Of course one does. Every skill requires study. There are differences of course, but the process of gradual accumulation of knowledge is the same. — MondoR

I don’t see how doing photography is going to give you any leads into questions about life.

To see something in a new way — MondoR

Do you think you need a camera to do this?

It’s seems to me that you think the meaning to life is just doing things. We study, we learn, we create new things. For what purpose? — Brett

Because it is interesting and enjoyable. Ask an astronomer or mathematician about the enjoyment of learning or discovery.. Ask an athlete or a dancer. Or ask me? Really, it's fun! The emotion of fun?

Do you think you need a camera to do this? — Brett

A camera adds additional dimensions.

I can understand that someone might go to another country and take photos of unusual cultures or locations and then that person brings them home to show others how the world is different out there. But that’s not what you’re saying. You’re saying just the act of taking photos gives meaning to life. But I don’t see how.

Are you having fun in your life?

Really, it's fun! There emotion of fun? — MondoR

Can that really be all to the meaning of life? We’re here just to have fun?

I can understand that someone might go to another country and take photos of unusual cultures or locations and then that person brings them home to show others how the world is different out there. But that’s not what you’re saying. You’re saying just the act of taking photos gives meaning to life. But I don’t see how. — Brett

Visit a photography forum and observe what they are discussing.

Can that really be all to the meaning of life? We’re here just to have fun? — Brett

Pretty much. To learn about ourselves and our universe, and have fun doing it. The alternative is boredom and possibly depression.

Visit a photography forum and observe what they are discussing. — MondoR

You might be confusing satisfaction with meaning.

Are you having fun in your life? — MondoR

First of all fun is a very subjective term. Secondly we can be happy and unhappy, maybe in equal measure. Does that mean that unhappiness is the meaning of life?

You might be confusing satisfaction with meaning. — Brett

They are the same. Life isn't really that complicated. People enjoy having fun and maybe a good laugh now and then.

Can that really be all to the meaning of life? We’re here just to have fun?
— Brett

Pretty much. To learn about ourselves and our universe, and have fun doing it. The alternative is boredom and possibly depression. — MondoR

Once again boredom and depression are subjective. Not running around doing things is not necessarily boredom and depression.

Life isn't really that complicated. People enjoy having fun and maybe a good laugh now and then. — MondoR

Fine. Just don’t tell me it’s the meaning of life.

First of all fun is a very subjective term. Secondly we can be happy and unhappy, maybe in equal measure. Does that mean that unhappiness is the meaning of life? — Brett

Of course. Everyone has fun in their own way.

Unhappiness gives us happiness. It's cyclical. Without unhappiness, we wouldn't have happiness. Isn't the Universe a wonder?

Life isn't really that complicated. — MondoR

For some people it’s very complicated, in so many ways.

Isn't the Universe a wonder? — MondoR

From who’s point of view?

Fine. Just don’t tell me it’s the meaning of life. — Brett

Well, I just did, but if course you can live any kind of life you choose. I know lots of people who deny themselves fun and get very depressed. It takes lots of effort to keep oneself from having any fun.

know lots of people who deny themselves fun and get very depressed. — MondoR

I’m not saying fun is not good for you, I’m saying I can’t find any way to see it as the meaning to life.

I’m not saying fun is not good for you, I’m saying I can’t find any way to see it as the meaning to life. — Brett

Then search for your own meaning and I hope you enjoy doing it!

Then search for your own meaning and I hope you enjoy doing it! — MondoR

Bingo!

Is there a kind of life that wouldn't be pessimistic and was worth living? Can you define that? Some of the stuff you listed can feel worth it at times, and make life seem enjoyable. Whether it adds up to a meaningful life worth living depends on the individual. Antinatalists seem to think people are fooling themselves.

I see it both ways, just depending on my mood. — Marchesk

I'd like to change the focus of the question. A life where one is dealing with overcoming the next thing. Is this right to give on behalf of someone else? I'd say no. It is not escapable. So a life where one can escape from any burden, any overcoming of the next thing at any time, maybe. But that is not the case. One must always be dealing with, whether one likes it or not. There is no escape from it.

So I'm just reframing your question. I am not denying there are "good experiences", just that providing someone with dealing with situations, is not worth good experiences. While good experiences are a good thing, being given a sort of "default mode" of having to overcome, deal with, reckon with, etc. is the focus here. Is that right, good, correct, necessary, worth it to bring about on behalf of someone else? Is it necessary to continue? Why? What is the justification other than sometimes good experiences happen too. Surely, that can't be it as to why it is okay. An ideology is perpetuated that people must continue with the survival, comfort, entertainment game and of course the contingent harms that befall everyone.

