Meaning of Life by John Cottingham Essay

Every person has questi cardinald the meaning of purport It is an idea that mint be traced through out the history of mankind. John Cottingham, author of The Meaning of sprightliness is just cardinal of the m any(prenominal) who have tried to explain and simplify this complicated question. The Meaning of Life is a ill-judged but informative book that attempts to breakdown the meaning of sustenance with as little religious preventive as possible, while at the same time, be able to reveal how religion connects with values and commitments that we all share, and to go a way of accommodating it without the sacrifice of scientific or philosophical integrity. (ix). In The Meaning of Life Cottingham offers insight on individualistic ethical ideals and alternatives to individualism, which can often be contrasted with the touchs of Jean-Paul Sartre, who is one of the best know philosophers of the twentieth century. Cottingham uses chapter one to argue that individualistic ethical ideal s are compartmentalized and self-defeating. He believes that having activities and achievements in ones life, wish well sports, are not enough to crap ones life substantive. Humans are complicated macrocosms that require much more than a few simple success stories to be truly content with life.As Cottingham states, pot have biological imperatives (for food, warmth, shelter, procreation), social imperatives (the need to cooperate, the drive to communicate), unrestrained imperatives (the need for such things as usual recognition and affection), and lastly and just as importantly what might be called rational imperatives. (26) With out these quadruplet essentials, humans simply cannot be happy and live meaningful lives, though it may seem they do on the surface. One example Cottingham uses to display this belief is Gauguin the painter.Though Gauguin was a very successful painter, which both(prenominal) may argue was meaningful, his choices and actions are those of one who co uld be considered to be living a meaningless life. Yes, Gauguin was a successful painter, but he also left his wife and children to pursue this self indulgent career. By pursuing the one thing that made Gauguins life meaningful to him, he himself ruined any chance he had at truly living a meaningful life. This is because he had to sacrifice his biological, social, and emotional imperatives when he left his family and friends.While many philosophers strongly believe in individualism, Cottingham offers an alternative in his book. Theism is the belief in nearly type of deity. As Cottingham states A worthwhile life will be one that posses genuine value value linked to our human nature and the pursuit of what is objectively conducive to the unfolding of that nature. (32) Theists ultimately have something to work towards throughout their lives. With out this metaphorical light at the end of the delve people could quickly lose the desire to live meaningful lives.Those without the beli ef that there is a persona humans came to exist can be haunted by the thought that if space is all the inhabitancy we have, then our journey, a journey out of nothing and towards nothing, risks appearing futile, as void of significance as the ultimate void that spawned us and will eventually swallow us up. (34) With nothing to strive towards it is lightheaded to live a compartmentalized, closed, and selfish life, abandoning the four imperatives mentioned previously and thus living a life with no meaning.By being open and integrated, Theists can share their experiences on their quest towards living a meaningful life. One person that would strongly disagree with Cottinghams belief in theism is Jean-Paul Sartre. One major background Sartre is so opposed to theism is because of his concept of freedom. To Sartre, freedom is not possible when a person has a designed end or purpose. People must(prenominal) be able to decide their own purpose on this earth, and if they believe they w ere put here with a predetermined purpose by a higher being they will be unable to decide what their purpose is on their own.In the case of Gauguin, Sartre would disagree with Cottingham in that he would see nothing wrong with Gauguin leaving his family to pursue his artistic talents. If Gauguin had not left to do what he wished with his life, Sartre would have argued his belief of bad faith which occurs when any person denies their human freedom because they want to avoid the dread of realizing that their existence means nothing if one does not create meaning for themselves.Gauguin must leave his family to discover the meaning of his life in Sartres view, while Cottingham believes that by leaving his family he loses three of his imperatives and will be unhappy and live a meaningless life. While both Sartre and Cottingham make interesting and valid points on soupconing a meaningful life, I agree with neither. Sartre would have back up Gauguin to leave his family and search for hi s own meaning, which I believe would have been very selfish and would have lead to a miserable, meaningless life full of guilt and loneliness.Even if Gauguin loved painting, spending a lifetime alone is undesirable for even the most introverted people. Though I disagree with Sartres reply, I also disagree with Cottinghams belief that Gauguin should have stayed with his family in order to live a life with all of the four essentials mentioned previously. If Gauguin stayed with his family and stopped painting, he would live a life full of questions and regret that he didnt take the opportunity to pursue his dream when he had the chance. Rather than having to pick one or the other (family or art) I believe Gauguin could have had the best of both worlds.He could have saved enough money to move his family to Tahiti with him, or could have looked for the beauty in his own home and family to animate him. The meaning of life is a frightening idea that all people have questioned at some po int in their lives. While Cottinghams book is very interesting, it is certainly not for everyone. Cottingham does a glorious job in helping the reader to decide on their own what a meaningful life is made of by offering multiple philosophies and beliefs in one short, easy to read book.