The meaning of life may be obvious to some people, yet there might be no clear answer, making it central to the justification of the idea that a human being is in search for meaning. Much as there seems to be various views to the meaning of life, philosophers cannot avoid querying the purpose for which people live. This essay uses Neel Burton’s article, What is the meaning of life? published online in Psychology Today to argue for the purpose of life. Burton is an outstanding author in psychology and philosophy fields, majoring in existential philosophy. As opposed to Burton’s presumption that life does not have a predetermined meaning, the essay proposes that to share in the will of the one who gives life, such as God, is the purpose of life.
On Neel Burton’s Article
Author’s Thesis
Neel Burton, in his What is the purpose of life, proposes that life does not have a predetermined meaning, and that its meaning is that which people give it.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Author’s Argument
The article starts with an acknowledgment that giving a precise answer to the question of the meaning of life may not be possible. The author then proceeds to give some of the widely described ideas about the meaning of life, which of course, includes the divine value that people attach to life. For instance, the article considers that from a historical perspective—the argument persists to present—people are a creation of God, and that He had an intelligent purpose in creating humankind. The author avoids disputing this argument using the philosophical arguments about the existence of God. Instead, he suggests that even if God were present, and that even if He had an intelligent purpose in creating people, no one may be aware of his intended objective ( Burton, 2018 ).
The article borrows from the second law of thermodynamics to suggest that God may still have created people to act as super-efficient dissipaters of heat required to sustain the universe. If this was the purpose of life, the article argues, then it would be better for people to have no purpose than to have such a purpose. As the author suggests further, refuting that idea that people have a predetermined purpose in life frees them to be authors of their own purposes, which might result in them leading meaningful and dignified lives. The freedom to choose their own purposes is better and more pleasing than the more conventional ideas attached to the meaning of life, including serving and pleasing God. The idea in the argument of the author, therefore, is that even if God exists, and that even if had an intelligent purpose for which he created people, no one understands the real purpose, and that it would be more satisfying for individuals to ignore it or to strive not understand the predetermined objective.
In noting the possibilities of some people objecting his presumption, the author understands that critics may contest that the lack of a predetermined purpose in life would mean the lack of objective at all. Consequently, the article counters this notion through suggesting that the lack of a predetermined purpose implies that people should not always understand that they are destined to serve the original purposes for which they were created, such as the one staged from a religious perspective ( Burton, 2018 ). The only way that people can come to terms with the idea of life and why they live, the author posits, therefore, is to understand the freedom that they have to choose what they would like to be and do with their lives.
Student’s Thesis
The purpose of life is to share in the will of the one who gives life, which is to care for and conquer the universe in which people were placed, and to prepare for external life.
Student’s Argument
The arguments of whether God exists or if He does not may result in self-disillusionment, but they are central to understanding the meaning of life. Borrowing from arguments about cosmology, we may think of the universe as having originated from something or somewhere. The argument of first-cause, for instance, suggests that it would not have been a coincidence that the universe emerged spontaneously, and that must have been something that existed before it, which caused the existence of the universe, and that that being could only be God (Nowacki, 2006). Looking at life and all the perfections that it bears, such as the interactions between life and non-life, reveals a universe that is created to fill one gap that the other could not have filled it existed alone. For example, the sun shines to give the universe enough energy for the maintaining life and whether conditions. We may as well argue that the interdependence of beings in the universe indicates a universe that is reliant on the existence of a force stronger than all beings, which could only be God. Consequently, people live so that they think about the power and capabilities of God—He sustains life—and be moved to share in his will, which is to nurture the universe.
The purpose of life is to conquer our environments, which is further in line with the will of God. There has been a proposition in the recent past that the planet mars could also support life and that some people could settle there. The idea of exploring mars for another possible home for mankind respects the will of God, which is to conquer the environment in which they live. The idea also means that the purpose of life is to be creative, and to do so in ways that would obey the predetermined purpose of life that God placed on people. While people share in the will of the one who gives life, they prepare for life in eternity since God Himself is an eternal peace.
Criticism
The argument that the purpose of life is to share in Gods will and prepare for life in eternity may face several challenges. The first counter-argument is that some people may doubt and rubbish the proposition of eternity. Secondly, even if eternity was a real idea, it would emerge that living forever is not the purpose in itself, and a question would arise, therefore, about the probable purpose of living in eternity, and if living forever has an objective, again, one may ponder about its real objective. Thirdly, it may be contested that relying on eternal life after death postpones the question about the purpose of current life in addition to discouraging people from thinking about why they live presently. Using this analogy, it may be argued that the purpose of living is to prepare for death, which is the only way that religion and related subjects give as the transition between the current life and afterlife. If people were to adopt this argument, they would consider that people do not have a purpose for their current lives and that they sit idle while preparing to share with God in the afterlife.
Response to Criticism
The arguments against my perspective of the purpose of life appear to incline towards the belief that God may not be existing after all. I am not attempting to force people into believing that God is real. However, it is worth considering that the central premise of the criticism is that people idle in their present lives as a way of preparing to share in the afterlife. Perhaps, we can understand that when we care for the environment , we are being conscious of the roles that we should play in our current lives. We may not be sure of life after death or any other , but we are at least sure of the need placed on us to care for the environment and foster generations of plants and animals and to wow at the interdependence between the living and the non-living. Humans exist because they play a role in fostering the interrelation between the living and non-living. If we agree with this defense of my argument, then it would follow that we recognize the responsibilities placed on them at the time of their birth or creation for this matter.
References
Burton, N. (2018). What is the Meaning of Life? Psychology Today . Retrieved 4 December 2018, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201803/what-is-the-meaning-life
Nowacki, M. R. (2006). Kalam Cosmological Argument for God. New York: NY. Sage.
