God-based view is the existence of apparent counterexamples. If we think of the stereotypical lives of Albert Einstein, Mother Teresa, and Pablo Picasso, they seem meaningful even if we suppose there is no all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good spiritual person who is the ground of the physical world (e.g., Wielenberg 2005, 31–37, 49–50; Landau 2017). Even religiously inclined philosophers have found this hard to deny these days (Quinn 2000, 58; Audi 2005; Mawson 2016, 5; Williams 2020, 132–34).

Largely for that reason, contemporary supernaturalists have tended to opt for moderation, that is, to maintain that God would greatly enhance the meaning in our lives, even if some meaning would be possible in a world without God. One approach is to invoke the relational argument to show that God is necessary, not for any meaning whatsoever, but rather for an ultimate meaning. “Limited transcendence, the transcending of our limits so as to connect with a wider context of value which itself is limited, does give our lives meaning––but a limited one. We may thirst for more” (Nozick 1981, 618). Another angle is to appeal to playing a role in God’s plan, again to claim, not that it is essential for meaning as such, but rather for “a cosmic significance....intead of a significance very limited in time and space” (Swinburne 2016, 154; see also Quinn 2000; Cottingham 2016, 131). Another rationale is that by fulfilling God’s purpose, we would meaningfully please God, a perfect person, as well as be remembered favorably by God forever (Cottingham 2016, 135; Williams 2020, 21–22, 29, 101, 108). Still another argument is that only with God could the deepest desires of human nature be satisfied (e.g., Goetz 2012; Seachris 2013, 20; Cottingham 2016, 127, 136), even if more surface desires could be satisfied without God.

In reply to such rationales for a moderate supernaturalism, there has been the suggestion that it is precisely by virtue of being alone in the universe that our lives would be particularly significant; otherwise, God’s greatness would overshadow us (Kahane 2014). There has also been the response that, with the opportunity for greater meaning from God would also come that for greater anti-meaning, so that it is not clear that a world with God would offer a net gain in respect of meaning (Metz 2019, 34–35). For example, if pleasing God would greatly enhance meaning in our lives, then presumably displeasing God would greatly reduce it and to a comparable degree. In addition, there are arguments for extreme naturalism (or its “anti-theist” cousin) mentioned below (sub-section 3.3).

Notice that none of the above arguments for supernaturalism appeals to the prospect of eternal life (at least not explicitly). Arguments that do make such an appeal are soul-centered, holding that meaning in life mainly comes from having an immortal, spiritual substance that is contiguous with one’s body when it is alive and that will forever outlive its death. Some think of the afterlife in terms of one’s soul entering a transcendent, spiritual realm (Heaven), while others conceive of one’s soul getting reincarnated into another body on Earth. According to the extreme version, if one has a soul but fails to put it in the right state (or if one lacks a soul altogether), then one’s life is meaningless.

There are three prominent arguments for an extreme soul-based perspective. One argument, made famous by Leo Tolstoy, is the suggestion that for life to be meaningful something must be worth doing, that something is worth doing only if it will make a permanent difference to the world, and that making a permanent difference requires being immortal (see also Hanfling 1987, 22–24; Morris 1992, 26; Craig 1994). Critics most often appeal to counterexamples, suggesting for instance that it is surely worth your time and effort to help prevent people from suffering, even if you and they are mortal. Indeed, some have gone on the offensive and argued that helping people is worth the sacrifice only if and because they are mortal, for otherwise they could invariably be compensated in an afterlife (e.g., Wielenberg 2005, 91–94). Another recent and interesting criticism is that the major motivations for the claim that nothing matters now if one day it will end are incoherent (Greene 2021).

A second argument for the view that life would be meaningless without a soul is that it is necessary for justice to be done, which, in turn, is necessary for a meaningful life. Life seems nonsensical when the wicked flourish and the righteous suffer, at least supposing there is no other world in which these injustices will be rectified, whether by God or a Karmic force. Something like this argument can be found in Ecclesiastes, and it continues to be defended (e.g., Davis 1987; Craig 1994). However, even granting that an afterlife is required for perfectly just outcomes, it is far from obvious that an eternal afterlife is necessary for them, and, then, there is the suggestion that some lives, such as Mandela’s, have been meaningful precisely in virtue of encountering injustice and fighting it.

A third argument for thinking that having a soul is essential for any meaning is that it is required to have the sort of free will without which our lives would be meaningless. Immanuel Kant is known for having maintained that if we were merely physical beings, subjected to the laws of nature like everything else in the material world, then we could not act for moral reasons and hence would be unimportant. More recently, one theologian has eloquently put the point in religious terms: “The moral spirit finds the meaning of life in choice. It finds it in that which proceeds from man and remains with him as his inner essence rather than in the accidents of circumstances turns of external fortune....(W)henever a human being rubs the lamp of his moral conscience, a Spirit does appear. This Spirit is God....It is in the ‘Thou must’ of God and man’s ‘I can’ that the divine image of God in human life is contained” (Swenson 1949/2000, 27–28). Notice that, even if moral norms did not spring from God’s commands, the logic of the argument entails that one’s life could be meaningful, so long as one had the inherent ability to make the morally correct choice in any situation. That, in turn, arguably requires something non-physical about one’s self, so as to be able to overcome whichever physical laws and forces one might confront. The standard objection to this reasoning is to advance a compatibilism about having a determined physical nature and being able to act for moral reasons (e.g., Arpaly 2006; Fischer 2009, 145–77). It is also worth wondering whether, if one had to have a spiritual essence in order to make free choices, it would have to be one that never perished.

Like God-centered theorists, many soul-centered theorists these days advance a moderate view, accepting that some meaning in life would be possible without immortality, but arguing that a much greater meaning would be possible with it. Granting that Einstein, Mandela, and Picasso had somewhat meaningful lives despite not having survived the deaths of their bodies (as per, e.g., Trisel 2004; Wolf 2015, 89–140; Landau 2017), there remains a powerful thought: more is better. If a finite life with the good, the true, and the beautiful has meaning in it to some degree, then surely it would have all the more meaning if it exhibited such higher values––including a relationship with God––for an eternity (Cottingham 2016, 132–35; Mawson 2016, 2019, 52–53; Williams 2020, 112–34; cf. Benatar 2017, 35–63). One objection to this reasoning is that the infinity of meaning that would be possible with a soul would be “too big,” rendering it difficult for the moderate supernaturalist to make sense of the intution that a finite life such as Einstein’s can indeed count as meaningful by comparison (Metz 2019, 30–31; cf. Mawson 2019, 53–54). More common, though, is the objection that an eternal life would include anti-meaning of various kinds, such as boredom and repetition, discussed below in the context of extreme naturalism (sub-section 3.3).

