INTRODUCTION Ch 1.

LOOKING FOR THE BLUEPRINT

Baggini wants to explore the questions: “Why are we here? What is the purpose
of life? Is it enough just to be happy? Is my life serving some greater purpose? Why are we here?
Are we here to help others or just ourselves?” His approach is “to appeal to “Why are we here?” can be an ambiguous question. It could mean two different
reasons, evidence and arguments.” He believes that answers could be found things. First, it may look for past-oriented causes or origins. Second, it may
“not by any discovery of new evidence” but “by thinking about the issues on search for future-oriented purposes or destinations. In this chapter Baggini will
which the evidence remains silent.” This means that Baggini will philosophize focus on the past-oriented origin. And he cautions, “We cannot assume that
on the meaning of life in ways people might have overlooked. This book can be answering the question about something’s origins tells us about its future or
seen as “deflationary” meaning that it is not mysterious, “drawing together the present purpose.”
wisdom of the greats of the past.” To philosophize is to ask the right questions:
“Asking the right questions is as important as giving the right answers.” Corners of dots on specks on fragments
Baggini’s aim is not to stipulate the meaning of life for everyone. Instead, he Concerning the questions about the past-oriented origins of human beings,
strives to provide certain “navigational aids,” meaning that this book is about Baggini highlights naturalism and creationism as two possible positions.
the methods (dos and don'ts) for finding out various meanings of life suitable Naturalism basically is the position of natural science: physics, chemistry and
for different people. biology. Baggini’s point is not show that the truth of science but to explore its
“implications for life’s meaning if it is true.” Citing Richard Dawkin, Baggini
argues that “genes are not designed to fulfil any purpose, nor do they have
desires or goals, conscious or otherwise.” Following naturalism, one might
conclude that “human life is a purposeless, insignificant accident.”
Sartre’s paper-knife
In response to the impact of naturalism on religion, “[a]ll [existentialists] agree
that the ‘discovery’ that there is no God has created a crisis of meaning for
human life.” In the Western tradition, humans have an essence and purpose
because they are created by God to have such essence and purpose. Without
God, the source of life’s meaning seems to disappear. Baggini here seems to
endorse the existentialist approach:

we ourselves are responsible for fashioning our own

purposes. It is not that life has no meaning, but that it has
no predetermined meaning. This requires us to confront
our own responsibility for creating meaning for ourselves,
something which Sartre believes we would much rather
not do. We would prefer to live our lives in “bad faith,”
pretending that how we live and ought to live are not down
to our choice but a product fate, outside forces or
supernatural design.

The example of 3M Post-it note is to show that “what matters is not necessarily
what the inventor had in mind, but the uses or purposes the innovation actually
has.” Using the example of the novel Frankenstein, Baggini argues that the
origins of humans have no direction connection with the question whether life

1
has a meaning for us. After all, Baggini believes, we can “invent our own
purposes.”
Ch 2. LIVING LIFE FORWARDS

Adam’s puzzling purpose Order in the chaos

Baggini finds the existence of God questionable. But he wants to know the Primitive human life, as noted by Thomas Hobbes, is cruel and
implications for life’s meaning if creationism is true. Baggini argues that even dangerous, comparable to the motifs of some movies in which the protagonists
if there is God who creates us, this at most only shows this: “Our lives would avenge themselves on killers. Ironically, for the life otherwise without meaning,
have a purpose for the being that created us but not a purpose for us.” In the revenge sets a purpose for it to fulfill, making it a meaningful life. People
addition, Baggini points out that if believers do not just follow the Bible but make in general fear that there is no (high) purpose guiding their whole life. Squaring
their judgments, then the Bible and the reference to God is superfluous. Tracing with Aristotle’s “teleological account of human life,” some might argue that in
one’s origin to the past-oriented God’s creation therefore does not help answer order really to complete our life-goal in a meaningful manner, there should be
what meaning of life one should have. the ultimate goal for all goals. This is the end in itself, which can end the series
of questions “why.” Baggini attempts to answer the question whether there is
Santa Claus and Frankenstein really any such life’s purpose in itself. His overall position, explained in later
In this section, Baggini elaborates on the story of Frankenstein, showing that chapters, is that there is.
“knowledge of the creature’s origins did not reveal his life’s meaning.” This
mistaken use of the origins in effect commits the “genetic fallacy.”
Time for justifications
“Why” questions can be about the past, the present or the future goals.
In the book, Baggini aims to argue that we can fulfill life’s purpose in the present
by simply living our lives.

Can I die now?

When life’s meaning is tied to the goal-achievement, it is problematic.
If we achieve that goal, does it mean that we could die now? Kierkegaard notes
that life has a duality: the ethical and the aesthetic. One should pursue the
eternal, ethical value through action at moments of the aesthetic here-and-now.
How can one transcend the finite moments (aesthetic) to reach the infinite
eternality (ethical)? Kierkegaard’s answer is to have faith (finite) in Jesus (the
infinite). Baggini then poses the question: how could we set up a goal realizable
within the finite moments of our life and yet covering the enduring aspect of
human life?

La dolce vita (=A life of indolence and self-indulgence)

Baggini argues that the life-goal should not be tied to an individual event
(e.g. my bank saving account reaching ten million dollars). It is better to be
understood in terms of a sustainable lifestyle (e.g. being kind to others) or a
state of affairs across time (e.g. being very rich continuously). For this would
avoid the problem that after one’s life-goal is achieved, there is nothing left for
one to live for. Baggini further argues that many states of affairs other than
being rich could be identified as life-goals. And it is not worthwhile to sacrifice

2
many things in the present in order to pursue something in future, such as the
future wealth, as one’s life-goal. Personal relationships in the present, for
Ch 3. MORE THINGS IN HEAVEN AND EARTH
example, are equally important life-goals. Setting one’s life-goal as a future
goal is also risky because one might not live long enough to see to it. Typically, Is this all there is?
one might complain about life by comparing with some people who are better Russell claims, “The universe is just there, and that is all.” But life is full
off or setting the standard of the life-goal very high. Likewise, we might of sorrows and disappointments. Many people could not accept that life is just
deliberately set our life-goal to be achieved “till then” when in future all external that and no more. They prefer to believe that there is “transcendental reality
conditions come in place. We put ourselves in these scenarios in order to avoid distinct from nature” that could redeem us from the injustice and evils we
the recognition of our freedom (and responsibility) in the present to achieve the encounter in this world. Baggini consider this question in this chapter in three
life-goal. And we might also fail to see the “facticity of existence”: “the world is parts: (a) God’s relevance to life’s meaning, (b) life after death without God and
whether we like it or not.” (c) life after death with God.
Baggini asks, “But do we have the courage and honesty to take life for
what it is and make the most of it? Or do we fear that if we do so it will prove
to be a disappointment?”
In God we trust?
Baggini claims that faith in God is not a discovery of life’s meaning but
giving up the search for it altogether. This would engender anxiety rather than
Life’s complications reassurance.
If we set our life-purpose only for the future to achieve, we fail to “catch
up with the purpose of life’s existence” and have it elude us forever. However,
if the life-purpose is achievable at any moment of here-and-now, nothing would
The risk of faith
Religious faith is non-rational because it opts out of rational
be left when we reach that moment. Baggini concludes that we “need to find a
justification. It does not depend on ordinary rationality but sidesteps it. The
way of living which is worthwhile in itself.” To succeed, we also need to
test of faith, as shown in the biblical story about the disciple Thomas’ doubt
understand that life is full of ups and downs and that “our own attitudes are
about Jesus’s resurrection, is that, in face of inadequate rational grounds, one
themselves important to our sense of well-being.”
should choose to believe in order to demonstrate the tenacity of one’s faith.
Another biblical story is about Abraham who is ordered by God to kill his son.
Abraham needs to make a choice and he chooses to follow the instruction from
God, although God at the last minute stops him killing his son. Since faith
abandons the use of reason, it is risky. Even for the famous theologian
Kierkegaard, Baggini notes, he keeps his faith in God with “fear and trembling.”

It wasn’t me
Even if one chooses to have faith in God, one needs to be responsible
for the choice one makes in believing in God. Since to believe in God is to let
God sort out the life’s meaning for us, we have responsibility for the outcome of
this choice. But making such a religious choice is risky because if there is no
God, Baggini argues, the believer risks all one has in life, including the search
for life-meaning. His life could become meaningless if his religious belief is
false and there is no God. On the other hand, Baggini contends, the atheist,
who disbelieves in God, does not risk what he has in this life. He simply lives
without deferring the responsibility for searching for life’s meaning to God. On
the other hand, if the atheist is wrong and there is indeed God, he might still get

