I might not be alone if I say that, as we go forward, it seems to me that the more advanced we are the more apathic we become. I feel we might not be prepared as a society to live without some set of strong beliefs dictating how our lives should be lived. I'm definitely not the first one to think about this issue but this goes definitely beyond religion and there are many different factors at play.
I am by no means advocating for a dogma that replaces the old ones, just pointing out what I think is a weak spot of our species.

I was tempted to put "in the west" instead of "modern world" but having some grasp of what's happening in China (young people having similar experiences as their western counterparts) I think they may fall under the same umbrella.

My question to you all is: is life from a philosophical existential point of view more difficult to live compared to 40 or 70 years ago; is it truly difficult to find meaning in today's life? If so, why?

PD: if you think there is a strong difference between the west and the rest of the world feel free to answer as if the question were about the west.

My reflex instinct lol is no. There's no more or less homogeneity. And no temptation has overtaken you except what is common to man.

Wisconsin Death Trip

i think a lot of the meaning of life comes from conflict. we feel our best when we are banding together with like minded folk in a righteous fashion against a strong enemy

we dont have any strong enemies. russia is sort of trying but they cant even beat their little brother who lives next door, and the biggest realistic threat they pose to the west is slightly higher heating costs

so, the battleground is no longer eg the fight against fascism, and is instead centered on the finer points of sexual politics within the corporate environment and so on. its ****ing boring. no wonder people are drawn to things such as Qanon and its a shame that you have to be ******ed to get involved in that sort of thing

basically we need ww3 to feel normal

Kafka and Philip Roth both said:

'The meaning of life is that it stops'.

This is such an enormous question and you could get hundreds of explanations, many of which will appear to compete with each other but in fact support one another.

I think a lot of western culture is just ****. Capitalism has flattened it out and commodified it. We teach our children how to be useful cogs in the machine. Most people think that succeeding in life means avoiding being exploited while exploiting those around them, as if life is a board game to win. We lie to each other and ourselves, about everything. I see mainstream society as a fascist death cult and I partake in it the minimum I have to in order just to survive. Basically all of our values, whether it's the ones we say we live up to, or the ones we actually live up to, all feel upside down to me.

Religion is just reaching for easy answers. Knowingly deluding oneself. Most versions of spirituality, whether animist or atheist in flavour, are just an upgrade on this. Ideas like 'leave the planet in a better state than we found it', 'be kind', 'learn just for the sake of learning', all these provide plenty of meaning that I see no need to supplant just because our ancestors worshipped the sun or whatever.

The more I learn about history, the more I try to centre my future learning and activities around fighting the four Cs: capitalism, colonialism, christianity and consumerism. They all play into each other, and between them account for close enough to 100% of the suffering and ills of the world that nothing else is on the radar.

That ties into to Secular Theory:
https://publicsquaremag.org/dialogue...igion-america/
I think nihilist philosophers find meaning in being nihilist philosophers, with being the operative word. Life of the mental sort is being or experiencing and that ranges all the way up to "just be" all the way down to "just sit," and everything in between. In other words, some don't find meaning 'in' life because they're always off somewhere other than the present.

With that said, sure, all the choices the last 40 or 70 years has exposed us to has created anxiety of choice. And confronted with all that is another group trying to convince us that the world is in fact flat to avoid the existential angst that comes with not being sure anymore. So in effect the same cause of exposure to more potential truths has lead different people through different channels to an anxiety caused by some inner desire to be certain of something. Or as one holocaust survivor put it quite well: Man's Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl

“Grant me one last wish, life should mean a lot less than this” - David Berman

Meaning is very overrated. Just try and enjoy ****.

That said, my answer to your question would be yes. This is a good thing though.

i think it was easier to "find meaning" 40-70 years ago because the world was a MUCH smaller place.. white men could find "meaning" in their blue collar job that had a pension supporting the wife and 2.3 kids without knowing **** about anything happening outside of their 20 mile radius. now thanks largely to reaganomics/corporate greed and ofcourse the internet we are constantly bombarded with BIGGER, BETTER, RICHER, while also having a less easy of a time sustaining the day to day things that were common of the "middle class" when that was a thing.

Instead of ‘meaning’, it’s more useful to use ‘meaningful progress’. There is a gap between the unacceptable status quo reality we reside in and our desired reality. As long as we feel like we are making meaningful progress in closing the gap, then we are at peace so to speak.

Reality checks expose our illusions of meaningful progress. They reveal that we are not actually closing the gap and make us feel like we are back at square one. In modern society, we are more connected / aware and encounter more reality checks which undermine our illusions of meaningful progress.

Reality checks are universally frustrating and often demoralizing, but for the truth seeker who realizes the emptiness of living the lie, reality checks are necessary and even welcome.

I think this reply nails it on the head. As a species, purpose is typically derived from conflict / attainment of power; that may very well also be true for every living thing on Earth. As a people, we don't have many external conflicts like we used to, so we end up in the current climate where internal divisions are at an all-time high, sometimes over pretty innocuous things. In the United States, class divisions are a particular focal point for conflict, even though there have been few times in history that things have been as good economically for everybody as they have been in the recent past.

On a micro level, it is important for each of us to find meaning for ourselves. Victor Frankl wrote a very popular book on the topic. On a macro level, this is a more complicated issue that does have real world consequences.

Good OP and interesting replies! That there are so many different perspectives on this is refreshing.

How Nietzsche / Schmittian. Only if we redefine conflict in a very wide / loose sense, to the point where we have differing ideas conflicting with each other. And even in that sense, most of the meaning comes from the resolution of that conflict. There is plenty of meaning to be derived that is about stability and co-existence and sustainable living and providing goodness and love. That there is a lot of conflict, whether literal or conceptual, does not mean that conflict is the only thing or even the biggest thing that provides meaning.

Bolded is a very Nietzschean take on the world. Too much so imo.

Contrary to what some posters in this forum think (and one poster in particular), I also see only limited value in drawing parallels between humans and a pride of lions or whatever. Humans are animals, of course, but human intelligence, psychology, and technology make it possible for humans to derive purpose (and experience suffering) from a much wider range of activities than is possible for a lion.

On a personal level? Maybe. On a society-at-large level? I'm not so sure.

FWIW, I've never read any Nietzsche and am generally unfamiliar with his ideas.

Small minds are apathetic to the greats. Mediocre minds read the greats. Big minds rediscover the greats.

Which type of mind are you?

I'm off that scale. Which side is a matter of opinion.

Reading is for nerds!

I suspect you're far more familiar with his ideas than you think. You don't need to have read him, directly or indirectly, but his ideas have disseminated into wider society pretty effectively since his work. If you see life and meaning as provided mostly by conflict, you're echoing him.