--- Title: The Meaning of Life Description: The Lancet 217 (1931, I), no. 5605, 31 January 1931, pp. 225-228. Lecture delivered to the London Branch of the International Society for Individual Psychology, University College, London, 15 January 1931. Author: Alfred Adler URL: https://adler.school/archivo/adler/original/1931-01-31%20The%20Meaning%20of%20Life --- # The Meaning of Life.[^1] By Dr. Alfred Adler (of Vienna). The problem I want to discuss to-night is a very old one. Probably human beings have always asked such questions as: What is life for? What is the *meaning* of life? Perhaps they have said that life has no meaning at all. You hear it still in our own time. If, however, you do not only *ask* but *look* for the attitudes and the behaviour of human beings, you will see that they act and re-act, answer and behave, according to a certain meaning, although for the most part they know nothing about it. We find them living as though they believed themselves to be pursuing certain aims, and this is very understandable, because we are not moved by the real—in the sense of material—facts of the world, but are impressed by the *meaning* we give to them. That is what leads us. Thus we sometimes find ourselves in a realm of uncertainty because no one has told us rightly what is the *meaning* of life. Everyone has to work it out in the darkness of his own mind. We are learning life. It will be wise, therefore, to look at it from the scientific angle. ## The Question. This is not so simple as you may think, because I do not know of any scientific inquiry up to now into this problem. I have heard questions and answers but never have I seen a real scientific inquiry. It is very true that such a question cannot be solved only by reference to immediate experience. There must be a leading idea to which that experience can be adapted. We have therefore to guess, as every scientist has to guess. He is not blessed with absolute truth. In such a very important question as we have now before us, we must approach with great caution and with a great reverence, because we may be sure that if anybody fails in this way, and does not attach the right meaning to life, the failure will appear in his whole-make-up. He will meet the problems of life and try to develop himself towards a goal which does not agree with the right meaning of life. We suspect that many failures and mistakes are really based upon a wrong meaning. In solving such a question it is often a great advantage to introduce another question; not to go direct, but to make a detour and besiege the problem. We may, for instance, raise the question: What do we find in our life when we enter this world? The answer is: The contributions of our ancestors. These contributions exist; they are living, they cannot disappear. We take them up and continue them, we complete them, but they are always present and always living. This gives us a hint that probably our human life contribution must be a great part of the meaning of life itself. It is always existing, it does not die out. We find it in works, children, ideas, traditions, Art. All these results of contribution live for ever so far as mankind can utilise them, is improved by them, can take advantage of them, and be developed by them. Therefore, if we are looking for the meaning of life, we find it in the first place in the fact of contribution. Let us, however, be sceptical towards ourselves and cruel and hard. We are not satisfied. Even if we seem to be convinced, it may not be so, and therefore we must attack what we have found in this matter of contribution from other sides. Perhaps we can turn the question and ask: What happens to the lives of people who have not contributed? They disappear; there is no place for them in human life. This is the underlying idea of Individual Psychology. An unwritten law, the logic of life, rises up against such lives and says: Get away, we do not need you, you are not fitted to this life, you do not contribute. So, you see, there is a value in a certain idea of human life and probably many people's traces have perished because they have not contributed. They could not "fix" life on this earth, they have not created, they have not coöperated, and so they have not found what can be found only in contribution—the right adaptation. So we feel a little more sure. There must be something in our human life which means to contribute, to coöperate. ## Coöperation: Mother and Child. We want, however, to be more and more sceptical, and perhaps we should also ask the question: If it be so that contribution and coöperation is the right scientific meaning of life, must not human beings have all sorts of ways of coöperating and contributing and must not their functions be right, normal, and worth while if they are to be equipped for accomplishment in the way of coöperation? If we press this point of view, we may find that we are in doubt. We see that the child is born into this world with all the organs which are adapted towards another person. That is quite obvious. He has thirst, hunger, the reflex to suck, he needs the breast of the mother. He is equipped to accomplish in this way, to coöperate in this way. It is his only little part. If we remember the weakness, all the long time a child needs to grow up and become independent for contribution and coöperation, there must be somebody present with whom he can coöperate. Now you know the first person for this coöperation is the