3
a second chance in the afterlife to redeem his sins because God, unless He is
too harsh, may forgive him for the wrongs (including his disbelief) he has done
Ch 4. HERE TO HELP
in this lifetime.
Here to help?
Could altruism make life meaningful? Who does altruism help and why?
Life after death Baggini first cautions us that we should not turn helping others merely into a
An argument runs, “if death is the end, life is meaningless; life cannot be tool in order to make our life meaningful. In that case helping others would
meaningless, therefore there is life after death.” Baggini disagrees with this become merely serving our own interests. On the other hand, Kant holds that
argument. He thinks that the case for life after death lacks evidence because when we help others, we should act only on duty. Baggini finds this idea
thought requires the functioning of the brain and when the body (with the brain) questionable because by Kant’s theory the objective of our helping others
decays after death, there is no reason to believe that thought or the soul exists. seems not to help others but to fulfil our sense of duty only. For Baggini, the
It is also unclear to see how the disembodied soul could in any sense be the value of helping others might be explained in this way: “all other things being
continuation of the bodied self. Our sense of self depends on our thoughts and equal, the life of one human being is as valuable as that of another. If it is a bad
memories. If life after death could last for, say, 200 years, how could we thing for me to suffer from hunger, then it is a bad thing for anyone else to suffer
understand the continuity of identity between the selves before and after death from hunger.” This is akin to the Kantian principle of universality. Now, Baggini
when memories migh fade over such a long period of time? “To hope to find holds that if the focus is laid on the abstract idea of helping itself, instead of on
life’s meaning in the life to come therefore seems futile.” Baggini’s position is the people to be helped, there would be three problems. First, help becomes a
that “life can be meaningful without any presumption of the afterlife.” For him, method to fulfill one’s life’s meaning and this in effect turns people into tools
believing in the afterlife may only postpone our responsibility but could not help for giving meaning to the altruist’s life. This is self-serving on the altruist’s part.
us find out the answer. He asks, if we could not find life’s meaning in this life, Second, if help is used to define one’s life’s meaning, altruists might not want
how come we are sure we could find it in the afterlife? For Camus, it is people to be self-sufficient and independent from their help. For altruists need
possibility of death that propels us to act when we are alive. Bernard Williams to have people helped in order to make their own life meaningful. This is the
also argues that immortality induces “boredom, indifference and coldness,” and paradox of the culture of dependence. The existence of the helper and the
human life is not suitable for immortality. Baggini holds that “Life must be finite helped would depend equally on the existence of the process of helping. Third,
to have meaning, and if finite life can have meaning, then this life can have if everyone is equal, why should the altruist sacrifice their own interests by
meaning.” serving others’ interests? If altruism is true, the altruist should not abandon the
opportunity to enrich their own life in order to enrich others’ lives. Baggini does
The hard transcendental path not mean that helping others is no good. But he wants to argue that the ideal is
If God exists and there is no afterlife, it means that we need to find out that everyone, including oneself, enjoys a good quality of life. To build the
our life’s meaning in this lifetime. God would not have much relevance to our meaning of life on the concept of help, therefore, may not be a sound idea.
quest for life’s meaning in this case. If God exists and there is an afterlife, this
does not give us life’s meaning but only hope for a meaning to be revealed in The germ of truth
the afterlife. Yet, the same problems recur: faith is risky and it is unclear how Bertrand Russell notes that if the meaning of life is concerned only with self-
to make sense of the idea of afterlife (see above). Baggini notes that the interests, one’s life would become “claustrophobic.” “Small problems become
finiteness of this lifetime does not make this life meaningless. Instead, this magnified in their importance”. Baggini concludes this section by claiming that
mortal life, with moments of here-and-now and across time, should be human lives are worth living because life can be good in itself. “Altruism is thus
considered as a candidate for making life meaningful. It should be meaningful not the source of life’s meaning but is something that living a meaningful life
by itself as an end in itself, not as a tool for something else. requires. We just need to remember that the purpose of helping others is to
bring them benefits, not to engage in charity for charity’s sake.

