What is the point of life?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Matt24
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:15 pm

Re: What is the point of life?

Post by Matt24 »

The Voice of Time wrote:This one-on-one discussion is starting to become so big that I'm gonna divide it up into two chapters. Chapter 1:
Oh my god, it really has become too big. Hope you don't mind me answering only Chapter 1 today. :)
I went on my first trip just because I felt like it, however, while on my trip I decided to make it into an escape from my life and my parents, so it became a kind of fleeing from my parents. In this way, I didn't have a home, but I don't think a home would really make for a good place to philosophize like I did, because your home doesn't inspire the right thoughts, it becomes a lot of echo instead.
I see. Family can be tough with you sometimes.

Personally, if I ever needed to flee from their house, it would only be if they tried to impose their lifestyle on me. Because I'm sure they will eventually press me to settle down, start a family, etc. (they used to press me to do normal teenage-stuff like going out with friends) and they probably wouldn't understand if I told them I want none of those things. For a normal person, my parents would be perfect. But I guess I'm not the normal son they would've really liked to have.

If you had a bigger problem with your parents then I'm sorry: my story must sound to you like a lot of gibberish. Maybe I'm just capricious, and that's all. But I guess we've all had problems at home also as part of growing up. It was difficult for me to realize my parents were not the righteous heroic people I used to idolize when I was younger.
I'm a big anti-absolutist, and this also shines in my use of the term "role model", because what I really tried to say, is that I studied people, to try and find ideas that I could use in the formation of my own character and thoughts. It wasn't about copying anyone, but letting people exceedingly inspire me, either by example or contra-example, what is possible and how it is possible, and then letting me decide what I should become from it, not as a group of predetermined preset roles, but as pieces I can shape my own kind of character from.
All right, I know what you mean now. I also like to study people. It's funny though that I analyse different aspects of a person. While you think whether their acts inspire you or not (That was what you meant, right?), my questions are more like: "What's life like for him/her? What motivates him/her to wake up every morning? What do they want in life?". These questions can't be answered rightaway, but based on the people I've already had a chance to meet, I come up with a sort of hypothetical answers. If I have a chance to talk to them a bit (even superficially) I can test them out.

I guess it could be said I don't care about what they do (At least in what respects Ethics, I'm an anti-absolutist like you: I believe I don't have a right to claim something is good or wrong, simply because I'm not in somebody else's shoes) but rather, I want to know why they do what they do.

Am I making any sense? Gosh, sometimes I believe there is a very thin line in philosophy between writing genius arguments and mumbling nonsense. I can't honestly say which of the two I just did.
What? That sounds really awful, if anything, that should be their biggest reason to give you anything. If you wanted to waste it on something I could've understood, but as long as you're not a hypochondriac, it seems rather chilly of them to not support your health should you need it.
Well, maybe it doesn't happen in Norway. But as far as I know, not many people care about what goes on with strangers. Few are altruistic enough to be generous with a blind man, I guess even less would care about some stranger who came down with a flu.
True, but then there's always a new car sooner or later.
Suppose so. Unless it gets late or something and nobody wants to pick you up in the dark night. Oh, there I am again thinking about all the things that could go wrong, lol.
Uhm, not really. The war veteran has become a staunch pacifist trying to forget his past, with this hippy like attitude and hair style and spends a lot of time looking after his fish and his cat and try to stay away from alcohol. The nurse-guy doesn't really talk much and is often away or in his room or making food, his only interest seems to be a girl (or girls, I never remember if it's the same girl he brings home) and the Red Cross where he leads the local search party, it's not like he's been abroad or anything. The electrician really doesn't like me for totally stupid reasons and I personally think he's a bit of a psycho, not in an outwardly manner, but he seems to spend a lot of time cultivating his hatred for me as he expresses very clearly, though he's been calm and civil as of late, he's not really a guy it's easy to talk with... he's basically a bit of a xenophobe with regards to the house, perceiving me as a threatening new arrival, and he's twice my age.
The way you put it really doesn't do them much good hahaha. Are they too individualistic, then? I imagined the war veteran (if he was not too affected by the war) must have profound stories to tell. After all, being alive after that situation should give you a new perspective or insight on how to live life? Or at least that's what I suppose. That's probably what made him become a pacifist now. I'd ask him if he believes "amor vincit omnia" (if he's a true hippie, he should lol).

The Red Cross guy could also have interesting things to say. I mean, because of the labor he does.

Don't pay attention to me, it's easy to imagine all kinds of interesting things in them as an outsider, but I don't know how you perceive them and how they perceive you. If there's a big age difference, as you said, that fact can repel interactions.
Well she could have overreacted. Some people are scared of the dark, despite the fact that the dark is rarely followed by scary things except in horror movies.
Maybe, yes, but she also said she felt so because of the kind of people that were around. It could be that out of stereotypes she misjudged some people, or it may also be that she happened to pass by some street gang or something. I don't know really.
No idea where you come from, if I'd have to guess I would've guessed the US, just out of a statistical probability. I just brought it up as an example however.
Not a bad guess in that case then hahaha. Though China or India would've been good choices too statistically speaking (I'm not sure if these forums aren't censored in China anyway). Actually, I'm from South America :) (you would've never guessed right, I know lol).
That's not a proper adjective in this situation, but I guess you're just using it as a collective for environmental friendliness and natural product friendliness... and yes, we are, except of course we are the third biggest gas producer in the world, and fifth biggest oil producer (mostly export though), however, as far as I know, we don't have any power run on oil or gas for our primary electrical infrastructure, that's virtually all renewable energy, mainly hydropower, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricit ... _in_Norway). We variably import and export electricity over national borders however, and for this reason, although we only produce renewable energy for the national electrical grid, we consume non-renewable energy from Sweden and so forth, like nuclear energy etc. As for food, Norwegian food carries very high quality in general, and there's a national policy on local produce, ecological farming and you don't find GMO food in the stores as far as I know, as the Norwegian government doesn't officially recognize it as food unless it manages to fulfil certain criteria, and up until now only one product has ever accomplished all the criteria.
Yes, you knew what I meant.

