The Really Hard Problem: Meaning in a Material World

by Owen J. Flanagan

If consciousness is "the hard problem" in mind science -- explaining how the amazing private world of consciousness emerges from neuronal activity -- then "the really hard problem," writes Owen Flanagan in this provocative book, is explaining how meaning is possible in the material world. How can we make sense of the magic and mystery of life naturalistically, without an appeal to the supernatural? How do we say truthful and enchanting things about being human if we accept the fact that we are finite material beings living in a material world, or, in Flanagan's description, short-lived pieces of organized cells and tissue?

Flanagan's answer is both naturalistic and enchanting. We all wish to live in a meaningful way, to live a life that really matters, to flourish, to achieve eudaimonia -- to be a "happy spirit." Flanagan calls his "empirical-normative" inquiry into the nature, causes, and conditions of human flourishing eudaimonics. Eudaimonics, systematic philosophical investigation that is continuous with science, is the naturalist's response to those who say that science has robbed the world of the meaning that fantastical, wishful stories once provided.

Flanagan draws on philosophy, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, and psychology, as well as on transformative mindfulness and self-cultivation practices that come from such nontheistic spiritual traditions as Buddhism, Confucianism, Aristotelianism, and Stoicism, in his quest. He gathers from these disciplines knowledge that will help us understand the nature, causes, and constituents of well-being and advance human flourishing. Eudaimonics can help us find out how to make a difference, how to contribute to the accumulation of good effects -- how to live a meaningful life.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Psychology, Science, Buddhism, Neuroscience, Spirituality

304 pages, Hardcover

First published November 1, 2007

About the author

Owen Flanagan, Ph.D. (born 1949) is the James B. Duke Professor of Philosophy and Professor of Neurobiology at Duke University. Flanagan has done work in philosophy of mind, philosophy of psychology, philosophy of social science, ethics, contemporary ethical theory, moral psychology, as well as Buddhist and Hindu conceptions of the self.

Flanagan earned his Ph.D from Boston University and his Bachelor of arts degree from Fordham University.

Flanagan has written extensively on consciousness. He has been realistic about the difficulty of consciousness as a scientific and philosophical problem, but optimistic about the chance of solving the problem. One of the problems in a study of consciousness is the hidden way in which conscious states are dependent on brain states. Flanagan has proposed that there is a "natural method" to go about understanding consciousness that involves creating a science of mind. Three key elements of this developing science are: 1) paying attention to subjective reports on conscious experiences, 2) incorporating the results from psychology and cognitive science, and 3) including the results from neuroscience that will reveal how neuronal systems produce consciousness.

Flanagan is currently on the Editorial Board of Greater Good Magazine, published by the Greater Good Science Center of the University of California, Berkeley. Flanagan's contributions include the interpretation of scientific research into the roots of compassion, altruism, and peaceful human relationships.

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Fla...

Reviews

[Greg · Rating 4 out of 5]

A couple of things that have happened since I started to read this book.

1) In the newest issue of Harpers there were two interesting articles. One about the prosperity churches run by snake oil con-men like Creflo Dollar and Eddie Long. The second was about a few murders of prisoners that happened at Guantanamo and were then covered up to look like suicides. These happened under GW's watch, and have have the colluding cover-up being done by Obama's people, two fine upstanding Christians (or for those of the Right Wing delusions who see Obama as an Islamic patsy or something like that, we'll agree on calling them both good Abrahamic Religion followers). One of the things I learned though in this article is that our government has written acceptable protocols for asking people questions forcefully, and in these protocols is the the approval of something called Walling. Our fine upstanding Christian government under god-fearing rapture awaiting GW thinks that taking someones head and slamming it repeatedly into a wall is acceptable, and they call it Walling. Knowing facts like this reminds me why I generally pay no attention to current events and fail to be shocked or surprised by anything that happens-- the details are just to fucking absurd.

2) Glen Beck, that beacon of alarmist Christian morality, called for a (boycott?) of Churches engaged in 'social justice'. The number one argument for Creationism, according to a creationist website, is that all morality and ethics disappears without a creator God (actually this is false, one could create the world and then not give a shit about the world or what any of the creatures do on it, but that is another argument). Who exactly is supposed to be looking out for people who are getting the shaft? It's not the government, and apparently now it's not the job of Churches either. Maybe we should just sell anyone being oppressed (besides the christian right that is always in a state of oppression according to themselves) to dog food factories, where we can grind them up into food for our pets? That way the poor are taken care of and businesses make money. Hooray!!!