4
 a case of transcendence for the aesthetically trapped human beings living at
Ch 5. THE GREATER GOOD moments of here-and-now.
Baggini’s view is that there is no good reason to assume the existence of the
The good of the species transcendental, but he recognizes there being “a kind of human urge for
Can the life’s purpose be the advancement of the species? The basic unit of transcendence.” In contrast to the urge for transcendence, raw humanism,
value in this question is not the individual human life but the species as a whole. which Baggini seems to prefer, “is the view that life ‘leans on nothing’.” Cooper
considers raw humanism as unbearable but Baggini thinks otherwise. For
Baggini, so long as there is something other than ourselves answerable to us,
No such thing as humanity? such as the physical Nature, it will suffice. The satisfaction of the demand for
Baggini thinks that we can distinguish between humankind as a species and transcendence seems to be achievable within our life. But the caution here is
individual human beings. The existence of humankind involves existence of that we should be serving human beings, not the abstraction of “humankind.”
human beings. Yet, Baggini argues, one could say that humankind thrives while
many human beings suffer from unhappiness.
The joy of being an ant
It is unclear whether working for the greater good affords life satisfaction. In
Humankind before humans fact, seldom could an individual’s act really affect the greater world. The
Baggini states that our life’s purposes should not be identified with the butterfly effect, which argues that one tiny change at a corner of the world could
advancement of evolution because, with Richard Dawkins, he thinks that exert influence on big changes of the universe, on its own does determine
evolution at most concerns the advancement of genes or individuals rather than whether the action is beneficial or not, for such butterfly consequences are
the species. If one identifies one’s life purposes with the advancement of “unintended and unforeseeable.” In short, we cannot be sure whether we could
evolution, one would make two mistakes. First, one mistakenly uses the theory make contribution to humanity on the individual basis even if the butterfly effect
of evolution (with no moral content) for our moral guidance. Second, evolution works.
is about the advancement of genes or individuals, not the species. Thus,
evolution has nothing to do with the advancement of humankind as a species.
On the other hand, if one identifies the life-purpose with the construction of a
future utopia where humankind thrives, this is problematic too. The problem is More germs of truth
similar to identifying life’s purpose with the future afterlife in heaven. This is Baggini agrees that “we might find meaning in a greater good which we
just to say that this life on its own has no meaning or purpose. Baggini notes personally won’t benefit from.” Individuals are important in two senses:
again that to see the life’s purpose realizable in this life (but not in other distant recognition and acceptance. First, individuals need to recognize what provides
future scenarios) could be daunting for anyone who lacks courage to look for it life with meaning. Second, the individual needs to make a personal choice to
at moments of here-and-now, as there is no guarantee that we may find it. But embrace or reject that meaning.
it is bad faith not to take up the responsibility in looking for it in this lifetime. If
so, Baggini continues to ask, “why should we think ‘the good of the species’ is
something valuable in itself, so valuable that furthering it can provide life with
meaning?”

More than this

Why may one be motivated to see life’s purpose in the advancement of the
species? Baggini explains that one might be looking for the “transcendence
without the transcendental (outside the physical).” “Transcendence is simply
“escaping the confines of one’s own individual, subjective existence and
somehow partaking of something greater.” Kierkegaard’s ethical dimension is

