But we know the answer to this (thanks to science); it's just not a very intuitively satisfying answer (and only gets less so with training in philosophy, I think).

As I wrote in an article on the topic, "We are mostly sure that the meaning of life is simply: more life. And we ought to accept that meaning/goal only because our sense of “ought” itself is either aligned with that goal or it’s broken — and we got the ought from an is not through some rational stratagem but because the ought-module is implemented physically and it simply is what it is."

https://medium.com/@ichoran/solved-the-meaning-of-life-and-the-is-ought-problem-b8a62283ba

Despite that part being somewhat unsatisfying, there is plenty to be satisfied with in its embrace because, well, it's pretty close to what people have been doing instinctively since forever, just without adequate justification.