What People Mean by “Meaning”
When people say they want a “meaningful life,” they often bundle together several different ideas. Separating them helps you diagnose what is missing when life feels empty, and it clarifies why different theories disagree about what counts as meaningful.
1) Meaning as coherence: life makes sense
Coherence is about intelligibility: your life story “hangs together.” You can explain why you do what you do, how your values connect to your choices, and how your past relates to your present. Coherence does not require happiness; it requires a narrative that feels understandable rather than random.
- Signs of coherence: you can state your priorities; your weekly actions roughly match them; your identity feels stable enough to plan.
- Common threats: sudden loss, major role changes, chronic stress, or living by others’ expectations.
2) Meaning as significance: life matters
Significance is about importance: your life (or parts of it) “count” in a way that isn’t trivial. People often connect significance to impact on others, contribution to something larger, or alignment with what they take to be genuinely valuable.
- Signs of significance: you believe your efforts make a difference; you feel your time is not wasted; you would defend your commitments as worthwhile.
- Common threats: feeling replaceable, pointless work, isolation, or the sense that nothing you do changes anything.
3) Meaning as direction: life has aims
Direction is about orientation toward goals, projects, or ideals. It answers: “What am I aiming at?” Direction can be short-term (finish a certification) or long-term (build a family culture, serve a community, master a craft). Direction often produces the felt experience of purpose: a sense of being “on the way” to something.
- Signs of direction: you can name current projects; you can say what “progress” looks like; you can choose between options by reference to aims.
- Common threats: drifting, overcommitment without priorities, or goals that are inherited rather than chosen.
Quick diagnostic: which kind of “meaning” is missing?
| If you feel… | Likely deficit | Typical fix |
|---|---|---|
| Confused, scattered, like your life doesn’t add up | Coherence | Clarify values, rewrite narrative, reduce contradictions |
| Like nothing matters, even if you’re busy | Significance | Reconnect to real stakes, contribution, or value |
| Like you have no aim, even if things “make sense” | Direction | Choose projects, define goals, create milestones |
Three Accounts of What Makes Life Meaningful
Different theories propose different standards for meaning. A standard is the rule that answers: “What must be true for a life (or activity) to count as meaningful?” The same life can score differently depending on which standard you use.
- Listen to the audio with the screen off.
- Earn a certificate upon completion.
- Over 5000 courses for you to explore!
Download the app
A) Subjective views: meaning from desire and fulfillment
Core idea: A life is meaningful if it fulfills the person’s deep desires, preferences, or sense of satisfaction. On this view, meaning is grounded in the agent’s inner endorsement: what you care about, what you want, what feels fulfilling.
- Strength: takes seriously that meaning is lived from the inside; explains why imposed “good causes” can feel empty.
- Risk: if meaning is only desire-fulfillment, then shallow or harmful desires could count as meaningful if strongly endorsed.
Practical check (step-by-step):
- List 5 activities that reliably absorb you (time passes quickly).
- Identify the desire behind each (status, mastery, connection, creativity, security, service).
- Rank which desires feel “deep” versus “impulsive.”
- Test fulfillment: after doing it, do you feel nourished or merely distracted?
- Adjust your week to increase time spent on the nourishing set.
B) Objective views: meaning from real value
Core idea: A life is meaningful if it connects to things that are valuable independently of what any one person happens to want—such as knowledge, beauty, justice, love, or alleviating suffering. Meaning requires contact with genuine value, not just felt satisfaction.
- Strength: explains why some pursuits seem meaningful even when difficult or not immediately satisfying; preserves the intuition that some projects are “worth doing” even if you don’t feel like it.
- Risk: can become alienating if it ignores the person’s perspective (e.g., demanding “noble” work that the person cannot authentically engage in).
Practical check (step-by-step):
- Name 3 values you think would matter even if no one praised you (e.g., truth, care, fairness, beauty).
- Map your current roles to those values (where do you actually serve them?).
- Spot “value gaps” (important values with no real expression in your week).
- Add one concrete practice that expresses a value (mentor, volunteer, study, create, advocate).
- Measure meaning by contribution and integrity rather than mood alone.
C) Hybrid views: meaning from valued engagement
Core idea: Meaning arises when you are actively engaged in projects that are worthwhile. This combines the inner and outer: you must care about it (subjective engagement) and it must be genuinely valuable (objective worth). Many people find this matches their lived sense of meaning: not just “I like it,” and not just “it’s good,” but “I’m wholeheartedly involved in something good.”
