First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Who do we live for exactly?
42415 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / New Jersey, USA
Offline
Posted 5/30/16
I get the feeling that nobody is really answering the question correctly.
35 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F
Offline
Posted 5/30/16
To make the world a better place.
26418 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / Maryland
Offline
Posted 5/30/16 , edited 5/30/16
We live to experience life and if somebody disparages that opportunity by suiciding then it bothers people that have lost their loved ones to fates hand and not their own.
bhl88 
75211 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 5/30/16
Nonbelievers: Living the fact that there's only one life.

Religious: To go to heaven.
Posted 5/30/16
We serve ourselves through every action.
19120 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/30/16 , edited 5/30/16
We live to have fun. Enjoy life.
45489 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 5/30/16

qualeshia3 wrote:

I get the feeling that nobody is really answering the question correctly.


Depends. Some people live for themselves, some people live for others. Some people are just alive, regardless. Some don't live for other people, but for specific purposes, such as ideals or goals. You can't really expect some billion people to all be living for the same thing, even if you try to generalize it to the categories of themselves or others. We all live for different people and things.
27265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 5/30/16

KnightOfZero1991 wrote:

You could probably boil it down to living for yourself, whether you say you live for yourself or you live for others.

In the case you say you are living your life for others, why do you say that? Are they important to you, does their happiness give you joy? It all boils down to self satisfaction, you only help others because you are helping yourself.

Now this is a cynical view of course, but once I heard of this opinion, many moons ago, I couldn't find a way to argue it.


If you really want to argue against it, you could say that answer is far too abstract and not cynical enough because it refers to something called "self". It's not really "who" but "what", and the "what" being the dopamine hits to receptors in the brain.
15742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 5/30/16

CanuckianOne wrote:

I'd say we live for ourselves. Living for others isn't really all that healthy.


Nailed it ^
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/30/16 , edited 5/30/16
Scientifically, your only biological purpose is to reproduce. So, that would mean your offspring, born or unborn.

Beyond that, it is really a matter of religion.

I personally believe that we're here to please and praise God, and give him glory through our actions in life.

17065 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Fredericton, NB
Offline
Posted 5/30/16

nanikore2 wrote:


KnightOfZero1991 wrote:

You could probably boil it down to living for yourself, whether you say you live for yourself or you live for others.

In the case you say you are living your life for others, why do you say that? Are they important to you, does their happiness give you joy? It all boils down to self satisfaction, you only help others because you are helping yourself.

Now this is a cynical view of course, but once I heard of this opinion, many moons ago, I couldn't find a way to argue it.


If you really want to argue against it, you could say that answer is far too abstract and not cynical enough because it refers to something called "self". It's not really "who" but "what", and the "what" being the dopamine hits to receptors in the brain.


Oh, that is definitely much more cynical. I could say that life has no meaning, and we don't live it for ourselves or for others, we are merely a mass of cells following the chemical processes that come from interacting with the environment? That's sounds a little depressing though.


qualeshia3 wrote:

I get the feeling that nobody is really answering the question correctly.


I suppose everyone got caught up on the post title and didn't really reply to your post as a whole >_>

I would say we live for ourselves. I hold that even if we live for others, we do so because it makes us happy, key being ourselves.

The act is inherently selfish because suicide by nature of the term is something we can only do ourselves. Other people wanting you to stay alive when you don't though is equally as selfish though, they want to strip the power away from you to do as you want.

I think the end point comes down to who you are. Some people live for themselves by doing things directly for themselves while others derive their happiness from the happiness of others. In the second case you could say your live your life for yourself through living your life for others.
So you always live your life for yourself, but only some people live their life for others by proxy? That's my opinion the best I can describe it I think.
27265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 5/31/16

KnightOfZero1991 wrote:

Oh, that is definitely much more cynical. I could say that life has no meaning, and we don't live it for ourselves or for others, we are merely a mass of cells following the chemical processes that come from interacting with the environment? That's sounds a little depressing though.


