Whats It All About?: Philosophy and the Meaning of Life by Julian Baggini

Whats It All About?: Philosophy and the Meaning of Life Reviews

• 
  Chentao

  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

  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.
  
• 
  Heather Pagano

  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.
• 
  Mohammed omran

  (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

  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

  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."
  
• 
  Shyue Chou Chuang

  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.
• 
  Don Halpert

  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.
• 
  Ellie

  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

  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

  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.
• 
  Srujay Reddy

  somewhere between nothing and everything
• 
  Kaleb Rogers

  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.
• 
  Lee Barry

  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

  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.
• 
  Gemma Williams

  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

  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.
• 
  Chazzle

  It took me a long time to finish it, and it was tough enough sledding that I really had to concentrate at times. I guess it wasn't a horrid book, by any means, but it left me feeling bored, and there wasn't really an "alleluia moment", which is kind of what you hope for in a book on the meaning of life. No, the book was more like the "boring truth", than "pray-zuh Jeee-zusss". I'm not arguing that the author is full of baloney, in fact, he probably makes sound arguments throughout; it just wasn't a "good ride" of a read.
  
  The author's answer to "What it's all about?" is that we each create our own meanings. In which case, shagging Carrie Underwood would add immensely to my life's meaning. (Sorry female readers of my pathetic reviews.)
  
  I recommend reading something else.
• 
  Jeff

  What is the meaning of life? is an almost passé, comical notion in our post-modern world of relativism and glimpsed, partial truths. Baggini’s attempt to tackle it spans the history of philosophy and conjures an almost Epicurean proscription that includes the acceptance of the epistemological limits of the perspectives that each age was grappling with. That said, there are no easy answers, or even difficult ones for that matter, but the common sense approach to the interpretive conditions of meaning, make this more than just a bit of popularist fluff.
  
• 
  taylor woods

  So difficult to rate a philosophy book with so many varying arguments, and etc. The amount of highlighter I used in this one would be described as "over-achieving" but whatever. Fantastic read, especially for anyone who wants to dab into the philosophy world without losing their minds over a butt-load of jargon, 10,000 existential crises, and one massive migraine.
  
  ^Me finding any reason to use a gif in my review.
• 
  jolene hunt

  i read this book for school if you want to help figure out what your meaning of lifei s and help figure out how to live your life read this book i wrote a 4 page paper on it and its pretty intresting.
• 
  John

  A stimulating and in an sense reassuring book, in that it essentially confirms a fairly commonsense view of what life's about. I liked the logical demolition of any idea that life can be given meaning by something outside it (like an afterlife), and also his recognition of the importance of love.
• 
  Douglas Cosby

  No great revelation here, but a surprisingly engaging book. It could have been dogmatic or academic, but it hit a sweet spot somewhere in the pragmatic humanist range of the spectrum. You make your own meaning, and, by the way, be kind.
• 
  Cornelia Litu

  Light discourse over the meaning of life & evaluation of the various philosophical and cultural positions held over this matter.
  Nice, entertaining discussion, simple & easy to understand language - though not the most profound analysis of the subject.
• 
  Cody Morgan

  This book does a great job in explaining the the freedom which comes from renouncing the belief that life has a universal inherent meaning.