Philosophy for Absolute Beginners: Meaning, Purpose, and Making Sense of Your Choices

1) Four Senses of “Meaning” (and Why Mixing Them Creates Confusion)

People use the word meaning in several different ways. If you do not separate these senses, you can end up answering the wrong question. Below are four common senses that show up in everyday decisions.

A quick diagnostic: which meaning-question are you actually asking?

• If you feel emptiness despite success, you may be asking about value (worthwhileness), not significance.
• If you feel scattered or pulled in incompatible directions, you may be asking about coherence, not purpose.
• If you feel aimless, you may be asking about purpose (an aim), not value.
• If you feel small or replaceable, you may be asking about significance, not coherence.

In this chapter, you will treat meaning-questions as analyzable: you will identify which sense is in play, make your standards explicit, and test your reasons for consistency.

2) A Structured Tool for Analyzing Choices: Values, Tradeoffs, Standards

When people say “I want a meaningful life,” they often mean: “I want my choices to be justifiable by my own standards.” The tool below helps you make that justification explicit.

The VTS worksheet (Values–Tradeoffs–Standards)

Use this for any major decision (career, relationships, commitments). Write brief answers; clarity beats length.

1. Choice statement: Describe the decision as two or more options.
   Option A: … / Option B: … / Option C: …
2. Meaning-sense target: Which sense(s) of meaning are you trying to improve—significance, coherence, purpose, value?
   Target: value + coherence
3. Values at stake: List what you care about that is relevant (not what you “should” care about). Keep them as nouns or short phrases.
   Examples: autonomy, stability, service, mastery, intimacy, creativity, fairness, health, learning
4. Tradeoffs you accept: For each option, state what you are willing to give up (time, money, status, comfort, flexibility, etc.). Tradeoffs reveal your real priorities.
   Option A tradeoffs: less income, more uncertainty
5. Standards you are using: State the rule(s) that make an option “better” by your lights. Standards are evaluative tests, not feelings.
   “An option is better if it increases X without violating Y.”
6. Ranking and rationale: Rank the options and give 2–4 reasons that explicitly connect to your standards.
   Rank: B > A > C because …

Example 1: Career choice (analytic, not autobiographical)

Choice statement: Option A: higher-paying job with long hours. Option B: lower-paying job with more time and autonomy.

Continue in our app.

• Listen to the audio with the screen off.
• Earn a certificate upon completion.
• Over 5000 courses for you to explore!

Or continue reading below...

Download the app

• Meaning-sense target: coherence + value
• Values at stake: financial security, autonomy, health, learning, contribution
• Tradeoffs accepted:
  • A: accept less time, more stress, less autonomy
  • B: accept less money, slower status growth
• Standards:
  • S1: Prefer options that protect health and relationships above marginal income gains.
  • S2: Prefer options that allow sustained learning and autonomy.
  • S3: Maintain a minimum security threshold (rent, savings, basic stability).
• Ranking and rationale: B > A if B meets S3; otherwise A temporarily until S3 is met.

Notice what happened: “meaningful” did not function as a mysterious property. It became a claim about which standards you endorse and whether an option satisfies them.

Example 2: Relationship decision

Choice statement: Option A: stay in a relationship with recurring disrespect. Option B: leave and accept loneliness and disruption.

• Meaning-sense target: value + coherence
• Values at stake: dignity, stability, intimacy, honesty, growth
• Tradeoffs accepted:
  • A: accept ongoing harm to dignity, possible resentment
  • B: accept short-term pain, logistical disruption
• Standards:
  • S1: Do not treat persistent disrespect as compatible with intimacy.
  • S2: Prefer options that support self-respect and honest communication.
• Ranking and rationale: B > A because A violates S1 and S2 even if it offers stability.

Example 3: Commitment decision (volunteering, activism, caregiving, creative projects)

Choice statement: Option A: commit to a cause that helps many but drains you. Option B: commit less and protect health.

• Meaning-sense target: significance + purpose + value
• Values at stake: compassion, effectiveness, sustainability, integrity
• Tradeoffs accepted:
  • A: accept burnout risk, reduced personal time
  • B: accept slower impact, possible guilt
• Standards:
  • S1: Prefer sustainable commitments over heroic but short-lived ones.
  • S2: Prefer actions with measurable impact per hour (effectiveness).
• Ranking and rationale: A only if redesigned to satisfy S1; otherwise B with a plan to increase effectiveness.

3) Consistency Checks: Are Your Reasons Stable Across Cases?

After you produce reasons, test them. The goal is not to become rigid; it is to avoid unnoticed double standards and accidental contradictions.

Check A: Similar-cases consistency

Ask: if two cases are relevantly similar, would my reasons give the same verdict?