- Strength: avoids the “anything goes” problem of purely subjective views and the “cold duty” problem of purely objective views.
- Risk: requires two conditions, so it can judge many lives as only partially meaningful (valuable but disengaged; engaged but not valuable).
Practical check (step-by-step):
- Choose one weekly activity you care about and one you think is valuable.
- Rate each on two scales from 0–10: (a) engagement (energy, absorption), (b) worth (benefit, excellence, moral value).
- Diagnose: high engagement/low worth suggests misdirected passion; low engagement/high worth suggests burnout or misfit; high/high suggests a meaning “sweet spot.”
- Redesign one element (role, environment, skill-building, collaborators) to move the activity toward high/high.
How Theories Rate the Same Life Differently: Short Case Studies
Below are brief lives or projects. For each, notice how coherence, significance, and direction can come apart—and how subjective, objective, and hybrid standards can disagree.
Case 1: Raising children
Scenario: Sam is a parent of two young children. The days are repetitive and exhausting. Sam sometimes feels bored and misses a previous career, but also believes parenting shapes lives.
- Coherence: Can be high if Sam sees parenting as part of a life narrative (“I’m building a family culture”). Can be low if Sam experiences it as a derailment.
- Significance: Often rated high because it affects vulnerable people and future adults.
- Direction: Can be high (clear aims: safety, development, values) or low (survival mode without longer-term goals).
| Theory | Likely rating | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Subjective | Mixed | If Sam feels unfulfilled or resentful, meaning decreases even if parenting is important. |
| Objective | High | Care, love, and responsibility toward children are widely treated as real values. |
| Hybrid | Depends | High if Sam is engaged in the work of parenting and sees it as worthwhile; lower if disengaged/burned out. |
Practical reframing (step-by-step):
- Coherence: Write a 5-sentence “parenting mission” that links your past values to your current role.
- Direction: Pick one 3-month aim (e.g., bedtime routine, reading habit, emotional coaching).
- Engagement: Add one small practice that makes care feel more like craft (track progress, learn a skill, join a supportive community).
Case 2: Art and creative work
Scenario: Lina makes experimental music. Few people listen. Lina feels alive while composing and believes the work expresses something true, but worries it is “self-indulgent.”
- Coherence: High if Lina’s identity and choices align (“I am an artist; my life is organized around creation”).
- Significance: Disputed: some see art as profound value; others emphasize measurable impact.
- Direction: High if Lina has projects and mastery goals; low if creating without any standards or development.
| Theory | Likely rating | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Subjective | High | Strong fulfillment and absorption can generate meaning even without recognition. |
| Objective | Variable | If the art has genuine aesthetic or expressive value, it counts; if it is trivial or derivative, less so. |
| Hybrid | Potentially high | Best case: Lina is deeply engaged in work that achieves real artistic value (even for a small audience). |
Practical test: Separate audience size from value. Ask: “If only ten people ever heard this, would it still be excellent, honest, or beautiful?” Then ask: “What would make it more excellent?”
Case 3: Activism and social change
Scenario: Noor organizes for housing justice. Progress is slow; wins are partial. Noor feels anger and fatigue but also solidarity and moral clarity.
- Coherence: High if Noor’s actions match moral commitments; low if activism conflicts with other roles or becomes performative.
- Significance: Often high due to stakes (harm reduction, fairness, dignity).
- Direction: Can be high with strategy and milestones; can collapse into burnout if aims are vague or impossible.
| Theory | Likely rating | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Subjective | Mixed | If Noor feels mostly depleted and not fulfilled, meaning may drop despite moral importance. |
| Objective | High | Working toward justice can be meaningful even when unpleasant. |
| Hybrid | Mixed to high | High when Noor is engaged and the cause is valuable; lower if engagement becomes compulsive or identity-driven without effective contribution. |
Practical calibration (step-by-step):
- Define one concrete outcome you can influence (tenant meeting attendance, policy comment submissions, mutual aid deliveries).
- Set a sustainable cadence (e.g., 2 evenings/month) to protect engagement.
- Track “value delivered” rather than only emotional intensity.
Case 4: Caregiving for an ill relative
Scenario: Miguel cares for an aging parent with dementia. The work is emotionally heavy and repetitive. Miguel feels love and duty, but also grief and loss of freedom.
