Abstract

Susan Wolf has developed a promising answer to the problem of the meaning of – or better in – life’. Wolf’s hybrid-view of meaning in life can be briefly summarized by the catchphrase: ‘meaning arises when subjective attraction meets objective attractiveness’. Accordingly, on her account, both an objective and a subjective element are needed for a life to be meaningful. For the objective element at least four characteristics can be identified in Wolf’s writings: the element must be subject-independent (independency claim), it must ground the subject’s fulfilment (grounding claim), the subject must be able to recognize it as source of fulfilment (possibility of recognition claim) and the subject can be fallible regarding this recognition (possibility of fallibility claim). Apart from this, Wolf is silent about objectivity. This is a gap in her account. Additionally, objectivity seems to be a highly metaphysically burdened category. Therefore, searching for an alternative account might be worthwhile. I argue that objectivity should be replaced by rationality. Judgments about meaning in life are evaluative judgments. It is argued that evaluations are expressions of pro- or con-attitudes and that these expressions can be rational. If one has a pro-attitude towards a certain project of one’s life, and if it is rational to have it, then there is to that extent meaning in life. So, meaning arises when subjective attraction meets rational attractiveness.