These are just two examples of ways that people with religious inclinations situate themselves morally in the world. There are lots of other examples that can be given, and yes there are plenty of people who are out there who try to make the world a better place and find their strength in theistic religion, but there are also those that blame your poverty on you not giving enough money from your already overdrawn credit card to Dr. Dollar's ministry. Theistic religion has historically never (yes never, prove me wrong) created and abided by a pragmatic morality.

I'm already going on tangents and I haven't even started the review really yet.

This book is about how to live a meaningful life if one doesn't believe in the supernatural (or God). But this isn't a self-help book, it's a philosophy book, so there are lots of arguments and subtleties that non-philosophy people won't care about. If you want to know Flanagan's prescription for living a meaningful and good life it basically boils down to being a compassionate and caring person, follow the Bodhisattva vows in spirit if not as a Buddhist, and have meaningful relationships with people close to you. That's the basics, there are more details in the book, but that is what he suggests.

He's probably right. That is one way of living a meaningful life, well and doing something that you enjoy along with that. Is that the only way of living a good life? I have no idea, Flanagan hints that it is, and one gets the idea that his liberal / Buddhist leanings have something to do with thinking that, but is his defense he offers up suspending judgment, or is willing to concede his stance if studies can be done that say differently.

Part of the book is about how he thinks 'the good life' can be scientifically studied. Part of the book is also about more universal ethics, which got me a little weirded out, and made me realize that his views on ethics and all other philosophers are just as silly as my own belief that we don't need rules to peacefully co-exist. Most people call my belief a fantasy, childish and kind of stupid. Well I feel the same way about ethical systems. It's not like hitting on the right one will magically turn us into good people. No one gives a fuck outside of other philosophers of ethics about ethical systems.

Not until my personal ethical system is universally accepted (or something very similar to it), on a personal level by just about every man and woman on this planet will we as a whole not be an evil bunch of cretins. This isn't to say I'm not an evil cretin, but I try to actively work on making my actions correspond to the one rule in my ethical system. Some people like to call my personal ethics "The Golden Rule", and TGR does go into it, but TGR has been so misused for the past 2000 plus years that obviously there is room in it to not follow it adequately. My ethical system is simple, it will take a lifetime for each person to perfect in all of it's nuances, but it is summed up by "Don't be an Asshole". That's it. It can be expanded as each person sees fit, for example one can decide that provisions should be made about Not-Being and Asshole to Animals and decide not to eat or wear them, and that is perfectly good, but then one continues to follow the one rule by not being an asshole about one's vegetarianism. It's simple and we all know when we are being an asshole to others, and we all have it in our power to stop. I'm sure that Glen Beck knows that pretty much every time he opens his mouth he's being an asshole and he revels in it, and if he gave a shit about anyone besides himself he would realize that he doesn't have to be an asshole, and he could then stop.

It's not like Flanagan says anything in this book that I really disagree with, I just think that when he gets into universalizing ethical norms he is moving into a murky no-mans land of phantom oughts.

I was going to write more about the actual meaning of life part of the book, and how I think he gives a fairly decent answer that covers about 60 percent of the question, but leaves unasked the other 40 percent, and how one would need to look at a book like Becker's Denial of Death for a hint towards what the other 40 percent of the answer could look like; but that isn't a drawback to this book, since it's a philosophy book and not a self-help book. It's not about giving you a definitive answer to the meaning of life, just what could be a way to construct this question in a materialist manner.

I was going to write more, but I worried I'd get too confessional about the absurdity of reading about finding meaning in the world when one refuses to live in a way that could even be considered conducive to living a happy/meaningful life and that reading about stuff like this isn't going to make a bit of difference to oneself since one can't really cheat and live a 'good' life while disregarding significant portions that go into Flanagan's (and most people's) conception of what makes a life worth living. So for the remaining 40% of the review just make up whatever whiny shit you think I might say here.

