Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The search for a single principle that explains why human beings act as they do has occupied philosophers, psychologists, economists, and theologians for millennia. In physics, a “theory of everything” denotes a hypothetical framework that unifies all fundamental interactions; in this paper the phrase is used in an analogous but metaphorical sense, to denote a proposition that purports to explain the ultimate purpose of all human action. We present thirteen candidate propositions, each of the form “whatever you do, ultimately it is to attain X and help others attain X”: the Happiness, Kindness, Peace, Money, Health, Technology, Love, Satisfaction, Excellence, Respect, Intelligence, GOD, and Parents Theories of Everything. For each theory we state the proposition, review supporting literature from philosophy, psychology, economics, and religious studies, illustrate its application, and discuss its limitations. We then compare the theories, propose a taxonomy that groups them into families, and discuss their falsifiability. This is Version 1; later versions will correct errors in this article and add further theories.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Satish Gajawada (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: