existentialism is the preferred philosophy of life

To understand existentialism, I'll give a brief run down of other meaning of life philosophies and what they mean. For religious people, the meaning of life is simple and objective: God's command. But since it seems like there isn't a God, you might as well be deluding yourself, so what is the difference between having God choose your meaning and being high on heroin all the time? Nihlism would say there is no objective meaning to life. There is no god and we are just irrational fragments trying to make sense in an unrelenting black cosmos that has no direction. This seems to rest on the fallacy of division--just because the universe as a whole has no meaning, doesn't mean that we can't find meaning in our individual lives. Existetialism would say, there is no inherent meaning to life, but that isn't a problem, because you get to "roll your own meaning." You get to choose whatever meaning you want. You choose the rules. This philosophy was really influenced by Heidegger and associated mostly with Jean-Paul Sartre. And existentialism rests on one of Sartre's most famous lines: "Existence precedes essence." In other words, there is no such thing as human nature. This doesn't seem to be right. Aren't all humans pleasure seekers in one way or another? Do not all humans rely on knowledge, theirs or someone else's, as their means of survival? Here is another example: which of these does not fit with the others. When I grow up I want to be, A) a doctor, B) a detective, C) an engineer, D) a caterpillar. The first three fit into the realm of how humans survive and interact; we are social primates. Choice D obviously does not fit. So this brings me to what I think is a better philosophy of life, and that is Aristotelian virtue ethics. Aristotle and the greeks thought the meaning of life laid in human nature. A virtuoso violin players is one who plays the violin well, and a virtuous person is one who lives life well. And if character is built by practicing good habits, then the greeks thought that "eudaimonia" (which roughly translates into happiness or flourshing) would come about. I find this view striking because it lines up so well with some modern ideas about psychology (i.e. Maslow's hierarchy of needs). One criticism leveled by existentialism at other moral philosophies is that it leads to a "child-like" or "slave-like" morality. This certainly may be true of some religious philosophies. But virtue ethics leaves the door wide open for creative possibility in exercising virtue. You don't have to be a doctor, a detective, or an engineer--you get to choose from a mixed bag of goods. But there are limits. And existentialists can't accept this position. Which leads to some troubling conclusions if you follow the existentialism logic a little further. If the meaning of life is a sort of "collage" that you just get to make up, then anything flys. So, what then is so wrong about Adolf Hitler? If his purpose in life was to eliminate the jews, why would that be wrong if no meanings to life are any better than other meanings of life? Some existentialists would try to get out of this by claiming it might be preferable if other people look at your M.O.L "collage" and gave approval. But then this itself is conceding that we can establish some criterion for what makes one meaning of life view better than the other. I'll stop there for now.