Your country is the envy of all "green conscious" citizens of the world.

True that Norway makes most of its money from oil (so what isn't consumed in one way, goes out the other way) but the fact that renewable energies make up a big share of the energy sources is more than anyone could ask for in the present.
Very much yes, egalitarianism is a strong underlying national principle.
But is it really so? Are there no poor homeless folks around? I was especially curious about the immigrants of poorer African countries. Does the Norwegian welfare state take care of them?
Very much yes, social liberalism is another doctrine of modern Norway.
Same-sex marriage, abortion law... I'm impressed.
Well this depends on who you ask, but I'd say generally a very well-run welfare state, as Norway has one of the highest rates of policy implementation rates in the world. Meaning that when the Norwegian government says it's gonna do something, it does so (election promises not included... there they fail and lie pretty much like any normal country x) though not entirely of course, it's just that as with most politicians, they promise more than they can give, and so it's a roll of dice if you actually get what you vote for)
I actually referred more about its quality and transparency. Many opponents of the welfare state argue that it leads to corruption and big deficits, something which (though it pains me to say it) is sometimes right.
What more could we have? Well, according to the Human Development Index we are the best in the world. And we're almost the richest in the world, only beaten by a couple of city-states and Qatar (homeland of Al-Jazeera)... we make the United Arab Emirates look poor xD So I guess what remains is becoming the definite richest, keeping the spot on top of being the most developed, and trying to capture the 1st place on the happiness index as well, where we are on top, and may have captured a first spot once or twice, but rankings are rather unreliable and it varies a lot between rankings, so we'll have to work harder to stay on top and be definite number 1. Time to start painting some smileys! :D
Hahaha I take that as "We basically have nothing else to achieve". Measuring happiness is difficult anyway, as long as economically Norwegians are ok, I doubt the country would go down in the "happiness" ratings.
It did happen that I could not figure out where to ponder my way further, yes, but then I spent more time absorbing the surroundings to get inspiration... it's a bit like looking for fuel, or resources in general. Inspiration is fuel, and when you're empty, you gotta get some more.
Well said! It's not always easy to find a gas station nearby though :P
It's about the distribution of prime numbers when you count from one to infinity... how often prime numbers occur, as opposed to even and odd numbers. Prime numbers are the atoms of all numbers, they are the building blocks from which we get even and odd numbers. Figuring out the distribution could have wide-ranging consequences and potentially lead to really powerful mathematics... Think of it as the "holy grail" of mathematics x)
Thanks for dumbing it down to me! When I looked it up, it was all about some kind of function with trivial zeros or something, it was all greek to me.

I know what you mean about primes. Every composite number must be composed by them, right? I never gave much thought to the distribution anyway. It always seemed like there was no possible pattern in their appearance!
I don't think it wise to make it a principle for yourself, that could be problematic. But if you genuinely enjoy giving people a chance, then you should do it... but don't be polite just to give yourself dissatisfaction, that's not helping anyone.
I don't particularly enjoy it. But hey, we are imperfect, we are human. And when I make mistakes, I like to be given another chance. Sometimes one doesn't realize the wrong you did.
Seems you need practise in learning to read people more. If you want straight answers you should ask for it, you can't expect people to serve you your uncommunicated requests on a silver plate, people simply aren't like that. If you want them to be frank with you, then be frank to them first.
Maybe it's because they think I want the same kind of superficial relationship they're looking for too? It could be you're right, I may have to be bolder and franker, even if it may make them a bit uncomfortable.
Not as such, your friendship is not the commodity, but what you could potentially do together is. You can't expect to grow a friendship if you don't have any nourished soil, seedlings and water. The friendship is the relationship between you two, the set of shared memories you have for instance, your in-between culture, and any mutually understood loyalties. But these are products which require the necessary resources to develop, these things require commodities you must supply. Once you've built them, they are there, but they won't grow, and although slowly, they will rust with time (though in a way that they can be brought back more easily... it's a bit like a house gathering dust... if you decide to clean it, it'll still be the same house you left, but it will gather dust with time, and still need cleaning to stay as it were). Let's explore it just a bit more:

1) In order to develop shared memories, you'll have to supply efficient mutual interests to pursue. If the mutual interests are inefficient, you'll have a slow and potentially unsatisfactory development, if the mutual interests are efficient, you'll have a fast-growing and rich development, it'll still take time of course, but at least you're on the right track.
2) You must be able to offer a feeling of uniqueness, that you are not just a simple expendable person, in a friendship sense. You have to make yourself feel special, something somebody wants to be part of. Everyone has a strong side and/or good side, they just have to find it or learn to recognize it, but sometimes, the desires of the potential friend simply matches something what you're good at or something that you are (both me and my friend were the fattest guys in our school... so we shared obesity xD), and this makes you feel like you belong to the same thing, which over time can grow into a culture... a distinct way of talking to one another, a distinct way of behaving and responding to one another, a distinct view of yourself in contrast to the world, and so forth... supply an identity, in other words. "What are we?".
3) Coming from the same or similar house or local culture can give you both an underlying sense of loyalty to one another, but the best way to inspire loyalty is to create a sense of "bromance"... like romance, just not in a sexual or girlfriend-boyfriend kind of way, but between guys. Or in other words, grant a reason for affection to develop, the natural glue of societies. Is there a recipe for affection? I have no good enough answer for this, but a feeling of certainty and dependability are surely strong factors, but these must be seen in relation to what an individual desires, it is in relation to what they desire to be able to be certain about and depend on. They have to find themselves in you, I guess, something about you must inspire them to allow their heart to get at peace with you. And the conditions for this will vary among people, but I think most people DO NOT like people who are overly interested in them, because that doesn't give them enough time to evaluate you, however, some people do like it fast as well, though I am sceptical if their way of doing it might not be a bit... unstable... pure speculation from my perspective of course.
Wow, thanks for this deep analysis.

Let me see.

I don't agree with this statement: "these are products which require the necessary resources to develop, these things require commodities you must supply." Or rather, I think something's missing. I believe I supply all the possible commodities I can bring into a relationship - esp. the most important one: my time -. But then either they don't supply their share or something's missing that none of us can supply. As you said; interests, cultural bonds, or uniqueness.

It's funny about the first point you make (about mutual interests) because I practically don't have much in common with my best friend I met at school. We are both "nerds", but he is a big fan of TV shows and movies, while I'm a nerdy guy in the other sense of the word: I prefer to read books, philosophizing and learning. So it was weird, because he could never talk about movies with me and I could never talk much about literature with him. Maybe it was sharing common experiences at school? Could it be that our environment united us?

I liked what you said in your third point: "a feeling of certainty and dependability are surely strong factors (...) They have to find themselves in you, I guess, something about you must inspire them to allow their heart to get at peace with you." I agree with this 100%. It's exactly that, dependability and certainty which I can't find in my common relations. I guess I just haven't searched enough(?).

Bromance is a good way to define what I'm looking for. I want someone I could be as intimate as I could be with a girlfriend, not in the sexual way of course but emotionally. Someone to open up to, someone who does not think the world revolves around checking girls out and following their favourite football team. So yeah, maybe interests play a part in it too. Guess my search proves so difficult because we men are even less likely to show our emotions and stuff. It could be I'm just a sissy and that's all lol.

I'm sorry I didn't analyse your message more thoroughly, but it's getting late and I'm feeling sleepy. The rebuttal of Chapter 2 comes tomorrow :)
uwot
Posts: 5027
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: What is the point of life?

Post by uwot »

Matt24 wrote:Why wouldn't I try to build my own moral system? I think change needs to start in ourselves, and though I know I won't be able to abide by my moral standards 100%, it's worth a try. Especially because I realize sometimes I don't treat others as I would like to be treated, and that makes me feel... awful and weak.
That's all the reason you need. You can have a list of rules if you wish: don't trip them up, don't kick them while they're down; how many will you need? As a general rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, covers most things. If something you do makes you feel...weak and awful, it's because you are sufficiently empathic to understand that you fucked up. Say sorry, learn the lesson and don't do it again. Getting into arguments about whether it is 'right' is futile; it is also the mark of conservatism to demand unchanging rules, they kill spontaneity and development, which in my book makes them a very bad thing.
User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: What is the point of life?

Post by The Voice of Time »

Matt24 wrote:
The Voice of Time wrote:This one-on-one discussion is starting to become so big that I'm gonna divide it up into two chapters. Chapter 1:
Oh my god, it really has become too big. Hope you don't mind me answering only Chapter 1 today. :)
No problemo.
User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: What is the point of life?

Post by The Voice of Time »

RE-RE: Chapter 1 (answering your answer to chapter 1)
Matt24 wrote:(That was what you meant, right?)
Yup.
Matt24 wrote:my questions are more like: "What's life like for him/her? What motivates him/her to wake up every morning? What do they want in life?". These questions can't be answered rightaway
No, but sometimes you get the answer nevertheless, usually by inference when they address similar questions or subjects. I ask similar questions, but not exactly focused on those three.
Matt24 wrote:I guess it could be said I don't care about what they do (At least in what respects Ethics, I'm an anti-absolutist like you: I believe I don't have a right to claim something is good or wrong, simply because I'm not in somebody else's shoes) but rather, I want to know why they do what they do.
In that regard I'm actually not too much of a relativist, I engage in people's ethical life based on whether I have the time and resources and feeling in the mood for it, but I do engage when I see something I don't like. Too often I don't really care why they do it because the likelihood of a sufficient reason is so small that it's more efficient to address their wrongness directly, and then they often complain I don't know them and stuff like that, which is usually the time I have to tell them I don't really care who they are, because it's so wrong they'd really have to have a gooooood and unlikely reason for me not to react as I do. So I'm "shoot first, ask later", but I shoot only warning shots though x) If I am to cause serious consequences outside of the momentous engagement into their sense of right and wrong, I act with more care, I don't shoot to injure anyone before they'd been able to make their case. Something more than a few people on this forum should know.
Matt24 wrote:Well, maybe it doesn't happen in Norway. But as far as I know, not many people care about what goes on with strangers. Few are altruistic enough to be generous with a blind man, I guess even less would care about some stranger who came down with a flu.
Oh, I thought we were talking about your family, not strangers. Okay, but strangers do care if it's serious, like if you've got asthma they'll probably help you acquire an inhaler for free.
Matt24 wrote:I imagined the war veteran (if he was not too affected by the war) must have profound stories to tell. After all, being alive after that situation should give you a new perspective or insight on how to live life?
You don't really get to forget your past by constantly retelling it x)
Matt24 wrote:The Red Cross guy could also have interesting things to say. I mean, because of the labor he does.
Not really. Looking through some marsh land after a lost kid is not really a very exciting moment. It's walking and walking and walking without end, only to find some dead body, or nothing, or somebody lost in the landscape stuck in the mud (lolz, reminds of a Norwegian movie where a company of really old labour party members singing along to old commie songs get stuck in the mud and slowly but surely get consumed by it, everyone holding each other's hands till the very end... btw it was a comedie x) ).
Matt24 wrote:(you would've never guessed right, I know lol).
Nope. But I knew a Brazilian who studied with me in China (mandarin), and he spoke very perfect and fluent English, so you never know.
Matt24 wrote:Your country is the envy of all "green conscious" citizens of the world.