3. Naturalism

Recall that naturalism is the view that a physical life is central to life’s meaning, that even if there is no spiritual realm, a substantially meaningful life is possible. Like supernaturalism, contemporary naturalism admits of two distinguishable variants, moderate and extreme (Metz 2019). The moderate version is that, while a genuinely meaningful life could be had in a purely physical universe as known well by science, a somewhat more meaningful life would be possible if a spiritual realm also existed. God or a soul could enhance meaning in life, although they would not be major contributors. The extreme version of naturalism is the view that it would be better in respect of life’s meaning if there were no spiritual realm. From this perspective, God or a soul would be anti-matter, i.e., would detract from the meaning available to us, making a purely physical world (even if not this particular one) preferable.

Cross-cutting the moderate/extreme distinction is that between subjectivism and objectivism, which are theoretical accounts of the nature of meaningfulness insofar as it is physical. They differ in terms of the extent to which the human mind constitutes meaning and whether there are conditions of meaning that are invariant among human beings. Subjectivists believe that there are no invariant standards of meaning because meaning is relative to the subject, i.e., depends on an individual’s pro-attitudes such as her particular desires or ends, which are not shared by everyone. Roughly, something is meaningful for a person if she strongly wants it or intends to seek it out and she gets it. Objectivists maintain, in contrast, that there are some invariant standards for meaning because meaning is at least partly mind-independent, i.e., obtains not merely in virtue of being the object of anyone’s mental states. Here, something is meaningful (partially) because of its intrinsic nature, in the sense of being independent of whether it is wanted or intended; meaning is instead (to some extent) the sort of thing that merits these reactions.

There is logical space for an orthogonal view, according to which there are invariant standards of meaningfulness constituted by what all human beings would converge on from a certain standpoint. However, it has not been much of a player in the field (Darwall 1983, 164–66).

According to this version of naturalism, meaning in life varies from person to person, depending on each one’s variable pro-attitudes. Common instances are views that one’s life is more meaningful, the more one gets what one happens to want strongly, achieves one’s highly ranked goals, or does what one believes to be really important (Trisel 2002; Hooker 2008). One influential subjectivist has recently maintained that the relevant mental state is caring or loving, so that life is meaningful just to the extent that one cares about or loves something (Frankfurt 1988, 80–94, 2004). Another recent proposal is that meaningfulness consists of “an active engagement and affirmation that vivifies the person who has freely created or accepted and now promotes and nurtures the projects of her highest concern” (Belliotti 2019, 183).

Subjectivism was dominant in the middle of the twentieth century, when positivism, noncognitivism, existentialism, and Humeanism were influential (Ayer 1947; Hare 1957; Barnes 1967; Taylor 1970; Williams 1976). However, in the last quarter of the twentieth century, inference to the best explanation and reflective equilibrium became accepted forms of normative argumentation and were frequently used to defend claims about the existence and nature of objective value (or of “external reasons,” ones obtaining independently of one’s extant attitudes). As a result, subjectivism about meaning lost its dominance. Those who continue to hold subjectivism often remain suspicious of attempts to justify beliefs about objective value (e.g., Trisel 2002, 73, 79, 2004, 378–79; Frankfurt 2004, 47–48, 55–57; Wong 2008, 138–39; Evers 2017, 32, 36; Svensson 2017, 54). Theorists are moved to accept subjectivism typically because the alternatives are unpalatable; they are reasonably sure that meaning in life obtains for some people, but do not see how it could be grounded on something independent of the mind, whether it be the natural or the supernatural (or the non-natural). In contrast to these possibilities, it appears straightforward to account for what is meaningful in terms of what people find meaningful or what people want out of their lives. Wide-ranging meta-ethical debates in epistemology, metaphysics, and the philosophy of language are necessary to address this rationale for subjectivism.

There is a cluster of other, more circumscribed arguments for subjectivism, according to which this theory best explains certain intuitive features of meaning in life. For one, subjectivism seems plausible since it is reasonable to think that a meaningful life is an authentic one (Frankfurt 1988, 80–94). If a person’s life is significant insofar as she is true to herself or her deepest nature, then we have some reason to believe that meaning simply is a function of those matters for which the person cares. For another, it is uncontroversial that often meaning comes from losing oneself, i.e., in becoming absorbed in an activity or experience, as opposed to being bored by it or finding it frustrating (Frankfurt 1988, 80–94; Belliotti 2019, 162–70). Work that concentrates the mind and relationships that are engrossing seem central to meaning and to be so because of the subjective elements involved. For a third, meaning is often taken to be something that makes life worth continuing for a specific person, i.e., that gives her a reason to get out of bed in the morning, which subjectivism is thought to account for best (Williams 1976; Svensson 2017; Calhoun 2018).

Critics maintain that these arguments are vulnerable to a common objection: they neglect the role of objective value (or an external reason) in realizing oneself, losing oneself, and having a reason to live (Taylor 1989, 1992; Wolf 2010, 2015, 89–140). One is not really being true to oneself, losing oneself in a meaningful way, or having a genuine reason to live insofar as one, say, successfully maintains 3,732 hairs on one’s head (Taylor 1992, 36), cultivates one’s prowess at long-distance spitting (Wolf 2010, 104), collects a big ball of string (Wolf 2010, 104), or, well, eats one’s own excrement (Wielenberg 2005, 22). The counterexamples suggest that subjective conditions are insufficient to ground meaning in life; there seem to be certain actions, relationships, and states that are objectively valuable (but see Evers 2017, 30–32) and toward which one’s pro-attitudes ought to be oriented, if meaning is to accrue.

So say objectivists, but subjectivists feel the pull of the point and usually seek to avoid the counterexamples, lest they have to bite the bullet by accepting the meaningfulness of maintaining 3,732 hairs on one’s head and all the rest (for some who do, see Svensson 2017, 54–55; Belliotti 2019, 181–83). One important strategy is to suggest that subjectivists can avoid the counterexamples by appealing to the right sort of pro-attitude. Instead of whatever an individual happens to want, perhaps the relevant mental state is an emotional-perceptual one of seeing-as (Alexis 2011; cf. Hosseini 2015, 47–66), a “categorical” desire, that is, an intrinsic desire constitutive of one’s identity that one takes to make life worth continuing (Svensson 2017), or a judgment that one has a good reason to value something highly for its own sake (Calhoun 2018). Even here, though, objectivists will argue that it might “appear that whatever the will chooses to treat as a good reason to engage itself is, for the will, a good reason. But the will itself....craves objective reasons; and often it could not go forward unless it thought it had them” (Wiggins 1988, 136). And without any appeal to objectivity, it is perhaps likely that counterexamples would resurface.

Another subjectivist strategy by which to deal with the counterexamples is the attempt to ground meaningfulness, not on the pro-attitudes of an individual valuer, but on those of a group (Darwall 1983, 164–66; Brogaard and Smith 2005; Wong 2008). Does such an intersubjective move avoid (more of) the counterexamples? If so, does it do so more plausibly than an objective theory?

