Beyond Existentialism

The meaning of life is not arbitrary. And freedom has limits.

There are many kinds of existentialisms but most go like this: you are standing on a balcony in a postmodern, indifferent city; the traffic and superstructures and pedestrians and birds and even the arcing sun seem to have there own ways of being which are divorced and alienated from us.  One questions one's own significance in all of it.  The possibility of a benevolent God or sympathetic Nature is out of the question.  We are alone and nothing is there to guide us.  We are free in a sense, yet we still pine for meaning.  Some existential philosophies then recommend choosing some path, any path that seems appealing and meaningful.  Some advocate a specific religion or falling back on tradition.

But is existentialism the correct approach?

Let's try this:  You are sitting at the kitchen table talking to a close family member, reminiscing about times past; you feel loved and understood.  You decide that the meaning of life is to love and be loved and to have healthy relationships.

Or lets try this:  You begin watching the sunset on the sea early--the light beats down on you at first, then the sun sets further and you notice its mellow light and feel all of the days events resolve into a benediction.  You decide that life sets certain themes into action and that the meaning of life is to resolve and come to grips with those themes.

Or perhaps this:  You have a vision of a haunting landscape you wish to paint.  You make numerous attempts to flesh out the details of it and finally succeed.  You decide that the meaning of life is to create inspirational pieces.

So, though existentialism may be correct in that we have to chose our meaning, what constitutes that meaning can be any number of things, some of which are healthier than others.

Do we really want to base our philosophy of life on alienation?  Why not love or creativity or harmony?