True that Norway makes most of its money from oil (so what isn't consumed in one way, goes out the other way) but the fact that renewable energies make up a big share of the energy sources is more than anyone could ask for in the present.
Denmark and Iceland are greener x) Denmark is world-leading on wind power, and Iceland world-leading on geothermal power.
Matt24 wrote:But is it really so? Are there no poor homeless folks around?
Well if you're a drug addict you may not have the balance in your life to spend the money you get to pay for rent, so you don't own your own place (though only a few are that bad), but there are places where you can sleep, I once slept at such a place for one night and it had recently opened and the quality of those beds were far greater than any bed you get at Ikea for instance... they were wonder-beds!

But to your question: in theory? No. But for various reasons, people can make themselves homeless, but it usually requires them to work hard to remain homeless x) There's been done parodies on how the Norwegian welfare system constantly asks to give you money, to cover all sorts of things. So if you want a home, you'll get it definitely, and should be within a very short while. When I once ended up homeless, for reasons I'm not gonna say (nothing to do with the journeys I've been on), I was sent to an apartment hotel! And the Norwegian government paid more than 3000 euros for me to stay there for like 2 weeks! Although it was unintentional that I should have the place I got, which I only got because of a booking problem, what I ended up with was a fully furnished prime apartment with my own kitchen, two bathrooms, a big living room, TWO bedrooms, and so forth... so I'm an example that you really have to mess up your life hard constantly to stay in any crap :D
Matt24 wrote:I was especially curious about the immigrants of poorer African countries. Does the Norwegian welfare state take care of them?
Yes, illegal immigrants may not often get the same treatment as legal ones, as they are there illegally, but immigrants receive the same benefits, are given housing and helped into jobs and given free education and health care like everyone else.
Matt24 wrote:Same-sex marriage, abortion law... I'm impressed.
Nothing to be impressed about, most the western world has that now.
Matt24 wrote:I actually referred more about its quality and transparency.
We're among the best in the world along with the rest of the Nordic countries on those matters x) (http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results/)
Matt24 wrote:Many opponents of the welfare state argue that it leads to corruption and big deficits
Ungrounded. Corruption has nothing to do with welfare states. Corruption is caused by bad policy implementations and governance, neither of which has anything to do with the policy behind them. In fact, I'd say inequality leads more often to corruption because people are more aimed at exploiting each other as they view each other with natural envy.
Matt24 wrote:something which (though it pains me to say it) is sometimes right.
Faulty reasoning. As I said, bad policy implementations and governance leads to such problems. https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 2rank.html

Norway has 4th highest budget surplus in the world. What other countries are on the list with surplus? Brazil, Germany, Switzerland... all of which have extensive welfare systems, including universal health care, which is guaranteed in all countries (though, some, like Switzerland, has a "guarantee of payment" system, which means it's based upon insurance, but insurance is compulsory for everyone, covers everything so that you don't have to worry if you have the wrong disease, and if you can't pay the government subsidizes you).