[Joshua Nomen-Mutatio · Rating 5 out of 5]

UPDATE (via something I wrote in a discussion forum a few weeks ago about the relationship between science and philosophy):

A major problem I have with science generally is the idea that science can only be in the business of descriptive ethics (explaining WHAT people deem to be morally right and wrong) and cannot (somehow) be in the business of making normative ethical claims (what SHOULD be considered morally right and wrong in any given area of ethical examination). I understand where the hesitation comes from especially considering that ethics has been dominated by religious dogma for the majority of our history on the planet AND because science strives to be objective and approach things dispassionately in order to avoid intermingling certain biases into the collection of data and the formation of theories. However, I think this is ultimately a mistake and think that science has just as much right to explore and weigh in on ethics (ideally in collaboration with philosophers) and has perfectly fine tools to do this with, e.g., the scientific method, statistics, medical science generally, etc, etc, etc. This notion that we should look toward religion and gurus and Deepak Chopra self-help drivel for answers regarding issues of morality and how to lead "the good life" and just leave everything else (as if "everything else" has no connection to ethics) to science is just outrageous. And many scientists, thoroughgoing atheists included, have been lulled into this position. I think they need an extremely loud Clarion Call to rouse them from this.

This issue was one of the major issues being discussed at the last two Beyond Belief symposiums. Go to thesciencenetwork.org and click on "Programs" to find the complete video footage of all three annual symposiums. Sam Harris focuses on this issue and I think makes excellent points about it in both the second and third symposiums (and to a lesser extent it is touched upon generally in the first as well).

Also, I just finished reading a book by the philosopher Owen Flanagan who also advocates the scientific study of ethics as well called The Really Hard Problem: Meaning in a Material World in which he lays out the basic ideas behind what he calls "Eudaimonics" which is basically a collaborative study of ethics through the joint efforts of philosophy and science.

ORIGINAL REVIEW:

I just finished this and the final chapter is what I think moved my rating from 4 to 5 stars. A very strong finale. I thought that it both began and ended very strongly and the "middle" (very loosely speaking) was ever so slightly weighed down with large clusters of empirical facts/end notes (which were almost all 100% necessary).

More later...

As I wrote while having just cracked the book: It features pretty much all of my favorite subjects of late: philosophy of mind, philosophy of science/psychology, ethics, good historical overviews of some great philosophical and scientific players and eras, epistemology, neuroscience, religion, and more.

[Christina Stind · Rating 4 out of 5]

Owen Flanagan tries in The Really Hard Problem. Meaning in a material world to explain why you can find a meaning with life even though you believe in science. His starting point is what he calls eudamonia - that is to thrive and be happy even though you live in this world where you are a finite being that will die at some point.
He discusses why we should try to do good when you're only here for a short while - because you can make a difference: ”Even if I am an animal, even if at the end of the day I am dead and gone for good, I still make a difference, good or bad. Why? Because I exist.” Each person has to find out for himself which difference we wish to make. A meaningful life is defined as this: ”Meaningful human lives, we can now say, involve being moral, having true friends, and having opportunities to express our talents, to find meaningful work, to create and live among beautiful things, and to live cooperatively in social environments where we trust each other.”

Besides discussions of science and how to combine science with believing in a meaningful life, this book contains some very interesting discusisons of buddhism and the writings of the Dalai Lama.

It really is a very interesting book that I will probably re-read at some point when I don't have to read it with my "master thesis eyes"!

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

For any philosopher unsure of their stance on naturalism; whether it be not sure what kind of naturalism is right, what kinds of limits naturalism has, or what naturalism has been up to lately, read this book! Flanagan takes up the challenge of the Right-Sellarsian project of naturalizing meaning with abnormal aplomb. This charm, indeed, may be both the books greatest strength and its greatest weakness. One almost feels that naturalism can't be so devoid of meaning if it can be the inspiration for such a charming, synoptic book. On the other hand, it is important to survey the arguments carefully to double-check against being sold too much too fast on the basis of this charm. This latter task is especially difficult, because Flanagan is so much more imaginative than the average analytic philosopher, and breaks tradition by covering ground that his own imaginative sense of the topic leads him to, rather than doing the typical narrow-focus thing so typical of other analytic philosophers. That means one has to follow a discussion that starts with Wilfred Sellars and John Dewey, move on to a discussion of neo-Darwinism, then a discussion of Buddhism and Chinese philosophy, detours through neuroscience and mediation, and finally a look a virtue ethics and the possibility of Eudiamonia being revived as a standard of both individual and societal norms. Few philosophers have a CV that can cover such ground, which may perhaps be why the left-sellarsians have held the ground for so long. It's not that meaning is irreducible per se, it's that meaning, province of the manifest image, has such a robust vocabulary in its own right that showing how its not somehow separate from the frontline reports of the natural sciences is a tricky task, but one Flanagan is up to. I take his answer to be that many of our concepts of meaning are dependent on outdated philosophical intutions, which are themselves the result of the stale crust of convention. If we bother to re-weave our understanding of these normative concepts in line with new discoveries and arguments, then naturalistic accounts of meaning (even spirituality) will not seem so anathema.

