As I thought about what makes life meaningful, I found myself going in circles. This happens because defining what "meaning means" causes an infinite recursion. It is a uniquely elusive subject. Nonetheless, it is helpful to think about what are necessary conditions for meaning. I will discuss three: justice, a pure heart, and other people.
Life seems meaningless when there is no justice. Why?
When there is no justice, a conscious action has no effect on the outcome. Thus any intent is futile.
There is no justice in the world. We have been indignant about "slaves on horses, and princes walking on the ground like slaves" for thousands of years (Ecclesiastes 10:7). How much we are socially desired (a very large part of what makes life enjoyable) is almost completely determined by biological factors about the appearance. Success, measured in prestige and wealth (another large part of what makes life enjoyable), is also strongly determined by the family we are born into. Exceptions are rare, and ultimately limited.
As a way of coping with this reality, we emphasize "micro"-justice. We try to structure the society so that hard work leads to success and laziness to failure; crimes are punished and accomplishments praised. But what enabled hard work and accomplishments in the first place? What caused laziness and crimes? Micro-justice is better than nothing, but it barely makes a dent in addressing the fundamental injustices of the world.
Worse, micro-justice is biased. It may even create other injustices. Affirmative action (aka. "positive discrimination") is one example. It is widely implemented at a national level to promote ethnic and gender diversity, greatly influencing the admissions process for prestigious institutions and employers. We must acknowledge that the diversity it encourages is of a specific kind (e.g., only visual traits, as opposed to diversity in personalities, social classes, or religious beliefs), and orthogonal to merits. We must also acknowledge that the area in which the diversity is enforced is selective. Gender diversity is clearly promoted in high-salary fields like computer science, but not so in less lucrative sectors such as skilled labor in which over 80% of the workforce is male. Finally, we must acknowledge that the policy forces life-altering injustices on the non-beneficiaries. It is no secret that elite colleges in the US have used quotas to discriminate against applicants of certain ethnic (prominently Asian) backgrounds. This is at best crude racial stereotyping (i.e., assuming that there is no valuable contribution to diversity within an entire group of people), with profound ramifications on individual lives. Yet, as a society we choose to immediately forget about such critical loopholes in the admissions system and blindly associate merit-based and lifelong prestige with these schools. In turn, the schools' high expectations and support make it more likely for their alumni to actually succeed. Given the situation, it is only rational to do anything to gain admission (example).
Another characteristic of micro-justice is that it is easily fooled. One example close to my heart is the prosperity of bullies. I went to elementary and middle school in developing Korea (1995-2003) where many teachers were inept and had no regards for the well-being of students. In particular, there was little to no intervention to prevent bullying, and I saw a number of extreme cases first hand. Thus I know for a fact that bullies enjoy inflicting pain on the defenseless, solely because it entertains them and makes them feel powerful, and will do so with sickening deliberation and ingenuity. I am talking about years of covert bondage, with creative torment and permanent (psychological and physical) scars, forced on a kid against his will. I cannot think of an evil that is more serious than this. Even the human enslavement in the Atlantic slave trade, which is without a doubt one of the worst crimes of humanity, was driven by greed, not by the sheer malice and enjoyment of tormenting the weak. It is difficult to describe the extent of despair this causes in the victims, some driven to suicide. Even then, there was often no real consequence to the bullies. In fact, many of the media celebrities in Korea are later identified to have been predators in their school years, which is not surprising since bullies often assert power based on (contemptibly insignificant) physical characteristics. There is now at least more awareness about the issue (e.g., the commercial success of the TV series The Glory). But it seems inevitable that there are and will be bullies who not only get away with what they have done, but thrive, even celebrated by the masses. And they will gloat over their victims with no remorse, or forget them entirely.
Since there is no justice, and micro-justice cannot make up for it, life is meaningless unless there is some entity outside the observed universe (i.e., God) that can and will bring justice, in a way that is unknown (and perhaps unknowable) to us. This clearly needs to happen after death if at all, since we know it does not happen in life. It is up to one to believe or not believe in God, but either seems to take a similar amount of faith.
Belief in the absence of God is often based on the honest observation that the universe does not need God to operate the way it does. But either the universe has a beginning, or it always exists (including the possibility of endless cycles of expansion and collapse). In the former case (A), an external being has caused the universe. In the latter case (B), the universe has always been there. I have no reason to believe that Case A is any less likely than Case B. One can appeal to the principle of Occam's razor to argue that since there is no empirical need for God, Case B is more likely than Case A. But we must acknowledge that Occam's razor is our assumption. It is effective somewhat redundantly within the boundary of our limited knowledge. For instance, before special relativity generalized Newton's law of gravitation, nothing was amiss. But special relativity, while being far more complicated than Newton's law, was "truer". Even if there is God, why should we expect that God cares about justice? But then, why is it more likely that God does not? In the absence of other evidence, all these possibilities require a leap of faith. However, believing in the absence of a just God makes life meaningless, while believing in the presence of a just God gives hope.
