He begins by presenting the philosophy of despair/absurdity and sharpens the point that it is impossible to reach absolute certainty in any area of life, especially regarding the meaning/purpose of life.
Later he argues that for the religious person the struggle is even greater because of the problem of tzimtzum (the very being of God contradicts any possibility of existence whatsoever), and in his words, the religious person deals not only with absurdity but with paradox.
His solution to this he finds in Teaching 64 in Likkutei Moharan. It’s a little hard for me to explain, but the idea is that the meaning of life is revealed only through one kind of experience or another, like melody, dance, wonder, and so on. (Because with empirical-rational tools there is no way at all to clarify the matter.)

My well-known view is that this is just empty verbiage. Hasidic nonsense babble that sounds deep and contains no content.

I assume you agree with the problem? (That there is no way, with empirical/rational tools, to reach absolute certainty regarding the meaning of life.) Or not?
If so, what is your way out of it?
Have you ever looked at that Teaching 64?

This is the kind of illusion on which Hasidic nonsense, and nonsense in general, is based. You’re asking whether I agree that there’s no way to reach certainty? I absolutely agree. So what? Why look for certainty? Neither Teaching 64 nor any other nonsense of that sort will give you the longed-for certainty. One simply has to come to terms with the facts of life: a person has no way of reaching certainty. And there is neither any need nor any benefit in empty verbiage that is “beyond reason.”

So with what tools do you suggest a person search for meaning in life? Whatever feels reasonable to him? How is that different from various Hasidic suggestions? Or do you actually prefer to adopt the view that life has no meaning at all (or alternatively to see this as yet another proof of God’s existence, of the obligation to serve Him)?

I don’t know what “meaning of life” means. Usually that’s a concept from the world of psychology (see column 159). I know that truth is sought with the tools of reason, and that’s it. Whether that gives you meaning or not, decide for yourself. What seems reasonable to you is common sense, and that is indeed the only tool we have. This is not different from Hasidic suggestions, because in my opinion there is no such thing as Hasidic suggestions. If they raise points that make sense and sound reasonable to you—fine. But if they tell you to ignore reason and use something else—then they shouldn’t feed you nonsense.

I’m reading your response here, and your books in general. They are interesting, fascinating, and instructive, and a great deal can be learned from them. But I’m becoming more and more convinced that they express only one very particular side of things. It’s like looking at a house only from its north side. “I’m on the north side,” the observer cries, “how can I see the south side?” And that’s true. If he insists on standing where he is and remaining only on the north side, he will never be able to see the south side. So too with you, Rabbi Michi. You look at things only through the eye of reason. But the fact is that a person has other sides too—a world of emotions, a world of action, and so on. A human being, in my view, would be totally crippled if his life were based only on emotion, or only on reason, or only on the powers of action. A person is a whole. He has to feel and experience. The more you deny that, it is still clear that you too, in all the effort you invest in spreading your outlook, do it in the end because you derive satisfaction from it (“are emotionally fulfilled”) by those activities. Therefore your denial of the need for meaning resembles the stubbornness of someone rooted in front of the north side who refuses to move his feet and go around to the south side.

I only repeat my warning that statements of this kind may hide behind them intellectual laziness and an attempt to evade problems by declaring that not everything is reason, etc.
The slogans being said here don’t tell me much. I’d be happy if you gave an example and showed where I’m missing something or looking in a partial way. In my opinion you won’t be able to bring such a case, or what you call emotion there will really be reason (intuition). I’ve explained more than once that emotion has no significance in decision-making except to provide data to reason.

Exactly the opposite. Reason has no significance in decision-making except to provide data.
Reason can never tell me how I should behave; it can tell me how I should behave if I don’t want to hurt other people, or if I want to act according to the Torah—what the laws of the Torah are.
Or if I want to live, then I need to drink water.
But decision-making is in the hands of the will. Will is influenced by emotion, and also by reason, and also by urges and drives. It should preferably be influenced more by reason, but usually that isn’t the case.

When a person asks what the meaning of life is, that means he hasn’t taken care of himself; something is missing, there are lacks, unsatisfied desires, and so on.

“Cursed is the ground because of you; in toil shall you eat of it all the days of your life. Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field.
By the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread, until you return to the ground, for from it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you shall return.”

A punishment for all those who want to be like God