In contrast, the countries in the world that really suffer, are the more militarized countries, like France, UK, USA, China (yes China does not have a surplus, it's currently suffering from internal debt accumulation, and they do not have universal health care), Russia (which is suffering more as they are currently spending money to save their currency, so their reserves are shrinking up), Spain (though not particularly known for being militarized, and maybe not fair to put them on this list, but they recently commissioned a new air craft carrier they don't afford to operate...) and Greece (Greece has had outrageous military spendings).
Matt24 wrote:I don't particularly enjoy it. But hey, we are imperfect, we are human. And when I make mistakes, I like to be given another chance. Sometimes one doesn't realize the wrong you did.
I'm all for second chances, but not for free.
Matt24 wrote:I don't agree with this statement: "these are products which require the necessary resources to develop, these things require commodities you must supply." Or rather, I think something's missing. I believe I supply all the possible commodities I can bring into a relationship - esp. the most important one: my time -.
Sometimes people don't need all your time to enjoy you. I don't think that the more time you spend with each other the more qualitative is the friendship. That's like saying the more hamburgers you eat the more fed you get, when in truth at some point you are not just fed, you are throwing up... all in balance I say. And different people require different balances.
Matt24 wrote:It's funny about the first point you make (about mutual interests) because I practically don't have much in common with my best friend I met at school. We are both "nerds", but he is a big fan of TV shows and movies, while I'm a nerdy guy in the other sense of the word: I prefer to read books, philosophizing and learning. So it was weird, because he could never talk about movies with me and I could never talk much about literature with him. Maybe it was sharing common experiences at school? Could it be that our environment united us?
Broaden your concept of mutual interests, don't think about just tv shows or movies. It just have to be something worth talking about. Your friendship has to be based on something that seems satisfactory, so I'm sure when you do spend time, you find things to ground your experience in. My current best friend was not a big friend of mine in school, we got better acquainted at the very end of school. I have little to no contact with my friends in school, which I ended up not having enough in common with and not being particularly fitting with. They were good people, but not particularly interested in me.
Matt24 wrote:I guess I just haven't searched enough(?).
Or maybe not enough patience to find it x)
Matt24 wrote:Bromance is a good way to define what I'm looking for. I want someone I could be as intimate as I could be with a girlfriend, not in the sexual way of course but emotionally. Someone to open up to, someone who does not think the world revolves around checking girls out and following their favourite football team. So yeah, maybe interests play a part in it too. Guess my search proves so difficult because we men are even less likely to show our emotions and stuff. It could be I'm just a sissy and that's all lol.
Hmm... well. I don't really share a lot of emotions with my friend, our friendship is based upon the good sides of life and not the bad. That said, I don't really know how to appreciate sharing my emotions with people... because I'm an open person in general I'm able to do it, but I never feel relieved by it... you could say that I'm not particularly emotionally intelligent. I know how to enjoy things, but I don't really know how to be sad or stuff like that, it just appears so... inefficient... to me x) If I'm sad, I might lie down in bed to shed a couple of tears, then just relax, and/or I eat a chocolate and play a game, or visit my silent but moaning friends on youporn.com. Either way, it works to some degree.

That said, I think a really warm and intelligent woman should be able to make any person soften in their emotions, but those women are rare, and too much of either just scares you off or makes you think they are silly.
Nikolai
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:36 pm
Location: Finland

Re: What is the point of life?

Post by Nikolai »

Hey Matt
hough regarding existentialist literature, I have so far only read Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky: I didn't know about the first three philosophers you mentioned (I'll be sure to check them out) and Schopenhauer, Kant & Spinoza have always sounded too complicated for me to feel like reading them.
Have you read Tolstoy's Confession?If you not you should because its probably the book that discusses this stuff directly and is entirely autobiographical. Emerson is a lifelong favourite of mine, Thoreau at the time, because much of my anxiety was about finding menaingful employment and not wanting to do anything that was available to me. The philsophers are hard to read, Schopenhauer easier...but as long as you understand the significance of what they are arguing, that is the main thing. Just find books that explain it. Kant is completely world-changing, and might well give you the intellectual justification you need.
I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what transcending space and time involves. What am I to do for being in a universe of space-time continuum?
In order to transcend space and time we must realise and understand that space and time have no independent existence in themselves, but are rather categories of understanding. They have no intrinsic reality, beyond what we ascribe to them. Perhaps an example will help...

I am sat opposite to you, between us is a table and on it is a coffee cup with a handle. If i can lift it with my right hand, then that means the handle will be on your left. Left-handed and right-handed are both categories of understanding, which, according to the moment we are in, can be useful to us. We are wise enough to know that left or right handedness are not intrinsic properties of the cup. We have the mental flexibility to see that my right-handed cup is your left handed cup and as these are logically opposite terms, the cup cannot be said to be intrinsically right or left.

Now lets get back to time...

Time appears to us as a purely mental event. We cannot detect it with our senses. It always appears as a thought, either a 'memory' or 'expectation'. In other words the mental event represents or symbolises a point separate in time from the present.

But each of these representation is also its own reality happening Now! A memory is always, of necessity, a current and fresh event. Even the oldest of antiques is always a present mental event, freshly minted. But this nowness, this freshness is the opposite of time: it is eternity. It is not a mere representation, but a thing in itself.

Hopefully you can see that this is rather like left and right on the cup.

Wherever we see time, we also see eternity.

In face time and eternity are two perspectives on the same reality.

When you understand this argument you have transcended time and space. You have learnt to understand a different way of viewing things. Just as our understanding of the dual orientation of the mug is so natural that we don't have to think about it, so too will life appear as both temporal and eternal...now one, now another, according to the situation.

Existential crisis occurs when we are exclusively tied to a temporal worldview, and the hideousness of that is fully raised to consciousness. Most people are unconscious of what are the ramifications of their worldview. Perhaps they avoid it because the dimly suspect how hideous it is. But once you have become conscious of it there is no going back, however much you might want to. You must somehow come to terms with and understand exactly what time is.

The philosopher is getting uncomfortably close to religion and spirituality once he has solved the problem of time. If this bothers you, then too bad because there is no choice about it...and you will eventually get over it. You will start to see that science is less rational that you thought, and religion less irrational. And you yourself will be living in a way that has little further need for any of these explanatory systems. Reality, you see, needs no further explanation. The death you worried about it is also no-death at all.

All the comfort, power and security that we have gained through intellectual enquiry is ours automatically and directly the moment that we transcend time and space. Truth is something that you know with different faculty, call it what you like. Some call it the heart, but these are just words. Whatever it is, it is the solution to existential crisis and in the future you will come to explain it some way or other. Whether your explanation has a scientific flavour, a theological or philosophical flavour is immaterial. The peace and the joy will be yours.
Matt24
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:15 pm

Re: What is the point of life?