One interesting alternative for justice is the belief in reincarnation and the law of karma, that is a person is reborn (in the same world) with fortune determined by positive actions in the previous life. This belief may not even require God (e.g., in Buddhism, it is simply a process to achieve Nirvana). My main problem is that I have absolutely no awareness of my past life, which makes it impossible to justify my present life with it even if it exists.
Justice assumes a reference point of right and wrong. Otherwise, there is no wrong to be righted. Is such a reference point relative? That is, can one define his or her own definition of right and wrong? Despite the cultural pressure to accept relativism, I am strongly against it. How can anyone condemn Hitler for believing in the extermination of the Jews? Why is bullying wrong? Why is self-sacrifice more commendable than selfishness? Nothing is meaningful if the definition of right and wrong is personalized.
Even if there is an absolute frame for justice and it benefits me, I also need to assume that I am entitled to it. Why should I have justice? Why should it not be that I am constantly wronged? It is not clear at all that my very demand for justice is justified unless I am entitled to demand it. This entitlement is an external factor, since I cannot entitle myself.
Most of us pine for justice, but it also includes facing judgment ourselves. Thus we must address our own penalties. This is why most religions require hard work to live righteously to minimize the punishment and maximize the reward, except Christianity which believes in the gospel of salvation by faith (which then leads to righteous living).
I have given biological factors about the appearance (i.e., the body) as an instance of injustice, because I assume that the body, which determines your social treatment, is not the real you. One may challenge this assumption, since the body does affect one's inner self (e.g., the production of the male vs female hormones). I used to think that since an infant does not even realize she has a body, the body cannot be the self. But she may not even have a self at this point, so it is not a valid argument. In the end, my conviction that the body is not the self is based on my ability to think counterfactually. In a thought experiment assuming a technology to transfer my consciousness to different bodies, I can change any variable and see if "I remain". I do not need to have an Asian male appearance to be who I am, which is why I find racial and sexual prejudice so offensive and ignorant. I will remain who I am while having the appearance of a Scandinavian girl with blue eyes and blond hair, or a Middle Eastern man with physical deformities. I can continue this thought experiment to eliminate irrelevant variables, and whatever remains is the real me. What seem to remain are my beliefs, my desire, and my personality.
I understand that not everyone shares my need for individual identity. For example, many immigrants in the US voluntarily ground their identity on their nationality. This is the case especially with first generation immigrants who either recently moved or are on the older side, because they miss the culture they grew up in. I do not wish to categorically criticize group identity. It can be a wonderful thing to preserve and celebrate diverse cultures, to have loving families rooted in shared cultural backgrounds, to find comfort in fellowships with kinsmen. I am happy to contribute by bringing in my knowledge of the Korean culture. However, even though I am ethnically 100% Korean, being of Korean descent (or being Asian, or being male) is not my primary identity. I often find it suffocating to be forced to take on that identity regardless of my will. I jokingly say that Hawaii is the only place in the US where it takes no effort to be myself, because there having an Asian appearance does not prompt people to ask me where I am from (and if I plan to go back) so that I am free to express myself as is. While group identity has its place, I firmly believe that individual identity should always take precedence over group identity. One should also keep in mind the effect of "exposure bias". Group identity is always more visible and vocal than individual identity (e.g., via festivals and parades), thus potentially misleading people to incorrectly conclude that the former is necessarily the majority. For instance, a minority of Asian martial artists has promoted a strong association between Asians and martial arts, which now affects the vast majority of Asians who are not martial artists.
Meaning requires an active presence of justice, rather than a mere absence of injustice. A world devoid of evil will have no injustice, but it will also have no justice at work. This is why I cannot relate to the common Christian depiction of heaven in which "nothing bad ever happens". Either Christianity is false (i.e., either there is no heaven or bad things happen in heaven), or the promise that "death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore" (Revelations 21:4) is something still meaningful but I cannot understand its meaning.
In all this discussion about justice, I have no intention to be self-righteous. My sense of justice is obviously skewed by my own experiences. There are many (probably unsolvable) conundrums in discussing justice. For a starter, there are people born with mental illness that prevents them to even have a clear sense of oneself. Justice seems to require a notion of the self, so what does it mean for these people to have justice? Can it be that they do not need justice since they have no mental faculty to be aware of it? My best answer is that we should rely on our power to think counterfactually. In some alternative universe, could they have been their "right selves"? Could I have been in their shoes? Thus we should do to others as we would have them do to us (Luke 6:31). Another conundrum is how to deal with people who cannot help themselves but be evil. Say a person is simply hardwired to be a near-Satanic bully. In order for there to be justice, there has to be judgment on him, and there is no way he will "repent" since it is his nature to be a bully. But if redemption is not possible, why has he even come to being? I do not know what is justice for that person. All I can do is stay away from him if I can, otherwise overpower him.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. -Matthew 5:8
Life feels meaningless if everything is done with an ulterior motive. Why?
At some point in the pursuit of meaning, there has to be a point at which it is no longer possible to justify its meaning based on something else. This is what "meaning means". Without finding that point, we will do everything with some ulterior motive. Then no matter how hard we pursue meaning, we will never arrive.