Objective naturalists believe that meaning in life is constituted at least in part by something physical beyond merely the fact that it is the object of a pro-attitude. Obtaining the object of some emotion, desire, or judgment is not sufficient for meaningfulness, on this view. Instead, there are certain conditions of the material world that could confer meaning on anyone’s life, not merely because they are viewed as meaningful, wanted for their own sake, or believed to be choiceworthy, but instead (at least partially) because they are inherently worthwhile or valuable in themselves.

Morality (the good), enquiry (the true), and creativity (the beautiful) are widely held instances of activities that confer meaning on life, while trimming toenails and eating snow––along with the counterexamples to subjectivism above––are not. Objectivism is widely thought to be a powerful general explanation of these particular judgments: the former are meaningful not merely because some agent (whether it is an individual, her society, or even God) cares about them or judges them to be worth doing, while the latter simply lack significance and cannot obtain it even if some agent does care about them or judge them to be worth doing. From an objective perspective, it is possible for an individual to care about the wrong thing or to be mistaken that something is worthwhile, and not merely because of something she cares about all the more or judges to be still more choiceworthy. Of course, meta-ethical debates about the existence and nature of value are again relevant to appraising this rationale.

Some objectivists think that being the object of a person’s mental states plays no constitutive role in making that person’s life meaningful, although they of course contend that it often plays an instrumental role––liking a certain activity, after all, is likely to motivate one to do it. Relatively few objectivists are “pure” in that way, although consequentialists do stand out as clear instances (e.g., Singer 1995; Smuts 2018, 75–99). Most objectivists instead try to account for the above intuitions driving subjectivism by holding that a life is more meaningful, not merely because of objective factors, but also in part because of propositional attitudes such as cognition, conation, and emotion. Particularly influential has been Susan Wolf’s hybrid view, captured by this pithy slogan: “Meaning arises when subjective attraction meets objective attractiveness” (Wolf 2015, 112; see also Kekes 1986, 2000; Wiggins 1988; Raz 2001, 10–40; Mintoff 2008; Wolf 2010, 2016; Fischer 2019, 9–23; Belshaw 2021, 160–81). This theory implies that no meaning accrues to one’s life if one believes in, is satisfied by, or cares about a project that is not truly worthwhile, or if one takes up a truly worthwhile project but fails to judge it important, be satisfied by it, or care about it. A related approach is that, while subjective attraction is not necessary for meaning, it could enhance it (e.g., Audi 2005, 344; Metz 2013, 183–84, 196–98, 220–25). For instance, a stereotypical Mother Teresa who is bored by and alienated from her substantial charity work might have a somewhat significant existence because of it, even if she would have an even more significant existence if she felt pride in it or identified with it.

There have been several attempts to capture theoretically what all objectively attractive, inherently worthwhile, or finally valuable conditions have in common insofar as they bear on meaning in a person’s life. Over the past few decades, one encounters the proposals that objectively meaningful conditions are just those that involve: positively connecting with organic unity beyond oneself (Nozick 1981, 594–619); being creative (Taylor 1987; Matheson 2018); living an emotional life (Solomon 1993; cf. Williams 2020, 56–78); promoting good consequences, such as improving the quality of life of oneself and others (Singer 1995; Audi 2005; Smuts 2018, 75–99); exercising or fostering rational nature in exceptional ways (Smith 1997, 179–221; Gewirth 1998, 177–82; Metz 2013, 222–36); progressing toward ends that can never be fully realized because one’s knowledge of them changes as one approaches them (Levy 2005); realizing goals that are transcendent for being long-lasting in duration and broad in scope (Mintoff 2008); living virtuously (May 2015, 61–138; McPherson 2020); and loving what is worth loving (Wolf 2016). There is as yet no convergence in the field on one, or even a small cluster, of these accounts.

One feature of a large majority of the above naturalist theories is that they are aggregative or additive, objectionably treating a life as a mere “container” of bits of life that are meaningful considered in isolation from other bits (Brännmark 2003, 330). It has become increasingly common for philosophers of life’s meaning, especially objectivists, to hold that life as a whole, or at least long stretches of it, can substantially affect its meaningfulness beyond the amount of meaning (if any) in its parts.

For instance, a life that has lots of beneficence and otherwise intuitively meaning-conferring conditions but that is also extremely repetitive (à la the movie Groundhog Day ) is less than maximally meaningful (Taylor 1987; Blumenfeld 2009). Furthermore, a life that not only avoids repetition but also ends with a substantial amount of meaningful (or otherwise desirable) parts seems to have more meaning overall than one that has the same amount of meaningful (desirable) parts but ends with few or none of them (Kamm 2013, 18–22; Dorsey 2015). Still more, a life in which its meaningless (or otherwise undesirable parts) cause its meaningful (desirable) parts to come about through a process of personal growth seems meaningful in virtue of this redemptive pattern, “good life-story,” or narrative self-expression (Taylor 1989, 48–51; Wong 2008; Fischer 2009, 145–77; Kauppinen 2012; May 2015, 61–138; Velleman 2015, 141–73). These three cases suggest that meaning can inhere in life as a whole, that is, in the relationships between its parts, and not merely in the parts considered in isolation. However, some would maintain that it is, strictly speaking, the story that is or could be told of a life that matters, not so much the life-story qua relations between events themselves (de Bres 2018).

There are pure or extreme versions of holism present in the literature, according to which the only possible bearer of meaning in life is a person’s life as a whole, and not any isolated activities, relationships, or states (Taylor 1989, 48–51; Tabensky 2003; Levinson 2004). A salient argument for this position is that judgments of the meaningfulness of a part of someone’s life are merely provisional, open to revision upon considering how they fit into a wider perspective. So, for example, it would initially appear that taking an ax away from a madman and thereby protecting innocent parties confers some meaning on one’s life, but one might well revise that judgment upon learning that the intention behind it was merely to steal an ax, not to save lives, or that the madman then took out a machine gun, causing much more harm than his ax would have. It is worth considering how far this sort of case is generalizable, and, if it can be to a substantial extent, whether that provides strong evidence that only life as a whole can exhibit meaningfulness.

Perhaps most objectivists would, at least upon reflection, accept that both the parts of a life and the whole-life relationships among the parts can exhibit meaning. Supposing there are two bearers of meaning in a life, important questions arise. One is whether a certain narrative can be meaningful even if its parts are not, while a second is whether the meaningfulness of a part increases if it is an aspect of a meaningful whole (on which see Brännmark 2003), and a third is whether there is anything revealing to say about how to make tradeoffs between the parts and whole in cases where one must choose between them (Blumenfeld 2009 appears to assign lexical priority to the whole).