5
Ch 6. AS LONG AS YOU’RE HAPPY Virtually happy
Baggini questions whether happiness should be set as the life’s purpose. Are
Everybody wants some there any competing goods with happiness? The analogy of the movie Matrix
There is a tacit understanding that being happy is the most important thing in poses an interesting question. Do you want to be hooked up with the machine
life. Although happiness is important, it is not everything. For instance, if one so that you would experience happiness? Some might object that this is not the
gets happiness by being a stripper, drug dealer or loan shark, we would be real life. This possible objection, for Baggini, is enough to show that happiness
disturbed. The disturbance shows that while happiness is important, there is is not the only goal we might have for one’s life. There could be other life goals,
limitation to how we might get it. So, happiness is worth having but hard to such as the existentialist’s idea of authenticity. A similar analogy is drawn from
possess. After all, what counts as genuine happiness? Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, where people take drugs to make them
happy. Baggini argues that the decision we make in life is in fact affected by
The greatest gift that we possess? what choices we are given. We might choose something that we would not if
Many make a distinction between pleasure and happiness. Pleasure is “a we had been given more choices. Therefore, he does not mean that authenticity
temporary state of excitement or enjoyment, happiness as a more enduring has to be preferred. It also depends on the situation.
condition.” For Aristotle, “happiness is the ultimate end of human activity.” It
is the end in itself, in that it “is always choosable for its own sake.” In addition, Seek and you shall not find
we do not want to be happy in order to get something else; we simply want to Does this mean that if we could keep happiness without sacrificing “autonomy
be happy, which is valued for its own sake. What counts as happiness for and truth,” this is the life’s meaning? Baggini rejects it. Quoting C. P. Snow, “if
Aristotle? It is “a virtuous activity of the soul.” For Epicurus, “happiness is calm you pursue happiness you’ll never find it.” For Baggini, this is translated into the
contentment and freedom from disturbance, not primarily enjoyment.” context in which one might aspire to seek for something which is too difficult
Happiness is a “vague place-holder” without specific meaning. Baggini argues for us to achieve. Advertisement emphasizes so much happiness but seldom
that “happiness is just whichever state provides humans with lasting could we reach it. Unrealistic expectation is the problem of the modern world.
satisfaction and is good in itself.” Instead of directly look for happiness, Baggini suggests that we should look for
it indirectly, seeing it as a consequence that follows from something else. He
Contented pigs seems to prefer Aristotle’s conception of happiness as “a virtuous activity of
John Mill argues that for the distinction between physical pleasure (as lower the soul.” Happiness, for Aristotle, is bound up with virtue. Virtuous people are
capacity) and intellectual pleasure (as higher capacity), seeing the latter as happy. Baggini argues that “if we worry too much about being happy, we can’t
genuine happiness. He claims, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied be happy.” For there could be something else than happiness that we might
than a pig satisfied, better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” pursue as our life’s purpose. And luck might have a role here too. Finally,
Baggini objects to Mill’s distinction. He cites psychologists’ findings to show uninterrupted happiness is beyond us. Baggini concludes that the Greek’s idea
that happiness might reside in “stable and loving relationships, good health,” is good, in that if we cultivate the right outlook, we could better withstand
“financial security and stability.” Goodall’s findings in the difference between misfortunes. Socrates claims, “A good man cannot be harmed in life or in death.”
humans and primates show that it is the unselfish love that distinguishes the Epicurus says, “It is not the things themselves that disturb men, but their
two. Maybe humans are distinguishable for their desire for deep and lasting judgements about those things.”
love. Does this show that this is the type of happiness that is worth having it?
Baggini claims that we should not be too prescriptive. Individual dispositions
could vary. Baggini argues the psychologists’ findings in anchoring the
meaning of happiness for humans might be more useful than the philosophers’.
Very often we are choosing different types of potential contentment, instead of
weighing total amounts of potential happiness when we make a decision for life
directions.

6
CH 7 BECOMING A CONTENDER is better. External validation may not be the life’s goal but it serves to be
evidence of what we have sought to become.

Being a contender Are you free?

Can success or achievement itself make life meaningful? Asking this question Choosing for oneself, making autonomous choices and living authentically are
is to ask whether it is possible to see success as life’s meaning even if it does all important and assume the possibility of free will. Naturalism seems to
not give us happiness or pleasure. challenge the existence of our free will. And quantum mechanics could not help
solve this problem. Baggini points out that we could dissolve the problem of
An anatomy of success free will by adopting a compatibilist conception of free will: we are free so long
Success can be relative or absolute. Relative success focuses on having done as we can choose without being interfered or forced externally. This conception
certain things. Sartre says, “[Man] is nothing else but the sum of his actions, of free will does not need to be exempted from the causal pre-determination in
nothing else but what his life is.” Absolute success aims at becoming a certain natural science. This is enough to capture of our common sense that we are
kind of person: we want to be certain type of people. This stresses the free to make choices, and hence able to choose and to strive to become who
importance of inner transformation by developing the self to its full potentials. we want to be.
Sartre seems to combine both relative and absolute success as life’s meaning.
For Sartre, deeds are more important than words in proving oneself to be a Improve thyself
certain type of person. Here success could be publicly influential or modest in For Baggini, “real success is about inner development.” And “becoming is a kind
nature, like being a good person. of struggle.” Baggini argues that self-improvement should be seen as an end in
itself. But one should be careful about the self-help culture, which seems to be
Successful failures unrealistic and setting the goal too high for anyone to attain. Anxiety and self-
If one always compares one’s success with that of others who are a little better doubt may thus result. Baggini reaffirms, “To raise a happy family, or live your
off, the desire can never be satisfied. This engenders discontent, forgetting life pursuing your passion, no matter what recognition you get, should be seen
those who are less fortunate. Baggini asks whether we could see success as as a success.”
life’s purpose. If success is seen as something always higher than one has
attained, it can never be achieved, except for those who are geniuses. But Dr Jack’s note: This chapter can be seen as Baggini’s elaboration of what
ordinary life should be given meaning as well, unless proven otherwise. Yet, if existentialism is all about, especially for the importance of struggle and action
one sets life’s purpose so low that one can always achieve it, it becomes which gives meanings to one’s identity and life.
something like that “all must have prizes.” Success is meaningful only if there
is a real possibility of failure. In fact, Baggini refers to the previous chapter,
claiming that authenticity and self-actualization are important to serve as life’s
meaning, so much so that being honest to lead a life which is by no means easy
could be meaningful. This is to highlight the importance of the process of
becoming, which in a sense could never be completely achieved but one needs
to keep striving. But in the process one already becomes better off. “Becoming
is an ongoing process and one which can be reversed.”

