The question – what is the meaning of life – implies innumerable nuances, which are not even unconditionally supportive as such. We need to know the enormousness of this question, not by any theoretical dispositions, but by some truly applicable conditions that we often happen to see taking place in our everyday life. We are often dealing with a whole bunch of proportional arguments that are in some way or the other quite understandable, but the problem lies wherein the non-categorical issues are found.
The present question that we have to deal with is one such question. It is, in one word, an indefinite question which has its validity, but in terms of uncountable dogmas found a bit more significant in our lives. Of course, there are so many branches of knowing how to approach this unpalatable question. This question is, in some sense, really unpalatable because this question has no definite answer concerning the vivaciousness that it contains in itself.
A diversified argument in its actuality
As we know well the indefiniteness of this inedible question, we cannot therefore so strongly rely on any of the defined branches concerning the meaning of life described verbally. The most common predicament that we always talk about is the question of how to seek a true meaning of the definiteness of life. Neither philosophically nor literally can we deal with its actual meaning of producing the mechanism that it produces in general. There are so many philosophical discussions regarding the indefiniteness of this question. If we want to talk about various consultations found properly acceptable, then we can never fully cover the universality of the question – what is the meaning of life. So, the problem that we cannot avoid is the truly but half defined meaning of life.
Meaning described in the literature
Now, one of the most important things that we cannot avoid by stating the question in a direct sense is the senseless argument based on the structure of life. Literature is, to a great extent, the most essential part to carry the weight of this question because, also some literary critics think, we can always take literature into account through the simplicity that we can think of the meaning of life quite non-critically.
Now, the most significant problems that we always face, in assessing the accurateness of so many branches regarding the meaning of life, are the definitive aspects of several theories, discourses in direct relation to the sense of the true meaning of life. All the literary persons are in close contact with a different kind of mixture by which the objective evaluation of the true meaning of life. There are so many things that can be found out quite simply in literature, which we cannot find out in any other branch of discussion that eagerly deals with the question – what is the meaning of life.
The modernist discourse of literature
The modern age of literature is quite difficult to understand because of the period in which the modernist discourse appeared. Without any dilemma, it fought the previous ways of literature. This modernist discourse could not simply find out the need that it truly wanted to contain, that is, the simple meaning of life. All the literary persons of that time wanted to search for having an answer to the simple meaning of life because they could no longer have faith in the same Aristotelian discourse of defining literature. Then some of the true definers of the essence of literature started to deny the oldest discourse of assessing the meaning of life.
On one hand, each one of them put themselves on the ridge of the question: what is the meaning of life. If we want to discuss this question, then should have taken the general meaning of life for granted. In reality, this aspect of literature needs to be calculated quite aesthetically. The whole of literature then stood on the point of the aesthetic side of the meaning of life.
The revival of the ancients
At that period those who dealt with the question – what is the meaning of life – were more or less looking back at the ancient period. Some of them profoundly confronted the contemporary unstable situation through their capability of arguing the matter concerning the meaning of life in general. When we are talking about the modernist discourse of literature, to define – what is the meaning of life answer – then we have to take the contribution of poetry into account. The name T.S. Eliot comes first. He gave his focus on the ancient texts of the Upanishads. He structured the definition of life quite differently by a deliberate essence of the meaning of life.
Now, the most arguing matter that he found unreliable was the traditional way of having formed the patter that was to deal with the question: what is the meaning of life. In every text, written during the period of unending instability, that we read, we find an accurate touch of the “tragic sense of life”. This tragic sense is quite inessential indeed because of the theoretical dogma of western civilization.
The reason they looked back at the ancients
To talk about the reason why they looked back at the ancients, we would have talked about such and such consequential events that took place in western history, during the First World War. In reality, the true meaning of life was then defined as one of the most authoritative dilemmas in both literature and the everyday life of all individuals. For example, we can remember the bad moments took place in the life of the Swiss author Hermann Hesse. In some of his writings, he primarily dealt with the Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu.
