Summary (Brandon Cuda)
This specific philosophy course focuses on whether or not there is actual meaning to human lives, and if so, what is it and why? This is a very subjective topic and every individual has a different response to this question. Our group was interested in seeing what people’s life goals are and how they would change if death were imminent. Each member asked their family and friends to name three things they would like to accomplish before they died (a “bucket list”). As a follow up question, we asked whether or not these desires would change if the individual knew he or she was going to die in six months. We gathered responses from 102 individuals in order to see if there were any recurring answers about what activities might give people’s lives “meaning”.
Once we gathered the responses, there were six specific desires that seemed to be most important to people. These desires were travel, spending time with loved ones, finding love/ developing intimate relationships, accomplishing career-oriented goals, positively affecting the world in some way, and seeking adventure. Any responses that did not fall into one of these categories were considered miscellaneous desires.
Each member focused on a specific lesson from the course thus far and analyzed how it relates to our research study.
Categorical / Conditional Desires (Ayden Harris)
In his frequently referenced philosophical papers “The Makropulos case: reflections on the tedium of immortality”, Bernard Williams introduces a fresh and insightful way of viewing the desires that we all have in life. He broke down our desires into two groups: categorical and conditional desires. Categorical desires are essentially the desires that give our lives meaning; a life lived that does not complete someone’s categorical desires would be seen as incomplete. On the other hand, conditional desires are the desires that are viewed as the “wants” out of life; a life lived that does not complete conditional desires could still be complete. Bernard Williams further explains this mindset by creating the character “Makropulos” who is semi-immortal, but in order to retain this status she has to periodically create a concoction that extends her life. The story tells of how she has lived many lives and even though she has the potential to keep on living, she ultimately decides not to continue on because she already completed all of her categorical desires.
We wanted to see how/if this ideology would apply in the real world. So, during our study we asked our friends and family to create a bucket list, which was to include their top three desires in life. It was no surprise that almost all of the things on people’s lists would be considered categorical desires. Conditional desires like eating breakfast when hungry or picking out your outfit for the day are usually not things that people think about when asked what they would like to accomplish before their death. The most recurring categorical desires people mentioned in their responses were travel, spending time with loved ones, finding a soul mate/ developing intimate relationships, seeking adventure, and achieving career or business related goals.
Taylor’s Way Out (Lexie Calic)
Many people reach a point in their lives where they wonder what the point is to their life. Does their life have any meaning to it? In an article written by Wielenberg, he discusses three types of meaning: supernatural meaning, external meaning, and internal meaning. Supernatural meaning is when God gives your life a purpose. External meaning is when you make the world a better place, and internal meaning is when your happiness outweighs your sufferings. Wielenberg later discusses how God is necessary in order to have internal meaning. He believes that God offers an afterlife, sets standards for life, cares about everyone, and declares what is right and wrong. Taylor, Singer, and Aristotle each give reasons that prove Wielenberg incorrect. They do not believe God is a necessity to an internally meaningful life. Singer says a life devoted to reduce suffering is very meaningful. Aristotle states that certain activities are valuable within themselves. Based on our “bucket list” research, Taylor’s way out is the most relevant. Taylor says that God is not necessary because we can make our lives meaningful by fulfilling our desires. Fulfilling desires do not require help from God. Everybody has a bucket list, or a list of things they want to do before they die. Taylor believes completing these personal desires would give your life meaning and value. For example, if a person has a lifelong dream of having children and starting a family, and they follow through with it, their life becomes even more meaningful than it was before. Doing things that make you happy gives you a reason to live. Even simple things that make a person happy provide meaning. An example of this would be having a passion for music or art. Making your dreams come true, no matter whom it affects, leads to a very happy and satisfying life.
Aristotle and the “Highest Good” (Kristine Appel)
According to Aristotle, we can’t possibly make every single choice we do because of something else. There has to be a “highest good” or else the cycle of product motivation would be futile and continue on forever. There would be no ultimate reason for anything we do.
Aristotle says that “the many” determine this highest good to be “happiness”. This form of happiness is different from our conventional idea of happiness in that it’s defined as flourishing or thriving. The problem with the theory that this is the “highest good” is that flourishing can have different descriptions based on whom you ask. Some define it as being rich and wanting for nothing. Others might define it as being surrounded by those who love you. This spectrum of definitions is why Aristotle disagrees that “happiness” is the “highest good”.