- Coherence: Can be high if Miguel integrates caregiving into identity (“I show up for family”), or low if it feels like life is on hold.
- Significance: Often high because it directly reduces suffering and honors relationships.
- Direction: Sometimes low because the situation is not “progress-oriented”; aims may be maintenance, comfort, dignity.
| Theory | Likely rating | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Subjective | Often low to mixed | Fulfillment may be limited; meaning depends on whether Miguel experiences caregiving as chosen and connected to love. |
| Objective | High | Compassionate care is a strong candidate for objective value. |
| Hybrid | Mixed | High when Miguel can stay engaged (not numb) and sees the care as worthwhile; lower if overwhelmed or coerced. |
Practical move: Redefine direction from “improvement” to “dignity goals.” Example goals: pain managed, calm routines, moments of connection, respectful communication with medical staff.
Case 5: Entrepreneurship and building a company
Scenario: Priya starts a business. The work is intense and risky. Priya feels energized by building, enjoys autonomy, and wants to create jobs, but also worries the product is not truly beneficial.
- Coherence: High if the business expresses Priya’s values; low if it’s mainly status-chasing.
- Significance: Depends on what the company contributes (useful services vs. manipulative or wasteful products).
- Direction: Often high because goals and metrics are clear; can become narrow if metrics replace values.
| Theory | Likely rating | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Subjective | High | Autonomy, challenge, and fulfillment can generate strong meaning. |
| Objective | Variable | Meaning depends on whether the product/service has real value and whether practices are ethical. |
| Hybrid | Conditional | High if Priya is engaged in building something genuinely beneficial; lower if engagement is high but value is dubious. |
Practical alignment (step-by-step):
- Write a one-sentence “value claim”: who benefits and how.
- List 3 potential harms (addiction, deception, exclusion, environmental cost).
- Choose one safeguard (transparent pricing, opt-outs, accessibility, fair labor).
- Review monthly: are metrics serving the value claim or replacing it?
Standards in Tension: Where Conflicts Come From
Many “meaning crises” are not a lack of meaning but a conflict of standards. You may be using multiple yardsticks at once.
Common conflicts
- Engagement vs. worth: “I love it, but it seems pointless.” (high subjective, low objective)
- Worth vs. engagement: “It matters, but I feel dead inside doing it.” (high objective, low subjective)
- Coherence vs. opportunity: “This fits my story, but it blocks growth.”
- Direction vs. openness: “Goals give me purpose, but I feel trapped by them.”
- Significance vs. sustainability: “The stakes are huge, but I’m burning out.”
A simple meaning audit (15–25 minutes)
- Pick one role (worker, parent, partner, citizen, creator).
- Score it 0–10 on coherence, significance, direction.
- Then score it 0–10 on subjective fulfillment and objective worth (as you understand it).
- Circle the lowest score: that is your most likely “meaning bottleneck.”
- Choose one small experiment for the next week aimed at that bottleneck (clarify aim, increase contribution, increase engagement, reduce contradiction).
Reflection Prompts (Identify Your Current Standards)
Prompt set A: Which meaning are you seeking?
- When you say “I want more meaning,” do you mostly mean: more coherence, more significance, or more direction? Give one recent example.
- Which of the three feels easiest for you to increase? Which feels hardest?
Prompt set B: Which theory do you already live by?
- Think of a choice you respect in someone else (career, family, service, art). Do you respect it because it fulfilled them (subjective), because it was valuable (objective), or because it was valued engagement (hybrid)?
- Recall a time you judged your own life as “wasted.” What standard were you using in that judgment?
Prompt set C: Where do your standards conflict?
- Name one activity you find deeply fulfilling that you suspect is not very worthwhile. What would make it more worthwhile without killing engagement?
- Name one activity you believe is worthwhile that you find draining. What would increase engagement: changing how you do it, sharing it, learning skills, reducing hours, or reframing the aim?
- Do you treat impact as the main measure of significance, or do you also count excellence, care, and integrity even when impact is small?
Prompt set D: Apply all three lenses to your week
Pick three blocks of time from last week (e.g., work meeting, exercise, helping a friend). For each, answer:
- Coherence: How did this fit (or not fit) with who you are trying to be?
- Significance: Who or what did it matter to, and why?
- Direction: What aim did it serve?
- Subjective: Did you want it and feel fulfilled by it?
- Objective: Was it genuinely worthwhile?
- Hybrid: Was it worthwhile and did you feel engaged?
