Search for Meaning

by Youngjin Kang *

"What is the meaning of life?"

This is probably one of the most fundamental questions pertaining to the well-being of mankind. And many of us frequently ask it to ourselves, either consciously or subconsciously, for the sake of avoiding the eternal hellhole of existential crisis.

Yet, finding an answer to such a question requires us to clarify the implication of the word "meaning" in the first place. What does "meaning" really mean, anyways? There could be a wide spectrum of interpretations for sure, but the most obvious one is to regard the word "meaning" as a synonym of "purpose" in the context of biology.

We, as living things, constantly strive to survive and reproduce because it is what biological entities are predisposed to do. This is instinctual, and conscious effort is needed to suppress such a tendency. Since it is the apparent reality of things around us, it is by no means absurd to claim that the meaning of life is to survive and reproduce, and nothing more.

This, of course, feels a bit too shallow and incomplete. As long as we are intellectually flexible enough to let some philosophy dwell in our faculty of metaphysical delight, we retain our desire to muse upon the meaning of not just our biological bodies, but also the universe as a whole. Such an idea, however, does not provide us with a clear guideline for our thought process because it is mostly hypothetical.

The meaning of the world around us, in its entirety, is a rather vague concept to grasp because the very definition of the word "meaning" does not reside in such an abstract context. When people say that something is "meaningful", they typically mean that it is likely to bring some personal advantage to themselves, such as more money, improved health, better relationship, and the like. They might insist that it is supposed to benefit the whole of humanity and not just themselves, yet this is just the same secular notion being applied to a wider scale (i.e. Beneficial to a large number of people instead of just a few). If we are to discuss the meaning of the universe as a whole, outside of even the scope of humanity itself, it is necessary to admit that such a construct is more of a word play than something inducible from our experience.

If we wish to identify the meaning of life from a pragmatic standpoint, therefore, we must avoid groundless speculations and simply begin by investigating what we are supposed to be doing as biological entities. Only after we succeed in making sense of this, we will be able to expand our domain of reason further and manage to define the word "meaning" in a broader context.

The most primary goal we all share as human beings is to survive. As far as our practical definition of causality goes, all other goals are subsidiary to this root goal. For example, we search for food because the act of eating increases our chance of survival, and we seek shelter because the act of staying in a secure area increases our chance of survival. "Search for food" and "Seek shelter" are both goals, yet they are nothing more than subgoals which are aimed to serve their parent goal (i.e. "Survive").

Let us just suppose for now that our purpose is to live as happily as possible. This makes sense, doesn't it? We all want to be happy, and do not want to be miserable. We all want to survive, live, and prosper. This presupposition of value is unquestionable, as long as we do not venture to hypothesize with the very meaning of our existence itself.

The real problem arises, though, when we try to find out a rather specific way to achieve such a goal. There are countless alternative choices of action which may or may not work, depending on who we are. And since every one of us is a unique individual, a method which works for some of us may not work for others. We all have our own ways of living a happy life because we have different talents, preferences, personalities, physical traits, living standards, etc.

So, how to figure out the best way to live? This is probably the most baffling question you can ever ask to yourself, since you are the only one who can figure it out. You are the one who knows about you thoroughly, and thus nobody but yourself can come up with an accurate answer. And its main difficulty lies on the fact that you alone is the only subject you can observe and analyze when it comes to drawing an empirically sound conclusion.

This is indeed frustrating. If you do not know what to do with your life, you won't be able to motivate yourself to do anything in particular. And as long as this state of uncertainty continues, you will always be anxious and depressed.

Fortunately, there is a way to cure at least a significant portion of this problem. Although every one of us is a unique soul and thus requires a unique approach to life, we all share a set of traits which are common to all human beings.

For example, we all know that eating healthy meals, exercising daily, preferring love over hatred, being honest, and being diligent are good for us. These habits are so universally applicable, that one does not even need to question their effectiveness. The key lies on noticing these "common disciplines" and integrating them into your daily routine.

Take the habit of exercise, for instance. No matter what your profession is and what your personal predilections are, it is almost absolutely certain that doing SOME workout on a regular basis will benefit you in some way or another (unless you are suffering from a rare genetic disease, such as one which makes your muscles emit toxic chemicals whenever you use them). This means that, even if you are totally unsure of what you should be doing with your life, you can still be sure of the fact that you should be working out in order to stay fit. The benefit of this habit will not diminish no matter what path your life will happen to follow in the future.

This is the main takeaway of the analysis made so far. If you don't know what to do, at least do something that is worth doing regardless of your future choices. This behavioral guideline will give you a safety net to which you can always fall back whenever circumstances prevent you from making detailed decisions.

Here is the rule of thumb. Focus on doing something which you can manage to do on a regular basis without relying on external factors (e.g. your wealth, your job, place you live, relationships, etc). This will provide you with a "baseline layer of sanity" upon which you can keep moving forward with your life without having to constantly worry about the meaning of what you are doing. This will be the fountain of purpose from which you can drink an endless stream of hope.

-------------------------

* Youngjin Kang is a software engineer who develops computer games, simulations, and other forms of interactive media.

On the Influences Upon ‘Happiness’

According to Sonja Lyubomirsky, a person’s happiness level combines ‘genetic set-point’, ‘intentional activities’ (choice of daily activities), and life circumstances (The How of Happiness).

