Meaningful Living Across the Lifespan. Moses N. Ikiugu

it is also determined by) how people shall live.

      However, mythologies are analogous to what has evolved into scientific explanation. The two systems aim at the same goal, which is to make the universe comprehensible to human beings. While mythology is a metaphorical way of visualizing the universe, science attempts to reveal the literal explanatory logic behind its mechanism. Of course adherents of religion sometimes assert that their views of the universe are literal rather than metaphorical, and scientists sometimes come to terms with their discoveries by understanding them in terms of religious metaphor. That is why many scientists believe in the existence of God (for example both Einstein and Newton were firm believers in the existence of God as the intelligent architect who established the laws governing the universe). Nevertheless, critics argue that neither an infinite soul nor any metaphysical thing exerting an infinite effect on the world is necessary for a meaningful life (Schmidtz, 2001).

Objective versus subjective views

      With such a diverse range of arguments, it is not surprising that some scholars claim that meaning is idiosyncratic (Metz, 2007). In other words, meaning derives from subjective experiences which are unique to every individual, and thus, if anyone believes that something is meaningful, then it is. Therefore, meaning is primarily a result of the achievement of goals that people individually set for themselves. However, meaning is also related to the interpretation of objective phenomena, things which remain relatively constant, such as the landscape or the seasons, and the relative permanence of some social institutions. Metz (2007, p. 11 of 21) suggested that ‘subjectivism about meaning has lost dominance over the past thirty years’. This is probably because of increased secularization of western populations and the growing power of science combined with the development of technology and of the financial structures in a global society. For example, people expect product reliability. They expect certainty, and many of the products they use are supported by an increasingly complex technology. An expectation of perfection does not so much reside in the almighty, but has become humanized in the mobile phone, the bank service, better evidence, the digitalization of information, and the reduction of anticipated risk in life.

      On the other hand, the objective view is based on the proposition that ‘there are certain inherently worthwhile or finally valuable conditions that confer meaning for anyone, not merely because they are wanted, chosen, or believed to be meaningful, nor because they somehow are grounded in God’ (Metz, 2007, p. 12 of 21). In other words, objectivists submit that there are external criteria for meaning on which everyone can agree. Once those criteria are met in a person’s life, it can be assumed that the individual’s life is meaningful. Those who define meaning in this way tend to equate it with moral and creative actions that can be judged objectively as worthwhile: ‘the activities that give meaning to one’s life will give one reasons for acting that are, to some extent, independent of self-interest – reasons derived from the worth of the activities themselves’ (Paul, Miller, & Paul, 1997, p. xii). This understanding of meaning still has inherent difficulties. One group of people may decide that promoting a particular set of beliefs is a worthwhile moral and creative action, while another may object on different moral grounds which they hold to be significant. Although a society or a group agrees on criteria for meaning, it does not follow that their opinion represents the true reality of the phenomenon. For many years it was supposed that the earth was the centre of the universe, that it was flat, and that the sun revolved around it. Everyone at the time thought that this was objective truth. Now it is understood, on the basis of irrefutable evidence, that the earth’s position in the universe is very different. It is dawning on the earthlings that the importance of the earth is only to the people living on it. The wider significance of the planet and the life on it may be very small given the infinity of space. Thus, history is full of surprises which have changed common understandings of reality.

      This issue of objective versus subjective definition of meaning takes us back to the argument about the role of finiteness versus infinity in meaning-making. For example, you want to know that your computer works and is reliable. However, you may not understand very much about how it works and probably never will. All you need to know is how to use the computer. But there are many computers on the market with similar characteristics. One of the subjective judgments (subjective because you accept the information given to you by the technical experts on faith) you have to make is to buy a particular model based on the apparently objective criteria (such as memory size, processing speed, type of interphase, number of apps, available technological assistance, etc.) presented to you by the supplier. You do not buy the computer purely on the basis of explicit objective criteria that you fully understand such as colour (although such criteria may be part of the equation in your decision-making). You don’t really understand much of the information the tech gives you about the computer, except that it sounds pretty good and the tech sounds and looks competent to you. You do not actually test much of the computer capabilities yourself before you buy it, but rather you buy it on the basis of a subjective judgment of the extent to which you can trust the information given to you by the techs.

      According to Adams (1979), this is the same kind of judgment on which understanding of the Universe and everything in it is based. The idea that forty two may be the answer to the question ‘what is the meaning of life’ may be as good as any other, and viewed in this sense, the difference between subject and object is illusory: people are often persuaded that many things are objective. Indeed, many things may actually be objective to the best of the knowledge of the people developing the information about them, but that information is still understood, disseminated and used by individuals based on choices which are based on subjective judgment. Subjective choices are for example governing how this book is being written. We have been persuaded to write it in order to deal with professional and scientific questions which may be objective. However, our interest and motivation is subjective, just as the reader is perhaps motivated by subjective reasons to read this textbook.

      Many scholars take the middle ground, and we (speaking of ourselves subjectively) tend to agree with this position. They see the judgement of meaningful actions as having both objective and subjective components. An action may be reckoned to be meaningful in the consensus of wider society, but some individuals may not recognize it as meaningful to them. There may often be common assumptions about shared interests from which some people are excluded. For example, in many Western societies it is assumed that most people can read, but there are people who experience difficulties with reading, and therefore cannot share in the enjoyment of books or magazines and the meanings these activities may have for people in general. Books and magazines and the activity of reading may have no meaning for these people, despite the rich meaning they have for others.

      Nihilists and Taoists dispute the idea that life has any meaning at all (Nagel, 1986) other than as a flicker in the temporal scale of the universe, and therefore is virtually un-important. For them, pre-occupation with the search for meaning is a reflection of human arrogance, a lack of perspective, and is utterly futile. Instead, Taoists might argue, everything is a part of the void, it is both something and nothing, and rather than searching for meaning, we should accept experience as it is for the pleasure of experience.

A working definition of meaningfulness

      There are some apparently contradictory perspectives in this discussion. A Taoist view of meaning contains meaninglessness, not as indifference to reality, but as acceptance of it. A Western perspective might generally be that: ‘A meaningful life…is a life of active engagement in projects of worth, which might involve such things as moral or intellectual accomplishments, relationships with family and friends, or artistic/creative enterprises’ (Paul et al., 1997, p. xii). Meaning can also be defined as an experience of coherence, as well as a sense of creativity and control over the span of one’s life (Carlson, Clark, & Young, 1998). Dwyer, Nordenfelt, and Ternestedt (2008, p. 98) offer a particularly relevant definition of the construct thus: ‘Meaning is understood here in general sense of one’s self and one’s life having a value, within a focus on everyday life.’ Human society is based on co-operation and participation, which suggests a perception of and need for shared values. The core theme of this book is that individuals need to live meaningfully