Post by Matt24 »

The Voice of Time wrote: Hmm... I don't mind being plan B, as long as I'm not always or mostly plan B. I find it only positive that I'm plan B, and not C or D x)
I think the core of our disagreement may lie in that. As long as there is room for more, I'm never satisfied with a secondary place. I know what you're thinking, you can't always get what you want. But I feel that in this particular case (as regards friendships) there should be nothing preventing people from being able to make plan-A friends. And as far as I know, people are fine having and being relegated, plan-C kind of friends. How many times I heard people socializing with their friends and then slandering them behind their backs! Pretending they actually care for each other when in reality they don't give a fig! It irritates me so much that I'm the only one who has a problem with that. Maybe those kinds of friendships are implausible, in which case, I'd rather have nothing at all.
You make amusement sound bad ^^ If you are being used as a tool I'd understand, but then the problem is not that they are amusing themselves, but that you are allowing yourself to be used, not thinking straight when you participate, or allow somebody to think for you. That's bad, but not the fault of amusement, amusement is generally good.
I don't agree, it's this amusement that embodies the selfishness and superficiality I talk about. It may be that's not the accurate term. I don't mean "amusement" as a synonym of fun, but as the kind of entertainment you get when you interact with say, a book or a TV show. The kind of entertainment you crave for at one specific moment, though you lose interest in it when you find something better to do.

It might be related to being used, depending on your point of view. To me, all those kinds of plan-B/C friendships (excuse me for using the same adjective over and over) are just a way of maneuvering people at your disposal. Friendships should involve having fun, of course, but they shouldn't be discarded when you find something more amusing to do with other people-.
I think you are slightly generalizing, although if they truly are only superficial, then they might lack a proper sense of what we in Norwegian call "nestekjærlighet" (neste = the next(person), kjærlighet = lovingness/love), usually associated with Jesus' teachings and meaning "love for thy neighbour", it's one of the few things coming from religion that utterly makes sense in my point of view x) But that's more of a bad person than just a bad friend.
Well, in my opinion, people aren't really able to love their neighbours... simply because they keep this "distance" between them. I don't think this means they're bad people, they simply don't realize their superficiality makes them be dishonest and fake, and as long as they "amuse" themselves for a while when interacting with their superficial friends they're all right.
Bad strategy. I'd recommend trying a less automated behaviour and being more careful before you act. Limping friendships is not a pretty thing to experience, it's better to focus on more greener fields then. Half a friendship might be half a friendship, but when you consume it, you are consuming half a friendship, and as a renewable resource, that's pretty inefficient for all involved parties.
I know, I know but for some reason I can't get myself to do that. It might be I'm conscious that I didn't always feel this way, and that some years ago I would've acted and reacted just like they do. I'm not sure. It's like I think of myself as a bad person for cutting off relationships. I'm so messed up lol.
But are you being honest about that? Or are you hiding? Because if you're not being honest, it is a bit of your own fault as well.
Maybe I'm not being completely honest, you're right. But as I said above, I don't think I could manage to.. break it off. In a certain sense I've been following your advice on "looking for greener fields" in some situations, yet I can't do it "for good" you know? I can't bring myself to say "Ok, I'll look for a greener field and I will ignore you forevermore because of your lack of appreciation". Is being left completely absolutely alone the price to pay for being honest? Because hey, maybe I prefer a slow breakup as a result of time and losing contact than a sudden end which will forever offend the other person.
I've had personally a very strong traumatic experience of finding out somebody does not really care about me, twice in fact. I've not lived long enough to say if I'm truly over being cheated by people again, but I think at least I am, and since I expect you to be older than me (most people on this forum are, except Kayla) I expect you should start recognizing now more and more what are the actual signs of a person caring and a person not caring... my method usually consists of testing them bit by bit to see if they respond, if they don't, I give up on them, and take a note of how far the friendship stretches, and utilize it accordingly.
I've had my own experiences too, and I think we can agree there's nothing as hurtful (well, there probably is, but not in the context we are talking about). I think the worst was not the time you wasted with them, but rather, the fact that you counted them as a real friend. It happened to me quite a few times; but I don't particularly recognize how to set apart the ones who are worth interacting with and the ones who aren't. I usually just get an idea based on how satisfied they're socially speaking. In my experience, the ones who seem to already have the "social life" they want are more likely to talk to you but it's less likely to become a serious friendship; and viceversa.
I wish xD I've had crushes on pretty girls several times, but never had a catch on any of the prettiest. In the end I've given up on them, and satisfied with watching them on youporn.com instead ;) After all, my interests in general are not really very compatible with girls of that kind, and I'd prefer having a friends-with-benefits relationship with some ponderous girl... though to be honest I don't know if I'm made for any kind of romantic relationships, I simply don't like "buying stuff I don't need"... meaning that I'll have sex with whomever can excite me a lot, I'll certainly never go to a romantic dinner that's just soooo stupid and last century, I like the idea of living with others, and sleeping in the same bed, but not every day, maybe have regular sleep-overs and "your house is my house" kind of rules instead, and I don't see the need for just one person serving any one function, although by the likelihood of my limited ability to serve multiple relations I'll probably only have time for one, but as with sex, it's whoever can make me laugh, whoever is a good chef gets to make dinner, whoever likes my games gets to play them with me... and so forth. I think in terms of activities, not people. I engage in an activity, and I may have developed or not a sufficient relationship with one or more people to enjoy that activity with them... I consider it a very social progressive way of maintaining relations.
Hahahaha you're spot-on about that. I hate when people are together just for sex. Those kinds of relationships don't usually prosper much, as the search for pleasure ends up leading one of the members to cheat on the other or to break up when they grow bored of their current bf/gf.