mother, and therefore we have to point out the great importance of the mother for the development of ability to coöperate. The skill and interest of the mother make the child socially interested in her. It is going on every day, every hour. Everybody knows it who has seen it, how the mother provides for the child. Water, climate, the air in the room, and food are all interferences which make the child more or less coöperate with the mother. The mother can make a mistake in this way, as we know, by stopping the ability to coöperate in the child, binding it to her alone and not giving way so that its social needs can be spread towards the father, if she pampers the child and pets it and makes it dependent on her alone. We see the importance of the father in the same way and so, slowly growing, the social interest of the child from coöperation with the father and the mother to coöperation with other children, and we have the family. The family is the field for training the child in coöperation, and therefore we see how the institution is found to function in a general way to teach how to coöperate. This is very obvious. Now let us look at the physiological functions of the child and what they mean, in a psychological way. What does it mean to look? It means to connect oneself, in looking, with another person or thing. It means a connexion. When we see, our eyes are functioning rightly only if we are socially interested, and we find among many children and grown-ups that they do not coöperate with their eyes, they do not look straight, they are not interested. We speak of a "hang-dog" or a "vacant" look, and we know the queer look of an insane person, interested only in himself. If we judge rightly, we shall find the degree of coöperation from how a person is looking. We act in a sympathetic way, and we do not like a certain look if we do not find social interest in it. We know the "dirty" look, the look of the criminal, and so on, and we judge, without knowing it, the degree of coöperation. We do not mean "looking" merely in the physiological sense of collecting pictures and leading them to the brain. What interests the psychologist is the degree of coöperation, and we understand the great importance of it because it means the whole understanding of a child if he is looking in a coöperative and interested way. The same results will be found if we investigate in regard to listening and you can understand the little progress made by a child or by a grown-up if he does not listen interestedly, if he is not attentive, and does not connect himself in hearing sounds and words and so on, and we know how important it is for the development of one of the most important functions of the human mind—that of speaking. ## Coöperation: In Social Life. What does it mean to connect one person with another? It is the basic element of our speech function, and only such persons can speak rightly who have understood how to connect with others and to express themselves in such a way as they would like everybody to connect in speech, to express themselves in a way that others can understand, and so on. We see the development of all our sense organs can happen only if the child is socially interested; his goal is to be connected with others, and to coöperate and contribute. If he feels a part of the whole, if he feels at home upon this poor earth crust, if he wants to develop, to help to contribute, and to coöperate, then he can develop his functions rightly. What does "rightly" mean? We measure all this in regard to the welfare of the whole of mankind. We would never call anything *worth while* if it were not worth while for the whole of mankind. Normal, right, true, and so on, are things we instinctively say when it is in the direction of the welfare of mankind. For this everybody has to coöperate and to contribute. These are the primitive functions of human beings and they cannot be rightly developed if such a person is not interested in the whole and does not feel a part of the whole. In the same way, we find all the characteristics are developed in the right way only if there is a certain degree of social interest. What do we call characteristics? These are social relations. To be *good* means to be good towards others, and to be *bad* means to be bad towards others. To be interested in Art we need a social interest; to be lazy means not to contribute or coöperate; just as to be industrious means the contrary, and so on. You cannot find one characteristic which does not mean a social relation which can be measured. "Courageous," for instance, is a quality that exists only in regard to the welfare of mankind. We do not find courage without social interest, and when we speak of a wrong development we mean that we do not meet with ability to coöperate. We cannot speak about morals and ethics without making it obvious that we mean coöperation and interest in others. Wherever we find that man is culturally at a certain stage, he has to grasp the ideal of coöperation. We know the meaning of life that we can develop ourselves only if we coöperate and are trained in contribution. On this point we can also answer the question we hear very often: Do we develop the individual for himself, or for mankind? Now you see you *cannot* develop the individual without developing him for the welfare of mankind, and if a person develops his ability of coöperation, he develops his listening and speaking and right understanding. Our understanding, our