To save Sisyphus and avoid the happiness ward: modern discussions on the meaning of life

The article reveals the antinomy arising in modern naturalistic discussions on the meaning of life. Nihilism, supranaturalism, and naturalism are the three main approaches within which the philosophical discussion about the meaning of life develops in the 21st century. Naturalism, being the most popular version, assumes that the answer to the question of the meaning of life combines three incompatible characteristics: objectivity, immanence, and free acceptance (non-determinism). The paper demonstrates contradiction resulting from extreme naturalistic approaches proclaiming subjectivism, transcendence, or determinism. At the same time, any of the existing materialistic concepts is forced either to accept these characteristics or to assume an absurd solution, which is illustrated by the thought experiment «Save Sisyphus ». What could philosophers offer Sisyphus, being the personification of meaningless labor, as the meaning of life? The other extreme, which arises when subjectivizing the meaning of life, is demonstrated in the «Happiness Ward» thought experiment: is there anything that can keep a person from striving to get into an installation that directly stimulates the brain pleasure centers for an indefinitely long time? The only productive solution to this problem is to shift the focus of naturalism from the «meaning of life» to the «purpose of life». A person independently and freely forms the purpose of his life, but, at the same time, the purpose becomes objective as it is realized. The applicability of this approach is illustrated by another thought experiment e2-e4: a single chess move may have its own goal, and this purpose will become more and more real as the player’s plan unfolds. At the same time, the game of chess itself, according to the essence of any game, is meaningless.