I've always found it helpful to rephrase the question in terms of significance, rather than meaning - as in, "what is the significance of life?", rather than "what is the meaning of life?". I'm still not sure, of course, without a proper understanding of what is meant by 'life', that one can yet make sense of the question. But I think casting it in terms of significance helps to refine it a little.

There isn't any universal meaning/purpose/whatever-you-want-to-call-it.

There are certainly personal meanings/purposes/etc., and those aren't inadequate in any way.

The word "meaning" in your question would refer to life having some end or goal toward which it strives. I think life does have such an end, but that it can only be described negatively. Living things strive for permanent satisfaction of their desires, but this cannot be achieved by affirming some highest good (summum bonum), because no such thing exists. Rather, one must renounce the desire for satisfaction itself.

Does it make sense to assign a (universal, not personal) "meaning" to "life"? Or has the question always been a category error? — hypericin

The answer back-engineers the question. A Roman answer: To do what you were born to do.

If you decide that there is no answer, then you just made the question disappear.

Existentialist angst can be viewed as merely a dark school of comedy and, unless you can categorize emotions logically, whether or not they make any sense remains debatable, especially in light of the fact the US government has classified certain jokes a "Vital to the National Defense" and a recent theory of humor has established that its about perceiving something as being low in entropy. The implication is that categorization alone can't describe everything observable which, of course, is the same implication as quantum mechanics and even Godel's Incompleteness theorem.

Let's do something unexpected, and refer to a dictionary. From Merriam-Webster online regarding "meaning":

1
a : the thing one intends to convey especially by language : purport

b : the thing that is conveyed especially by language : import

2
: something meant or intended : aim <a mischievous meaning was apparent>

3
: significant quality; especially : implication of a hidden or special significance <a glance full of meaning>

4
a : the logical connotation of a word or phrase

b : the logical denotation or extension of a word or phrase

Mystery solved! Simply ask yourself, at your discretion, all or one or some of the following:

1. What do I intend to convey by the word "life"/my life/ the lives of any or all things living; or
2. What is conveyed by "life"/my life/the lives of any or all things living; or
3. What is meant or intended by "life"/my life/the lives of any or all things living; or
4. What is the hidden or special significance of "life"/my life/the lives of any or all things living; or
5. What is the logical connation of "life"; or
6. What is the logical denotation or extension of "life."

Now, in 5 and 6, whatever the hell they are, the "universal" meaning of "life" can probably be established. As to the others the "universal" meaning of 1, 2 or 3 can probably be established if the question is asked regarding the word "life" (as to 1, what I intend to convey by it can be established). Regarding 4, it would seem to ascribe a special or hidden significance to the word "life" would be to give it a meaning different from what is "universally" meant. When it comes to the act of life, the conduct of life, what I intend to convey by my life, if anything, can be established with some certainty, by asking me. What others intend to convey by their lives, if anything, can also be so established. That takes care of 1. What if anything is conveyed by my life can be established by asking those who observe it; what if anything is conveyed by others lives can be established by asking those who observe them. That's 1 and 2; what if anything is meant as far as 3 is concerned can be established in the same way.

Regarding 4, the special or hidden meaning of my life or those of others is obviously something different from what is intended or conveyed by my life or theirs. It is therefore something which can be neither intended by us nor conveyed to us. So, why speculate what it might be, as it can never be known?

The common dictionary merely contains the most popular definitions of words listed according to their popularity. Philosophy by popular consensus is a new one on me. The story goes that when Wittgenstein was asked the meaning of meaning he quipped, "What do you mean by what is the meaning of meaning?"

The common dictionary merely contains the most popular definitions of words listed according to their popularity. Philosophy by popular consensus is a new one on me. The story goes that when Wittgenstein was asked the meaning of meaning he quipped, "What do you mean by what is the meaning of meaning?" — wuliheron

I would have hoped he would at least have said something witty about Ogden and Richards.

I wonder, though, what you intend to convey by referring to "merely" the "most popular definition of words." Is the most unpopular definition better, or greater, in some fashion? Is the popular definition the wrong definition? How unfortunate it is, then, that we have dictionaries. Where do I find the appropriate definition of words?

Dictionaries don't define words, they circumlocute them... they defer, to different words.

I would have hoped he would at least have said something witty about Ogden and Richards.

I wonder, though, what you intend to convey by referring to "merely" the "most popular definition of words." Is the most unpopular definition better, or greater, in some fashion? Is the popular definition the wrong definition? How unfortunate it is, then, that we have dictionaries. Where do I find the appropriate definition of words? — Ciceronianus the White

Perhaps he was referring to them when he said, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent!" I always interpreted him myself as meaning that some jokes should never be repeated, while others should never be told the first time, but you never know.

Dictionaries are great references, but words only have demonstrable meaning in specific context. If it were otherwise we'd have some sort of clear system we could use to choose which specific definition works best for any particular thing we wish to communicate. Something Wittgenstein understood and which contradicts categorization. Hence, the reason many find his philosophy incomprehensible and claim he was a mystic, while others complain his philosophy is like reading an auto-repair manual. Personally, I think its just more dry, dry, dry academic humor and, on his deathbed, his last regret was not formulating it as a comedy.

