I’ve always preferred Wittgenstein’s distinction between what can be said and what can only be shown. From that view, questions like ‘What is the meaning of life?’ don’t actually have an answer, because life itself lies outside language. It doesn’t need to be explained; it shows itself in the act of living. Trying to express it in words is already a kind of nonsense, because we’re asking language to do what only experience can. That’s why any attempt to describe it feels ‘mystical’ (not in a supernatural sense, but because it reveals something that cannot be captured by propositions). In this sense, the meaning of life is life itself; the ongoing activity of living.
I’ve always preferred Wittgenstein’s distinction between what can be said and what can only be shown. From that view, questions like ‘What is the meaning of life?’ don’t actually have an answer, because life itself lies outside language. It doesn’t need to be explained; it shows itself in the act of living. Trying to express it in words is already a kind of nonsense, because we’re asking language to do what only experience can. That’s why any attempt to describe it feels ‘mystical’ (not in a supernatural sense, but because it reveals something that cannot be captured by propositions). In this sense, the meaning of life is life itself; the ongoing activity of living.