True success
Absolute success is too demanding for many of us. Is there any achievement
that can give one lasting satisfaction and serve as life’s meaning? Baggini
thinks that becoming a certain person could be set as the life’s goal, even just
to become a successful family man. For success should apply to “life and love
as well as work and art.” If both internal and external success are validated, it

7
Ch 8. CARPE DIEM one can fully experience the need to strive for the better life. Baggini notes the
psychological (not logical) inference from “Life is short” to “all that counts is the
now.” Baggini argues that if one wants to avoid the sense of “alas” every
Living for today morning when one wakes up, one should have one’s life’s purpose more than
“We are mortal, we are trapped in the present and we could all die any moment. the present-now. Baggini’s slogan runs, “Live each day as if it could be your last,
All we can do is try and make the most of every moment we have. Seize the day but could equally be just one more in your short life.” He explains, “The urgency
– carpe diem”, and enjoy the present pleasures regardless of the future. In other to make the most of today is thus no premised on the unlikelihood of tomorrow
words, it is “to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life.” Experiences and coming, but the possibility that it might not and the certainty that at least one
moments are of supreme value. According to this perspective, being alive by tomorrow won’t.” Baggini reasserts that this understanding of carpe diem has
itself is already a gift from time, despite the fact that sometimes life can hurt. this characteristic: “it doesn’t tell us what to do, it tells us how to do it. Beyond
Emotions expressed about the passing of enjoyable moments remind us how pleasure, there are love, ways of “opening up different sides of our characters,”
valuable the fleeting times are. The joy of the moment and the pain of its relationships, creativity, learning aesthetic experience, food, sex and travel. All
passing are connected. This perspective is different from flippant hedonism. It these could form the goal of seizing the day as a form of self-actualization. “The
is bittersweet, with both joy and pain treasured. true spirit of carpe diem is not to panic and try to experience everything now,
but to make sure every day counts.” The story about Barnardo shows the
Party on importance of seizing the day, and in this case it is about helping others.
Baggini wants to show that even “the pursuit of pleasure” requires skills and
methods. Some indulge in sexual pleasures, good food, drugs, music, travel or How to seize the day
art. This emphasis on pleasure-seeking has something akin to Kierkegaard’s Pure hedonism leaves us empty. Seize the day and this means for Baggini that
“aesthetic life.” But hedonism need not be identical to the aesthetic life one “we do not put off doing today that which can be done today.”
leads. For hedonism is a subset of the latter. “To be dedicated to or ensnared
in immediacy” could result in a sense of emptiness of life because no one can
grasp the present-now forever. It is the “elusiveness of ‘now’.” Galen Strawson
distinguishes people into two types: episodics (for the enjoyment of now only)
and diachronics (for the unity of past, present and future). Baggini believes that
even the truly episodics, they would have “some desire to live beyond the
moment.” For if they only have a life of now, then life for them becomes either
enjoying yourself or you being nothing. The problem is that hedonist outlook of
life depends solely on fleeting pleasures, in contrast to Aristotle’s conception of
happiness, eudaimonia, which is long-lasting. Plato is against pleasure-seeking
lifestyle, for one-sided pleasure is a symptom of lacking equilibrium. Aristotle
allows some pleasure in one’s eudemonia, provided that we are not ruled by it.
Pleasure-driven behavior is dangerous and could harm oneself as well others in
relationships. So, it is against our interests to be merely pleasure-driven.
Hedonistic carpe diem is not a reliable rule to live by if one looks for life’s
meaning.

