i will be quick about this because i think the act of writing this piece, besides immortalizing my argument against the absurdity of the base material and the class im enrolled in, is wasting my time.
this is the original writing by susan wolf back in 2007 and what my philosophy class has been talking about for the past few sessions: https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil150/Wolf.pdf. you can read it here.
if you don't want to read it, in a nutshell, this article talks about the question of the meaning of life, and attempts to tells us that while we can't find answer in the meaning of life (since it is a boundless question), we should seek meaning in life. the word of and in are different. so far so good.
and here comes her central argument: essentially, wolf argues that to say that one's life has been meaningful, that person has to actively engage in an activity with passion that is also somewhat successful, with some degree of objectively positive value. and that the objectively positive value's first appearance derives from an epiphany that no subjective reevaluation of one's value system can create, and that an objective value does exist because she trusts everyone to find commonality through the entirety of human reasoning. she eventually argues that since the universe is indifferent to us, it is up to us to make our lives meaningful, so that one's subjective interpretation is not enough and meaning is derived from a value system that is somwhat universally agreed upon by not just you, but rather other human beings as well.
the entire class divulges only in the definition of an epiphany, continuously repeating the same statement over and over again that epiphany derived from objective value and not subjectiveness, without considering the most fundemental problem with the entire class, the industructor, and wolf's argument in the article itself: what even is objectively good?
wolf says it's not moral good and that the only variable that determines the difference between subjectiveness and objectiveness is the degree of universal agreement or validation. here i tell you there is no objectivity. because wolf herself isn't even defending that position.
take her argument about being agreed upon by a universal reasoning society. would a corporate job satisfy it that one is working toward advancing technology for society as a whole? well, what if that was the old framework of this person and now that he is now finding meaning in something else like just doing art? not even for a living or to present to an audience, but doing art as the pursuit of a meaningful life? let's just say that person had a change in mind, a relevation that corporate jobs don't matter anymore. does that make him discover his meaning of life? yes. but not objective. because to wolf's definition, it has to be agreed by others that it is meaningful. well i can say "it's not meaningful." ok? so his chase in meaning is subjective then. and that would be factually correct.
take her other argument, which acts as the conclusion saying that we are just tiny specks in the universe and we need to create meaning by actively engage in things with passion that can positively affect others. isn't that a secular view? if i am christian or muslim or jewish, i can say no, we are created in God's image and our lives' objective meaning is through doing the deeds our scriptures say are good to grant us eternal life afterward.
there is no way that any value framework would be universally agreed upon. in fact, the word objectivity shouldn't even be used because all we have been talking about, in practice, is intersubjectivity, that my value is agreed upon by a group. no matter how large the group is, it will never reach the entire human population. no matter what the truth is, even if there is one, would be universally agreed upon. we have been searching for truth, in religion, in science, and we can't find it yet because there are lot of things in superposition. there are a lot of things that cause others to behave differently in different situations. think gravity that works differently in the cosmos. think string theory which is still just a theory and is not universally agreed upon. think electrons where we can't observe its position and movement at the same time. think organoids even! that their spontanous growth, despite our careful protocol of nurturing is still stochastic. the weather. the stock market. different political, religious and philosophical ideologies. nothing is actually universal. and therefore we will never reach the objective end of the spectrum.
about helping others, we can bring nietzsche into this and say that helping others is still for subjective pseudo-altriusm that is selfishness in disguise. that your goal is initiated by your desire to showcase superiority over others because you have something they don't so you help them and when you do help them, you get fulfillment out of it. it all serves you. so that true altriusm comes from the byproducts of your unimaginable and unique ambition and once it's fulfilled, the abundance that derived from your achievement leaks out into others. his claim is very valid. but look at this. it's another opinion to counter wolf's opinion. and my opinion is also here that is agreeing with nietzsche and disgreeing with wolf. if there is true objectivity, we still don't have the answer through secular reasoning. and because we lack concrete evidence, we pick sides to align ourselves with so that the most we can get is interpersonal intersubjective agreement.
wold's argument isn't even answered correctly because there is no objective answer. so she shys away from it and gives the responsibilty of finding that answer to us, which, logically, makes it a flawed argument. if you state your argument and don't defend it, what even is the point of saying it without good articulation? so she shys away from it, just like the instructor of my class shying away from getting into true objectivity and is instead repeating again and again about the word "epiphany." if objectivity causes epiphany, we should stop repeating that statement and start looking at the definition itself, leading us back to the more fundemental question of what even is objectivity?
