In philosophy, there are at least three basic approaches to solving this difficult problem.
1. The first approach is based on the statement: the meaning of life is inherent in life in its deep roots. This approach is most typical for religious interpretations of life. From this point of view, the only thing that makes life meaningful and therefore has an absolute meaning for a person is nothing more than an effective complicity in the God-man life. Hence follows the task of man – not the alteration of the world, but the return to oneself of the primordial, substantial good, unity with it.
2. The second approach: the meaning of life is beyond life. This suggests that a person is able to restructure the world on the basis of good and justice. The movement towards this bright
3. According to the third approach, the meaning of life is created by the subject himself. Life has no meaning, flowing from the past or the future, especially from the other world. In life itself there is no given meaning, only the person consciously or spontaneously his life activity gives it meaning. Thus, he chooses and creates his human essence. Apparently, this point of view is built on a subjective approach.
The definition of the meaning of life can not be absolute, since man always belongs to a certain epoch and acts in a particular culture. The public provides the personality with the value system to which it is oriented. But, determining the meaning of his life, a person also introduces his own subjective: individual motivations, personal motives and interests. This makes the problem even more complicated.
For all the complexity of the matter, one should proceed from the following points: 1) the essence of man in his activity relation to the world; 2) social life does not ultimately have any meaning other than the development of the “essential forces” of the person himself.
From this it follows that the main goal of man,