To find out the meaning of life, he “broke out” with nationalism, which he thought it might be fruitful for him to assess the mechanism that the question – what is the meaning of life – depends on. The branch of philosophy that he wrote about we shall discuss later. Primarily he wrote about a particular way that made him underrated. It is partly true that all the western philosophers defied the broader simplification of the meaning of life. It is partly true because of the environment that most of them were surrounded by, and there was an innumerable amount of assumptions, which held them back from submitting themselves to the simplicity of life. In short, this can be assumed as merely a reason which needs to be taken into a serious account.
Philosophy of Zarathustra
A careful study of his philosophy can show the way of simplicity that so many western authors brought into existence: for example, Hermann Hesse, philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, and many more. Both these authors brought his philosophy into existence by conferring their contemporary state of society on the non-moderated philosophy of Zarathustra. But the problem that lies inside the whole of its construction is very simple – what is the meaning of life. Hermann Hesse explained his philosophy quite non-contradictorily, but, in another sense, his way of interpretation sounded a little more contradictory if we take the realm of Hitler into account.
The realm of Hitler gave an altogether different shape to the thinking process of Hermann Hesse. For the time being, we cannot even think about the kind of danger that they faced. The basic core of Zarathustra’s philosophy had no ideas of any concretized manually field of study, which he made quite clear all by himself. Through the unfussiness of his philosophy, we can easily project the real view of our “arrangement of life” on the screen of pseudo-subjectivity. In brief, the aesthetical standpoint of Zarathustra firmly holds so many non-conflicted images, which have nothing to do with any of the societal dimensions that we have created.
The reason why this question is relevant
Talking much more about the relevancy of this question implies the account that some of the ancient philosophers spoke out. They were also thoughtful enough to give their views on this subject matter. But this complicated viewpoint that so many philosophers like Aristotle gave was a little bit theoretical. Precisely, the question that Aristotle raised, in Metaphysics, was totally in direct relation to the question – what is the meaning of life. Now, we shall have to go into a more detailed analysis of it. From the very beginning of this book, he began to write about the concept of being that was extremely modified later by so many western philosophers.
The basic thing that we need to talk about is how the question relates to the crisis that we generally see in our everyday lives. This type of extremely philosophical question can be found in the words of William Wordsworth. According to Wordsworth, man encapsulates the entirety of this phenomenal question. To him, the answer to this question is always roaming along with speculative statements that he made regarding the question – what is the meaning of life – in his poetry. Now, we have to understand the illogicality of this question in case we cannot understand the effortlessness that is available in also verbal the representation of this question. But there are so many authoritarian standpoints that make this question sound quite serious.
The other aspects of this question
If we want to search for the problem that this question deals with, then it may not be possible for us to pierce this question; but on the western side of arguing this aspect of philosophy, we have to bring Karl Marx into account. Without this man, not possible for us to discover the sphere of the question – what is the meaning of life, but even if we can have a picture of the western sense of this question, then we must think a little bit about the other aspects of this question.
In reality, Marx had also defined the simple side of this question by having his primary focus on the economical side of the meaning of life philosophy. But his followers had ever and have always taken the structure of his way of interpreting this question on life. We cannot exclude the touch of metaphysics from his writings. He fought against the metaphysical question of philosophy, but to fight those metaphysical questions, he had to fight those metaphysical questions. This question of life sounds not anti-metaphysical in his writings. He confronted the metaphysical issues of his forefathers. The test of this philosophy might sound quite different, but the question – what is the meaning of life – remains the same.
The necessity of other kinds of question
At this point, we would have brought the words of Leo Tolstoy into existence. He tried to re-explain the words that mattered important to him. Now, the silliness of this point can, on the other hand, be shown in different ways; and, on the other hand, this life-revolting problem is the problem that demands an answer from life. Tolstoy had explained the simplicity by making the words of Christ look quite simple. For him, what Christ said was what Christ said.
This kind of simplification, he thought, is the only process to which he could submit his whole belief in the words of Christ. Most interestingly, the belief that he included was not more than the question itself that we are dealing with. He also argued against some of the eminent historians who severely criticized the simple-sided views on life by choosing the image of Christ. We must keep here in mind that the argument should not be put with individual biasness. Tolstoy also kept this theoretical aspect of life in his mind, which he thought was structured by the kind of representation that we have shown in the realm of objects.
This point, in brief, must not be considered as the one which completely refuses to accept the words of the critics who thought Christ spoke some charming rubbish.