MORE MEANING TO LIFE
Herewith my first contribution to Commensal, offered somewhat diffidently !
As a newcomer to the Discussion Group, I do not know how long the topic "The Meaning of Life?" (C97/42) has been running, or what arguments have already been deployed, but have decided that this is as good an area in which to get involved as any other. But I apologise if I am going over old ground.
My main comment is that the title seems to have been interpreted very narrowly - ie. "life" has been taken to mean human life. If we accept that humankind is the result of a long evolutionary process, surely we should be asking what is the meaning of life in all its forms ? At one level of belief this could simply be to suggest that life in other forms is only meaningful because such forms were precursors to ourselves, or that they were / are of some use to us. On the other hand we may believe that we are only one of many stages in the evolutionary process, which tends to suggest (not inevitably, I know) that if life is supposed to have a meaning for us, it should also have meaning for other creatures, plants (?). Or is meaning only relevant when the life-form in question is capable of understanding the concept and asking the Question ? And even if they aren't and can't, should we do it on their behalf ? Or is the whole thing simply a construct of our mental wiring ?
I tend to subscribe to the view that there is no need for there to be a meaning to life, but I would be interested to hear from those who hold the opposite view whether they would include other life-forms in their belief system or would restrict the requirement to human beings. If only the latter, why ? Answering the last question could conceivably provide a useful starting point for further enquiry into what the supposed meaning of life might be.
Jane Benn