Meaning In Life

Name
Professor
Course
Date
Critical Analysis of the Meaning of Life
Susan Wolf suggests that meaningfulness in life occurs when a person actively participates in a project of worth. She identifies two things to be of value in life, active engagement, and projects of worth. The satisfaction varies with respect to the person depending on morality, intellectual capacity, and on individual opinion about relationships with other people. The statement raises the issue of standards and value of life as well as questions the idea of God or force of nature responsible for life. In this paper, I argue against what Susan Wolf supports stating that she creates a force of nature without proving its existence and that the presence of variation suggests that the premises are merely opinions rather than statements of facts.
Reconstruction of the Theory
Wolf developed a theory on the meaning of life popular among most communities in the 21st century. “Meaning arises when subjective attraction meets objective attractiveness” (460) is a statement which summarizes her view of life. She attests to the idea of life having a meaning if two things are included. First of all, active engagement in some activity where the person is individually invested in. In essence, she used words such as ‘excited’ and ‘passionate’ to describe the kind of involvement the idea seeks. Secondly, she elaborates her definition of meaningfulness in connection with ‘projects of worth.’ The implication being that there are some objective truths about value.

Moral and intellectual accomplishments are the ideas she places as goals for objectivity. Another view develops with some people placing value to the kind of connections or relationships they have with others.
In essence, the author proposes that the value of life lies in doing that which is worthwhile. For example, a person who seeks to reach some sort of spiritual satisfaction may decide to spend his or her lives helping orphans or protecting the underprivileged. In the minds of most people, such a life is more meaningful than a life of throwing pebbles down a hill as described by Wolf on the life of Sisyphus (457). Other people would view it in education. Education in the modern world is priceless because it allows faster processing of information which is profitable. Therefore, a person with a Master’s Degree in some sophisticated field might live a better life than a high school dropout. Others believe that real life means having meaningful relationships with friends, relatives, and in marriage. Wolf feels that the problem with her theory is a variation of ‘projects of worth’ among people thus reducing the objectivity of her theory.
Evaluation of the Theory
The statement ‘active engagement in projects of worth creates meaning in life’ is fallacious because it suggests the existence of a Supreme Being who determines the value of thingsCITATION Art15 p 71 l 1033 (Francis 71). As a nihilist, life is meaningless whether a person engages in things which make them feel special or they spend their lives observing paint dry on a wall somewhere. Wolf developed a theory that might as well be explaining morality and at that, subjective morality framed as objective morality. If a person engages in some activity willingly and performs something of worth, then that is meaningful according to Wolf. Then, questions of standards emerge because meaningfulness is relative. A person sentenced to life in prison performs the act willingly because he or she can commit suicide or run away. Then again, prison life is meant for rehabilitation, so the concept mimics those projects of worth described. Yet, that life still becomes meaningless by popular standards. Wolf, through her explanation, created a force of nature which determines the standards of value for human existence and failed to prove the existence of the force.
My standpoint on the issue is as stated earlier, life does not have meaning and people develop those standards for the sake of morality. In addition, I believe that humans are incapable of attaining full satisfaction or meaning in life. The concept of life comes off as an insatiable quest for value whereby the person will not find meaning or she (he) finds it and becomes bored. Both scenarios fail to fit the perfect depiction of life by Wolf. Another view of the argument is that perhaps this force of nature that determines the meaning of life exists. Nevertheless, Wolf created criterion for value of life forgetting that life in practical sense would have infinity value irrespective of what the individual does or does not. This happens because the force of nature created humans making life precious simultaneously. Conclusively, there is no objective truth about what is a project of worth, and hence, life has no meaning. People are entitled to live as they choice.
Response to Objections Raised
Wolf might argue that standards of value can arise without assumption of a Supreme Being or force of nature. She would argue that the standards of active engagement and projects of worth occur but from person to person. More so, the concept she covered was a general human perspective of what meaningfulness would suggest. Perhaps, as she asserted in her paper, different individuals place value on morality, others on intellectual growth, and some on relationships. The idea of value in its mechanics implies a sort of scale of ‘good’ rather than ‘bad.’ She would go further to state that even if this force existed and life had value in the practical sense, the impact on a human would still vary. Some people would discover meaningfulness while other would fail.
Her objections would make sense in some ways, but they still fail to explore the issue of that force of nature. Yes, the variation would occur from person to person, and it could be measurable in general. But, Wolf still fails to explain why there needs to be this variation. That if a person does this; they have meaning in life while others will not. Francis iterates that the whole concept of variation marks any theory as an opinion as opposed to a valid and objective truth to life (49). Besides, her confession on the variation of life from person to person affirms my last conclusion; people are entitled to live as they choose irrespective of moral or ethical standards. Therefore, her objections are not successful in convincing me otherwise. My nihilistic view is life is meaningless on its own, and nothing a person does or fails to do changes it; the only option humans have is to just live.
Conclusion
I find the idea of the meaning of life as described by Susan Wolf to be fallacious because she indirectly introduces a force of nature which controls everything. The implication being that there is some objective value of a good life. On her explanation, she goes further to define participating in something worthwhile to be meaningful. Projects of worth differ from one person to another. Such a narration also explores subjective truth in that what is meaningful for one person may be useless to another and vice versa. The implied existence of a standard or a force of nature derails my support for her. Even so, the underlying idea that worth varies from one person to another nullifies the objectivity of the theory. It becomes an opinion rather than a fact. Therefore, life is meaningless, and people determine the path to take.

Works Cited
BIBLIOGRAPHY l 1033 Francis, Arthur Morius. Nihilism: Philosophy of Nothingness. Lulu.com, 2015.
Wolf, Susan. “Meaning in Life .” Happiness and Meaning: Two Aspects of the Good Life- Social Philosophy and Policy, Vol.24 (1997): 457-461.