Language as circular logic, what a great idea! Deja Vu, that feeling that you've.... Deja Vu, that feeling that you've...

Perhaps he was referring to them when he said, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent!" I always interpreted him myself as meaning that some jokes should never be repeated, while others should never be told the first time, but you never know.

Dictionaries are great references, but words only have demonstrable meaning in specific context. If it were otherwise we'd have some sort of clear system we could use to choose which specific definition works best for any particular thing we wish to communicate. Something Wittgenstein understood and which contradicts categorization. Hence, the reason many find his philosophy incomprehensible and claim he was a mystic, while others complain his philosophy is like reading an auto-repair manual. Personally, I think its just more dry, dry, dry academic humor and, on his deathbed, his last regret was not formulating it as a comedy. — wuliheron

I thought he asked the person who was there to tell his friends he had a good life.

Dictionaries, though, or at least good ones, attempt to account for context by giving examples of use and alternate definitions. Unless we maintain that circumstances of use of a particular word are always significantly dissimilar, which would seem to be to maintain effective communication is impossible or sporadic, that's about the best we can do at least as far as "ordinary language" is concerned. So I think it's useful to consult a dictionary particularly where issues like "the meaning of life" are being addressed. At the least, we can learn whether what we are addressing bears any relation to the common use or some common uses of the words we're using. That provides clarification if nothing more.

Dictionaries don't define words, they circumlocute them... they defer, to different words. — Wosret

Except in limited cases, I know of no other way to define them.

The meaning of life, the universe, and everything...is 42.

[DISCLAIMER]
Some restrictions may apply.
Void where prohibited.
Results may vary.

Rather than 'a' meaning, the question might be better phrased, 'what is the basis for a meaningful life?' That may take any number of forms for different people, whereas if you ask what is the meaning, then it's if your asking if there is a script.

But, that said, I think it is well-recognised that having a sense that your life is meaningful and/or has purpose, is a key ingredient in psychological well-being (see for instance Mankind's Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl).

You can assign life any ""meaning"", but its true meanings are found, typically by living it. We assign words to the meanings we find, such as 'satisfaction', 'goodness', 'procreation', 'power', 'understanding' and so on.

I thought he asked the person who was there to tell his friends he had a good life.

Dictionaries, though, or at least good ones, attempt to account for context by giving examples of use and alternate definitions. Unless we maintain that circumstances of use of a particular word are always significantly dissimilar, which would seem to be to maintain effective communication is impossible or sporadic, that's about the best we can do at least as far as "ordinary language" is concerned. So I think it's useful to consult a dictionary particularly where issues like "the meaning of life" are being addressed. At the least, we can learn whether what we are addressing bears any relation to the common use or some common uses of the words we're using. That provides clarification if nothing more. — Ciceronianus the White

Even Jesus was supposedly tempted on the cross and just about everyone has last regrets no matter how good a life they live.

It used to be more common for dictionaries to provide definitions listed according to how they were used historically, but publishers like to sell their books and too many people insist history is boring and not terribly useful for what they wish to use a dictionary for. The examples they give in dictionaries provide clues as to syntax from which grammar can be extrapolated because grammar is derived from its proximity to syntax. Its pattern matching which is why words only have demonstrable meaning in specific contexts.

When we assemble words into sentences to communicate something they lend one another more meaning, but the fact remains no matter how loud you yell at someone who doesn't speak English they can't understand a word you are saying. A hologram of a featureless ball provides a graphic example of how this works. If you chop up a holographic film containing such an image each piece retains the overall image of a ball, just fuzzier and less distinct the smaller the pieces become. Like the Cheshire Cat's grin, the last thing to vanish as you keep chopping the film up into smaller and smaller pieces is the symmetry of the ball. This is similar to what physicists call supersymmetry and those who simply refuse to believe such a thing is possible can't understand a word you are saying!

It reminds me of a 12 year old boy whose parents had to take him to see a psychiatrist when he suddenly refused to speak English and started using only the computer programming language of "Basic". That's what happens when you refuse to acknowledge that words don't have any intrinsic meaning and life doesn't always make sense.

Onwards. Onwards.

All around the mulberry bush!

Is not humanity the center of the universe? Considering the paradigm in which we find ourselves many would think yes. Basically the universe has no 'meaning' and life is not of any importance to the universe as a whole. Life coexists for a moment with the universe and then null.

I suppose the concern of religions when approaching this question is if it's denoting a certain "metaphysical meaningfulness" as if there is some special quality life is supposed to have that contrasts to the apparent cold & empty natural world.

I honestly don't know what such a thing is supposed to be or what it actually adds to life as we know it (with all its joys and sorrows, which is what I really find important), I suppose it's supposed to be a comforting feeling for people who feel empty about their lives that they can reach out to something beyond what they already have within grasp.

