Wolf vs. Aristotle: What makes Life Meaningful?

I will claim that a meaningful life does not depend on “one thing”; rather that it depends on one framework, within which we are free to make certain choices but not all. I will compare Aristotle's theory of eudaimonia with Wolf’s fitting fulfilment theory. I will claim Wolf’s framework (which encourages a higher degree of choice) better recognizes human individuality and is hence superior. Concluding then, that a meaningful life is subject to certain criteria but that it can manifest with as much variation as there is human individuality.

First, I will explain Aristotle’s concept of a meaningful life. Aristotle claims we can evaluate how meaningful or good a thing is based upon how well it performs its function. He believes everything has a function; for example, a knife is used to cut, and an eye is used to see. However, it appears some of these functions are subordinate to others; whilst it is true the knife cuts food, that is not an end in itself; it cuts food so the food can be eaten, so the body can be nourished, and so on…Following this, he claims there must be one “end” for humans which truly is final. He describes this ultimate function (that truly is an end in itself) as “activity of the rational part of the soul in accordance with virtue”, known as eudaimonia. For Aristotle virtues are rational traits one can master that have intrinsic value and constitute to flourishing e.g. courage or generosity. Eudaimonia, then, is the final end for humans, not merely happiness, but a state of flourishing achieved through rational activity in accordance with virtue. Remembering Aristotle’s initial claim that one can evaluate how meaningful something is based upon how well it performs its function, a meaningful human life must be one that lives in accordance with eudaimonia.

I will now outline Wolf’s concept of a meaningful life. Wolf does not claim there is one thing that constitutes a meaningful life but instead that there is a framework (set of criteria) that when applied can make life meaningful. She calls this “fitting fulfillment theory” and it consists of three parameters. A meaningful life must be committed to projects that are:

1)Subjectively attractive (the subject has a special relation to/finds them exciting etc.)
2) Objectively worthwhile (Wolf is a pluralist, so she acknowledges that this could be a moral good, a prudential good, or something else of value).
3)Successful (to some degree one must productively engage with them)

Fitting fulfilment theory does not give complete freedom (criteria 2) to choose what makes life meaningful but it does offer a very large scope of potentially meaningful lives. Both Wolf and Aristotle acknowledge there are external constraints on living a meaningful life which prevent us having a completely free choice. They have a similar account of these restraints; Aristotle refers to them as virtues whereas Wolf describes them as Objective goods. These similar concepts agree meaningfulness is essentially related to something like virtuosity or morality. Their accounts start to be less consistent when it comes to the notion of individuality. Aristotle’s understanding of “virtue" is that each person should try to accumulate all virtues to their best ability. Though he acknowledges we have natural disposition towards certain traits he does not encourage leaning into this and instead suggests it is our duty to nurture all rational virtues equally. Wolf, on the other hand, encourages “leaning in” to what we are most inclined towards as it appears this is where we will be happiest and capable of doing the most objective good (criteria 1). Wolf’s theory better recognises that it is reasonable to hold different values to varying degrees and to pursue meaning in accordance with this diversity.

Aristotle and Wolf’s theories are not necessarily in opposition, however, think Wolf’s theory gives more clarity and better acknowledges that large human variation will lead to a large variation of what a meaningful life may look like. It seems likely that following Wolf’s more instructive process for living a meaningful life is compatible with the condition of eudaimonia. Regardless, both accounts appear to fall outside the two claims outlined in the question. In conclusion, there is no single factor that makes life meaningful. Instead, in agreement with Wolf, a meaningful life can involve a wide range of choices, provided those choices are made within certain constraints, most notably that they contribute to an objective good. This idea is similar, though not identical to Aristotle’s original account.