That's a good way to maintain relations, yes, but sometimes you end up liking the activity you are doing more than you enjoy the company of the other. Couldn't that be damaging in a relationship?
I think we'll have to agree that it depends upon the situation... a funeral might not be the time to discuss Plato or Aristotle... then again, cultures depend, and some cultures hold parties after funerals, and perhaps it's not too bad to discuss it then.
Hahahaha yes
Ever tried to say "shut up if you don't have anything interesting to say!" ?
That wouldn't be too polite, would it? After all, I always try to remember that I didn't use to feel this way, hence they probably don't know exactly what I'm feeling. But I have used, many times, more polite versions of the phrase. Like "I'm not interested in that. Why don't we talk about..." or "I don't feel like talking about that". They don't seem to get the point of my discomfort with those topics but there's nothing I can do.
If somebody said cliché stuff like that I'd think they were not really trying, to be honest, at least if it's all they had to say. I could say that to people I don't really care about in the particular situation. I'd expect of them to ask questions instead... inquire. That's proper interest.
Well yes, of course there should be some inquiry too. I referred to the specific case of this issue, which is not something that everybody understands. The few I've mentioned it to were like: "So maybe you need to study something else and find out what you want to do...", but that's like totally missing the point. I would like it if someone made the effort to understand me and try to be supportive (even if that means they can't give me a suggestion on what I should do), instead of just thinking they can make a stupid suggestion and avoid talking about these deeper issues immediately.
My buddy has done that to me, I nag him if he does, until he follows through with it. But it's also a test of dependability, if you can't depend on people to follow through with things, you should decrease your priority for developing the relationship, as it might be in a time of less fruitful development... more inefficient development... it might also come as a cause of the relationship having recently developed too fast, I'd reckon, like "growth pain", which you can experience in your legs when you're young as an example, and it might mean it's time to slow down growth and focus on stability.
I don't think it's because of the context in time. Usually this is the case with people I only still know quite superficially. If that's not the time to pursue a fruitful relationship, then when is the time? Should I just remain a fake superficial friend for decades?
Also remember that internet connections often fail, so it can look like you were the one to end a conversation in the regard, or their connection fails, and I really don't think it's fair that they should prioritize to get back at you then... if it fails it fails, and they might have something more pressing than saying "good night" to you. And that does not make them bad or uncaring etc., it's just not worth the hassle to be THAT dependable when technology is working against you.
It's not about the failure of internet connection. If you have Whatsapp you will understand (if you don't, it tells you when the person was last seen online). I could tolerate conectivity problems with a computer, but with a cellphone? Cmon.

And even if that were the case, and they don't feel like talking anymore after their internet issues, why not at least excuse yourself next time we chat? Something like: "Oh, by the way, sorry I didn't answer back the other day, I was having problems with my Internet connection".
No I don't. From my perspective, you can never have a friendship that isn't based on interests, that'll be a poor relationship. I can understand supportiveness, but it must have definite and practical limits, and I think you must haggle your way into that, because without any standardized meaning people are gonna have different limits and understand it differently and value it differently. Also, I don't think you can expect it from the start, or even after a few months. Maybe after a half a year or closer to a full year, maybe then you can think of start cashing in on a bit of supportiveness, and it might take even more time. Supportiveness must also not be the same as "blind allegiance", I think friends owe it to each other not to follow them blindly into hell, because hell simply isn't a good place to go... it's too hot, and you can get sun-burned :P Friends should be the angel standing on their right shoulder yelling at the devil on the left. I don't know... it's hard to agree with you on this because my thinking is so much more relative than yours. I'm always thinking in terms of exceptions and limits... how far you really can take things.
There can be limits and exceptions. I don't mean it in an absolute sense. But is that hard to count on your friend's supportiveness, I don't know, 50% of the time at least? One thing is exceptions and another thing is periodicity.

I don't know, I feel like from your point of view, there wouldn't be any true friends. It would all be defined according to the activity you do "my sports pal", "my classmate", "my colleague". So yeah, now that I think about it, that's the realistic (and superficial) way relationships are. That's exactly what I don't want to be/have.
I think "I don't feel like doing it" is an excellent criterion. There's loads of times when I don't feel like doing things, or my buddy. He might be tired, or hungry, or currently playing a game, and so forth. But if it happens too often, it is of course a sign of general disinterest, and might be taken more seriously. But then I'd go for a greener field, simply as that, and put the friendship on hold. I'm also sceptical of the term "just way" and "genuinely", they seem quite harsh and demanding, the one by definition, the former by the example you give later. Also, sacrificial relationships are not recommended, as they can make for a very non-pretty relationship, where you're not adequately satisfied. Sacrifices should only be based on real important things, or the occasional symbolic sacrifice, but only very occasionally.
Well, but as long as the excuses are not frequent and there's an effort by the other to make up for it some other time, I wouldn't mind it. Again, I go for a greener field too when it's obvious they don't want to be with me much, but I just don't put my heart into developing the relationship as I had done before.

