Search for the Meaning of Life

Sisyphus and Humanity’s Search for the Meaning of Life

Essay by Thomas Szarigiannidis



Though the conditions for obtaining a meaning for life may be dependent on the individual seeking it, it is sound to say that many theories that attempt to provide a valid meaning are simply not adequate. In this essay, I will outline the essential components of Richard Taylor’s theory on why subjective meaning is a sufficient purpose to life and why objective meaning is unimportant; furthermore, I will present the reasons as to why his perspective is logically – and indeed, philosophically – inadequate.
Taylor illustrates his theory with the tale of Sisyphus, and compares the mythical predicament to that of human life. Taylor at first appears to claim that Sisyphus’ toils – like that of humanity – are ultimately meaningless, for they are both cyclical, repetitive processes amounting to nothing in the end. Taylor then proceeds to modify the scenario by implementing new circumstances to Sisyphus’ situation; at first, that of the Gods’ act of implanting an insatiable desire within Sisyphus to roll boulders; though such a happenstance would provide Sisyphus with mercy through allowing him to do what he wishes for all eternity, it would still not change the fact that Sisyphus’ actions accomplish nothing in the end. In addition, Taylor also prompts us to pretend that Sisyphus is – in fact – building a temple of magnificent proportions through his rolling of boulders, but then discredits this possibility by explaining that even if the temple were to stand for eternity in grand splendour, it would still leave Sisyphus in great despair, for all his efforts have now been accumulated, leaving him with nothing to do. Naturally, all hypothetical scenarios affiliated with the Sisyphus story are simply allegorical analyses of the other side of the coin; that of humanity. But Taylor provides the reader with a seemingly plausible explanation, by stating that though the original alteration of Sisyphus being blessed with a desire to roll boulders may not provide any general meaning to his existence, it is still enough for Sisyphus . This means that subjective meaning – purpose derived internally from within – is adequate in justifying existence for Sisyphus, and vica-versa, for humanity as well. Taylor also assures us that such a method for reaching a subjective meaning is more preferable to seeking an objective meaning, as previously outlined with the implementation of the temple. Objective meaning, Taylor argues, – even if relevant to the individual – is not sufficient for justifying the existence that perpetuates it. In addition, objective meanings are temporary at best; temples crumble and fall, much like everything else that is created or devised over time, and lead only to repeated endeavours of the same kind. Therefore, even if objective meaning could be attained (which is possible only temporarily), such is not desirable in the least, for once an objective meaning is completely attained, existence loses meaning immediately.
Understanding why this perspective falls short of satisfactory requires us to examine whether Taylor’s premise of objective meaning lacking a lasting impact and fading over time is plausible, thereafter, whether subjective meaning is truly sufficient purpose to our lives. Though it’s true that our tangible creations face eventual obliteration, or – in a more preferable scenario – only the gradual loss of value or regard, it is absurd to assume that this neutralizes the meaning and its impact completely. For instance, Taylor uses the example of pyramids; he claims that while the pyramids were a spectacle of unrivalled marvel in their time and still stand with glory today, in our present day, we behold these pyramids with a vague curiosity, and not the unbridled intrigue with which the Egyptians looked upon them in times of old. But does that mean that the objective meaning they once had has now become obsolete – even present generations? If we put a little more thought into this, it becomes clear that the objective meaning was never lost, nor has it ever diminished; history still teaches us of the grandeur and near-perfection of these riveting structures, and for those of us who contemplate and think about the pyramids – as well as what we know about them – we experience first-hand the blatant objective meaning of these amazing historical objects. And when or if these pyramids will one day crumble and collapse, history will still recall them, for they were significant enough to earn a passage in permanent memory.
But we need not look so vigorously to find examples of lasting objective meaning; for instance, actions – though not tangible in the conventional sense – can have equal, if not greater objective meaning that, at the time of their occurrence, guide history to a direction that may not have come about, if not for the happening of the particular event. The actions of even one man can have profound and lasting objective meaning; recall the actions of Martin Luther, who – through his protest of the Roman Catholic Church’s strictly enforced regulations on religion – has changed the means and circumstances of worship and altered the meaning of faith by empowering the everyman with courage to develop their own relationship with their sacred deity. Though it’s possible that the ideals of Protestantism would have been implemented in some form or to some extent eventually without the actions of Luther, this does not change the fact that he brought about the event; thereby endowing his actions with lasting objective meaning that will be remembered not just for as long as religion exists, but as long as imperative events in history are taught to the new generations, for the implications of Luther’s defiance extended beyond that of religion, and attained great historical significance.
On the topic of subjective meaning, it isn’t fallacy to assume that some individuals may be satisfied with accepting their own subjective meaning as a valid purpose to their existence – that is, if this subjective meaning is ever revealed to them in the first place. However, it is not so easy to righteously state that this is always the case, and is an undisputable fact. People could go through an entire lifetime fully in knowledge of and in accordance with their subjective meaning, and still not be satisfied with it. A convict who has no chance for parole and is to spend the rest of his life in prison, for instance, may come to realize that the purpose to his life – though could have been something else beforehand – is now to rehabilitate, and to serve his penance for his crimes. Does that mean that this person evidently accepts this and considers it a valid meaning to his existence? To say so would be a preposterous assumption, and realistically, quite unsound.
Though Taylor’s theory sounds logical and acceptable, it is not applicable to all cases; there are simply too many potential circumstances for it to be irrefutably acceptable. Objective meaning can be everlasting, and subjective meaning is not always sufficient purpose to life, as has been proven by the application of slightly complicated scenarios. Providing a meaning for life is – though seemingly not a hard task in accordance with Taylor’s claims, – is simply not as easy as it would have us believe.