[Alan · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was a good book and a poorly written book at the same time. I appreciated two main things: 1) how Flanagan logically addressed some all-time great questions like what is happiness? how can we find meaning in a life that will end so soon and completely? how can science and religion find some common ground? and 2) how Flanagan writes that we can tolerate religion as long as it stays in the realm of stories and away from claiming the authority of sacred texts. Some of Flanagan’s basic principles were: 1) meaning is a social space; 2) truth, goodness, and beauty are the natural pursuits (proto-values) of people; 3) the power of religion is in the number of believers, not in the beliefs; 4) we are neo-Darwinist now and we have to challenge creationist claims; and 5) we need to hold up both religious and philosophical claims to empirical standards.

[subzero · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read if you like hard problems, and like un-cynical answers that aren't silly. And most importantly footnotes that run into pages. Oh the footnotes! <3

This book attempts to answer the question of how do we could go about achieving flourishing for ourselves and for others, given that we reject all mystical answers to the question. Call it a scientific/empiric exploration of what a good life is. He calls it eudymonics.

My favorite parts of the book were the first few chapters where he goes about establishing what we know so far and what we can agree on. What does material/natural mean, and what are the ways in which we have tried to answer these questions. The difficulty of the task, of accurately defining what it is that we know empirically, and what it is that we believe, becomes clear in his writing, and he does a superb job of defining this. The book also takes us through a brief tour of neuro-philosophy and a few of the dominant models of the mind.


It is obvious from the start that he is given to using ideas from Buddhism as the basis of his own eudymonia, and that the book is an attempt at gleaning from this philosophy, and creating a 21st century version of it which makes some scientific/empirical sense.

In the end the book isnt as prescriptive as the title suggests, and I am not sure if it really does answer the question for everyone, but it does help clarify a lot of fuzzy thinking which we encounter when answering these questions, which I think is the greatest strength of the book.

[Nick McLachlan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Conceptually I think a bit over my head (not the authors fault - maybe it’s just I need to read more at the base level). May revisit in years to come

[Dewayne Hodges · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very philosophical, hard to follow at times. Very deep.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is, without any doubt, the most difficult book I've ever read. It is a combination of philosophy and neuroscience. I found it intensely challenging. The author's basic question is, how can one lead a meaningful life in the absence of God? In other words, what is a good life if each and every individual is expected to answer that question on their own, without reference to an objective, deity-defined morality?

Our conscious minds, the author argues, are intricate and mysterious, and a part of the universe (similar to Carl Sagan's observation that "we are a way the cosmos knows itself.") We are not two separate things--a mind and a body (Cartesian dualism...you can see already how this dude rolls). We are biological, evolved beings who are sentient and aware (for some mysterious reason). We are oriented toward what Plato identified as the good, the true, and the beautiful, and we will create meaning by existing in certain social spheres: the spiritual, the technological, the artistic, the political, etc. Our goal, as scientist and philosophers (or middle school ELA teachers) is to understand 'eudaimonics'--the study of human happiness and flourishing. Science--psychology, anthropology, and neurology--can help us identify what makes us happy and healthy.

Sounds easy, right? WRONG! Altruism, empathy, compassion, culture...it's all very malleable and protean. Buddha's teachings conflict with Aristotle! Subjective measures of well-being are too phenomenological! Positive illusions are still illusory! And on and on.

It is all highly interesting, and written at the edge of my reading ability. I had to keep looking words up (not unusual when I read philosophy) and stopping to think about the author's arguments. I underlined like mad. I pondered, distracted, like Socrates wandering around the agora in ancient Athens. And... I learned.

