What's It All About?: Philosophy and the Meaning of Life

by Julian Baggini

What is the meaning of life? It is a question that has intrigued the great philosophers--and has been hilariously lampooned by Monty Python. Indeed, the whole idea strikes many of us as vaguely pompous and perhaps more than a little absurd. Is there one profound answer, an ultimate purpose behind human existence?

Julian Baggini thinks not. Rather, as Baggini argues in What's It All About, meaning can be found in a variety of ways. He succinctly breaks down six answers people commonly suggest when considering what life is all about--helping others, serving humanity, being happy, becoming successful, enjoying each day as if it were your last, and "freeing your mind." By reducing the vague, mysterious question of "meaning" to a series of more specific (if unmysterious) questions about what gives life purpose and value, he shows that the quest for meaning can be personal, empowering, and uplifting.

Illustrating his argument with the thoughts of many of the great philosophers and examples drawn from everyday life, Baggini convincingly shows that the search for meaning is personal and within the power of each of us to find.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Psychology, Religion, Atheism

204 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2004

About the author

Julian Baggini is a British philosopher and the author of several books about philosophy written for a general audience. He is the author of The Pig that Wants to be Eaten and 99 other thought experiments (2005) and is co-founder and editor of The Philosophers' Magazine. He was awarded his Ph.D. in 1996 from University College London for a thesis on the philosophy of personal identity. In addition to his popular philosophy books, Baggini contributes to The Guardian, The Independent, The Observer, and the BBC. He has been a regular guest on BBC Radio 4's In Our Time.

Reviews

[Heather Pagano · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was the very first philosophy book I'd ever read. It's a challenge for me to rate it, both because I have no other books of its kind to use as comparison, and because much of my positive experience with the book came from reading it with my husband, and the lively discussions it spurred.

The book worked well as an introduction to philosophy because it led with an exciting and fascinating question, then approached the answer by using reasoning techniques and explaining the techniques as we went. To illustrate points Baggini used a healthy mix of commonplace references that held meaning for me, and quotes or core ideas from other philosophers. So the book served as a very gentle introduction to influential philosophers, as well.

This book got me truly excited about a subject that previously held no interest for me. Four stars for explaining what philosophy is (and the meaning of life, too!), and one star of excellence held back for that amazingly awesome philosophy book I hope to read in the future.

[Chentao · Rating 2 out of 5]

I enjoy reading such a book that tries to tackle a deep philosophical question using carefully defined terms and logic. BUT, starting from 30% of the book and onwards, there are just so many logic holes and weak assumptions that I don't know where to begin...

"If you've answered yes, then I think you're in a minority. Most people would not only reject this option, they would be horrified by it."

-- I do not buy this at all. How this can be support/evidence that is the key to his arguments follows??? Just because "he thinks so"?

"Nevertheless, the fact that authenticity of some kind is an important value for millions of people is enough to establish that there are some things significant numbers of people value at least as much as, and in some ways more than, happiness. So we cannot assume that finding meaning in life is just a matter of determining what happiness is and how to get it."

-- Why there has to be a binary choice between authenticity and happiness? The previous argument does not support such a duality at all. My naive thought is that quite a lot of people pursue happiness by being authentic.

"It seems that the pursuit of happiness is useless, and can even fuel the kind of discontent that makes its attainment less likely."

-- This is totally a distortion or narrowing of the concept of "happiness."

"So if we define success in such a way that everyone is bound to achieve it, it becomes meaningless."

-- But even if we define success in such a way, it does not necessarily mean everyone can not achieve it at the same time because success is NOT ONE DIMENSIONAL. People can be successful in one aspect, and other people can be successful in another, there is not a single "success" that is the only one!

There are just some many such logic holes... not to mention supporting his argument with movies and novels... which are totally fiction!

The first 25% of the book also talks a lot about God... which, from an atheist point of view, is not interesting and relevant at all... The book, of course, is perhaps mostly written for Catholics/Protestants/Orthodox believers.

In general, I felt the book could have much more potential to touch something more interesting. But the delivery is not solid as the author is trying to be (using clear definitions and logic). The pieces of evidence that are used as backups are mostly hearsay and from fiction works... I like a lot of quotes from Sartre... But maybe I should just skip this book and directly read Sartre instead.

[Sean Gainford · Rating 5 out of 5]

What's it all about? Your on your way to finding out after finishing this book

Excellent. The question to what is the meaning of life, as Julian Baggini states, involves not just one question but many. This book informs the reader that this life has meaning in itself and we don't have to wait to transcend this world (which many religious people believe) to eventually understand 'What's it all about?' We ourselves have the power of determining our own purposes in life, and it does not have to be left up to some higher power to assign it to us.