Naturalists until recently had been largely concerned to show that meaning in life is possible without God or a soul; they have not spent much time considering how such spiritual conditions might enhance meaning, but have, in moderate fashion, tended to leave that possibility open (an exception is Hooker 2008). Lately, however, an extreme form of naturalism has arisen, according to which our lives would probably, if not unavoidably, have less meaning in a world with God or a soul than in one without. Although such an approach was voiced early on by Baier (1957), it is really in the past decade or so that this “anti-theist” position has become widely and intricately discussed.

One rationale, mentioned above as an objection to the view that God’s purpose constitutes meaning in life, has also been deployed to argue that the existence of God as such would necessarily reduce meaning, that is, would consist of anti-matter. It is the idea that master/servant and parent/child analogies so prominent in the monotheist religious traditions reveal something about our status in a world where there is a qualitatively higher being who has created us with certain ends in mind: our independence or dignity as adult persons would be violated (e.g., Baier 1957/2000, 118–20; Kahane 2011, 681–85; Lougheed 2020, 121–41). One interesting objection to this reasoning has been to accept that God’s existence is necessarily incompatible with the sort of meaning that would come (roughly stated) from being one’s own boss, but to argue that God would also make greater sorts of meaning available, offering a net gain to us (Mawson 2016, 110–58).

Another salient argument for thinking that God would detract from meaning in life appeals to the value of privacy (Kahane 2011, 681–85; Lougheed 2020, 55–110). God’s omniscience would unavoidably make it impossible for us to control another person’s access to the most intimate details about ourselves, which, for some, amounts to a less meaningful life than one with such control. Beyond questioning the value of our privacy in relation to God, one thought-provoking criticism has been to suggest that, if a lack of privacy really would substantially reduce meaning in our lives, then God, qua morally perfect person, would simply avoid knowing everything about us (Tooley 2018). Lacking complete knowledge of our mental states would be compatible with describing God as “omniscient,” so the criticism goes, insofar as that is plausibly understood as having as much knowledge as is morally permissible.

Turn, now, to major arguments for thinking that having a soul would reduce life’s meaning, so that if one wants a maximally meaningful life, one should prefer a purely physical world, or at least one in which people are mortal. First and foremost, there has been the argument that an immortal life could not avoid becoming boring (Williams 1973), rendering life pointless according to many subjective and objective theories. The literature on this topic has become enormous, with the central reply being that immortality need not get boring (for more recent discussions, see Fischer 2009, 79–101, 2019, 117–42; Mawson 2019, 51–52; Williams 2020, 30–41, 123–29; Belshaw 2021, 182–97). However, it might also be worth questioning whether boredom is sufficient for meaninglessness. Suppose, for instance, that one volunteers to be bored so that many others will not be bored; perhaps this would be a meaningful sacrifice to make. Being bored for an eternity would not be blissful or even satisfying, to be sure, but if it served the function of preventing others from being bored for an eternity, would it be meaningful (at least to some degree)? If, as is commonly held, sacrificing one’s life could be meaningful, why not also sacrificing one’s liveliness?

Another reason given to reject eternal life is that it would become repetitive, which would substantially drain it of meaning (Scarre 2007, 54–55; May 2009, 46–47, 64–65, 71; Smuts 2011, 142–44; cf. Blumenfeld 2009). If, as it appears, there are only a finite number of actions one could perform, relationships one could have, and states one could be in during an eternity, one would have to end up doing the same things again. Even though one’s activities might be more valuable than rolling a stone up a hill forever à la Sisyphus, the prospect of doing them over and over again forever is disheartening for many. To be sure, one might not remember having done them before and hence could avoid boredom, but for some philosophers that would make it all the worse, akin to having dementia and forgetting that one has told the same stories. Others, however, still find meaning in such a life (e.g., Belshaw 2021, 197, 205n41).

A third meaning-based argument against immortality invokes considerations of narrative. If the pattern of one’s life as a whole substantially matters, and if a proper pattern would include a beginning, a middle, and an end, it appears that a life that never ends would lack the relevant narrative structure. “Because it would drag on endlessly, it would, sooner or later, just be a string of events lacking all form....With immortality, the novel never ends....How meaningful can such a novel be?” (May 2009, 68, 72; see also Scarre 2007, 58–60). Notice that this objection is distinct from considerations of boredom and repetition (which concern novelty ); even if one were stimulated and active, and even if one found a way not to repeat one’s life in the course of eternity, an immortal life would appear to lack shape. In reply, some reject the idea that a meaningful life must be akin to a novel, and intead opt for narrativity in the form of something like a string of short stories that build on each other (Fischer 2009, 145–77, 2019, 101–16). Others, though, have sought to show that eternity could still be novel-like, deeming the sort of ending that matters to be a function of what the content is and how it relates to the content that came before (e.g., Seachris 2011; Williams 2020, 112–19).

There have been additional objections to immortality as undercutting meaningfulness, but they are prima facie less powerful than the previous three in that, if sound, they arguably show that an eternal life would have a cost, but probably not one that would utterly occlude the prospect of meaning in it. For example, there have been the suggestions that eternal lives would lack a sense of preciousness and urgency (Nussbaum 1989, 339; Kass 2002, 266–67), could not exemplify virtues such as courageously risking one’s life for others (Kass 2002, 267–68; Wielenberg 2005, 91–94), and could not obtain meaning from sustaining or saving others’ lives (Nussbaum 1989, 338; Wielenberg 2005, 91–94). Note that at least the first two rationales turn substantially on the belief in immortality, not quite immortality itself: if one were immortal but forgot that one is or did not know that at all, then one could appreciate life and obtain much of the virtue of courage (and, conversely, if one were not immortal, but thought that one is, then, by the logic of these arguments, one would fail to appreciate limits and be unable to exemplify courage).

The previous two sections addressed theoretical accounts of what would confer meaning on a human person’s life. Although these theories do not imply that some people’s lives are in fact meaningful, that has been the presumption of a very large majority of those who have advanced them. Much of the procedure has been to suppose that many lives have had meaning in them and then to consider in virtue of what they have or otherwise could. However, there are nihilist (or pessimist) perspectives that question this supposition. According to nihilism (pessimism), what would make a life meaningful in principle cannot obtain for any of us.

One straightforward rationale for nihilism is the combination of extreme supernaturalism about what makes life meaningful and atheism about whether a spiritual realm exists. If you believe that God or a soul is necessary for meaning in life, and if you believe that neither is real, then you are committed to nihilism, to the denial that life can have any meaning. Athough this rationale for nihilism was prominent in the modern era (and was more or less Camus’ position), it has been on the wane in analytic philosophical circles, as extreme supernaturalism has been eclipsed by the moderate variety.

