Mick asked:

The response to all philosophical questions, e.g. "Does God exist?", "Why are we here?", "What's the
meaning of life?" etc, etc , must be, "We don't know" (always assuming that we're honest). I'm 58 yrs.
old, of average intelligence (I think), not particularly well-read or educated to a high standard — an
ordinary man! I am unable to go beyond this response. I'd appreciate any thoughts on this matter.

============

I hope this question is theoretical. If you are truly concerned that there is no meaning to life, you may
lack some form of essential attachment to what there is in the world around you. However, there is a
sense in which it is normal to recognise — and sometimes feel — that life lacks meaning. One
philosopher, Thomas Nagel, has pointed out that being able to recognise the absurdity of life is part of
what it is to be human: "It is possible only because we possess a certain kind of insight — the
capacity to transcend ourselves in thought".

There is only a meaning to life which is beyond, or transcends, what we know if we have faith in God.
There are philosophical arguments both for and against God, and although we cannot prove God
exists, we cannot prove the converse either.

Life may be essentially pointless and futile, but we can give it point and purpose simply by being
engaged in the world as it is. Hopefully, you have family, friends and interests which give you a
reason to be here or, in other words, provide the point of life. If this is not so, there remains the wider
moral community of other persons you interact with daily and the possibility of better, changed
circumstances and the arousal of interest in the world around you.

The question "What is the meaning of life" is meaningless because it searches for something outside
life itself to provide a point. We want the point to be available to us here and now, as a reason for
living and it is. The point, for you, is whatever you find valuable in life for its own sake.

Rachel Browne

I'm not sure that "I don't know" is the only honest answer to the 'big questions'. Another answer, which
might be more truthful, is "I don't understand". Because it is often confusing to work out what is
actually being asked.

If someone asked me one day at work: "why are we here?", I might give all sorts of answers, like
"because we get paid" or "because this is where the office is". Clearly this is not what is being asked
when the question is intended philosophically, but it still remains to be asked what in fact is in
question here. Again, an explanation of the birds and the bees would not be the answer the
questioner is looking for. And it would seem obvious that no scientific answer could ever suffice.

So what is being asked? I must confess that I am not sure, but I would suspect it is the equivalent of
shrugging one's shoulders and sighing. It is an expression of confusion, of bewilderment at the brute
fact of existence. I really do understand this, but it is not a question. And if it is not a question, then it
cannot be answered.

I would suggest that the other examples of questions you gave could be disposed of in a similar way.

Will Greenwood