Ideally, people’s life goals would fulfill their definition of flourishing. These life goals would be their “highest good” and be the ultimate thing they wish for simply because of itself. As expected, not everyone has the same life goals, which follows with the idea that “happiness” has infinite definitions.
Aristotle compares humans to plants and animals in an attempt to describe our “highest good” and our purpose. In his analysis, Aristotle acknowledges that humans, unlike plants and animals, have the ability to reason and make decisions. Maximizing the capacities of these abilities is what Aristotle defines as the purpose of human life. He defines our purpose as developing our rational capacities by communicating elaborately, exercising self-constraint, and solving problems.
According to the survey results for people’s original bucket lists, 24% of life goals were focused on traveling, 18% were focused on their career, 17% were focused on family and love ones, and 15% were focused on intimate relationships.
Traveling could be seen as fulfilling Aristotle’s “highest good” because it utilizes our ability to communicate and appreciate beauty. Traveling is not just about fulfilling our physical needs, but about fulfilling our emotional ones as well.
Career goals are especially about higher functioning because they involve decision-making and problem solving. It may not always be in the exact form that Aristotle intended (philosophy), but jobs do set humans apart from plants and animals. Jobs help humans make money, which many people believe allows us to flourish.
Family/loved ones and intimate relationship goals could be seen as less individual to humans. Animals are just as passionate about protecting their young and their partners. The fact that these goals are still a significant part of our lives shows that humans are not completely removed from animals and still have some of the same instincts.
There was a shift in life goals when mortality was brought into the picture. Goals related to travel and family/loved ones became the most prominent. The higher level of functioning that is related to travel was discussed before, but the large shift in prioritizing family/loved ones indicated a shift to a lower level of functioning that is more relatable to animals. This was interesting to see as it wasn’t as consistent with Aristotle’s theory about human purpose. It seemed that, in their day-to-day lives, humans are focused on their futures and developing their intelligence and problem solving abilities through careers and learning about new places, but in the face of death the focus shifts back to more primitive desires. From this, Aristotle’s theory about the “highest good” being about developing our rational capacities is challenged because Aristotle’s ideas don’t seem consistent in the face of mortality.
Does Death Undermine Meaning? (Bill Johenning)
One very common question philosophers try to answer is whether or not the inevitability of death undermines the meaning of life. Based on our research, we would argue that the possibility of death actually makes the individual’s life more meaningful because they want to accomplish life goals before they run out of time. When asked whether their bucket lists would change if they knew they were going to die in six months, most people in the study said that it would. There was not a single person that said they would lose hope or not care because they knew they were going to die. Of the 102 people in the study, 42 originally said that they would like to form an intimate relationship, however when asked what they would do if they were going to die in six months, only 23 said they would like to form an intimate relationship. Similarly, 51 people said an event that is career-related would be something they would like to do, but when asked what they would do if they knew they were going to die in six months, only twelve people would like to do something career-related before they died. I think the decline in these numbers is affected by the fact that the average age of the people in our study is 24, with the larger percentage of the 102 people being younger than 24. Intimate relationships and career-based desires are something that take a lot of time to develop, certainly longer than six months. I think this had a big impact on why people changed their answers.
While some of our statistics declined, some of our numbers increased. For example, 46 people originally said they would like to achieve something family related. However that number changed to 70 when asking what they would like to do if they died in six months. Also, when first asked 34 people said they had goals related to adventure or fun, but when asked again after knowing they would die in six months, that number changed to 43. I think the numbers for these categories increased because they are relatively short-term goals. These are not things that take years to achieve. I think knowing that you will die in six months makes you appreciate what little time you have left, and most people want to do the things that truly make them happy before they die (like spending time with loved ones or going on life adventures).
Conclusion
Although we may never determine an ultimate or absolute meaning of life, our study has shown that there may be specific desires in life that most people have in common. It is important to note that these results could change drastically depending what part of the world you are in since culture has a big influence on how one thinks. But, from our results, it seems that people find meaning in developing and maintaining relationships with others as well as individual desires such as travel, adventure-seeking, and career-related ambitions. Philosophers continue to develop theories in order to explain why people are so concerned with living “meaningful” lives. Humans might never figure out what the ultimate purpose of our existence is, but everyone has his or her own personal reasons for living.