The most common rationales for nihilism these days do not appeal to supernaturalism, or at least not explicitly. One cluster of ideas appeals to what meta-ethicists call “error theory,” the view that evaluative claims (in this case about meaning in life, or about morality qua necessary for meaning) characteristically posit objectively real or universally justified values, but that such values do not exist. According to one version, value judgments often analytically include a claim to objectivity but there is no reason to think that objective values exist, as they “would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe” (Mackie 1977/1990, 38). According to a second version, life would be meaningless if there were no set of moral standards that could be fully justified to all rational enquirers, but it so happens that such standards cannot exist for persons who can always reasonably question a given claim (Murphy 1982, 12–17). According to a third, we hold certain beliefs about the objectivity and universality of morality and related values such as meaning because they were evolutionarily advantageous to our ancestors, not because they are true. Humans have been “deceived by their genes into thinking that there is a distinterested, objective morality binding upon them, which all should obey” (Ruse and Wilson 1986, 179; cf. Street 2015). One must draw on the intricate work in meta-ethics that has been underway for the past several decades in order to appraise these arguments.

In contrast to error-theoretic arguments for nihilism, there are rationales for it accepting that objective values exist but denying that our lives can ever exhibit or promote them so as to obtain meaning. One version of this approach maintains that, for our lives to matter, we must be in a position to add objective value to the world, which we are not since the objective value of the world is already infinite (Smith 2003). The key premises for this view are that every bit of space-time (or at least the stars in the physical universe) have some positive value, that these values can be added up, and that space is infinite. If the physical world at present contains an infinite degree of value, nothing we do can make a difference in terms of meaning, for infinity plus any amount of value remains infinity. One way to question this argument, beyond doubting the value of space-time or stars, is to suggest that, even if one cannot add to the value of the universe, meaning plausibly comes from being the source of certain values.

A second rationale for nihilism that accepts the existence of objective value is David Benatar’s (2006, 18–59) intriguing “asymmetry argument” for anti-natalism, the view that it is immoral to bring new people into existence because doing so would always be on balance bad for them. For Benatar, the bads of existing (e.g., pains) are real disadvantages relative to not existing, while the goods of existing (pleasures) are not real advantages relative to not existing, since there is in the latter state no one to be deprived of them. If indeed the state of not existing is no worse than that of experiencing the benefits of existence, then, since existing invariably brings harm in its wake, it follows that existing is always worse compared to not existing. Although this argument is illustrated with experiential goods and bads, it seems generalizable to non-experiential ones, including meaning in life and anti-matter. The literature on this argument has become large (for a recent collection, see Hauskeller and Hallich 2022).

Benatar (2006, 60–92, 2017, 35–63) has advanced an additional argument for nihilism, one that appeals to Thomas Nagel’s (1986, 208–32) widely discussed analysis of the extremely external standpoint that human persons can take on their lives. There exists, to use Henry Sidgwick’s influential phrase, the “point of view of the universe,” that is, the standpoint that considers a human being’s life in relation to all times and all places. When one takes up this most external standpoint and views one’s puny impact on the world, little of one’s life appears to matter. What one does in a certain society on Earth over 75 years or so just does not amount to much, when considering the billions of temporal years and billions of light-years that make up space-time. Although this reasoning grants limited kinds of meaning to human beings, from a personal, social, or human perspective, Benatar both denies that the greatest sort of meaning––a cosmic one––is available to them and contends that this makes their lives bad, hence the “nihilist” tag. Some have objected that our lives could in fact have a cosmic significance, say, if they played a role in God’s plan (Quinn 2000, 65–66; Swinburne 2016, 154), were the sole ones with a dignity in the universe (Kahane 2014), or engaged in valuable activities that could be appreciated by anyone anywhere anytime (Wolf 2016, 261–62). Others naturally maintain that cosmic significance is irrelevant to appraising a human life, with some denying that it would be a genuine source of meaning (Landau 2017, 93–99), and others accepting that it would be but maintaining that the absence of this good would not count as a bad or merit regret (discussed in Benatar 2017, 56–62; Williams 2020, 108–11).

Finally, a distinguishable source of nihilism concerns the ontological, as distinct from axiological, preconditions for meaning in life. Perhaps most radically, there are those who deny that we have selves. Do we indeed lack selves, and, if we do, is a meaningful life impossible for us (see essays in Caruso and Flanagan 2018; Le Bihan 2019)? Somewhat less radically, there are those who grant that we have selves, but deny that they are in charge in the relevant way. That is, some have argued that we lack self-governance or free will of the sort that is essential for meaning in life, at least if determinism is true (Pisciotta 2013; essays in Caruso and Flanagan 2018). Non-quantum events, including human decisions, appear to be necessited by a prior state of the world, such that none could have been otherwise, and many of our decisions are a product of unconscious neurological mechanisms (while quantum events are of course utterly beyond our control). If none of our conscious choices could have been avoided and all were ultimately necessited by something external to them, perhaps they are insufficient to merit pride or admiration or to constitute narrative authorship of a life. In reply, some maintain that a compatibilism between determinism and moral responsibility applies with comparable force to meaning in life (e.g., Arpaly 2006; Fischer 2009, 145–77), while others contend that incompatibilism is true of moral responsibility but not of meaning (Pereboom 2014).