Having a "pure heart" is a loaded expression for finding such a point of intrinsic meaning. Put simply: it means to love something unconditionally. The importance of having unconditional love cannot be overstated. I would go so far as to define the purpose of life as having unconditional love.
A pure heart is necessary for meaning, but "being pure" is one of the most neglected, underappreciated, and ridiculed character traits in today's society. This is because success (in the worldly sense) does not require a pure heart. In fact, success often requires an impure heart. I meet loads of ambitious, career-driven people who are relentless in exploiting everything in their possession to advance themselves. This usually includes various forms of dehumanizing behavior, such as befriending someone only because she has the power to help achieve a goal without the slightest interest in the person herself. Society rewards this kind of strategic behavior. As a result, having a pure heart is often the last thing on their mind.
A central challenge is finding what to love unconditionally. First, is any option fair? That is, can anything be an object of unconditional love to make life meaningful? The answer seems to be a bit more complicated than a simple yes or no. Intuitively, we are repulsed by the "pure love" that a bully may have for bullying, or a narcissist for herself. We may try to resolve this conflict by arguing that it is not really a pure heart, but I think it can be. Another argument is that such cases hurt others, but it has no relevance to the fact that love gives meaning. Perhaps this conflict is only resolved by the test of time. That is, any form of pure heart can give meaning for a time, but a "bad" choice of what to love is fleeting in its power to do so, and can possibly bring the devastation of realizing that what has been pursued is false or even hurtful to the pursuer. For instance, this will be the case if justice is served and the bully must face the consequences of his evil. It follows that the ultimate object of unconditional love must be something eternal. In this sense, Jesus is at least consistent when he defines loving God and people as the greatest commandment (Mark 12:30-31), assuming eternal life.
I do believe it is better to have any love than none at any given moment. Raving success with no love for anything is totally meaningless. But a "loser" who loves something wholeheartedly needs nothing else. I would rather be a poorly regarded geek with consuming interests than a bigwig who has lost the ability to love anything intrinsically.
In all of us, there is such a strong desire to be recognized and understood by others. Without it, life will be meaningless no matter what.
Suppose you are the only conscious entity who owns the universe. You love taking care of it with all your heart. There is also justice, in the sense that the better you take care of it the more beautiful it becomes, and your neglection results in its demise. Even though you love something and there is justice, you will surely find your life meaningless, because there is no one else who cares.
That humans are social animals is an understatement. I am sometimes struck speechless by the seemingly limitless priority of my social needs. Even though I am a classical introvert, I am the happiest when I am interacting with and being acknowledged by people that I respect. When I am by myself, I am sometimes overwhelmed with the kind of despair fleshed out by Philip Pullman in The Subtle Knife:
She felt a nausea of the soul, a hideous and sickening despair, a melancholy weariness so profound that she was going to die of it. Her last conscious thought was disgust at life; her senses had lied to her. The world was not made of energy and delight but of foulness, betrayal, and lassitude. Living was hateful, and death was no better, and from end to end of the universe this was the first and last and only truth.Then, I am suddenly and fully restored by a brief moment of somebody merely noting my presence. This experience tells me that I am meaningful only because others are aware of me. It also tells me that complete selflessness will be meaningless, that I want and need attention.
All our differences aside, we need each other.
The need for meaning comes from our self-awareness—our cognitive power to be aware of the self. When I am aware of myself, "it" demands meaning. I cannot explain why it demands meaning, because I did not create myself. To an extent, it is a desire to be compensated for life's suffering ("Oh, shucks, it would be such a waste for my pain to be so pointless"). But it cannot be just that, since I can easily imagine a world without suffering and meaning. We can consider creationist (we are designed for meaning) or evolutionist (wanting meaning leads to a better chance of survival, e.g., by implementing a better justice system) views. But one way or another, we must deal with the reality of our need for meaning.
There are a few common approaches to dealing with meaninglessness. One is avoidance. It is a fair approach and can be very effective (unless it relies on mindless distractions, which can be harmful in various ways). I especially like the version that emphasizes "being in the moment" and "enjoying the small things", which is a wise principle to live by regardless of one's approach to meaning in life. However, it requires relinquishing my need for justice.
Another approach is absurdism, which advocates accepting the meaninglessness of the universe heads-on without losing the ability to live in it. It is a logical conclusion under the premise that what we can know is all there is to know. My problem is that I do not know how to live without meaning. I do not care how happy Sisyphus is. Utter despair is my only honest response to a life without meaning.
A final approach is religion, or some form of metaphysical faith. There is no difference between delusion and faith, in the sense that both require believing in something without a proof. That said, a large part of why I continue to believe in God is my empirical experience that results from having faith (e.g., consolation from "conversations" with God when I am in distress), and also the positive and permanent changes I see in people's lives (e.g., healing from past trauma, overcoming self-centeredness) that seem impossible by other means. I do not endorse negative changes that can also come from having faith (e.g., terrorist attacks, deceptive evangelization) which I view as failures on the human side. We should also recall that faith is not an option, since believing in a meaningless universe also requires faith, albeit with the substantial benefit of not needing additional narratives beyond the observed universe.