In the brilliant chapter 'Lose Your Self' Baggini give a great, witty critique to those 'spiritualist' who think that they can transcend their body and mind, loosing the sense of self in favour of some 'higher reality'. If you really want to lose yourself, as Baggini says, 'then that can be arranged - it's called death.' And for all those who are constantly reminding people to have an open mind, Baggini gives a great little educational lesson in the same chapter: that if we are ever going to get anywhere at all then not just an open mind is needed but also a little narrowing of the mind is too. For if your mind is too open then your brains will fall out.

Informative, well reasoned, clearly written, and a joy to read.

[Mohammed omran · Rating 3 out of 5]

(ليس صحيحا أنّ كل ما تحتاجه هو الحب؛ فالحب مثل الحياة قيّم، ولكنه هشّ ولا يخضع لأيّ ضمانات، وهو شعور محفوف بالمخاطر وخيبات الأمل على الرغم من أنّه مصدر ابتهاج وسرور كبيران)..

ابرز جمله اعجبتني في الكتاب فاقدى البصر
يرفض جوليان باجيني ما يقوله البعض من أن الفلسفة تدور حول الافكار، فهو يرى ان مهمة الفلسفة أن تتناول الحجج والأدلة:" لا جدوى من أن يكون لديك ما يبدو فكرة فلسفية عظيمة، كالقول مثلا انه ليس لدينا إرادة حرة، وذلك إذ لم تتمكن من الإتيان بحجج أو ادلة تدعم هذا القول ".

" هل تحكم على الكتاب من عنوانه "، جملة استعارها من رسالة ارسلها مارسيل بروست الى صديقه الكونت جورج دى لورس، يتهمه البعض بان كتبه لا يمكن ان تصبح مراجع فلسفية، ويرد:" القصد من وراء كتبي هو اشعال جذوة التفكير لكل من يريد التفكير لنفسه ". يجد ان افضل طريقة للدفاع عن الافكار هي مهاجمتها، لأن قوة الفلسفة في نظرة لا تأتي إلا من طريق تخليصها من التبجيل:" من اراد ان يحمي الفلسفة، عليه ان يكتب باسلوب مختلف تماما عن فلاسفة عصر التنوير "
ينشغل باجيني بسؤال الفلسفة الأزلي:" من نحن، وعلى أي شيء يعتمد وجودنا المستمر عبر الزمن ؟ "، وهو يؤكد ان ما يفرق بين الانسان والانواع الاخرى من الكائنات، أن لدينا شعور بذواتنا طوال الوقت وهو ما يجعلنا مختلفين، ان لدينا " ذوات لها سير ذاتية " ويمكن لهذ الذوات أن تخلق تفاصيل غنية وقصصا تنشأ من تجربتنا. يقول باجيني:" كلما اصبحنا اكبر عمرا، قلت قدرتنا على تعريف انفسنا بشكل صحيح وثقة، دون ذواتنا السابقة " ويضيف:" ربما لا نكون الشخص الذي كنا عليه قبل ثلاثين عاما مضت، لكننا نغذي الشعور بالذات من خلال حياتنا وبطريقة ما "، ان بحثنا عن هويتنا الصحيحة، ليس هو الهدف، لان الاعجوبة الحقيقية كما يؤكد باجيني هي اننا نحتفظ بالذاتية ونصوصها لفترة طويلة، فنحن مهيئون باستمرار لابداع " احساس سردي عن الذات "، ولهذا يفترض باجيني أن الافراد يشكلون هوية من خلال دمج خبرتهم في الحياة في قصة تطورية تتضمن الذات، مما يعطي احساسا بالحياة ووجود هدف لها

[Shahad · Rating 1 out of 5]

القراءة في الفلسفة لا تجعل منك فيلسوفًا ولكنها بالتأكيد تفتح لك مسالك لإدراك كينونة ذاتك وما حولك وأيضًا ترشدك إلى تيارات للتفكر والتأمل.

‏لكن حذارِ من تبني آراء ومعتقدات كاتبيها دون تفنيد وتمحيص وترجيح كفة العقل والمبادئ الأساسية لديك، فإنها طريق شائك ودرب زلِق للغاية!