• Agar, N., 2013, Humanity’s End: Why We Should Reject Radical Enhancement , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Alexis., A., 2011, The Meaning of Life: A Modern Secular Answer to the Age-Old Fundamental Question , CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
• Arpaly, N., 2006, Merit, Meaning, and Human Bondage , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Audi, R., 2005, “Intrinsic Value and Meaningful Life”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 331–55.
• Ayer, A. J., 1947, “The Claims of Philosophy”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 219–32.
• Baier, K., 1957, “The Meaning of Life”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 101–32.
• Barnes, H., 1967, An Existentialist Ethics , New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• Belliotti, R., 2019, Is Human Life Absurd? A Philosophical Inquiry into Finitude, Value, and Meaning . Leiden: Brill.
• Belshaw, C., 2021, The Value and Meaning of Life , London: Routledge.
• Benatar, D., 2006, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2017, The Human Predicament , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Bennett-Hunter, G., 2014, Ineffability and Religious Experience , Oxford: Routledge.
• Blumenfeld, D., 2009, “Living Life over Again”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 79: 357–86.
• Bradford, G., 2015, Achievement , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Brännmark, J., 2003, “Leading Lives”, Philosophical Papers , 32: 321–43.
• Brogaard, B. and Smith, B., 2005, “On Luck, Responsibility, and the Meaning of Life”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 443–58.
• Calhoun, C., 2018, Doing Valuable Time: The Present, the Future, and Meaningful Living , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Campbell, S., and Nyholm, S., 2015, “Anti-Meaning and Why It Matters”, Journal of the American Philosophical Association , 1: 694–711.
• Caruso, G. and Flanagan, O. (eds.), 2018, Neuroexistentialism: Meaning, Morals, and Purpose in an Age of Neuroscience , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Cooper, D., 2003, Meaning . Durham: Acumen Publishing.
• Cottingham, J., 2005, The Spiritual Dimension: Religion, Philosophy and Human Value , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2016, “Meaningfulness, Eternity, and Theism”, in God and Meaning , J. Seachris and S. Goetz (eds.), New York: Bloomsbury Academic: 123–36.
• Craig, W., 1994, “The Absurdity of Life Without God”, repr. in Exploring the Meaning of Life: An Anthology and Guide , J. Seachris (ed.), Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013: 153–72.
• Danaher, J., 2017, “Will Life Be Worth Living in a World Without Work? Technological Unemployment and the Meaning of Life”, Science and Engineering Ethics , 23: 41–64.
• Darwall, S., 1983, Impartial Reason , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Davis, W., 1987, “The Meaning of Life”, Metaphilosophy , 18: 288–305.
• de Bres, H., 2018, “Narrative and Meaning in Life”, Journal of Moral Philosophy , 15: 545–71.
• Dorsey, D., 2015, “The Significance of a Life’s Shape”, Ethics , 125: 303–30.
• Egerstrom, K., 2015, “ Practical Identity and Meaninglessness ”, PhD Dissertation, Syracuse University.
• Ellin, J., 1995, Morality and the Meaning of Life , Ft. Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
• Evers, D., 2017, “Meaning in Life and the Metaphysics of Value”, De Ethica , 4: 27–44.
• Feinberg, J., 1980, “Absurd Self-Fulfillment,” repr. in Freedom and Fulfillment: Philosophical Essays , Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992: 297–330.
• Ferracioli, L., 2018, “Procreative-parenting, Love’s Reasons, and the Demands of Morality”, The Philosophical Quarterly , 68: 77–97.
• Fischer, J. M., 2009, Our Stories: Essays on Life, Death, and Free Will , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2019, Death, Immortality, and Meaning in Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Frankfurt, H., 1988, The Importance of What We Care About , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2004, The Reasons of Love , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Gewirth, A., 1998, Self-Fulfillment , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Goetz, S., 2012, The Purpose of Life: A Theistic Perspective , New York: Continuum.
• Goldman, A., 2018, Life’s Values: Pleasure, Happiness, Well-Being, and Meaning , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Greene, P., 2021, “It Doesn’t Matter Because One Day It Will End”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 24: 165–82.
• Hanfling, O., 1987, The Quest for Meaning , New York: Basil Blackwell Inc.
• Hare, R. M., 1957, “Nothing Matters”, repr. in Applications of Moral Philosophy , London: Macmillan, 1972: 32–47.
• Hauskeller, M. and Hallich, O. (eds.), 2022, “Would It Be Better if We Had Never Existed? David Benatar's Anti-Natalism”, special issue of The Journal of Value Inquiry , 56: 1–151.
• Hooker, B., 2008, “The Meaning of Life: Subjectivism, Objectivism, and Divine Support”, in The Moral Life: Essays in Honour of John Cottingham , N. Athanassoulis and S. Vice (eds.), New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 184–200.
• Hosseini, R., 2015, Wittgenstein and Meaning in Life: In Search of the Human Voice , New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Kahane, G., 2011, “Should We Want God to Exist?”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 82: 674–96.
• –––, 2014, “Our Cosmic Insignificance”, Noûs , 48: 745–72.
• Kamm, F. M., 2013, Bioethical Prescriptions: To Create, End, Choose, and Improve Lives , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Kass, L., 2002, Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics , San Francisco: Encounter Books.
• Kauppinen, A., 2012, “Meaningfulness and Time”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 82: 345–77.
• Kekes, J., 1986, “The Informed Will and the Meaning of Life”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 47: 75–90.
• –––, 2000, “The Meaning of Life”, in Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Volume 24; Life and Death: Metaphysics and Ethics , P. French and H. Wettstein (eds.), Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers: 17–34.
• Kraay, K. (ed.), 2018, Does God Matter? Essays on the Axiological Consequences of Theism , New York: Routledge.
• Landau, I., 1997, “Why Has the Question of the Meaning of Life Arisen in the Last Two and a Half Centuries?”, Philosophy Today , 41: 263–70.
• –––, 2017, Finding Meaning in an Imperfect World , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Le Bihan, B., 2019, “The No-Self View and the Meaning of Life”, Philosophy East and West , 69: 419–38.
• Levinson, J., 2004, “Intrinsic Value and the Notion of a Life”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 62: 319–29.
• Levy, N., 2005, “Downshifting and Meaning in Life”, Ratio , 18: 176–89.
• Lougheed, K., 2020, The Axiological Status of Theism and Other Worldviews , New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Mackie, J. L., 1977, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong , repr. London: Penguin Books, 1990.
• Markus, A., 2003, “Assessing Views of Life, A Subjective Affair?”, Religious Studies , 39: 125–43.
• Martela, F., 2017, “Meaningfulness as Contribution”, Southern Journal of Philosophy , 55: 232–56.
• Matheson, D., 2017, “The Worthwhileness of Meaningful Lives”, Philosophia , 48: 313–24.
• –––, 2018, “Creativity and Meaning in Life”, Ratio , 31: 73–87.
• Mawson, T., 2016, God and the Meanings of Life , London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
• –––, 2019, Monotheism and the Meaning of Life , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• May, T., 2009, Death , Stocksfield: Acumen.
• –––, 2015, A Significant Life: Human Meaning in a Silent Universe , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• McPherson, D., 2020, Virtue and Meaning: A Neo-Aristotelian Perspective , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Metz, T., 2002, “Recent Work on the Meaning of Life”, Ethics , 112: 781–814.
• –––, 2013, Meaning in Life: An Analytic Study , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2019, God, Soul and the Meaning of Life , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Mintoff, J., 2008, “Transcending Absurdity”, Ratio , 21: 64–84.
• Moreland, J. P., 1987, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity , Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
• Morris, T., 1992, Making Sense of It All: Pascal and the Meaning of Life , Grand Rapids, MI: Willliam B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Mulgan, T., 2015, Purpose in the Universe: The Moral and Metaphysical Case for Ananthropocentric Purposivism , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Murphy, J., 1982, Evolution, Morality, and the Meaning of Life , Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Nagel, T., 1970, “The Absurd”, Journal of Philosophy , 68: 716–27.
• –––, 1986, The View from Nowhere , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Nozick, R., 1974, Anarchy, State and Utopia , New York: Basic Books.
• –––, 1981, Philosophical Explanations , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1989, The Examined Life , New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Nussbaum, M., 1989, “Mortal Immortals: Lucretius on Death and the Voice of Nature”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 50: 303–51.
• Olson, N., 2016, “Medical Researchers’ Ancillary Care Obligations”, Bioethics , 30: 317–24.
• Pereboom, D., 2014, Free Will, Agency, and Meaning in Life , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Pisciotta, T., 2013, “ Determinism and Meaningfulness in Lives ”, PhD Dissertation, University of Melbourne.