The pleasure principle

Sartre claims that we should act without hope, in ‘despair’.” He means by this
that one should not rely on too unrealistic hopes in the distant future. In despair,

8
Ch 9. LOSE YOUR SELF Narrow you mind
Baggini believes that “One cannot remain equally open to all possibilities or else
Baggini notes that from Buddhism and mystcisim, there is an idea that learning
one ends up believing nothing. Yet one has to live, one has to make choices
to care less about “I” would be the key to fulfilling life’s meaning. He notes the
about what direction one’s life is to take.” The problem with the survival of the
two possible routes adopted by this special position. Either there is no self, or
self after death forms the main reason why Baggini rejects Buddhism. In
if there is, one should care less about it. He will explore both possible routes.
addition to accept Buddhism as such would mean for Baggini to abandon his
commitment to some basic beliefs. Since Baggini does not find any strong
No ego counterarguments that are sufficient for him to cast away his basic beliefs, he
David Hume argues for the bundle theory of perceptions, seeing that apart from
rejects Buddhism as a possible route to finding one’s life’s meaning.
fleeting perceptions, there is no enduring self. Buddhism, on the other hand,
also adopts a no-self view, (anatta). We are comprised of five khandhas,
The return of I
translated as aggregates, factors or groups. According to Buddhism, “the self
For Baggini, it is not good enough for one to free one’s mind by losing one’s self
is not any one of these five khandhas, nor is it some such other “thing”. Rather
as a way of fulfilling life’s meaning. Buddhism for Baggini seems to be too
it is just the five khandhas working together. Here is a legitimate question: does
mysterious to be worthy of rational discussion.
this mean that the self is a kind of illusion? Baggini notes that the answer
should be negative. It would be alright if one does not see the self as something
different and independent from the properties that are combined to make up
the self. However, for the Buddhist, they believe in the rebirth of the self.
Baggini finds this difficult to accept. For this implies a type of afterlife for the
selves we are in this life. This is seen as a highly implausible thesis for Baggini.
The conclusion he draws is: “there is no reason to hink we can live more
authentically if we seek to dissolve this self in some way.”

Selfishly losing one’s self

How about caring less about our attachment for the soul so that we could
flourish? Baggini thinks that this at most removes obstacles (such as
unproductive egocentrism) to finding life’s meaning but this does not explain
how. Even if meditation is good, it is different from saying that this can give
meaning to life. How about achieving the unity of oneself with the universe?
Baggini finds this notion incoherent. Because it sounds like “You reach your
highest potential by losing your sense of self altogether – in effect, by ceasing
to exist.” Baggini criticizes that the people who find lessening the attachment
to ego peaceful in fact are merely seeking self-gratification. This is self-centred
attitude. For it seems to suggest that “the only thing that matters is how we are,
ourselves, inside.” Baggini concedes, “I can see that meditation might form art
of a meaningful life, in the same way that I see how happiness, pleasure, the
pursuit of excellence and love can form part of a meaningful life.” He reasserts
his own position: “one thing most of us want from life is to live it truthfully. We
don’t want to be fooled as to the nature of reality.” Although meditation might
give some the sense of finding the truth, Baggini finds it as an unreliable method
to have knowledge of truth, whatever it might mean.

9
10. THE THREAT OF MEANINGLESSNESS worth living. Baggini thinks that “it is not essential to find meaning in life in a
philosophically rigorous way.” People may not be able to articulate their
Couldn’t life be without meaning? Baggini tackles this challenge in three meaning of life so clearly. “What seems to make the search for meaning
directions. Some might mean by this question that life is really without meaning. important is that this meaning is important.” For Baggini,
Second, some might think that it makes no linguistic sense to say that life is [L]ife is worth living just as long as it is a good thing in itself.
meaningful. Finally, some might consider it pointless to look for the meaning Such a life has meaning because it means something to us,
of life. it is valuable to those who have it. Many things can
contribute to this: happiness, authenticity and self-
expression, social and personal relationships, concern for
The meaning of meaningless welfare of others. All of these things can be part of lives
For Baggini, when people hold that life has no meaning, they often assume a that have not been examined in the systematic way those
particular conception of life’s meaning (e.g., the future aim) and see that life drawn to philosophizing examine theirs…. [L]ife can be
cannot derive meaning from this conception. In short, this is a narrow way to meaningful in the absence of any such questioning.
consider life’s meaning. Baggini argues that if one conception fails, we still Baggini uses the example of having children to show that in many cases we
have many other possible conceptions of meaning that might fit in with the
act without being engaged in the Socratic inquiry into the nature and purpose
purpose of life. In any case, Baggini thinks that the bottom line is: “life can be
of life. He clarifies that to do some thinking that we might call philosophical is
meaningful if we find it worth living for its own sake.” What remains to see is
unavoidable for the majority of people. Only that he questions whether the
how to flesh out this simple idea. Baggini further argues that for Camus, life is
philosophical inquiry is the only way to make life meaningful.
meaningless and absurd only because he wants us “recognizing and accepting
the `absurdity` of life were essential for authentic existence. To claim that life
is meaningless is merely a hyperbole, drawing our attention either to the lack of
external source for life’s meaning or to the urgency of looking for one amidst
the purposeless universe. To follow the existentialist approach, “a certain
degree of angst or despair at the purposelessness of the universe is considered
a sign that a person has truly grasped the full reality of the human condition.”
Some sort of suffering would be good for us to realize the meaning of the
authentic existence. Failure to accept this nature of authentic existence would
be bad faith.