يحاول الكاتب هنا أن يجادل بالحجج العقلية حول مغزى الحياة ومعناها. فتجد في صُلب نقاشاته ما يطعن في معتقدات الآخرين - صحيح أنه يحادث العقل ولكنه يكتب بغطرسة العارِف والمطلّع- ويبرر لأفكاره حتى يصل لنتيجة منطقية في جداله!

لا أعلم الكثير عن كيفية استخدام البراهين وأساليب الحجج المنطقية ولا ادعّي أنني واسعة الإطلاع في مذاهب وكتب الفلسفة، ولكنني أعلم يقينًا بأننا نستطيع إدراك من يحاجج منطقيًا ومن يحاول "تسطيح" الأفكار وعرضها في قالب فلسفي فارغ لا يؤدي إلى أي نتيجة أو إجابة.

[Seri · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book came at a good time for me. On the cusp of “adulthood,” I’ve been feeling more lost than ever. Is this all there is? Belonging to this community of nerdy researchers—who read journal papers on a weekday, who tweet science articles to the public (despite the fact that it is alienating af since literally no one outside of the circle understands), who tout objective reasoning above all things yet are not immune to politics and biases?

Although the writing can be very academic at times, What’s It All About? clearly breaks down the underlying sub-questions behind the eponymous Big Question. I don’t have formal training in philosophy, so some parts are a little hard to read, but it’s nothing that can’t be understood with a good night’s sleep and/or rereading.

The book won’t be able to provide you with a definite answer to what the meaning of life is, but it can help you clarify your own doubts/misgivings with some deep introspection. These quotes from the book summarize the answer well:

For that reason any “guide to the meaning of life” cannot be a complete instruction manual but can only establish the framework within which each individual can construct a worthwhile life.

and

[Life] is worth living just as long as it is a good thing in itself. Such a life has meaning because it means something to us, it is valuable to those who have it. Many things can contribute to [meaning in life]... a balance of authenticity, happiness and concern for others; one where time is not wasted; one which engages in the ongoing work of becoming who we want to be and being successful in those terms.

Reading Notes:

Intro
• The question of the meaning of life is "at the same time something less and something more than it is usually taken to be: less because it is not a grand mystery beyond the reach of most of us; and more because it is not one question but many... The search for meaning is essentially personal."

1. Looking for the blueprint
• Our origins won't necessarily tell us the meaning of (our present nor future) life. For instance, after confronting his inventor, Frankenstein's monster still cannot find satisfaction; and wild berries exist due to evolution, but they did not evolve for human consumption. Aka genetic fallacy.
• Naturalism: human life exists for no external reason. Lots of scientific evidence supports this. Even the propagation of our genes is not a real purpose because evolution "has no purpose and no goal as its end." Atheist existentialists like Nietzsche, Camus, and Sartre believed in naturalism and thus deducted that life has no intrinsic meaning, albeit each interpreted and responded to that conclusion differently. We thought we were paperknives, but we are actually flints. Sartre says that "because purpose and meaning are not built into human life, we ourselves are responsible for fashioning our own purposes. It is not that life has no meaning, but that it has no predetermined meaning." The author corroborates this argument: "Why should we think that assigned purposes are inferior to predetermined purposes, and that only the latter can make life meaningful?" Take Post-it's for example: "when it comes to use or purpose, what matters is not necessarily what the inventor had in mind, but the uses or purposes the innovation actually has."
• Creationism: human life exists because an intelligent being willed us into existence. Personal conviction/gut feeling is not a strong argument, especially when creation stories are at conflict "with each other and our best scientific understanding."
• But if there were a Creator, we don't know its purpose for us, nor how we should interpret its decree. "Is it better to be slaves with a role in the universe or to be free people left to create a role for ourselves?" Why would the supreme being "feel the need to create human beings, with all their complexity, and with all the suffering and toil that human life entails, solely so that it can have creatures to serve it?" This God as an "egotistical tyrant, determined to use its power to surround itself with acolytes and have praise heaped upon it" is inconsistent with the God most religious believers worship. Even though sacred texts could promote a fuller life, most believers still cherry pick what they deem right (e.g. Leviticus 20:9). Having a moral guidance not contingent on religion is less complicated.
• "This is faith that a God we cannot know to exist has a purpose we cannot discern for an afterlife we have no evidence is to come. Further, we would also be trusting that this purpose is one we would be pleased with... The idea that God's purpose is something we just have to trust is an admission that we have no answer to the question of why we are here and must leave everything to the unknown. Believing that our origins are with a supernatural being does not, then, provide us with an explanation of what the meaning or purpose of life is. At best it merely reassures us that there is one."

