Virtual Reality and the Meaning of Life

Abstract

It is commonly assumed that a virtual life would be less meaningful (perhaps even meaningless). As virtual reality technologies develop and become more integrated into everyday lives, this poses a challenge for those who care about meaning in life. In this chapter, it is argued that the common assumption about meaninglessness and virtuality is mistaken. After clarifying the distinction between two different visions of virtual reality, four arguments are presented for thinking that meaning is possible in virtual reality. Following this, four objections are discussed and rebutted. The chapter concludes that we can be cautiously optimistic about the possibility of meaning in virtual worlds.

Artificial intelligence, superefficiency and the end of work: a humanistic perspective on meaning in life

“…However, he apparently still does not regard them as objective values of the meaningful dimension, but again merely as direct elements of human flourishing and well-being. In contrast, Danaher argues somewhat differently in his most recent text "Virtual Reality and the Meaning of Life" [12], where he explicitly counts some of the values mentioned (social relationships and excellent skills) among those objective values on which a meaningful life can be based in a virtual world of games. 27 The only way that Danaher's theory can go some way to solving this problem is to see the complex human abilities cultivated in game contexts that contribute to its thriving as a specific form of artistry that as such at the same time embodies the value of beauty-similar to what applies to a ballet, for example.…”

“…18 Many begin with the 10 Some recent monographs take into account the topic of creating meaning through work [9,15,17,34,40]. 11 See, for example, the original formulation by Danaher [8] and the subsequent considerations by Danaher [10], Danaher/Nyholm [11] and Danaher [12]. 12 See Bradford [3,4].…”

“…11 See, for example, the original formulation by Danaher [8] and the subsequent considerations by Danaher [10], Danaher/Nyholm [11] and Danaher [12]. 12 See Bradford [3,4]. 13 For such an attempt see Danaher/Nyholm [11, sec.…”

“…For the suggestion to emphasize this point we would like to thank an anonymous reviewer. 18 See, for example, the reactions of Tigard [39] and Scripter [35] and the further elaboration of the problem in Danaher [12]. question of whether and how this challenge actually exists, and if so, then how to deal with it.…”