common sense, our logic, can be strengthened and developed only in a social environment. It is based on these senses and functions of listening, looking, speaking, and so on, and our understanding is not in a proper condition unless we would understand in a way that can be controlled by the whole of mankind and as we would expect everybody to understand. That is common sense. Understanding can be developed only if a person is socially interested. We say that failures have no common sense. They are not stupid or feeble-minded; they conclude readily but not in the way of social interest. Even in regard to our æsthetic feelings we clearly judge Art by whether it is in the way of the meaning and welfare of mankind. Nobody has ever called something beautiful which was not in the line of development and improvement of mankind. And especially anything which we call beautiful in regard to human beings looks towards the future, it carries the idea of children, the tendencies of what we want mankind later on to be, and so on. So we see our functions and feelings are developed rightly if a person is concerned about the whole of mankind and feels the need of *coöperation*. We know that the child starts with a feeling of inferiority; he feels little and down and he strives to overcome it. The only right way to overcome this feeling of inferiority, which involves everybody, is to feel *worth while*, and he cannot do so if he does not coöperate. Therefore he cannot get rid of this feeling of inferiority. ## Happiness and the "Pleasure Principle." And here is a point that I want to mention shortly. It is often said that human beings are governed by the "pleasure principle." Many psychologists and psychiatrists, however, are sure that this is not true. Human beings strive for the *happiness* of others; this is the true pleasure of the socially interested person. The "pleasure principle" is the striving of a person who is only interested in himself and not in others. Perhaps now we feel more quiet and sure that we are on the right way. There must be an underlying idea in our life, a *meaning*, a metaphysical background of our life, which means coöperation. You will see that mankind always keeps instinctively to this viewpoint and you do not find any religious system which does not say "Coöperate; love thy neighbour." This is generally a religious explanation, and if we can find a scientific explanation I believe it will help for the improvement and benefit of mankind. Perhaps we are not yet wholly sure; we want to be more sceptical, and so we ask another question. If it be really so, that the meaning of life is coöperation, then must not all our problems be problems which can be solved only if we coöperate? This is another interesting result of Individual Psychology, so that we can insist that human beings never meet anything but social problems in life, which demand a right preparation for coöperation. ## The Family Relation. I spoke before about the meeting of the new-born child and the mother. Now there are other problems, small and great, in the life of the human being. Another child comes into the family and how this child behaves to the other proves his ability in coöperation. We are scared to see how many children grow up without this ability to coöperate if a new child comes into the family; how they resist and want to exclude the other child; they feel hurt and timid and do not want to coöperate, and so on. Later in life, to be sure, the child enters the kindergarten, nursery school, or public school, and always he meets a social problem. He meets other children there and the teachers, and discussions take place which are to lead towards his later profession and occupation, whether he is to be useful in the division of labour for the sake of the whole of mankind. All these problems therefore are like examinations. We can see how a child behaves in his little problems: if he wants to join other children, if he has friends and comrades, if he is interested in his work, if he can play with other children—in all these ways we find how far he is prepared in coöperation. We are always looking for reasons why so many children, and later on grown-ups, are not rightly prepared, but this I will describe later. After the school he enters the social life, gains friendship, and a family, and he has to meet and to compare with other persons. In all these relations we find people behaving differently and if they behave rightly or, as we say, normally and intelligently, they are interested in other persons, they can coöperate. This is the social problem we meet in life. There is the problem of occupation. We have to be useful and to coöperate in the division of labour, and not believe that we are working for money. We really can earn money only if we coöperate. Otherwise we have failure in life—crime, for instance. We are paid, then, because we coöperate. The problems of society, friendship, comradeship, problems of occupation, are bound up to a certain degree. There are other problems, such as the problem of love. ## The Sex Relation. Because we are living in two sexes there must be a certain coöperation between them. In this matter mankind has felt, and feels now, that there is not the right coöperation because we are not skilled and trained and prepared. We read books which mostly are stories of unhappy marriages and love affairs, and we are impressed with the great difficulties. We are not prepared to coöperate