2. Living life forwards
• Why/because series: keep asking why? There's no reason to believe that we can only fulfill life's purpose in the past/future, but more on that later.
• If life has meaning, the why/because series cannot extend infinitely or we will never get there. Thus, an end point is necessary at some point where any further why question is "unnecessary, misguided or nonsensical."
• But, once that goal is achieved (thus purpose fulfilled), what is there left to do? Emptiness. If these goals are aesthetic/pleasurable/sensory/hedonistic, they are all still moments that will inevitably pass. "Moments slip away and so if life's purpose is tied to moments, life's purpose too must slip away."
• It is possible to aspire to an aesthetic yet sustained lifestyle, e.g. live in a nice house with a loving family. (Why wouldn't anyone want that? marks the end of the why/because series.) Since there are many desirable lifestyles, e.g. live in a small house with a loving family, we should recognize that there are "many other things that are within our grasp right now," especially when research has consistently shown that the quality of life stops increasing after a certain income threshold. We overestimate how much additional happiness a luxury lifestyle can bring us. It is thus not worth it to sacrifice "too much enjoyment of life" and personal relationships to "serve the purpose of future wealth and security." It is also a bad deal because personal relationships cannot be bought.
• "How many marriages and partnerships have been put under strain or even ruined by one partner spending so much time at work that they neglect their relationship? The risk is not only that the future won't be good enough to justify the past, but also that the future will never come."
• What people in the western middle class typically want is "a great partner who is both a terrific friend and a terrific lover; a good material standard of living; well-adjusted, happy children; a stimulating and fulfilling job; a varied social life with interesting, amusing and intelligent friends; and regular holidays abroad... very few people have all these things. Yet there is a widespread belief [that] all this can and should be achieved almost by right." I'll be happy when I have ____ thinking makes the same mistake.

3. More things in heaven and earth (Afterlife)
• Trusting to find purpose in afterlife is not secure: "if there is an afterlife, at least the atheist has a second chance, assuming God is not the petty vindictive being often portrayed, who punishes people simply for not believing in it."
• "Belief in life after death can only be based on faith."
• If there is an afterlife, 1) you still need to figure out, "what is the meaning of this second life?" 2) if this life has no meaning, increasing its quantity still yields no meaning, i.e. 0*∞=0. "Life must be finite to have meaning, and if finite life can have meaning, then this life can have meaning."
• The first three chapters established the framework for our search for where meaning can come from (instead of what it is): "Candidates for this role need to be worthwhile in themselves and not just means to future ends. They need to treat each human life as an autonomous being-for-itself, not merely a being-in-itself to serve some cause beyond it. They need to satisfy our aesthetic and ethical needs, as beings both tied to the present moment and existing across time... there is no reason why such meaning should not be found in this life and not only in a supposed life to come."

4. Here to help (Altruism)
• Altruism is not the answer to life. If it were, 1) the helped would not have meaningful lives, 2) if we help people too well, our lives would cease to have meaning, 3) in spending a whole life in helping others have an opportunity at living full lives, the helpers deprive themselves of that opportunity.
• However, altruism is "tied to the meaningful life, because it is premised on the notion that life can be a good in itself... We just need to remember that the purpose of helping others is to bring them benefits, not to engage in charity for charity's sake."

5. The greater good (individuals ⊆ the human species)
• "Very few people can alter the course of human history." If one does, the consequences could be good or bad, and "these random effects cancel each other out, so we are left again with the conclusion that we are utterly dispensable."
• Humankind is an abstraction that cannot feel and think. Why would we care about it more than we do about its individual members?
• However, even with this focus on the individual, "it does not follow that life's meaning has to serve the individual's own interests, except in the specific sense that it provides meaning for them." Moreover, the desire to achieve transcendence, to think beyond our own selves, is universal.