• Purves, D. and Delon, N., 2018, “Meaning in the Lives of Humans and Other Animals”, Philosophical Studies , 175: 317–38.
• Quinn, P., 2000, “How Christianity Secures Life’s Meanings”, in The Meaning of Life in the World Religions , J. Runzo and N. Martin (eds.), Oxford: Oneworld Publications: 53–68.
• Raz, J., 2001, Value, Respect, and Attachment , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Repp, C., 2018, “Life Meaning and Sign Meaning”, Philosophical Papers , 47: 403–27.
• Ruse, M. and Wilson, E., 1986, “Moral Philosophy as Applied Science”, Philosophy , 61: 173–92.
• Scarre, G., 2007, Death . Stocksfield: Acumen.
• Schinkel, A., De Ruyter, D., and Aviram, A., 2015, “Education and Life’s Meaning”, Journal of Philosophy of Education , 50: 398–418.
• Seachris, J., 2011, “Death, Futility, and the Proleptic Power of Narrative Ending”, Religious Studies , 47: 141–63.
• –––, 2013, “General Introduction”, in Exploring the Meaning of Life: An Anthology and Guide , J. Seachris (ed.), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell: 1–20.
• –––, 2016, “From the Meaning Triad to Meaning Holism: Unifying Life’s Meaning”, Human Affairs , 29: 363–78.
• Singer, I., 1996, Meaning in Life, Volume 1: The Creation of Value , Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Singer, P., 1995, How Are We to Live? Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
• Smith, Q., 1997, Ethical and Religious Thought in Analytic Philosophy of Language , New Haven: Yale University Press.
• –––, 2003, “Moral Realism and Infinite Spacetime Imply Moral Nihilism”, in Time and Ethics: Essays at the Intersection , H. Dyke (ed.), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 43–54.
• Smuts, A., 2011, “Immortality and Significance”, Philosophy and Literature , 35: 134–49.
• –––, 2018, Welfare, Meaning, and Worth , New York: Routledge
• Solomon, R., 1993, The Passions: Emotions and the Meaning of Life , Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
• Street, S., 2015, “Does Anything Really Matter or Did We Just Evolve to Think So?”, in The Norton Introduction to Philosophy , G. Rosen et al. (eds.), New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.: 685–95.
• Svensson, F., 2017, “A Subjectivist Account of Meaning in Life”, De Ethica , 4: 45–66.
• Swenson, D., 1949, “The Dignity of Human Life”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 21–30.
• Swinburne, R., 2016, “How God Makes Life a Lot More Meaningful”, in God and Meaning , J. Seachris and S. Goetz (eds.), New York: Bloomsbury Academic: 151–63.
• Tabensky, P., 2003, “Parallels Between Living and Painting”, The Journal of Value Inquiry , 37: 59–68.
• Tartaglia, J., 2015, Philosophy in a Meaningless Life , London: Bloomsbury.
• Taylor, C., 1989, Sources of the Self , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1992, The Ethics of Authenticity , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Taylor, R., 1970, “The Meaning of Life”, in Good and Evil , repr. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Boooks, 2000: 319–34.
• –––, 1987, “Time and Life’s Meaning”, The Review of Metaphysics , 40: 675–86.
• Thomas, J., 2018, “Can Only Human Lives Be Meaningful?”, Philosophical Papers , 47: 265–97.
• –––, 2019, “Meaningfulness as Sensefulness”, Philosophia , 47: 1555–77.
• Thomson, G., 2003, On the Meaning of Life , South Melbourne: Wadsworth.
• Tooley, M., 2018, “Axiology: Theism Versus Widely Accepted Monotheisms”, in Does God Matter? Essays on the Axiological Consequences of Theism , K. Kraay, (ed.), New York: Routledge: 46–69.
• Trisel, B. A., 2002, “Futility and the Meaning of Life Debate”, Sorites , 14: 70–84.
• –––, 2004, “Human Extinction and the Value of Our Efforts”, The Philosophical Forum , 35: 371–91.
• –––, 2016, “Human Extinction, Narrative Ending, and Meaning of Life”, Journal of Philosophy of Life , 6: 1–22.
• Velleman, J. D., 2015, Beyond Price: Essays on Birth and Death , Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.
• Visak, T., 2017, “Understanding ‘Meaning of Life’ in Terms of Reasons for Action”, The Journal of Value Inquiry , 51: 507–30.
• Waghorn, N., 2014, Nothingness and the Meaning of Life: Philosophical Approaches to Ultimate Meaning through Nothing and Reflexivity , London: Bloomsbury.
• Wielenberg, E., 2005, Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wiggins, D., 1988, “Truth, Invention, and the Meaning of Life”, rev. edn. in Essays on Moral Realism , G. Sayre-McCord (ed.), Ithaca: Cornell University Press: 127–65.
• Williams, B., 1973, “The Makropulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality”, in Problems of the Self , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 82–100.
• –––, 1976, “Persons, Character and Morality”, in The Identities of Persons , A. O. Rorty (ed.), Berkeley: University of California Press: 197–216.
• Williams, C., 2020, Religion and the Meaning of Life: An Existential Approach , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wolf, S., 2010, Meaning in Life and Why It Matters , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2015, The Variety of Values: Essays on Morality, Meaning, and Love , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2016, “Meaningfulness: A Third Dimension of the Good Life”, Foundations of Science , 21: 253–69.
• Wong, W., 2008, “Meaningfulness and Identities”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 11: 123–48.
• Buber, M., 1923, I and Thou , W. Kaufmann (tr.), New York: Simon & Schuster Inc., 1970.
• Camus, A., 1942, The Myth of Sisyphus , J. O’Brian (tr.), London: H. Hamilton, 1955.
• James, W., 1899, “What Makes a Life Significant?”, in On Some of Life’s Ideals , New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1900.
• Jaspers, K., 1931, Man in the Modern Age , E. Paul and C. Paul (tr.), New York: Routledge, 2010.
• Kant, I., 1791, Critique of the Power of Judgment , P. Guyer and E. Mathews (tr.), New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
• Kierkegaard, S., 1849, The Sickness unto Death , H. V. Hong and E. H. Hong (tr.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980.
• Marx, K., 1844, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts , in Karl Marx Selected Writings, 2 nd Ed. , D. McLellan (ed., tr.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
• Nietzsche, F., 1885, Thus Spoke Zarathustra , in The Portable Nietzsche , W. Kaufmann (ed., tr.), New York: Viking Press, 1954.
• Sartre, J.-P., 1946, Existentialism Is a Humanism , P. Mairet (tr.), London: Methuen & Co, 1948.
• Schlick, M., 1927, “ On the Meaning of Life ”, P. Heath (tr.).
• Schopenhauer, A., 1851, Parerga and Paralipomena: Short Philosophical Essays, Volume 2 , E. F. J. Payne (tr.), New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.
• Tolstoy, L., 1884, A Confession , L. Maude and A. Maude (tr.).
• Wittgenstein, L., 1929, Lecture on Ethics , E. Zamuner et al. (eds.), Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2014.
• Benatar, D. (ed.), 2016, Life, Death & Meaning, 3 rd Ed. , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
• Cottingham, J. (ed.), 2007, Western Philosophy: An Anthology, 2 nd Ed. , Oxford: Blackwell: pt. 12.
• Garcia, R. and King, N. (eds.), 2009, Is Goodness Without God Good Enough? Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Klemke, E. D. and Cahn, S. M. (eds.), 2018, The Meaning of Life: A Reader, 4 th Ed. , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Kolodny, N. (ed.), 2013, Death and the Afterlife , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Leach, S. and Tartaglia, J. (eds.), 2018, The Meaning of Life and the Great Philosophers , London: Routledge.
• Morioka, M. (ed.), 2015, Reconsidering Meaning in Life , Saitama: Waseda University.
• ––– (ed.), 2017, Nihilism and the Meaning of Life , Saitama: Waseda University.
• Seachris, J. (ed.), 2013, Exploring the Meaning of Life: An Anthology and Guide , Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Seachris, J. and Goetz, S. (eds.), 2016, God and Meaning: New Essays , New York: Bloombsury Academic.
• Baggini, J., 2004, What’s It All About?: Philosophy and the Meaning of Life , London: Granta Books.
• Belliotti, R., 2001, What Is the Meaning of Life? , Amsterdam: Rodopi.
• Belshaw, C., 2005, 10 Good Questions About Life and Death , Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Cottingham, J., 2003, On the Meaning of Life , London: Routledge.
• Eagleton, T., 2007, The Meaning of Life: A Very Short Introduction , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Fischer, J. M., 2019, Death, Immortality, and Meaning in Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Ford, D., 2007, The Search for Meaning: A Short History , Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Hauskeller, M., 2020, The Meaning of Life and Death: Ten Classic Thinkers on the Ultimate Question , London: Bloomsbury Academic.
• Martin, M., 2002, Atheism, Morality, and Meaning , Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
• Messerly, J., 2012, The Meaning of Life: Religious, Philosophical, Transhumanist, and Scientific Approaches , Seattle: Darwin and Hume Publishers.
• Ruse, M., 2019, A Meaning to Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Young, J., 2003, The Death of God and the Meaning of Life , New York: Routledge.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Delon, N., 2021, “ The Meaning of Life ”, a bibliography on PhilPapers.
• Metz, T., 2021, “ Life, Meaning of ”, in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy , E. Mason (ed.).
• O’Brien, W., 2021, “ The Meaning of Life: Early Continental and Analytic Perspectives ”, in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy , J. Fieser and B. Dowden (eds.).
• Seachris, J., 2021, “ Meaning of Life: The Analytic Perspective ”, in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy , J. Fieser and B. Dowden (eds.).

