Existentialism offers a more coherent answer to the meaning of life than Hinduism or simulation theory, because it grounds meaning in human agency rather than unfalsifiable metaphysical systems.
Existentialism offers a more coherent answer to the meaning of life than Hinduism or simulation theory, because it grounds meaning in human agency rather than unfalsifiable metaphysical systems. While Hinduism provides a richer moral framework than simulation theory, both ultimately fail to justify why life has value.
All three frameworks begin from the same problem: we cannot fully trust our perception of reality. Descartes showed through methodical doubt that our senses can deceive us, and that the only certainty is the act of thinking itself, cogito ergo sum. This raises the question: if reality is uncertain, where does meaning come from?
Simulation theory modernizes this doubt by suggesting our world may be a constructed reality. But it offers no guidance on how to live. If we are simulated, we might simply be an experiment or entertainment. It also leads to infinite regress: who created the simulators’ reality? It explains a possible how, but never a why.
Hinduism takes the why more seriously. Karma, dharma, samsara and moksha create a moral framework with direction and purpose. However, karma assigns responsibility across lifetimes without any memory of past lives, which makes that responsibility hard to justify. The concept of maya also risks undermining the moral weight of suffering. If the goal is to transcend the world, why take worldly ethics seriously?
Sartre argued that humans are not born with a fixed purpose but must create one through their choices. Camus confronted the absurd and argued we must create meaning anyway, consciously and defiantly. The myth of Sisyphus mirrors samsara in structure but differs in one crucial way: Sisyphus owns his struggle rather than waiting for liberation. Existentialist responsibility requires no metaphysical system and does not dismiss the reality of suffering.
Simulation theory raises the right doubts but offers no answers. Hinduism offers answers but relies on claims that are unfalsifiable and, in the case of karma, potentially unjust. Existentialism faces the same uncertainty as both but concludes that meaning must be self-created, which holds up regardless of whether reality is physical, divine or simulated.
I would love to hear what you think and where you feel this argument could be improved or challenged.