6. As long as you're happy
• Happiness is intrinsically good but by definition vague.
• There are different qualities and quantities of happiness. "Someone who writes books might find it inconceivable that anyone could be truly happy without some equivalent intellectual interest, but this might only show the limits of her imagination rather than any deep insight into human nature." The different forms don't really matter as long as they make you happy: "psychological research into happiness suggests that the keys to contentment are stable and loving relationships, good health and a certain degree of financial security and stability... How much intellectual activity is required for us to be happy will depend more on our own particular dispositions than on universal human nature. It is therefore hazardous to start prescribing what sorts of happiness are superior to others if we base our prescriptions on the way we see the world."
• For example, starting a family with children can bring happiness, but so can remaining childless, just in a different way.
• However, happiness isn't the sole purpose of life even though it is an ingredient. Consider Nozick's thought experiment that involves an experience machine akin to the one from the Matrix. Most people will not choose to experience a good life if it means it is not authentic ("wanting to live life truthfully, seeing the world as it is and not under some deception; being the authors of our own lives; wanting our achievements to be the result of genuine effort and ability on our own parts; interacting with people who are really like us and not just simulacra").
• "[Never] before in history has the promise of happiness been so great and the reality so disappointing. Fueled by consumerism and the power of advertising and the media, we are encouraged to think that happiness is within our grasp. Men's magazines promise happiness in the form of a six-pack stomach, great gadgets and fantastic sex, all within one month. Women's magazines promise happiness in the form of a cellulite-free body, great clothes and fantastic sex, all within one month. The images we are bombarded with are of confident, sexy people, looking smart, surrounded by equally gorgeous friends, drinking Chablis, eating exotic food—having it all. And yet, of course, these images are aspirational. If they reflected reality they would have no appeal. Who would buy these magazines if they already had great bodies, great sex and all the consumer goods they wanted? [The] lives of real people fall short of these ideals set before us. This disparity between reality and what we aspire to cannot help us feel happier, since it only serves to emphasize what is not perfect about our lives, what we don't have as opposed to what we do."

7. Becoming a contender (Success)
• The desire for success "cannot be fulfilled if we continually compare our own success with that of those who have had a little bit more... If success is a shifting standard, always being set a little higher than where one currently is, then by definition it can never be achieved."
• "Know for ourselves what success really means," in which the happiness lies in becoming (the process/means), not being (goal/end).

8. Carpe diem (YOLO)
• I would be what Strawson calls a "diachronic," someone who experiences life as "having a strong unity over time... [who is] likely to find the aesthetic mode of existence unsatisfactory."
• "The true spirit of carpe diem is not to panic and try to experience everything now, but to make sure every day counts." It doesn't tell us what to do in life (what matters), but how to do it.
• Same problem: pleasurable moments are impermanent.

9. Lose your self
• "The person who endures hardship to help others shows considerably more disregard for their own welfare than a person who lives smiling and at peace in a monastery or commune. Whichever way you look at it, this is about satisfying the self, not lessening concern for it."
• "Lessening our attachment to self can help free us from a narcissistic concern for our own well-being and this would a good thing. But it is at best a means of removing an obstacle to fulfillment, rather than a source of meaning in itself."

10. The threat of meaninglessness (just stop thinking and start doing, i.e. cultivate your garden)
• Searching for meaning is not an "ethical imperative" required for one's life to be worthwhile.
• However, "[just do it] goes too far. Thinking about what life is all about is something many of us can't avoid doing, and the process of thinking it through can [help] us identify mistaken ways of thinking about life and identify more fruitful ones, even if there is no final answer."

[Elizabeth Parsons]

one must imagine sisyphus happy...ok? don't tell me what to do xoxo

[Joan Gil Oliveras · Rating 3 out of 5]

Des d'una postura clara i personal (atea), per tant, de part, és un bon llibre per repensar els propis primes, dogmes, conviccions i idees preconcebudes, i fins i tot decisions importants com la de donar (o no, i quin) sentit a la vida. Tant per creients com per agnòstics i ateus. Llàstima, que com passa amb alguns no creients, parlin de la religió des de cert desconeixement i confusió: ell contemporitza Abraham i els Deu Manaments, i això és un greu error bíblic.

[Christopher Miller · Rating 2 out of 5]

Enjoyable for the first few chapters... then he lost me in the chapter on altruism. I agree with his sentiments overall, but a lot of his arguments were poorly constructed. There were also bald assertions couched in the text, such as “a life must be finite to have meaning,” supported only by a play he read.
He criticizes Camus for an attributed “snobbery” that I just never got out of reading his work. If his worldview was more somber than Charles Scultz’s, maybe it’s more to do with the abject poverty he grew up in? At any rate, Camus was still an optimist at heart.
Good conclusion, but the journey there is lacking. I’d have fun discussing its flaws in a book club, but as I’m on my own for this one I did not enjoy it.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have been meaning to read this book for like ten years, so I finally did. I like philosophy, and wish that I had taken more philosophy classes as an undergraduate. The one or two classes I did take I did poorly in: I had no background, and--at that time in my life--was not a very good student. Youth is wasted on the young.

