The Dizzying Circularity Of Meaning
Explorations of the Human Drive for Self-Understanding (Vol. 4; Issue 16)
A devoted reader, dear friend, and devout Catholic (easy alliteration) shouted an objection to my recent newsletter about the role of meaning in our lives. I erred, he felt, by ignoring the ENORMOUS difference between:
There is no fixed understanding of the meaning of life.
And:
There is no universally agreed-upon understanding of the meaning of life.
I winced at the word, enormous, but nonetheless quickly agreed with him. Here is his assertion re-printed using better grammar:
No universally agreed-upon understanding of the meaning of life exists.
His critique lit up the realization that my proposition that no fixed understanding of the meaning of life exists represents a belief system in and of itself. Ergo, yes, he is correct, there is no universally accepted understanding of life’s meaning. The humbling realization brings up further questions like:
Are universal belief systems even possible?
Thus far in humanity’s history, the dizzying array of value systems delivered by philosophers, e.g., be virtuous, religions, e.g., be pious, or governments, e.g., obey laws, fails in terms of universality. The horrors of World War II led the UN to propose a sweeping one which I find particularly appealing. But even it fails the test of universality. Neither persons nor governments reliably adhere to its dictates. The document, titled the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), was a valiant effort. It’s worth a read and you can find it here.
Drafted by representatives from different legal and cultural backgrounds and from all regions of the world, the UDHR was validated by the UN’s General Assembly in December 1948.
Article 1 reads:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Every organized religion advocates similar concepts, illustrated for example by the Golden Rule, which suggests you treat others as you would want them to treat you. Also called the ethics of reciprocity, the “rule” requires you to treat others as you would like them to treat you (which may not be how they actually treat you).
Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, Israel’s harsh retaliation against Hamas, and raging civil wars in Sudan and Myanmar represent just a few examples of humanity’s resistance to such well-meaning universal values. Nonetheless, the UNDR, promoted within the international political sphere, epitomizes an effort to create universal values. So do some of the ethical principles emerging from religions, like the Golden Rule.
The problem with religion-based meanings for life lies in the risk of tribalism. Consider my friend’s description of the meaning he finds in Catholicism:
My embrace of Jesus is what released me from the prison of despair, cynicism, and endless rationale and indeed opened me to the infinite—the infinite of myself and others, and the infinite goodness, truth, and beauty of every moment I live.
His immersion in Catholicism offers him such personal benefits as liberation from despair to the capacity to embrace each moment. It’s admirable, even enviable. But it requires acceptance of the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. Most religions insist on adherence to one concept or another. Certainly Judaism, Islamism, Shintoism, etc., have similar precepts. As I’ve noted in earlier newsletter issues, systems of meaning requiring a specific kind of belief, i.e., Jesus is the son of God, Allah is the true prophet, no God exists, and so on are troublesome unless they include tolerance for different belief systems.
Persons believing Buddhism is the only way, and all other persons must agree, ignite tribalistic aggression. History is replete with wars fought for such religious reasons. They illustrate the human vulnerability to us versus them thinking. Be in my group, or else! If you consider religious beliefs as existing on a continuum from the liberal (tolerant) on one end to the conservative (intractable), it is the latter that risks aggression and inhibits freedom. An Orthodox Jew cannot marry an Evangelical Christian. It would be impossible to build a Buddhist temple in Saudi Arabia. Why must the so-called New Atheists insist that religions promoting belief in God are wrong? They are as tribalistic as theistic fanatics.
Cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker (1997) proposed meaning necessarily derives from our fear of death. He claims that we humans have an:
innate and all-encompassing fear of death drives him [or her] to attempt to transcend death through culturally standardized hero systems and symbols. (Becker, 1975, pp. xvi)
Alas, even Becker’s suggestion that death stimulates the search for meaning is a belief system itself. He believes our personalities are formed around how we deny our mortality, and such denial is required for functioning. Becker thinks we engage in “projects” to create immortality. Individuals cling to one or more causa sui to guide their actions in life. They provide a vehicle for escaping death through following particular sets of culturally created meanings. Motivations like preventing child abuse, saving human civilization, or discovering new galaxies provide persons with personal significance, which, Becker thinks, enables them to avoid the complete "self-negation" of death.
Unfortunately, we humans are often swept away by performances, facades, social roles, and other enactments that prevent access to authentic self-knowledge. Becker’s ideas again bring Lacan (2008) to mind. His central ethic, to never cede your desire, is a call for authenticity. And, finding one’s authentic self necessarily involves understanding meaning.
Perhaps beliefs in the afterlife contradict Becker’s thesis? Believing that you live on in some fashion after death possibly negates death itself. Various Eastern philosophies which view all things, organic and inorganic, as in the process of continual change, may similarly contradict death. For them, death represents only changes in states of being. But these, too, of course, are systems of belief. Becker would likely consider them created for the same death-defying reason.
In his book, The Myth of Sisyphus, Albert Camus offers a radical proposition: The only relevant philosophical question is whether or not to kill yourself. Because we humans are aware of our inevitable death, staying alive involves a choice. And, if you make the the choice to live, you must have a reason for living, a meaning for your life.
Certain proposed universals, like those found in the UDHR, or the Golden Rule, hold hope for broad acceptance. These systems, along with tolerance for the variety of religious belief systems across the world, provide possible civilization-saving ideologies. We live in a time when agreement to these positive, love-enhancing, overarching values might truly transform the world.
Contemporary culture’s value for speed, technology, and consumer cravings might suggest that the search for meaning has faded into the background. Not true. People’s desire for meaning remains strong. A literature review conducted by two University of Virginia social psychologists (Heintzelman and King, 2014) revealed that 90 percent of people find their lives meaningful. In my opinion, the other 10 are either unaware or unwilling to report their sources of meaning.
And, as you’ve all heard, meaning nurtures us. (No, it’s not just diet, exercise, and sleep). Having a reason to live—even if it’s to make as much money as possible because “greed is good*”—will increase longevity, improve quality of life, and lessen the rate of mental disorders (Czekierda, Banik, Park, and Luszczynska, 2017). Perhaps some day humans will consistently behave in a universally ethical fashion. Perhaps they will find meaning in service to their fellow humans and to the plants, animals, and earth supporting them. However, thus far no evidence exists, sadly, that we humans can adhere to universals like the Golden Rule. Meanwhile, intolerant belief systems, like join the “Russian Empire” or we’ll invade you, convert to Islam or we’ll kill you, wear a miniskirt in Iran and we’ll jail you, create horrible conflicts raging in many parts of the world today.
*Michael Douglas, playing the role of Gordon Gekko in the 1987 film Wall Street, famously proclaims, “greed is good."
Enjoying this newsletter?
And check out my new book, Lover, Exorcist, Critic: Understanding Depth Psychotherapy, available on Amazon.
References
Becker, E. (1975). Escape from Evil. New York: The Free Press.
Becker, E. (1997). Denial of Death. New York: Free Press.
Camus, A. (2014). The Myth Of Sisyphus And Other Essays. New York: Random House. (Original work published in 1942).
Czekierda, K., Banik, A., Park, C. L., & Luszczynska, A. (2017). Meaning in life and physical health: systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 11(4): 387–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2017.1327325
Heintzelman, S.J. & King, L.A. (2024) Life is pretty meaningful. American Psychologist, 69(6):561-574.
Lacan, J. (2008). My Teaching. D. Macey (Trans). New York: Verso.
United Nations General Assembly. (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). New York: United Nations.