To demonstrate the political nature of this, let's look at this pandemic. Here we are with a pandemic that kills people at various rates. It is unpredictable whether it will be mild or cause havoc for certain individuals. This is just but ONE thing that people are burdened with and must overcome. Just one example. But the current political idea is that humans must carry forward, continue to breed more people who will experience things similar to this. That is an example of a contingent harm. You can make a clear argument it is also about the necessary component of survival as well. Either way, it is an overcoming. It is a burden. It is having to deal with a situation and get by. Maneuvering around the social, physical, mental aspects of life. But why must people be thrown into this game in the first place? Why must the dealing with game be continued? Clearly an ideology of sorts wins out every time more people are thrown into the game. It is not just an individual thing either. It is institutionalized, culturally encouraged, strengthened.

We are not doing a sufficient job debating the real political ideological underpinnings of throwing more people into existence. That is the political divide, as the other thread is about. Left/right political debates bypass the optimist/pessimist debate of whether this enterprise of living as an embodied person is good, necessary, and moral to provide to another person. Rather, this pandemic should be a major reason to start veering towards upheaving the current default mode of continuing the enterprise. We can stop the dealing with for other people but we don't. We want to make ourselves these heroes or beacons of some sort of mission of humanity. I am going to be reviled for defending the other side of this idea. For providing the pessimistic reasons otherwise. People are going to cast aspersions. Don't be fooled. This is a political debate. The more traction philosophical pessimism gets in any way, the more the optimists will deride the other side with angry, forceful personal attacks and the like. It is human nature to ignore, sublimate, distract, and deny what is the case.

Having reached some agreement about this and giving it more thought I still have a snag.

Living the ascetic life, living the life of a Buddhist monk or a Christian in a monastery, it seems to me to be a realm separated from the world, where the walls are a boundary. Life inside is sustained by what is given to them. I know some produce food for themselves with gardens and whatever else they may take part in, but their survival is guaranteed by the outside world, which they do not have to contend with. So the problem of life being competition to survive, or in schopenhauer1 relentless struggle through the day still seems to ring true to me.

So life doesn’t have to be about competition or survival, but for who? — Brett

Well, I don’t think that living the ascetic life, or any form of isolation from the world, is the answer. Buddha’s path through life points to the fundamental contradiction of existence/non-existence - it is this that we cannot escape from. To opt for an isolated ascetic life is really just to repeat the mistakes he sought to teach by his example.

Don’t get me wrong - I understand where @schopenhauer1 and yourself are coming from: a life perceived in isolation will always be a pointless struggle for survival, entertainment and/or comfort. If living is your focus, then this rings true.

Society is a manifestation of relational structures as value systems to be tested. If life was all about survival, then we would never feel comfortable in our success; if it was all about entertainment, then with success we would never survive; and if it was all about comfort, then in success we would suffer from boredom. Competition promises to lift us out of an individual, self-serving life, by drawing attention to (or creating the impression of) scarcity in resources, value or capacity in relation to others. In a comfortable life competition provides entertainment; in an active life it offers the illusion of survival; and in a high risk life it promises comfort.

But the way I see it, competition is just an illusion that keeps us where we are. Existence is not about living, and the fact that we are in a position to perceive the pointlessness of this individual striving is what enables us to render our existence - and by reduction, our life - meaningful. The fundamental impetus is not competition, but relation: increasing awareness, connection and collaboration enables us to escape from this pointless striving in a way that competition in life ultimately cannot deliver.

We buy into the apparent scarcity of resources, value or capacity, and it seems so real: every time we relate beyond our sense of self/identity, this impression that we are NOT the only one, but rather ‘one of’ a plurality, hits us where it hurts: my existence is not necessary, after all. It doesn’t matter in itself - either that, or, as @schopenhauer1 argues, it’s the only thing that does, and the illusion is reality after all. Life is not about competition or survival for those who accept the former.

If my individual existence is unnecessary, then all that I am and all that I acquire of resources, capacity and value exists only in relation to others. How I contribute to this bigger picture - to increasing awareness, connection and collaboration - matters regardless of all the potentiality I might acquire in a lifetime (and lose in a moment).