Yep one giant nihilistic black hole, Game of Thrones without any of the nice parts.

Fortunately that's just one unfortunate way of looking at things.


qualeshia3 wrote:



KnightOfZero1991 wrote:
I get the feeling that nobody is really answering the question correctly.


I suppose everyone got caught up on the post title and didn't really reply to your post as a whole >_>

I would say we live for ourselves. I hold that even if we live for others, we do so because it makes us happy, key being ourselves.

The act is inherently selfish because suicide by nature of the term is something we can only do ourselves. Other people wanting you to stay alive when you don't though is equally as selfish though, they want to strip the power away from you to do as you want.

I think the end point comes down to who you are. Some people live for themselves by doing things directly for themselves while others derive their happiness from the happiness of others. In the second case you could say your live your life for yourself through living your life for others.
So you always live your life for yourself, but only some people live their life for others by proxy? That's my opinion the best I can describe it I think.


There is self-denial through the enforcement of principle. The process of self-denial certainly isn't that of pleasure or self-preservation, sometimes it's exactly the reverse. I would say that principles (and levels of self-denial) are really the only things that separates man from beast. A place with no principles is just your run of the mill rat race. Being selfless is not about feeling good about anything- It's about sticking to principles no matter how it makes yourself or anyone else feel.
17065 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Fredericton, NB
Offline
Posted 5/31/16

nanikore2 wrote:


There is self-denial through the enforcement of principle. The process of self-denial certainly isn't that of pleasure or self-preservation, sometimes it's exactly the reverse. I would say that principles (and levels of self-denial) are really the only things that separates man from beast. A place with no principles is just your run of the mill rat race. Being selfless is not about feeling good about anything- It's about sticking to principles no matter how it makes yourself or anyone else feel.


I do suppose that is true. I guess what humanity has is certain awareness, the very thing that allows us to question our own actions and that of others. I might question why do humans create these rules and principles? Is it because we long to be different than animals, to be unique? We are not merely beasts because we don't want to be beasts?

Now this might make me sound like a bad scientist, and I'm cool with that, but here is a hypothesis: Humanity has got to a point where it is not vulnerable enough to concern itself with self-preservation. Rules and principles are what defines us as more than beasts, so if you are to look at humans as a collective, you could say that they live to evolve, their evolutionary drive: which includes holding onto rules and principles which may not seem logical surpass their own personal desires. Anyone else can chime in on this >_> this train of thought of mine, albeit perhaps insane, is giving me a lot of enjoyment right now.
27265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 5/31/16

KnightOfZero1991 wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


There is self-denial through the enforcement of principle. The process of self-denial certainly isn't that of pleasure or self-preservation, sometimes it's exactly the reverse. I would say that principles (and levels of self-denial) are really the only things that separates man from beast. A place with no principles is just your run of the mill rat race. Being selfless is not about feeling good about anything- It's about sticking to principles no matter how it makes yourself or anyone else feel.


I do suppose that is true. I guess what humanity has is certain awareness, the very thing that allows us to question our own actions and that of others. I might question why do humans create these rules and principles? Is it because we long to be different than animals, to be unique? We are not merely beasts because we don't want to be beasts?

Now this might make me sound like a bad scientist, and I'm cool with that, but here is a hypothesis: Humanity has got to a point where it is not vulnerable enough to concern itself with self-preservation. Rules and principles are what defines us as more than beasts, so if you are to look at humans as a collective, you could say that they live to evolve, their evolutionary drive: which includes holding onto rules and principles which may not seem logical surpass their own personal desires. Anyone else can chime in on this >_> this train of thought of mine, albeit perhaps insane, is giving me a lot of enjoyment right now.


I think it has more to do with being able to grasp abstract concepts than anything else, including some purported evolutionary mechanism. Not every single thing is "productive" to some kind "evolutionary strategy". Humans grasp the abstract and thus gained the sense that there's something "more" and bigger than just themselves. Thus, the possibility of living for something other than themselves.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.