Since those cannabis and alcohol fueled days of youth, I have read a good bit of philosophy, and I really do dig it. This book takes on that biggest of Big Questions: what is the meaning of life? The answer, unsurprisingly, is "42." (Just kidding; those who know, know). Rather than providing an answer, the author, in the best philosophical tradition, interrogates the possible answers, then dismantles most of them on basises of logic and reason. In the end, as the psychologist Viktor Frankl writes in his incredibly powerful book Man's Search for Meaning, asking life, "What is the meaning?" is a mistake. It is, Frankl (and Julian Baggini) would agree, life asking us that question. There is no one answer. There is no easy answer. Is a meaningful life derived from faith? Altruism? Hedonism? Allegiance to our species? Service to others? Or is life simply meaningless, and we are wasting our time looking for meaning because is either not knowable or not there to begin with? Hard, heady questions that we as individuals may (or may not) wrestle with.

For myself, I tend to lean a bit Aristotelian in that I believe a good life, a meaningful life, is one lived in accordance with virtues (that is, habits of good or right behavior that lead to happiness and contentment). Along with a great many social scientists, I believe--based on data-- that if you have sufficient resources to meet your basic needs, you take care of yourself, and you have meaningful relationships with others, you will be happy. Not all the time: life is full of ups and downs, but for the most part, you'll be doing okay. Similarly, how we respond to life is more important than what life throws at us. If we can control our response--Frankl, again, called this 'man's final freedom'--we are in fact free. We choose, in other words. The world is how the world is. How I respond to the world is mine to decide.

I have also found meaning in supporting groups and ideas that lead others toward the same goals that I have myself. If I can alleviate the suffering of others, I am in alignment with my own values since I do not wish to suffer, and if I needed help, I would hope that someone(s) would provide it. All human beings have equal claims on the pursuit of happiness. Immorality is actions that deny that basic reality for others.

Harder to reckon with are the realities that the past no longer exists, and the future is yet to exist. We cannot change what already happened, and we cannot predict with certainty what will occur. We can, however, use our present to try and put our thumbs on the scales of probability so that our now will not become an unpleasant past, and our future will, more likely than not, be manageable, even pleasant. I live a fairly predictable, mundane life because, first, I am not inclined toward seeking novelty, and second, I know that future me's well-being depends on what present-me does. Present me's choices will become regrets in my past if I do not act in accordance with what I know to be good decisions.

Finally, an inherent part of being human is both context and circumstance. We are all born into a particular social, cultural, and historical context. And, we are all born into specific (and largely out of our control) circumstances. Those are the cards we are dealt. Play them.

So do I know what the meaning of life is? Not really, but after 54 years on this earth, I have a lot of experience behind me, and I have some conclusions about what--to me--is meaningful. My path may not be for everyone, and that's okay. We are all individuals, and we all have to live in our own skins. I will not ever try to force someone to live as I do, but at the same time, I am not responsible for the choices that others make about their own lives. Someone recently said that, if you want to be happy, live the way your grandparents did, and while that is probably painting with a broad brush, I find a kernel of truth in that observation. I loved and respected my grandparents, and I look to them-the lives they lead, the lessons they taught--with admiration. So what did they teach me?

1. Family is the most important thing.
2. Work is the default condition for a comfortable life.
3. Be generous.
4. Be grateful.
5. Be helpful.

Not really rocket science, but it's working for me.

[Shyue Chou Chuang · Rating 5 out of 5]

I must admit that it took me years to finish this highly readable volume. I had known of the philosopher previously and I had wanted to read more of what he wrote. One day, I had stumbled upon this volume in a discount bin, strangely enough. I bought and started on it in 2014 thereabouts. Over the years, I read bits and pieces, it is philosophy, you can read, stop and think anytime. I was also reading A. C. Grayling "What is Good? The Search for the Best Way to Live" concurrently. The volume starts with the search for meaning, and also origins. It examines religions and gods, the greater good, helping others, and then happiness.

It examines carpe diem and what it entails, delving into Kierkegaard. The volume then examines what losing oneself entails, the Buddhist aspect, the counterculture and meditation aspects. This is followed by meaninglessness which compares Charles Schulz' attitudes (he of the Peanuts cartoon strip) and that of Camus' views. Lastly, he elaborated on reason not knowing everything.

This is a highly engaging volume on living the examined life and he has considered from a rationalist-humanistic approach.

A final section has references and also further readings.

[Sam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Popular philosophy and introductions to, are one of my favourite genres. Some examples are better than others, though most usually have a gem or two in them. This one is I think in the upper range of the field.