There are things that lead to human health and happiness, and things that don't. This is not rocket science. While the author did not reference Maslow's work on the hierarchy of human needs, his basic assertion is that we know how to create the conditions where health and happiness are more likely to occur, so we should (maybe I should send a copy of this book to the new Congress and the President?) Human behavior and personality are highly plastic, so we should orient our society toward creating conditions in which people are developed appropriately: food, shelter, security, education, creative outlets, social connections, a healthy environment, etc. And karma--no supernaturalism necessary--is the realization that our actions affect others, either now or later. In other words, what I do and how I am matters not just to me, but to those around me, and those who are not yet born.

I will admit to you, gentle reader, that I have been known to struggle with despair. I have gazed into the void of a meaningless, sterile universe and wondered, "What does it all matter?" Having read H.P. Lovecraft's existentially gloomy works as a young man, I never quite had a response to his contention that, the point is there is no point. Books and ideas like this help.

Do not ask, what is the meaning of life? Instead ask, what ways of being and living produce fulfillment and meaning? How can I understand my own life? Where do the things that make me happy intersect with the needs of the world? Or, as the psychologist Viktor Frankl said, do not ask what the meaning of life is. Instead, recognize that life asks each and every one of us that same question.

This is heady stuff. I am glad that I read it. My IQ went up a few points, which is always a good thing.

(four stars because there were some editing errors)

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent book. It is serious philosophy without being extremely difficult to read or understand. The author does an excellent job of explaining his views in language that's understandable. His basic philosophical stance is that of scientific naturalism, and he does a good job of explaining this and how humans make and find meaning in a natural, material world. I find myself in basic agreement with almost everything he writes.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

Does Flanagan demonstrate that meaning can exist in a material world? Well, sort of.

Ultimately, the positive conclusion he wants to
draw requires a first (inductive) step out of the darkness: all humans want to flourish. Whether or not you accept this claim, there's lots here to enjoy. Highlights include Flanagan's notion of morality as ecology, and his attempt to firm up our normative foundations by drawing on the concept of reflective equilibrium. All of this is conveyed in an engagingly conversational style.

While I have some reservations about the meta-ethical portion of the book (it might be worth reading Alex Rosenberg's 'Atheist's Guide..' as a counterpoint), I really enjoyed Flanagan's exposition of 'Eudaimonics'; his ability to reconnoiter neurobiology and interpret its findings in the light of philosophy is a pleasure to behold. He's a truly synthetic thinker.

[Don · Rating 3 out of 5]

He is a philosopher w/ complete agreement with neurobiology and insists that it not be compromised. Describes various arenas of 21st century life in which we act/live and seek significance. I liked his use of 'fluorishing' rather than 'happiness' for the Greek eudaimonia. Final chapter was more personal -- celtic/catholic/philospher. He inclines toward bland christianity or buddhism as providing possible meaning in this material world. Not a strong book, kinda meandering. Possibly that is appropriate

[Heather Pagano · Rating 3 out of 5]

Flanagan really got into the nitty gritty details of how philosophy and Buddhism approach living a good life. He didn't shy away from areas where the two positions differ. In many ways I felt like this book delivered on a deep dive into Buddhism better than his Boddhisattva's Brain. Though I had a great time going deep into detail on Buddhism, I felt that the overall thesis of the book, experiencing spirituality from a material point of view, never quite gelled.

[Anibal]

I can´t imagine any other (neuro)philosopher capable of putting into fruitful diologue the West and East traditions in science and spirituality in order to know better the causes, nature and constituents of what is a good life (aka, neuroeudaimonics)

[Miles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty good, but not totally mind-blowing. Had some bumps along the way, but overall I think this book represents a great approach to the type of modern ethics we need more of. See journal for notes.

[Stephen · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was one of the most inspiring books I've read in recent years. Flanagan presents a theory of moral naturalism that is subtle and persuasive. Using Goodman's Ways of Worldmaking as a framework, he offers a compelling answer to the question of competing final ends.

[Pavel · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was recommended to me by Dan Dennett. Some intteresting ideas, but too difuse for my taste.

[Stephen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not an easy read, but rewarding.

[Mitch · Rating 2 out of 5]

Flanagan frustrates me, rarely delights, and at times satisfies.