A Critical Analysis of Annemarie Van Stee’s “Not Altogether Meaningless Lives”

In Not Altogether Meaningless Lives, Annemarie Van Stee argues that the broad topic of meaning in life should be divided into two distinct questions: the existential crisis question and the existential choice question. She supports this distinction by appealing to the cases of Matthew Wong, Etty Hillesum, and Sam Galesloot. This paper challenges her proposal. First, it argues that Van Stee does not sufficiently define the subject matter of her inquiry. Second, this paper argues that the cases she presents are insufficient to establish that the existential crisis question and the existential choice question should be treated as separate questions. Third, it argues that her discussion conflates descriptive and normative questions. Accordingly, this paper concludes that Van Stee has not sufficiently established her central claim.