I've gone right off Satre, so I was leery when Baggini referenced him repeatedly in the first half, but I noticed the references were quite restrained, and less common in the second half. The apparent atheism of the author disappointed me a little, but I appreciate a well reasoned and knowledgable critique of religion, which this certainly was, though that was not the point of the book.

The point; to explore the meaning of life, was done in a balanced and encouraging way, without succumbing to absurd definitive answers.

There was something tantalising about the coherence and clarity of this exploration. Some of the sentences were long and on the brink of being overly elaborate for a middling intelligence like mine, but ultimately, Baggini did not over-reach and was able to leave at least this reader with a sense that life might, or could potentially have meaning, and a meaning or meanings which were achievable for an ordinary person.

Suggested several avenues for further reading which might shed more light.

[Kara · Rating 2 out of 5]

Didn’t have high expectations going into this because it doesn’t advertise providing a particularly in depth analysis of human meaning and purpose. Initial easy read but by the second half, ideas became random assertions with little backing.
For instance: He justifies having a lack of respect because of his lack of knowledge (which is a problem in itself- a lack of respect isn’t a logical consequence of ignorance): ‘If I knew more perhaps I’d show more respect’ but his argument hinges on not bothering to learn more about areas that don’t threaten one’s pre-existing mindset, so his claim of disrespect is without significance because according to his own logic he would never become respectful toward these alternative beliefs anyhow. Yet despite all this, he goes on to write we should still show respect to differing opinions??

The whole book argues against cultural relativism and neutrality but Baggani basically just plays devils advocate with no easy to follow line of argument throughout.
He seems passionate about the role of love. This section on love I enjoyed reading, but it only appeared right at the end of the book! Rookie error bringing up a new idea in the conclusion.

Overall v poor and confusing construction of argument

[Don Halpert · Rating 5 out of 5]

What is the meaning of life? The author addresses this question from several points of view. Certainly the philosophers have various opinions. The priests, gurus, moral leaders and others who seek to impose their values on the rest of humanity have strong feelings, but ultimately they are in conflict with empirical evidence and incompatible with each other. But their threats of eternal damnation can be effective.
I read this book with a (sort of) open mind. His discussion stimulates thought. This is worth reading for anyone who thinks. Remember, "I think, therefore I am.
So Baggini discusses this question from a number of different angles. He concludes that life does have meaning...but you'll have to read the book to find out.

[Bohemian Book Lover · Rating 2 out of 5]

*We humans
*Have philosophically
*Analysed and
*Tackled the problem of "meaning" in our lives for so long that it
*'S become a cliché.

*I found
*This book just as clichéd as

*All other past attempts to un-
*Lock the mystery rationally. I did appreciate the author's
*Level of humility & honesty at not offering the ultimate "answer",

*As well as the use of popular culture as a reference. However, Julian
*Baggini, in my
*Opinion, remained as
*Unoriginal as all
*The wrestlers of meaning that came before him. I also found his mode of philosophizing humanistically biased, too one-sided and regurgitative for my liking.

[Ellie · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was for my PHIL1750 course. Baggini's book is easy to read in terms of its language. It also involves many topics regarding the question of the meaning of life. He makes a few good points in the first few chapters about "origins". However, sometimes he does not back up his tale with persuasive evidence and eventually resorts to irrationality instead of philosophical reasoning ( I was shocked... I think he begins bullshitting in the end).

[Matthew O'Neil · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely loved this book. Baggini did with this book what so many philosophers I love have done with their work; he gives it to the reader straight, and with completely understandable language. Mixed with humor, quotes from Sartre, Kant, Charles Schultz, Monty Python, and Ozzy Osbourne, it is an absolute delight to read. Absolutely enveloped in his writing and looking forward to reading more.

[Clare Mullooly · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thought provoking book - every chapter focuses on one of the many possible answers to the age old question: what is the meaning of life? A question that I've asked myself many times!

Ultimately, while there may be no meaning to life, it doesn't mean life is pointless. Life is what you make of it and the sooner you figure that out, the sooner you can start living life to its fullest.

[Tony Ross · Rating 5 out of 5]

Baggini has a style that is as easily approachable as Bertrand Russell was in History of Western Philosophy. Difficult concepts are explained in reasonably understandable, jargon free - as much as possible - language. What is it all about? Read Baggini’s book and find out.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

A really good discussion about the meaning of life from a non religious perspective. The author discusses how we can find meaning in a universe that doesn't appear to care about us at all. Various philosophical takes on life are discussed and commented on. It is certainly worth a second read.

