Setiya is right here that there are different senses of ‘meaning’ and thus that the existential question “What is the meaning of life?” is unclear. I agree with him that, with appropriate clarification, the existential question is intelligible and that human beings are by nature inclined to ask such questions.
What follows is my brief attempt to clarify the question.
To start, note that “What is the meaning of life?” is generally asked about human life, not about life in general, or about the various biological processes of life, or about feline or canine life, etc. One can ask questions about the meaningfulness of life in general, or about feline life, etc. Such questions are interesting, but they differ from the existential question before us.
Moroever, it is not quite clear what is meant by “human life.” Clearly, we are not talking about the biological processes of the human body. Are we talking about human conscious life? Are we addressing the human state of being alive? What excactly is the bearer of meaning (assuming that human life is meaningful).
Second, “What is the meaning of human life?” presupposes that there is one. But we shouldn’t just assume that there is. The nihilist might be right that there is no objective meaning of life. We ought to think through the logically prior question: Is human life objectively meaningful?
Third, what is meant by “meaning?” With respect to the existential question, “meaning” might refer to value or significance. For example: Does human life matter? Do human beings have intrinsic value? Is there any objective significance to the fact that humans exist? Would a world without humans be better? Worse? Neither?
“Meaning” might also refer to purpose. For instance, is there some end or purpose to human existence? Is there some goal to Smith’s life? To Jones’ life?
And “meaning” might refer to intelligibility or context: Does human existence fit into a larger cosmic context that is itself significant? Does our existence have a suitable place in some larger structure that, if understood, would render our existence understandable from this greater perspective?
*Note that these various senses of “meaning” suggest that human life might be meaningful in some ways but not in others. Perhaps human life is intrinsically valuable but purposeless and/or unintelligible. Or maybe human life is both valuable and telic but, to us, unintelliggible from a cosmic perspective.
Fourth, one can ask if we are addressing objective meaning or subjective meaning. Roughly, objective meaning would hold independent of human attitudes. I.e., if human life is objectively meaningful, then it is meaningful regardless of whether human beings want it to be so, believe it to be so, know that it is so, or care that it is so. In contrast, subjective meaning is relative to the human mind. For x to be subjectively meaningful, some person S must take it to be meaningful. But if x is objectively meaningful, then it is so even if no human finds it meaningful; and if x is objectively meaningless, then it is such even if there are humans who believe it is meaningful.
Fifth, one can ask if human life as such is meaningful, or one can ask if some particular human life is meaningful. We can call the former universal meaning and the latter particular meaning.
There is more to say which might clarify the existential question, but let’s stop here because we already have plenty on which to reflect. We have several versions of the existential question before us.
Is human life as such objectively valuable?
Is human life as such subjectively valuable?
Is there an objective purpose to human life as such?
Is there a subjective purpose to human life as such?
Is human life as such objectively intelligible from some larger perspective?
Is human life as such subjectively intelligible from some larger perspective?
Is some human life in particular objectively valuable?
Is some human life in particular subjectively valuable?
Is there an objective purpose to some particular human life?
Is there a subjective purpose to some particular human life?
Is some particular human life objectively intelligible from some larger perspective?
Is some particular human life subjectively intelligible from some larger perspective?
The subjective questions (i.e., the even-numbered ones) are easier to answer. Moreover, I suspect they are not what the typical inquirer has in mind when asking the existential question. For example, answers to (2) and (8) are obvious. Clearly, there is some human being who appreciates human life as such (think for instance about the “life is good” bumper stickers), and there is some human being who values his/her own life. (10) is also evident: on a regular basis, people decide on purposes for themselves and pursue those ends. (4) and (6) are fairly easy to answer; many religionists subjectively construe human life as such to be purposeful and intelligible. And for (12), there are religionists who hold their own lives to be subjectively intelligible from some greater perspective. These questions are largely empirical, and though important as empirical questions, are not of much direct philosophical interest.
The objective questions (the odd-numbered ones) are more difficult to answer, as philosophical questions tend to be. Affirmative answers to these questions call for supporting argumentation, as do negative answers. Suppose the answers are affirmative. Then one can ask “Well, so what is the objective meaning (value, purpose, etc.) of human life?” And relevant answers to such questions will themselves raise philosophical questions and require philosophical arguments.
But I’ve gone on long enough. I clarified the existential question and raised several associated philosophical questions for the reader to pursue.