The universe is indifferent

The argument

According to Jean Baudrillard, our “existence precedes essence”. In this argument, ‘purpose’ can be considered part of ‘essence’. Here, Baudrillard explains that our existence itself has no fundamental purpose. Therefore, any person’s idea of the purpose of life is not inherently linked to the state of being alive, but something which comes to being after we “encounter” and “define” ourselves. Before this process of "making" something of ourselves, we are “nothing” and have no true purpose. Similarly, Nietzche explains that nature is “indifferent without limit, without purposes and consideration”. Therefore, life, as something which belongs to nature, does not have any inherent rules or purposes to follow. In this argument, biological drives like survival and procreation cannot be defined as ‘purposes’. Our existence both as individuals and as a species relies on them, but this does not mean they are truly a ‘purpose.’ Biological drives are more of a side effect of life rather than a reason for living.

Context

In Philosophy, ‘Essence’ is the set of properties that make an entity what it fundamentally is, the definable nature of the thing that exists. ‘Existence’ is the property of being.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The question ‘what is the purpose of life’ may not be asking whether life has an intrinsic purpose, but questioning how a human should go about finding a purpose in life within the context of culture and society. Although there may be no preexisting purpose to being alive, humans can live meaningful lives through enriching experiences and achievements.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise misattributes its central claim: "existence precedes essence" is Sartre's formula, not Baudrillard's, and in Sartre it is the ground of a demanding account of freedom and responsibility rather than of the conclusion that nothing matters — so the source cited argues that we must make a purpose, which is the third position in this debate. [Rejecting P2] The Nietzsche quotation likewise establishes that nature has no purposes of its own, which nobody in this debate denies, and the inference from that to life having no purpose equivocates between purpose as a property of the universe and purpose as something a living being holds — the same equivocation the premise makes again in dismissing survival and procreation as "side effects" without saying what would count as a purpose if these do not.