Life is Hard - Chapter 6 

(Stone Sakson - Section #1)

                                                                          I did Chapter 6 of Life is Hard by Kieran Setiya. Chapter 6 mainly focuses on absurdity and the question, “What is the meaning of life?” Just to clarify this, Setiya is referring to the question in terms of all human life in general. He says, “When we ask if life as a whole has meaning, we are not asking for something that varies from one person's life to another. The question has one answer for everyone, or it has no answer at all.” Setiya then starts by talking about a feeling that’s called “nausea.” It’s not real nausea, but rather a sense of alarm at the realization that things just exist for no reason. Setiya then brings up a question that’s been around for centuries: Why is there something rather than nothing? 

Setiya says the real issue isn’t figuring out why things exist, but instead it’s about meaning. He says we should be changing the question from “What is the meaning of life?” to “How can someone live a meaningful life?” To this question, his answer is pretty practical. A meaningful life is one where we do things that matter, like spending time with people we care about, creating art, doing science, or enjoying simple pleasures. 

One big challenge here is nihilism. Nihilism is the idea that nothing matters. Setiya points out that if someone believes in that, it’s hard to argue against it because you’d have to assume something matters to make your argument. Instead of trying to win that argument, he says meaning comes from paying attention to what matters in our own experience. 

Meaning vs. Purpose

Setiya also looks at whether meaning could come from having a purpose. If humanity was given a role in some bigger system, would that create meaning? He gives us an example to follow this idea: Imagine if humans were bred as food for another species. That would give us a purpose, but it wouldn’t make life meaningful. Because of this, he says that meaning and purpose aren’t the same thing, which makes the question a lot harder to answer. 

What about religion?

Setiya then begins to explain how this question, “What is the meaning of life?”, is actually pretty new. Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle didn’t ask it. They were more focused on how to live well. The question started showing up in the nineteenth century, when religion stopped being the default answer for most people. This is like when Nietzsche said, “God is dead,” and how that left people wondering what to do next. Even Einstein said he struggled with how to keep life meaningful without religion. 

This shift in general religious belief was extremely important when looking at the creation of this question. For a long time, people believed meaning came from some bigger plan. Something set by God or the universe. When those ideas started to fade, people were left with a new kind of freedom, but also a new problem. If there’s no plan, then meaning isn’t something we find, it’s something we make. Thinkers like Sartre and Camus started talking about this, saying that life doesn’t come with instructions, so we have to create our own. This didn’t just change philosophy, it shaped art, literature, and even how people thought about identity and purpose in everyday life. 

To build farther into religion, Setiya says that it gives people a picture of the world that tells them how to feel about life. Without that, we look for truths that can help us deal with suffering and injustice. But Setiya asks: Why do we think reality would tell us how we should feel? That’s where the absurdity comes in. Albert Camus described it as the clash between our need for meaning and the silence of the world. (The link attached to Albert Camus goes in depth on his stance, if you are interested.)

Thought Experiment

Setiya uses a thought experiment to go into this even deeper: What if humans became infertile and the species was doomed? Would life lose its meaning? He talks about how it may seem futile to do anything, since there will be no one to hold value for the things we have done. This lack of a future would, in turn, make doing those things seem useless.

(If you feel that existence is meaningless, check this link)

However, he says that even though some projects do depend on the future, there are a lot of things, such as listening to music or enjoying food, that matter in the moment. Those things don’t stop being valuable even if the world ends tomorrow.

Is Justice the answer?

Toward the end of the chapter, Setiya talks about justice as a possible source of meaning. He says that if there is meaning to be found, it might come from the shape of human history, or the idea that the “moral arc” bends toward justice. This can give us a form of meaning, something that can improve each and every individual life. This doesn’t mean progress is guaranteed, but it gives us something to aim for. John Bowker pointed out that injustice in the world often pushes religions to promise justice in an afterlife or to claim that the world we know is an illusion. Without these promises, the truth can feel pretty rough. But if religion is tied to justice, and it provides meaning for us, then maybe working toward justice itself can create meaning, without religion. 

Setiya's Main Idea and Thought-Provoking Questions

Setiya suggests that instead of looking for justice beyond this world (by looking through a religious lens), we can focus on creating it here. Even if the world doesn’t guarantee fairness, working toward justice can give life a sense of meaning. He says that it’s not about solving every problem or fixing everything, but instead about the effort and the direction we choose. The idea connects meaning to action, and if the meaning of life isn’t handed to us, maybe it’s something we build through what we do and the values we fight for.  

Here are some questions to help you think about these ideas:

-Do you think life needs an ultimate “meaning” to feel fulfilling, or is it enough to create meaning through our everyday lives? 

-If meaning depends on what we choose to value, does that make it fragile, or does it make it more real?