Red herrings
The logical positivist A.J. Ayer once claims that “meaning could only be given
to life by humans,” assuming that there is no ultimate meaning of life. For Ayer,
life is not the proper bearer of meaning in any linguistic sense. Baggini thinks
that this is fine so long as, when we claim that life has a meaning, we at least
mean that there is something important in life so much so that it means
something to us. This suffices for one to continue the journey in the search for
the meaning of life.

The unexamined life

Baggini raises the question whether one has to be thinking as deeply as a
philosopher on the question about life’s meaning in order to make life
meaningful. This is to challenge Socrates’ idea of an unexamined life being not

10
11. OF WHICH REASON KNOWS NOTHING “We want to love and to be loved for who we are, which illustrates the value we
place on authenticity.” “Success in love is an ongoing project and is always
Baggini calls his approach “rationalist and humanist.” He believes that “rational precarious.” “One reason why the unexamined life can still be worth living is
humanism can and should be sensitively attuned to the emotional, moral and that it can be a life full of love.” In order to accept the limits of human
mysterious.” understanding and ultimately human existence, Baggini argues that one needs
to accept that life can have meaning without the transcendent support from
Meaningful evil religions or the afterlife. The humanist accepts what life can give as the most
How can one deal with the problem with existentialism according to which valuable.
authenticity is very important in making life meaningful? The problem is that a
person could be living authentically with his beliefs while he is very immoral and
evil in nature. Baggini attempts to meet this challenge head-on. The first
response is that a meaningful life could be very immoral. In this case, meaning
and morality are separable. The second response is that meaning and morality
is connected. A meaningful life has to be moral at the same time. To show
how meaning and morality be connected, Baggini argues in this way:
The only thing that can make life meaningful is the
recognition that human life is worthy living in itself. To
recognize this is to recognize something that is true of
all human (and perhaps some animal) life. This means
accepting that each of us has an equal claim to the good
things in life, and that making a person’s life worse than
it need be is a moral wrong.
CONCLUSION
Baggini concludes that he has offered a deflationary account of life’s meaning,
What I hope to have shown, however, is simply that it is
which is supposed to be democratic and egalitarian in nature. He claims,
not true that the position I have defended leaves us
The simplicity of the conclusion is also deceptive because
unable to criticize anyone who chooses a life for
what is simple is not always easy or obvious. It is
themselves which is morally abhorrent.
straightforward enough to say that life can be worthwhile in
itself, particularly if it is a life with a balance of authenticity,
happiness and concern for others; one where time is not
wasted; one which engages in the ongoing work of
Maintaining mystery
becoming who we want to be and being successful in those
Does Baggini’s “way of `demystifying` goes too far”? Does Baggini’s rejection
terms. But putting all this into practice is difficult …. One can
of religions such as Christianity and Buddhism go too far? Does his rejection
understand what the elements of a meaningful life are, but
of taking risk to have faith in religions too demanding? Baggini’s answer is that
they do not provide a simple recipe for contentment and
“All I have argued is that, in the absence of good reasons to think there is, to
satisfaction.
believe requires the risk of faith…. I have simply argued that it is legitimate for
me to reject them for reasons I think hold good for others, too.” Baggini argues
that even for the gratitude or thankfulness religious believers typically have for
being alive or anything valuable in life, one does not have to believe in God or a
religion in order to have them.

All you need is love?

11