Conversations About the Meaning of Life (Benatar, Metz, Werbeloff, and Oppenheimer)
OVERVIEW
Conversations About the Meaning of Life is a back-and-forth debate between two great philosophers, David Benatar and Thaddeus Metz, about whether (and how) our lives might be meaningful. Both have written extensively on the subject. The conversation is mediated by Jason Werbeloff and Mark Oppenheimer, who were students of Metz and Benatar, respectively.
David Benatar’s position:
“Lives do or can contain some meaning, but no lives contain other sorts of quite important forms of meaning.” If a meaningful life is a life that has significance or purpose, then yes, our lives have meaning on a local level. You mean something (are of importance) to your family, maybe even to your community. However, rarely do any of us mean anything to all of humanity; and you’ll never mean anything to the cosmos (because God does not exist, and the cosmos is not sentient). Benatar argues it’s this last form of meaning we most despair at not having, and that it’s (regrettably) the most important form of meaning. Without cosmic meaning, there’s not enough value in existence “to justify all the hardships, the struggle, and, of course, ultimately the death.”
Thaddeus Metz’s position:
“[A] person’s life is meaningful by virtue of exemplifying a cluster of values, which are connected to the good, the true, and the beautiful – or roughly morality, enquiry, and creativity.” The “good” is any moral achievement. The “true” is exploration and intellectual reflection (which sometimes extends beyond analytical thinking to different kinds of awareness, like empathy and mindfulness). The “beautiful” is anything aesthetically valuable, creative, or revelatory; Metz considers ugly art that reveals something important to be beautiful, humour to be beautiful, etc. Metz doesn’t think subjective attraction is necessary for meaning (and that you can be wrong about whether your life is meaningful or meaningless), but relents that most philosophers align with Susan Wolf’s perspective, that meaning is where subjective attraction meets objective attractiveness (that meaning is enhanced, or amplified, when we are attracted to the good, the true, and the beautiful).
The main point of disagreement between Benatar and Metz is on whether we need cosmic meaning. Benatar thinks yes, Metz thinks no. Benatar says cosmic meaning is what we most yearn for. Metz says it’s silly to set the bar that high; why not use everyday standards of meaning? Benatar responds because we can imagine what having cosmic meaning might be like, so we can despair at its absence. Metz counters that just because we can imagine the highest standard of meaning doesn’t require that we measure against it. One does not need to be infinitely strong to be “strong,” or infinitely tall to be “tall.” In his final postscript, Benatar ends: “If more meaning is, all things being equal, better than less meaning, then it is unfortunate that our lives are much less meaningful than they could be.”
I think the importance (or unimportance) of cosmic meaning remains unresolved in this debate. I don’t think Benatar provides proof that we do (or must) despair at the lack of cosmic meaning in the universe (but I think he could get there if he stepped into psychology and pulled from what has been written on theory of mind/teleology). And I’m not sure Metz is justified in anchoring meaning on the good, the true, and the beautiful, because his only justification for these values is that philosophers tend to converge on them (perhaps his reasoning is explored more in his other books, which I’ll be reading soon).
WHAT NOW? (actions for mortal atheists)
David Benatar would recommend you try to make your life as meaningful as it can be, but don’t delude yourself into believing you can have any more than local, terrestrial meaning (and don’t make more humans, more “adversity-facing meaning-seekers.” Benatar is an anti-natalist).
Thaddeus Metz would recommend behaving morally, acting with thoughtfulness and curiosity, and creating things of beauty – that this is what’s required for meaningfulness (and that several dead philosophers would agree).
IN SUM:
Is this book entirely secular? Yes.
If I had to describe the book in one sentence? A short debate on whether life has sufficient meaning.
Who should read this book? Fans of Metz and Benatar.