sidenote: the instructor dropped a fun fact with no intention of stiring up any discussion but simply said "the term 'woke' is a form of awakening and reevaluation of more traditional values, which counts as an epiphany." so by that logic, becoming woke is objectively good? what about someone who goes "leftism is destroying our country by this and that means and therefore i need to revert back to a more traditional political and economic ideology that can save america?" my point isn't to say one is better than the other; my point is that there is no objective "better" in this case because these two ppl will never agree with each other. if there is true objectivity, we would have a lack of nations, political parties, different religious factions between religions and within religions (there are multiple factions within islam, which also happens to christiainity to a much more extensive degree, and the same goes to other religions as well).
what is true right now is that because we haven't uncovered the Truth (if there is one), and because of that, we take sides. and we will never agree on everything. this renders the term "objectivity" irrelevant becuase it's impossible from the beginning of human civilization to today, and we should swap that word with "intersubjective agreement."
"we shouldn't feel our lives have objective meaning, but they actually need objective meaning" is the most ridiculous thing i've heard. one final example: bryan johnson believes in ASI will possibly led us to a transhumanist future for humanity and he considers that to be good, so he is devoting his entire life into life extension by any means, garnering millions of supporters online, who all praise he is doing something very meaningful. i take this example to this class, how many people will agree that working toward immortality is meaningful? i can already imagine someone saying "if you try to not die you don't think about how to live." you know why my imagination wouldn't be incorrect? because people actually say it. my parents think this guy is weird. i would weigh down the capability of ASI. i don't think any religious people would agree about this. we can't even agree upon whether extending life via medicine is objectively good! just look at diogenes and all of his supporters! look at all the people who don't fear death and are willing to sacrifice their safety to pursue risky activities such as rock climbing without supports! the suicidals! the pessimistic nihilists!
the instructor doesn't linger on my concern though. there was no good faith in the discussions because i wasn't respected. and it's very frustrating to think about the necessity to feel indifferent when you have to sit in a classroom full of people trying to learn something that you are very eager to learn, but the process of teaching and discussion itself was completely anti-philosophical, resulting my impulse of writing this. even the material we are covering is philosophically flawed, and those flaws weren't even examined. wolf couldn't define objective value, so everything downstream cannot be argued. secular philosophy has no axiom because they don't have a God. and if you think there is an objective alignment by claiming leftist ideologies are the universal good, that is, again, just like Christian values of pity and communal support but without of a central axiom of God. so, we come back to the innveitablity of the intersubjectivity problem, with all historical and up to today's data, is insufficient to derive anything that is fundementally objective in the answer to the question "what makes a life objectively meaningful?"
two other things. the instructor layed out the example of "somewhat successful means that if you are trying to find the cure to cancer but you fail or someone else finds it first, you are still living a meaningful life." woah slow down buddy that is very subjective! and i know you are acknowledging the subjectivity of this statement but i have 3 thoughts about this:
- the fact that failure doesn't indicate a lack of meaning is a very self pity thing to say.
- in the LBC industry, any win, even by others, is still a win because it is a collective step toward longevity escape velocity. this is ofc responding to the fact that one cannot find fulfillment if the achievement was obstained by someone else except of that person. this can be interpreted in a very selfish fashion. anyone who thinks like that perhaps care more about personal glory in means of financial success that comes from the "cure," and/or personal legacy, and/or h-index increase for your OWN sake, and less about actual altriusm that is derived from abundance regardless of the contributor of the "cure." but it seems like this isn't even stated because seems like the instructor's mental framework for accepting failure isn't "this is still groundbreaking and everyone can still benefit from it; i worked toward something that proved to be valuable to society regardless of who discovered it" and is instead "i didn't make it myself and someone else did it, i should accept that although i failed, i still tried..." here is a honorary award sticker for you darling.
- the example of "cure for cancer" is the most superficial medicinal example i have heard. i understand the instructor doesn't study biology, but i think the best philosopher, or any thinker, needs to have fundemental understanding of any examples one gives. you can argue that "it doesn't have to be that rigorous that is just an example." but what if i try to say "a pig can fly" in a very specific philosophical debate scenario as a way to defend my opinion? see how ridiculous that is? If my example isn't even rigorous or factual, why bother giving out an example like this? it makes your opponent who are deep in the domain or at least understands the basic principles sigh in the realization that your general understanding of reality is very narrow. science requires reasoning too. and "cure for cancer" is a very childish and unscientific phrase. so if you don't understand how cancer works, maybe don't give that example.
so finally, the questions "what is the meaning in life" and "what is the meaning of life" are not so different after all. they are both boundless questions that would yield subjective, therefore boundless answers. and until we find the Truth (if there is one), these questions cannot be answered with true objectivity. i rest my case.