rightly with the other person, and the problem of love demands that we should be interested in the other person more than in ourselves. This problem must be solved, and we understand that there must be such an underlying ruling idea in our lives that the meaning of life is to coöperate. We have no other problems in life. I would be very thankful if somebody would mention a problem which does not demand social interest. We are in a trap, we cannot get out of it, and there must be a meaning of this trap. Its meaning is to coöperate. But perhaps we still want to doubt. If this is not right, it must appear in what we call the failures of life. What are failures in life? We can mention some types of failure—problem children, neurotic persons, psychotic persons, criminals, prostitutes, suicides, drunkards and morphinists, sexually perverted persons, and perhaps you know more. ## The Failures. Now in all these cases, if we are right, we shall expect to find a lack of ability to coöperate and really we do find it. We call them failures because they do not coöperate. The problem child does not contribute and therefore we are not contented with him and we want to change him so that he will coöperate. Now again we meet the same problem and the same meaning of life in the problem child and in neurotic persons. They do not coöperate; they want others to coöperate. The members of the family and the doctor should coöperate, and they will indulge, indulging and exploiting the coöperation of others, recognising the idea of coöperation—for the others. That psychotic persons will not coöperate because they are not socially interested in others is so obvious that I do not need to speak about it. That the criminal will not coöperate is also very obvious. On the contrary, he wants to avoid coöperation and that is an easier way because he has not the characteristics of a socially interested person, which are courage and optimism, self-confidence, patience, and so on, not to be afraid of defeat, facing the difficulties of life. The criminal has not these. He is not prepared, therefore. To touch one of the most important questions of our time, I would say he is not guilty. He cannot pay what is demanded. We have to prepare him if we want to do something in regard to crime. On this point I want to say a little word in regard to determinism and indeterminism. If the child is built up for four or five years his style is fixed. This child—or later this grown-up person—can act only along the lines of that style and can change it only if he has understood the lack and mistake in his style. He has not the right meaning of life. The problem child has a meaning of life, that others must submit "I have to rule." That is the meaning of life for the problem child: "I must have my own way." The neurotic person has a meaning of life: "the *others* have to serve and contribute." The criminal has a meaning of life: to have an easier way of earning his living, for instance; not the way of coöperation. The drunkard has a meaning of life: to escape from time to time from the problems of life where he should coöperate, always because of the fear of defeat, and because he is not sure of success. And you can see, if all the failures in life can be made more self-confident, more courageous, more interested in coöperation, they will be changed. You find the same among sexually perverted persons. They reverse the meaning of life, mostly culminating in this idea—not to be interested in procreation, the welfare of mankind, and so on. So we see the failure has always a mistaken meaning of life: not to coöperate. Among these failures we see some interesting characteristics which may lead our understanding further. For instance, all these failures are sensitive, high-tempered, affective. They are angry, they are timid, they have all the emotions very visible, very obvious, and we can understand they are not adapted; they do not feel a part of life and of the whole. They feel always irritated and are always irritable, and we can understand it, because they are not living in this world, which means to coöperate; they have another idea of life, another meaning, and therefore they are sensitive. They are always impatient because they are sure that their success is in danger. They do not feel strong and courageous in life. This is what we find among problem children, neurotic persons, criminals, suicides, all persons who do not find a meaning in life. They will even write in a last letter: "Life has no *meaning*, and therefore I kill myself." *They are timid.* Even criminals, you see, are cowards. We cannot be fooled by them because we have seen them escaping the social problems of life, occupation, and so on. We are sure they are not courageous, and you can see in the very structure of their crimes that they are cowards. They seek isolation, darkness, they have weapons against unarmed men, they surprise another person, and so on. They are in a majority when they attack, and so we cannot agree that they are as courageous as is sometimes believed. Theirs is always the attitude of the coward. Their characteristics agree with what we have explained; *the mistaken meaning of life.* They are also pessimistic. They do not look to the future, are not interested in the future of mankind, and are always looking for *pleasure* and not for *happiness.