Both Aristotle and Russell's view of meaning of life heavily rely on the notion of knowledge and using such notion as an external and higher point of view. In this paper, I will show that their point of views have been unsuccessful to look at the meaning of life because their way to look at the meaning of life is heavily relying on the notion of God or the universe, and such way to look at the meaning of life is problematic. Instead, the way of looking at the meaning of life should be in the way that individual manages to give one to his or her life.
1. Aristotle believes that knowledge of the first principles "is the ultimate thing for the sake of which we have come to be (2002, Section 17)." For him, this kind of knowledge is "not only knows what follow from the first principles," but also can possess "truth about the first principles." For Aristotle, theoretical wisdom must be pursued for its own sake and can make us free. In other words, being knowledge of the first principles, theoretical wisdom is knowledge of God, since "God is thought to be among the causes of all things and to be a first principle (2007, Book 1, section 2)."
Similarly, Bertrand Russell says that "the life of the instinctive man is shut up within the circle of his private interests (1997, p.157)." However, Russell believes that "if our life is to be great and free, we must escape this prison (1997, p.158)."" The main way of doing so is through knowledge, because "all acquisition of knowledge is an enlargement of the Self (ibid)." Through knowledge our mind "becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good (ibid)."