Words for “Life”

We use the word life in too many different ways. It can refer to an individual, to daily living, to the quality of being animate that all beings share, even to the entirety of all the living things on the planet. Most of the time the ambiguity is harmless. But sometimes philosophic discussions bog down because people, without realizing it, are drawing on different senses of this sprawling term.

Here’s a closer look at four of the common uses. It can refer to: (1) the span from birth to death—his whole life; (2) the activities and experiences of daily existence—this makes my life easier; (3) the state or the characteristics of being animate—there is life in her yet; and (4) living things collectively— the evolution of life.

These meanings easily blur into each other. For example, in the statement I’m happy with my life, is life a reference to life span (1) or to the experience of each day (2) or some combination of both? In Life on earth began 3.8 billion years ago, does the word point to the state, the phenomenon, of being alive (3) or to living things collectively (4)?

Which label covers them all: “beings,” “creatures,” or “living things”? (weed-science-classes.wikspaces.com)

Which label covers them all: “beings,” “creatures,” or “living things”?

This last definition—living things collectively—is one of the meanings that I wish we had a separate noun for. In writing this blog I often want to refer not just to animals or plants or microbes but to all of them. But we don’t have a plain word that does that.

Organism might be a candidate but not a strong one. Dating from the 18th century, organism can refer to any living thing, but its focus is on structures and systems. (It is related to organization.) Organism has its place in the laboratory, but it doesn’t work very well for broad references to the totality of life. Unless you’re a scientist, you may not be inclined to  marvel at “the wonders of the organisms around us.”

Terms that are more user-friendly than organism have other, and interesting, limitations. Beings would seem to fit the bill. It seems broad enough. As a form of the verb to be, it calls attention to the actual existence of lives. It has spiritual dignity. The trouble is that it refers to humans and occasionally to animals but not at all to plants and microbes. It would be odd to talk about a carrot growing in the garden as a being.

The same goes for creature, as in The forest is filled with interesting creatures. Creatures excludes plants and microbes (unless the microbes are moving around under a microscope and looking large—looking “creature-like”). The on-line Webster’s dictionary gives an interesting example: “Few living creatures can survive without water.” Plants obviously need water, but I doubt they would be covered by this sentence, in the eyes of most readers. Creatures walk, fly, swim, or slither; they don’t put down roots or bloom. Like beings, creatures came into use six centuries ago when plants and animals occupied separate categories of natural philosophy.

In the absence of satisfactory single words that refer to all living things, we’ve turned to phrases. Graceful combinations include the living world and the world of life. But I find these phrases too indirect. They don’t refer to living things themselves directly; they refer to their “world.” So I usually stick with living things. It’s clunky, but it points to all things living and nothing but that.

There is another meaning of the word life that I think needs separating out. This is sense number 3, “the state of being alive.” We have no noun to label the quality of being alive in the way that we can name death as the quality of being dead. We have alive of course as an everyday and precise adjective, but we don’t have a good noun version of it.

An example of the use of “livingness” by sculptor Louise Nevelson (izquotes.com)

An example of the use of “livingness” by sculptor Louise Nevelson

There is aliveness, which appears in descriptions of art and fashion. It means that something has exuberance and vitality; it’s used to hype a product. It rarely if ever refers just to the state of being alive.

I use livingness. It’s a rare but real word; it is in the dictionary. True, it’s bland and clunky. But it’s effective enough at naming the characteristic at hand. I’ll stick with it for now.

It’s generally true that the speakers of a language have the words that they need in order to talk about what they want to talk about. The profusion of meanings of the word life probably reflects how intertwined in our psyches most of these meanings are. But it would make our discussions about some big topics easier if we could separate out some of those meanings when we needed to.

5 thoughts on “Words for “Life”

  1. This last definition—living things collectively—is one of the meanings that I would find it very helpful to have a separate noun for.

    How about biosphere? Mind you some of the Eastern philosophies suggest that the distinction between ‘I’ and everything else is an illusion. You could even argue that ‘living things’ are temporary entropy pumps, exporting entropy away from the localised order, but still increasing entropy overall. Doesn’t capture the subjective experience of feeling alive though.

    • Living things are more ordered than their surroundings, but they achieve this by a greater increase in the disorder elsewhere. Think modern heat pumps, concentrating low level heat from elsewhere into higher grade heat in a smaller area (temporarily).

      Animals eat food which is used to generate energy and form tissues and children, but the process is inefficient and generates wastes and waste heat. Plants use sunlight and unassembled nutrients to generate energy and tissues and seeds. But when the organism dies the ‘concentrated’ energy is released into the environment again – but at a low grade..

  2. Biota has possibilities. The definitions describe it as referring to the living things in a region or period, but that can certainly include the globe and the long duration–the global biota, the total biota. Both biota and biosphere point to living things in the context of their environment. Biosphere emphasizes that context (“the global ecological system integrating all living beings and their relationships, including their interaction with the elements of the lithosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere”–Wikipedia). Biota, on the other hand, seems to focus on the living things themselves. I’ll try it out.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s