Posted by Keith Tidman

Is ‘Happiness’ in large measure subjective? Are people happy, or unhappy, just if they perceive themselves as such? Surely, there’s a transient nature to spiked happiness, either up or down. That is, no matter how events may make us feel at any moment in time — ecstatic (think higher-than-expected pay increase) or gloomy (think passed over for an anticipated major promotion) — eventually we return to our original level of happiness, or ‘baseline’. This implies that happiness does not change much, or long-lastingly, for an individual over a lifetime. There’s always the pulling back to our happiness predisposition or mean, a process that philosophers sometimes refer to as ‘hedonic adaptation’. So, what factors influence happiness?

The feeling of happiness may be boosted when we’re fully occupied by activities that we deem especially important to us: those pursuits that represent our most-cherished values, inspire us, require concerted deliberation, prompt creative self-expression, achieve our potential, confirm our competence, reflect purposes beyond ourselves, foster meaningful goals, and promote relatedness. Ties to family, friends, colleagues, and the larger community — socialisation and connectedness — enhance this feeling of wellbeing. We benefit from these pursuits in proportion to how clearly we envision them, how committed we are to attaining them, and the amount of effort we invest.

The role of money in the subjective perception of happiness extends only to its helping to meet such salient necessities as a place to live, sufficient nourishment, adequate clothing, sleep, and security. That is, the barest requirements, but which importantly help lessen one’s anxiety over physical sustenance. After meeting such basic living conditions, the ability of larger sums of money to influence happiness trails off. People eventually adapt to the perks that a surge in wealth initially brings. Happiness reverts to its original baseline. (Even lottery winners, temporarily ecstatic as they believe the windfall is the key to life-long happiness, typically return to their baseline level of happiness. Their happiness level may ultimately even fall below their baseline, as new wealth might bring unanticipated pressure and anxiety of its own, such as being badgered for handouts.) That’s the individual level. But there’s a similar tendency at the national scale, too: defined as the declining effects of growing wealth on the wellbeing of populations. 

For instance, middle-income and wealthier citizens may find themselves unendingly aspiring for more and fancier material possessions — each leading, eventually, to adaptation to new norms and perpetually rising expectations to fulfill desires. This dynamic has been referred to as the ‘hedonic treadmill’. Happiness appears illusory and transient; there’s instability. Adaptation leads to fewer emotional rewards, and along the way possibly squeezes out less-tangible goals that might bear more significantly on quality of life. A sense of entitlement settles in. Whole sets of new wants materialize. As the 19th-century British philosopher John Stuart Mill counseled, ‘I have learned to seek my happiness by limiting my desires, rather than in attempting to satisfy them’.

A powerful influence on happiness, which underscores the nature of wellbeing, is what people fundamentally value — their ideal, conditioned by cultural factors. For example, in pursuing happiness, one nationality may predominantly prefer situations and experiences that thrill, exhilarate, and enervate, with satisfaction of the individual at the core. Another nationality may be more predisposed to situations and experiences that promote tranquility, comfort, and composure, with satisfaction of the group at the core. Both of these culturally based models, in their respective ways, allow for citizens to fulfill expectations regarding how to live out life. 

Meanwhile, evidence suggests yet another dimension to all this: people tend to recall their personal reactions, such as joy, to activities inaccurately. In reflecting back, there’s greater clarity of what happened toward the end of the activity and diminishing clarity of what happened at earlier stages. As American-Israeli psychologist Daniel Kahneman succinctly expressed it, ‘Remembered happiness is different from experienced happiness.’ Holes or poorly recalled stages of activities get filled in by the mind, based more on what people believe should have happened, reshaping memories and misrepresenting to a degree how they really felt in the moment. The remembered experience — ‘experienced happiness’ — may thus have an unreal quality to it.

Some people believe that free choice, rather than submission to the vagaries of chance, is essential to this experienced happiness. But reality is a mixed bag. Countries that are relatively wealthy and enjoy the social perks of liberal democratic governance tend to feel confident and unthreatened enough to grant their citizens true choice (as a social and political good), which gets manifested in generally higher levels of happiness. Depending on what conditions might prompt sharp increases or decreases in happiness, hedonic adaptation will prevail. The key to maintaining at least baseline happiness is to have jurisdiction over how our choices actually play out, not merely to be presented with more choices. 

In fact, an abundance of choices can confound and freeze up personal decision-making, as people hesitate to choose when overwhelmed by a multitude of nuanced possibilities. Anxiety over the prospect of less than the best outcomes and the unintended consequences of choice only makes matters worse. This reflects how people exhibit different approaches to evaluating happiness. Yet, paradoxically, citizens who have known no other social scheme may in fact prefer contending with fewer choices. Such is the case, for instance, with autocratic systems of governance, modeled on prescriptive social contracts, which take a characteristically more patriarchic-leaning approach to decisions. Citizens become acclimatized to those conditions, where their level of happiness may change little from the baseline.

Tracking the influences on happiness tells us something important about context and efficacy. That is, the challenge to happiness — and especially efforts to control how these influences bear on the amount of happiness people experience from moment to moment — seems tied to resigning to the formidable reversion back to one’s happiness baseline. Evidence is that ‘hedonic adaptation’ is a commanding force. By extension, therefore, attempts to appreciably elevate an individual’s happiness quotient, lastingly not just transiently, by manipulating these influences might have modest effect. The situation of influences’ limited effects in heightening happiness both appreciably and long term — one’s actual experience of happiness — may particularly be the case in context of how Sonja Lyubomirsky, among others, apportions the influences (‘determinants’) of happiness among the three sweeping categories shown in the graphic above.