* So again in the failures; we find that they have failed in finding the right meaning of life which means coöperation. ## Heredity: Environment: Education. Now to another question: Whence comes this ability of coöperation? Is it an inherited instinct? Is it inborn? *That* is not possible, because, especially in regard to characteristics, we see how they must be *worked out* and *accomplished*, and how they always involve social relations which do not exist before the child is born. We have seen that we can prepare persons and correct failures and make persons more socially interested if they are convinced, as we seem to be convinced, that coöperation is the right meaning of life. Therefore it cannot be an inherited *entity.* That there must be an inherited *ability* we cannot question, because we cannot develop anything for which we have not an inherited ability. This seems to me to be not great science but commonplace. And now perhaps also environment. Environment does not matter in this regard. We try to interfere in the right way and impress the child in such a way that he becomes trained in social adjustment and coöperation, but we are not wholly sure if our interferences really work rightly. We must look beyond this argument and adjust our interference and coöperation. We must look for the results and we must interfere in the results. And on this point we say that it can only be done by education: education in the broadest sense. Therefore such an explanation as this of to-day means putting back education on its right throne again, against all other views, against the views of heredity and environment. We are responsible, we educators. And we say that ability to coöperate *can be and must be trained.* It is as with a subject like history or geography. If a person is not *trained* in geography, and would solve a geographical question, you will see that he fails. There is another aspect. As long as a person is not tested in regard to his ability to coöperate, for example through being in a favourable situation where he is not confronted, you cannot be absolutely sure in regard to his degree of coöperation. On this point we begin to understand why, for instance, in hard times people reach the limit of their ability to coöperate. Suicides increase, crime increases, the neuroses and psychoses increase, because the ability of coöperation stops at this point; it does not go further. If a person is tempted too much, so far as we can see in our time there are many persons who, if they were tempted, would show that socially they were not rightly prepared. Therefore we say always that the failures reach a certain point which is the crucial point. It is their test examination. At this point it appears that their preparation for social adjustment is not rightly accomplished. I have touched on the problem of training. The mother begins, the father has to continue, and the other children and circumstances from outside. You can see how prejudices may hinder the development of social adjustment, and how poverty, misery, sufferings, imperfect organs, and sickness, may make a child more interested in his own person than in others. The greatest part of failures we find springing from pampered *dependent* children because these children are more interested in themselves. They want to exploit others, to appropriate the others. They want to utilise the coöperation of others, and they do not feel strong enough themselves in facing a certain social problem. When they have to face a problem it appears in their whole behaviour and attitude that they do not feel prepared. They do not feel able—and so they express it—to solve this problem. I have called this the *inferiority complex*, and you find many failures have expressed failure to solve the social problems. We understand now why they do not feel able; because they are not trained in coöperation, they have not enough social interest. Now the child's inferiority complex may be like a stimulus. But the dependent children do not try to compensate this feeling by feeling worth while. They have *excluded* this way of coöperation, and therefore they are looking for a goal of personal superiority where there is a feeling of being more than others; for instance, the urge to oppress others, to kill others, to deprive others, to make others unhappy, and torture others, to disesteem others, to resent them, and so on. You find it in all the causes of failure I have mentioned, that they are striving for a superiority, a personal superiority, which is not useful for the whole of mankind. And this goal of superiority they do not find in the power of coöperation. And so, may we not say that on all points we can prove that the meaning of life must be for the greatest part coöperation? And now we have to make it living. [^1]: A lecture delivered to the London Branch of the International Society for Individual Psychology, at University College, London on Jan. 15th, 1931. --- *Fuente:* "The Meaning of Life", by Dr. Alfred Adler (of Vienna), *The Lancet*, vol. 217 (1931, vol. I), no. 5605, 31 January 1931, pp. 225-228 (section "Addresses and Original Articles"); digitised copy at archive.org. Transcribed from the archive.org OCR and collated throughout with the page images (corrected among others: "hang-dog", missing in the OCR; "has to guess"; "obvious"; "the characteristics"; the diaeresis in "coöperate", the journal's spelling, and the italics, lost in the OCR). The same issue carries an unsigned editorial note on the lecture ("Individual Psychology", p. 249), not by Adler, which is not transcribed.