afterlife | death | ethics: ancient | existentialism | friendship | love | perfectionism, in moral and political philosophy | value: intrinsic vs. extrinsic | well-being

Copyright © 2021 by Thaddeus Metz < th . metz @ up . ac . za >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Home / Essay Samples / Philosophy / Philosophy of Life

Philosophy of Life Essay Examples

Philosophy applied: finding meaning in daily life.

To have morals is one thing, to have ethics is another, but to be a human with raw feelings and raw emotions is a whole different ball game. When trying to be the best person you tell yourself you can be is consistently being tested...

Anthropocentrism Vs Ecocentrism: an Insightful Analysis

Anthropocentric is the traditional values obtained from the industrial revolution. These values are the conviction that people are preeminent in the chain of creatures and that spending the Earths assets is the only way to accomplish human prosperity. Despite the way that Anthropocentric focal points...

Existentialism Unpacked: Sartre's 'Existence Precedes Essence'

Sartre wrote many crucial and influential essays and books, including his 1943 critical essay Being and Nothingness and Existentialism is a Humanism in 1946. He lived a rich and fulfilled life, winning a Nobel Prize in Literature in 1964 but refused it, was a prisoner...

What Philosophy Means to Me: Exploring Personal Perspectives

Philosophy, often described as the love of wisdom, is a discipline that delves into fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, ethics, and the nature of reality. Its allure lies in its ability to spark profound contemplation and open doors to intellectual exploration. For me, philosophy holds...

Socrates Contribution to Philosophy: the Greatest Teacher Ever

Socrates was a famous and a great philosopher. Іocrates contribution to philosophy is hardly measured. His knowledge lives on the minds of every person who appreciated and learn from his wisdom. His words were admired by many, even other philosophers were struck by his taught....

The Way Happiness Define a State of a Person's Life

Happiness can be defined as a sense of joy, satisfaction or contentment that happen in our life. It is expressed by different people in different ways. Most people will feel the happiness when they are successful, satisfied with their achievements, healthy, be safe etc. Besides,...

Overview of Confucianism and Its Principles

Confucianism is an ancient philosophy about kindness and respect which is based on the teachings of Kung Fuzi He is also known as Confucius. Confucianism is not religion, but philosophy about how to live life, therefore, Confucius was also not God or supreme being with...

Moral Worth in the Philosophy of the Mid-twentieth Century

In the mid-twentieth century, ethical philosophy was at a major turning point. It was, of course, no coincidence that this was amidst the Second World War. As the entire world watched in awe, Nazi Germany did many despicable acts in the name of moral motive....

The Views of Friedrich Nietzsche on Truth and Religion

Nietzsche's goal is to live life through love of truth, humanity and the earth. To me, this argument is profoundly convincing however, I think that this goal is shared at the core of the religions he has chosen to criticise. In this essay I would...

The Concept of Human Will to Power: Friedrich Nietzsche

In Beyond Good and Evil, Friedrich Nietzsche presents an unorthodox argument concerning the natural state of humankind and the means of its ultimate decline. Nietzsche claims that individuals do not allow their own natural impulses and desires to guide them, but they rather observe the...

Trying to find an excellent essay sample but no results?

Don’t waste your time and get a professional writer to help!

You may also like

• Meaning of Life
• Nationalism
• Human Nature
• Virtue Ethics
• Personal Identity Essays
• Epistemology Essays
• Ethics Essays
• Personal Ethics Essays
• Confucianism Essays
• Reality Essays
• Humanism Essays
• Existence of God Essays
• Personal Philosophy Essays
• Good and Evil Essays

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->