Abstract

The articleis devoted to consideration of Thaddeus Metz «fundamentality theory’s» vulnerabilities, criticized by Steven Kershnar. Submitted argument according to which these difficulties are the result of the lack of meaning of(in) life problem’s consideration from the stand-point of the history of philosophy. Mentioned consideration proving that the problem of «meaning in life», in the first place, is not «eternal» problem, but only a product of post-Enlightenment era; second, it is purely terminological form that externally combines at least three distinct teleological questions, rooted in historically different ontologies: (1) of the su-pernatural ultimate goal; (2) of the «naturally» justified value; (3) of the absence of any value. Metz have difficulties to prove the existence of meaning of(in) life because he sees it as an internally single problem that requires different types of responses.