That is a presumptuous title for a 700-word essay. It is also the title of a 36-lecture course I'm listening to from the Teaching Company. Dr. Jay Garfield, a philosophy professor at Smith College, is the lecturer. He covers a wide variety of thinkers and writings, including the Bhagavad-Gita, Aristotle, the Book of Job, Daoism, the Buddha, Zen, Nietzsche, Gandhi, Lame Deer, and the Dalai Lama.

He does not discuss John-Paul Sartre, who believed the meaning of life is how you live it. Nor does he cover Mr. Natural as drawn by R. Crumb. When Mr. Natural is asked, "What does it all mean?" he replies, "Don't mean shit."

Few of the thinkers worried about an afterlife, and at least one of them, David Hume, would laugh at the idea. Hume was denied a position at Glasgow University because of his atheism.

Some were men of action (Gandhi, Marcus Aurelius). One was elected to Parliament (John Stuart Mill). At least two were professors (Nietzsche, Kant). One was a slave (Epictetus). One was a rodeo rider in his youth (Lame Deer). None of them were women.

It's been almost half a century since I took a college course. This one didn't have midterms or papers, so my take-away of knowledge is limited. Like all students, I blame the professor.

As I listened, I found myself arguing with a number of the thinkers. Aristotle says the highest good for humans is happiness. I don't buy that. The Book of Job taught me little, since Job is punished for no good reason except that God wants to win a bet with the Devil. As for Daoism, Confucianism and Buddhism, I'm just too old and too much a product of Western thought to devote the time I'd need for a true understanding.

On the other hand, I found portions that were useful. Epictetus notes that we didn't get to choose the transition from nonexistence to existence at our births, and we don't get to choose the transition from existence to nonexistence at our deaths. Somehow that is comforting.

Kant's emphasis on using reason against political or ecclesiastical authority is appealing. I think John Stuart Mill's defense of free speech is vital to present-day America, but Facebook might change his mind.

Of all the philosophers covered, the two I liked most were Gandhi and Lame Deer. Gandhi lived an ascetic life, rejecting material goods and capitalism. When he died he owned eyeglasses, a pen, and his dhoti. I do not intend to live like that. On the other hand, his idea of active resistance to unjust laws is inspiring. He and his followers acted, but in a manner that would not harm the people they were opposing.

Suppose Gandhi, instead of leading peaceful demonstrations, had collected weaponry, recruited a few hundred followers, and taken to the hills to launch an armed insurrection. He would be a footnote in the history books. His success in achieving Indian independence against the largest empire in the world is still awe-inspiring.

On the other hand, I'm not sure he realized how fortunate he was to be opposing the British. Not that the British were above violence; look up "Amritsar massacre" for confirmation. Nonetheless, I don't think Gandhi's tactics would have worked in Nazi Germany. I'm not even sure they would work today against the KeystoneXL pipeline.

John Lame Deer (1900-1976) was a Lakota Sioux from the Rosebud Reservation. He emphasized that we are all part of the natural order that enfolds us. He wrote that the soldiers at Little Big Horn had been paid before the battle, and the bills were blowing around the grass after the battle. The Indians collected some of them and gave them to their children to play with. He noted how a rancher would kill a thousand prairie dogs so one more steer could graze.

He pointed out that in the American view, everything–grass, prairie dogs, buffalo, the Black Hills–was all seen in monetary terms, and how in our cubicles and our homes we construct our own prisons. He said we must learn that we are natural objects, part of a large web of life, and not fear our inevitable death. I can live with that.

~ Roy Christman