I personally think there's a degree of narcissism to it, that one has to be part of something grand and mysterious for their lives to feel special. Sort of like those who pursue celebrity status instead of just not being recorded history and enjoying your life as it is. Why does there have to be something beyond? Why can't we just live humbly on this "empty" physical world until we disappear?

Regarding 4, the special or hidden meaning of my life or those of others is obviously something different from what is intended or conveyed by my life or theirs. It is therefore something which can be neither intended by us nor conveyed to us. So, why speculate what it might be, as it can never be known?

This is incorrect, it might be told to us. It might have been told to someone in the past who wrote it down.

Does it make sense to assign a (universal, not personal) "meaning" to "life"? — hypericin

What do you mean by "life"? Human life? Conscious being life? Every kind of life including vegetable and bacteria?

The word "meaning" in your question would refer to life having some end or goal toward which it strives. I think life does have such an end, but that it can only be described negatively. — Thorongil

Riiiiight...

So, how do you think you know this? And why can it only be described negatively? Do you mean, you can't even say what it is, but can only say what it isn't?

Living things strive for permanent satisfaction of their desires... — Thorongil

No they don't. I don't. Many others don't. And how did you reach that conclusion about nonhuman living things? A chimp, a cat, an ant, a tree...?

Rather, one must renounce the desire for satisfaction itself. — Thorongil

No, there is nothing to back up the claim that one "must" do that. And there are good reasons not to.

Does it make sense to assign a (universal, not personal) "meaning" to "life"? Or has the question always been a category error? — hypericin

Well, that depends on how you define, "meaning". Some have already claimed that "meaning" refers to some end goal. The problem with this is that one can fail at achieving a goal, so the end goal can't be the cause of life as it exists. If it were, then all goals would be achieved. Also, there is no end goal for the universe, or life in it. Goals only exist in minds which places value on everything in how it helps or hinders achieving one's goals. Values are derived from the present goal. Does the universe have a value system based on some goal?

"Meaning" is related to causation. When we ask what something means, we are asking how it came to be, or what the causes of the effect (life) are, or how words relate to the concepts in someone's mind that they are trying to communicate (what someone means by what they say or write).

Evolution by natural selection has showed us that the meaning of life is simply to procreate genes - to exist through time by passing genetic information to subsequent generations. The meaning of organisms isn't to reproduce other organisms, but to reproduce genes and organisms are just temporary carriers of this genetic information.

This is incorrect, it might be told to us. It might have been told to someone in the past who wrote it down. — Punshhh

But in that case it could not have been what was intended or conveyed by his life or the lives of others in his time. The meaning of our lives is bounded by our lives; it was so bounded for those who lived in the past, and will be so bounded by those who live in the future, if we have recourse to a dictionary.

That may be so(and I have little to disagree with), but the intension might have been to tell him the meaning at that point, we can't say that it wasn't. Also there may be people alive who know the meaning, but either don't know that they do, can't be recognised as knowing, or can't explain what they know, or that they know. If one claims to know, we cannot verify it, although that might not matter to him(so why claim it?). Either way, the meaning might be knowable and known.

Does it make sense to assign a (universal, not personal) "meaning" to "life"? Or has the question always been a category error? — hypericin

For me, life does have meaning. I don't spend much time wondering why, and I've never felt I was "assigning" anything, it just does have meaning. I do wonder if our universe would have meaning if there were no humans (or no intelligent life?) It's seems to me that humans are merely assigning meaning to what is becoming an increasingly bizarre universe (why should it make sense to us?) that is barely describable (string theory, multiverse, dark matter and dark energy).

Riiiiight... — Sapientia

I can feel the condescension from here.

So, how do you think you know this? And why can it only be described negatively? Do you mean, you can't even say what it is, but can only say what it isn't? — Sapientia

I think my post answers these questions. I don't know what you want me to say.

No they don't. I don't. Many others don't. And how did you reach that conclusion about nonhuman living things? A chimp, a cat, an ant, a tree...? — Sapientia

If this were true, then I wouldn't expect to see you desiring (in the sense of becoming attached to) anything at all. Nor would I see animals doing so.

No, there is nothing to back up the claim that one "must" do that. And there are good reasons not to. — Sapientia

It's a hypothetical imperative (as all imperatives all, contra Kant), which therefore takes the form, if X, then Y. If you don't care about X, that's fine.

Does it make sense to assign a (universal, not personal) "meaning" to "life"? Or has the question always been a category error? — hypericin

There is certainly objective "meaning" behind "life". The trouble arises when this meaning does not work well with our own concepts of meaning. This meaning, or rather, purpose, is the uncontrollable process of cellular reproduction, co-existing in a condensed, cohesive pattern of organic material, held together by said mitosis and ultimately responsible for the production of special exploration cells meant to pass on genetic information to a numerically different meat machine, so they can go through the same process and make more meat machines. That is what is ultimately responsible for our collective existence, a plug-and-chug train of DNA spliced across generations, without much of a discernible end goal apart from reacting to environmental constraints. I guess that's why they call it the game of life, after all. Unfortunately it seems that nobody gets to win. :(