"What is the meaning of life?" is only one of many ways to verbalize existential angst; the somewhat vague need to "figure everything out" or "figure out what the point of it all is." In my own life, I've addressed the need with a philosophical discourse that starts with no assumptions whatsoever about life and goes from there.
The first thing that occurs to me, as it has before to many greater minds than mine, is that in the end there is really only one question: do I go on living or not? The most famous expression of this sentiment is of course "To be, or not to be: that is the question" from Shakespeare. Nobody can answer this question for you and given the limits of the human mind, even you can never answer the question in any completely satisfying way. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein said it perfectly: "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence."
OK, so you've decided to go on living. Great. Then I can say with confidence that there is a meta-meaning to everyone's life: the purpose of life is to pursue happiness. That is our only real occupation on planet Earth if we decide to stick around.
The people who are best at this pursuit are pretty clearly those who do
not live particularly mindful existences, those happy-go-lucky souls who don't really plan their path through life or reflect on the choices they make and yet have a grand old time anyway. However, if we must continue this discourse, then the next step is to address the question "What is the best way to pursue happiness?" It seems to me that there are three major approaches to such a pursuit: 1) try to satisfy your needs, 2) try to eliminate your needs, or 3) ignore your needs and do what God or some higher calling tells you. If you look closely enough, the distinctions between these approaches are fuzzy, and even without fuzziness, people can choose combinations of more than one approach. Moreover, identifying these three approaches does not suggest which one is correct for any given person. However, to me this framework has been useful as a foundation for beginning the search for a personal best path.
So what do the three approaches mean in terms of day-to-day existence? Well, an example of approach 1 is the default way of life for most people: get a good job, a good family, some good hobbies and then you're all set. Examples of approach 2 are certain (usually Eastern) styles of living such as asceticism and nontheistic Buddhism. An example of approach 3 is a monastic Catholic monk or an entirely selfless charity worker or something similar. Most people on this forum are probably on path number 1 and are having a hard time satisfying a particular need: the need for human companionship.
Next question?