• Prompt: “What features am I treating as decisive here?”
• Prompt: “If those features were present in another person’s case, would I judge it the same way?”
• Prompt: “If one feature changed (money, risk, time), at what point would my verdict flip?”

Example: You say, “I should take the higher-paying job because security matters most.” Similar-case test: would you advise a friend to take a job that harms their health for a modest security increase when they already meet basic needs? If not, your standard may actually be: “Security matters most until a threshold; after that, health matters more.” Make the threshold explicit.

Check B: Self/other symmetry

Ask whether you apply the same standards to yourself and others, unless you can justify a difference.

• Prompt: “Would I accept this reason from someone else?”
• Prompt: “If I criticize someone for X, do I excuse myself for the same X?”
• Prompt: “If I demand evidence/effort from others, do I demand it from myself?”

Example: You judge a friend harshly for leaving a stable job to pursue art as “irresponsible,” but you praise yourself for a similarly risky move as “authentic.” If the difference is real, state it (e.g., dependents, debt, safety net). If you cannot state it, you may be using a double standard.

Check C: Standard conflict and priority rules

Many meaning problems come from conflicting standards (e.g., “maximize impact” vs “protect mental health”). A consistency check is to add a priority rule.

• Prompt: “When S1 and S2 conflict, which wins, and why?”
• Prompt: “Is the priority absolute, or does it depend on thresholds?”

Useful format:

Priority rule: Protect basic health and dignity first (non-negotiable floor). After that, optimize for impact and growth.

Check D: “Meaning inflation” (are you demanding the impossible?)

Sometimes the inconsistency is not between cases but between your standards and human limits.

• Prompt: “Does my standard require constant maximization (always the best, most impactful, most coherent option)?”
• Prompt: “Would a reasonable person be able to meet this standard over years?”

If your standard is unlivable, revise it into a sustainable version (e.g., “regularly contribute” instead of “always maximize contribution”).

4) Capstone Exercise: Write a One-Page “Reasoned Stance” on a Meaning Question

This exercise produces a compact philosophical document: definitions, an argument, an objection, and a revision. Keep it to about one page. Choose a question where “meaning” is genuinely at stake for you, but write analytically rather than as a personal narrative.

Step 1: Choose one meaning-related question

• “Is a life meaningful if it is happy but has little impact on others?”
• “Should I prioritize coherence (a unified life plan) over exploration?”
• “Is meaning mainly about purpose (aims) or value (worth)?”
• “Can a job be meaningful if it conflicts with my values but supports my family?”

Step 2: Define your key terms (2–5 sentences each)

Define at least two of the four senses: significance, coherence, purpose, value. Your definitions should be usable in evaluation.

Template:

• Meaning (value sense): “By ‘meaningful,’ I mean …”
• Significance: “By ‘significant,’ I mean …”
• Coherence: “By ‘coherent,’ I mean …”
• Purpose: “By ‘purpose,’ I mean …”

Step 3: State your thesis (one sentence)

Template: Thesis: A life is meaningful primarily in the sense of ___, and this is best measured by ___.

Step 4: Give a short argument (3–6 numbered premises)

Build a tight chain from your definitions to your thesis. Make each premise something you are willing to stand behind.

Template:

1) [Definition-based claim about meaning sense(s).] 2) [Claim about what humans reasonably can pursue or justify.] 3) [Claim linking your standard to better choices.] Therefore, 4) [Thesis.]

Step 5: Add one serious objection (steelman it)

The objection should challenge a key premise or your standard, not a minor detail.

• Objection types:
  • Counterexample: a case where your standard gives the wrong result.
  • Conflict: your standard clashes with another plausible value.
  • Demandingness: your standard is too hard to live by.
  • Scope: your standard ignores significance or purpose entirely.

Step 6: Revise to strengthen clarity (not to “win”)

Revise by doing one of the following:

• Add a threshold (a “floor” or “ceiling”) to your standard.
• Specify a priority rule when values conflict.
• Narrow your thesis (make it less sweeping but more defensible).
• Clarify which sense of meaning you are addressing and which you are not.

Revision template:

Revised thesis: ... Clarification: This addresses meaning as ___, not necessarily as ___. Added rule/threshold: ...

One-page “Reasoned Stance” fill-in format (copy/paste)

Question: [Write it.] Definitions: (1) Meaning (in sense of ___): ... (2) Coherence / Purpose / Value / Significance: ... Thesis: ... Argument: 1) ... 2) ... 3) ... Therefore, ... Objection (strong version): ... Revision: [New thesis or added rule/threshold + brief explanation.] Consistency checks: - Similar cases: ... - Self/other symmetry: ... - Priority rule: ...