Stephen asked:

What is the purpose of life and why are we here?

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

Most analytic philosophers would approach this question by turning it round, and asking, What right
do you have to assume that life has a purpose, or that there is any reason why we are here other
than blind chance?

That assumes, wrongly in my view, that on a question as important as this one can be satisfied with a
purely negative answer. If you can't say beforehand what the purpose of life is, then you can't prove
that life has a purpose. If you don't know the reason why we are here, then you can't argue that there
must still be reason. However, these sceptical moves do nothing to address the problem. One feels
these questions as an urgent demand. To ask, 'What right have I to feel this way?' does nothing to
lessen that feeling.

However, there is a more radical way of approaching this question, which we can illustrate with the
aid of a thought experiment.

Suppose that there was an answer to the question of the purpose of life and why we are here, and it
was in a book in front of you. This is, of course, just what some people believe. The book in which the
answer is to be found is the Holy Bible. Or it might be the Koran, or some other sacred text. The
trouble with the Bible, or the Koran is that the answer is there only for those who have faith, those
who already know the answer, or feel that they do. I am supposing that the answer in our imaginary
book is as clear as day. Anyone who reads the words will be instantly convinced, This is why we are
here.

I want to suggest two reasons for doubt, which I find troubling.

We are to assume that life has a definite purpose. Human beings are here for a reason, and you are
here for that same reason, or as part of that reason. Moreover, having read the book you now know
what that reason is. As I said, it is as clear as day. This is a purpose, a reason, that you must
acknowledge irrespective of your own prior interests and projects. The story of the Old Testament
prophets, or of Jesus' disciples are vivid illustrations of just what this means in practice.

We see our own projects, the purposes we invent for ourselves, to be limited, we see through them.
They don't answer the big question. All that is true. Yet I would argue that the belief that you were
chosen to be part of some project that is bigger than you are, a project that doesn't end in the grave
as your personal projects will, is not enough to answer that question either, if you are honest about it.

The reason is this. If you knewthat someone had a plan for you, it would still be up to you to decide
whether or not to go along with that plan. Even if that someone is God. For it surely could not be part
of that plan to deny human beings freedom of choice and turn them into puppets. The decision is
yours, it must be. With all that you know now, having read the book from cover to cover, the question
of the purpose of yourlife is still a question, yourquestion. And no book, no recipe, however clearly
laid out can supply the answer.

That's one reason for doubt. And here's the other:

I have argued that you still have a decision to make. No factual knowledge about the ultimate purpose
of life or why we are here can make that decision for you. But couldthere be such knowledge?

Your question is not simply why weare here but why Iam here. When I ask this question myself, I
have to consider, not just the possibility of a universe where wedidn't exist, but a universe where I
didn't exist. To consider this is not just to consider a universe where someone exactly likeme didn't
exist. In the imaginary book there is a master plan, and someone fitting my exact description is part of
that plan. But there is still one factwhich that book cannot explain, namely, why Iam here. Anything
that can be communicated in a book is just words, and all words can speak of is someone likeme,
someone fitting my exact description. There therefore cannot be a factual answer to the question,
Why am Ihere?

— This might be considered one way of putting the case for an Existentialist response to your
question.

Geoffrey Klempner