I write in response to the thought-provoking article released in the April edition of the FHS Press, regarding Human obligations. Hu-mans seem to have an innate desire to extrapolate the meaning of life from the world around them. The article states that humans tend to be self-infatuated in nature. Innately, humans place their needs and wants above those of others. Perhaps; how-ever, the introvert has the upper-hand when seeking the answer to the question which was posed in the article, and has been occulted for so long: “What is the purpose of life?”
It seems, to me, that most be-lieve the meaning of life is an unan-swerable conundrum that only those with the highest mental faculties could even begin to unravel. Per-haps; however, the answer is ever-changing and unique to everyone individually. Therefore, the “answer” is directly intertwined with the person’s actions and mental state at any given time. Rather than a sole answer for mankind, the answer is simply what you make it. If you are a psychologically stable person, and you think you are living a meaning-ful life, then aren’t you? Your con-ception and understanding of a meaningful life should govern the way you live your “meaningful life.”
Philosophical writing is almost invariably tendentious. For this rea-son, I don’t agree or disagree with the “Human Obligations” article – it was both enticing and genuine, with-out being dogmatic – I simply wanted to add my two cents on the matter.