[Ninya · Rating 4 out of 5]

1. There is no grand plan.
2. Our own intentions are the only reason to act
3. Institutions don't matter (education, law, politics, marriage - are merely human inventions without any greater meaning or transcendence)

[Srujay Reddy · Rating 3 out of 5]

somewhere between nothing and everything

[Kaleb Rogers · Rating 5 out of 5]

Woah I loved this book. It’s like the anti-selfhelp book. Super nerdy and overly philosophical in all the right ways. Lots of tangents and I enjoyed every one of them. Some funny one-liners too.

[Sebastian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jag gillar starkt upplägget som denna boken har, alltså att varje kapitel ger argument för och emot olika sätt att hitta mening i livet. Boken är även rik på referenser, vilket är mkt användbart.

[Nwaf · Rating 3 out of 5]

هذا كتاب عن المصادر الطبيعية المحتملة لمعنى الحياة عن طريق العثور على المعنى دون الرجوع إلى أي شيء خارق للطبيعة أو متجاوز للتجربة الإنسانية.

[Lee Barry · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book predates social media, which adds another dimension to its talking points. If you are familiar with the School of Life, you will like reading this author's work. What it was about then continues to be what it’s about now, with new technologies making it more complicated.

[Abandiaz · Rating 1 out of 5]

قبل أن تشرع بقراءة هذا الكتاب يجب أن تعرف أن الكتاب الذي بين يديك يناقش بالمنطق، أي بأساس قائم على الأدلة والبراهين بالحُجج العقلية.
وعلى الرغم من أنه لم يطرح الأدلة والبراهين ولكنه ينفي ويستبعد كل شي ليس له دليل عقلي.
المُثير للسخرية أكثر من ذلك أنه يستدل على (أفكاره الخاصة) بحكم الأغلبية العامة -كما يدعي- بدون أدلّة وبراهين!
وبالنسبة لعنوان الكتاب والذي يزعم فيه البحث عن معنى الحياة، إلا أنه اعتمد في الكتاب على (نفي ودحض)كل ما يستحق العيش من أجله مدعياً في الآخر بأن الحياة تستحق هي بحد ذاتها أن تُعاش (دون الحاجة لأي هدف) أو سبب يدعو لذلك، وإنما كل (ما طرحه كأسباب) ليس إلا وسائل للمساعدة لمن يتبناها كأساليب ومبادئ للحياة.
طرح بعض الأفكار كان جيد ولكن لا أتفق مع الفكرة العامة وربط الموضوع بمسألة معنى الحياة، كما أن الطرح لا يخلو من آراء الكاتب الشخصية والمتحيزة.

[Mafalda · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this in Highschool, kind of a long time ago, but I still remember it very well, and feel the need to leave my 2 very personal cents.

Back in Highschool, I started becoming aware of how shitty and meaningless life really is. If you don't feel that way, then good for you, I envy you. So, naturally I resorted to studying books on life's meaning, philosophy theories, salvia use, tried to see what was up with communism and capitalism, which to pick, define my hate by a world which divides everything into categories: genre, classes, IQ, race, religion views, political views (...). It was overwhelming, and I should have just indulged in buying pretty pink tops instead, because, honestly, I hate the feeling of not understanding as the control-freak I am.

This book helped me respect people a little more for their settling down for certain ideas of the meaning of life but, ultimately, you won't find your holy final answer, it's just informative and entertaining in a non-fiction book way, and I've kinda given up on those for leisure purposes.

[Gemma Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

An intelligent, lucid and unpretentious look at the meaning of life covering possible meanings ranging from altruism and self transcendence to seizing the day and benefiting the species. An enjoyable and interesting read drawing secular humanist conclusions and asserting the worth of life lived with ethical awareness and authenticity. As a Buddhist myself I'd say the author is misapplying the concept of non-self and interpreting it in an overly nihilistic way when it comes to his critique of Buddhism - but his argument for not needing to understand everything about a faith before criticising it is extremely valid and one I'd support. A very good book which encourages a critical and rationalistic approach to considering what gives our lives meaning, but also an approach with warmth and charm.

[James Henderson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an invigorating and inspirational overview of the philosophical issues surrounding the meaning of life. Baggini covers issues in a logical manner starting with the question "Why are we here?" Other topics include living life, the good, happiness, dealing with self and the "threat of meaninglessness". What's it all about literally covers some heavy territory with lightness and wit. Along the way you learn and question and, hopefully, come away with some tools to use in approaching and achieving meaning in your life. Best of all there is an intelligent bibliography with further reading for each of the topics in the book and a useful index. This book includes some of the most valuable 200 pages that I have encountered in some time.