Abstract

I critically discuss views about what at least analytic philosophers have in mind when reflecting on what makes life meaningful. I first demonstrate that there has been a standard view of that, according to which meaningfulness centrally involves the actions of human persons, ones that exhibit a high desirability characteristically present in ‘the good, the true, and the beautiful’ and absent from the cases of Sisyphus or the Experience Machine. Then, I address five challenges to the standard view that have recently been made. I conclude that the standard view should be revised to accommodate judgements that animal lives can exhibit meaning, groups of human persons can also do so, and there is a difference between mundane and great meaning possible in the life of a person. However, I resist the more radical suggestions that meaningfulness never inheres in people’s actions or that it need not be positive.