It's ok to be sceptical of those two terms I used. They can be interpretated in different ways, but I think that all in all, we could agree on what it means to be a genuine and just friend, at least in a non-technical generalized sense.
They might not know where they are heading themselves. Despite limited experience, I don't think friendships in general are created by knowing beforehand. It takes time.
That is very, very true. But what constitutes the amount of necessary time for a friendship to progress? To continue with your economic analogy, what if I'm wasting resources sowing seeds in an environment where they can't grow?
Day-dreaming can help, but it requires too frequent recurrence, and ends up being insufficient. A total mindset reshape needs to be done.
A total mindset reshape? Man, that sounds difficult to achieve. Is there any book that can guide me through?
You misunderstand me, or rather, I didn't say it correctly... you are not trying to make better what is there that you already see. But try to see things you haven't noticed and which are more beautiful than what you've seen previously. You might have to quest a little bit as well, but the point is that you don't need to go to the other side of the planet, just somewhere close by you haven't been before for instance, or a person you've not taken notice of before, or a group of people... and so forth. It's about finding value locally, as opposed to chasing it around.
This is also very challenging to do. I understand now what you mean, however, noticing that which I ignore is something complex to do especially if I'm not actively working on it. I'll try to, but I don't think I'll succeed lol.
I don't know, but maybe they are? Maybe you're not ready for them or that they are not your true goals?
That's the thing. It's so hard to realize if a goal is worth it. Nevertheless, I guess it's better to make a mistake and follow the wrong goal than not having a goal at all.
... end of chapter 2 x)
I'll reply to both Chapters again tomorrow :)
User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: What is the point of life?

Post by The Voice of Time »

Matt24 wrote:
The Voice of Time wrote: Hmm... I don't mind being plan B, as long as I'm not always or mostly plan B. I find it only positive that I'm plan B, and not C or D x)
I think the core of our disagreement may lie in that. As long as there is room for more, I'm never satisfied with a secondary place. I know what you're thinking, you can't always get what you want. But I feel that in this particular case (as regards friendships) there should be nothing preventing people from being able to make plan-A friends. And as far as I know, people are fine having and being relegated, plan-C kind of friends. How many times I heard people socializing with their friends and then slandering them behind their backs! Pretending they actually care for each other when in reality they don't give a fig! It irritates me so much that I'm the only one who has a problem with that. Maybe those kinds of friendships are implausible, in which case, I'd rather have nothing at all.
But there seems to me to be a recurring problem here, that you are talking about people who are being bad people, and not friendship in general. If people are bad people then that's the problem,and not the concept of the friendship. I also have a suspicion that you talk of being plan B like it's in one of those movies where the person is really dissatisfied with not getting his or hers plan A. But that's not what I'm talking about. My buddy may have decided to go to his mother for the weekend, but then his mother gets sick or she has a man over which sabotages my buddy's weekend, but my buddy enjoys being with me, so although I end up being plan B, we're still having a good time, my buddy wouldn't be disappointed in any significant way, it's just that now he can do me instead of his mother.

Understand what I mean? I don't recognize the movie cliché in real life. If people really are disappointed they usually in my experience choose to do nothing instead, and not go out or sit at home playing games with someone they don't really fully enjoy the company of. But maybe that's a cultural or social environmental difference?
Matt24
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:15 pm

Re: What is the point of life?

Post by Matt24 »

Thozau wrote:Hi Matt24,

i understand you look out for some meaning in life.
Maybe an older post of mine might be of entertaining inspiration.
It´s titled:

Planet We - A new approach towards the meaning of life

(Sorry, i would have posted the direct link but i don´t know how to do it.
You might have to search for it...)

Best regards & good luck,
Thozau
I read it; it was a well-thought-out analysis.

It's still not that clear to me how it relates to the meaning of life though. I agree that a wise (perfect) man is one whose actions, feelings, and thoughts all correspond to each other. But even so, how can you find value in existence that way? Or is it that the progress and development of our minds provide enough motivation to live?

Thanks for your help :)
Matt24
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:15 pm

Re: What is the point of life?

Post by Matt24 »

Skip wrote: That's because there isn't any.
But I need one. Most of us need meaning. Otherwise, if there is none, wouldn't suicide be the only rational consequence?
I wasn't advocating hedonism or a philosophy or anything like that. Merely pointing that everything - you know EVERYTHING! I think I mentioned the universe? There isn't anything less trivial than the frickin universe - lasts only as long as it lasts. I could have said martyrdom instead of beer or leading the proletariat to victory over the oppressor instead of sex, and it would still be temporary. Anything you choose to do, whether you choose it for fun or glory or high purpose or distraction or a golden key to the chocolate factory, only lasts as long as it lasts. If you want to do it, do it. But if you're going to keep thinking the whole time: "After this, I'll have to find some other thing to do, and in the end I'll die, oh woe is me!", then why bother?
Again, in that case then there's nothing to do but commit suicide. Or work endlessly to forget the absurdity of your life, but there's no point in that either because you can't ultimately forget that.
So? There isn't one. Sane animals don't need purposes; humans invent purposes.
Exactly. We are not animals. You could argue we are "a special kind of animal" from an evolutionary perspective, but I think that's b.s. If our only purpose is to reproduce and "pass the genes", it might be better to just let our species go extinct instead of continuing its proliferation. Zapffe put it better (allow me to quote him): "As long as humankind recklessly proceeds in the fateful delusion of being biologically fated for triumph, nothing essential will change." Mankind will get increasingly desperate until 'the last messiah' arrives, "the man who, as the first of all, has dared strip his soul naked and submit it alive to the outmost thought of the lineage, the very idea of doom. A man who has fathomed life and its cosmic ground, and whose pain is the Earth's collective pain." Zapffe compares his messiah to Moses, but ultimately rejects the precept to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,” by saying “Know yourselves – be infertile, and let the earth be silent after ye.”
Sure. You don't appreciate life for its own sake. You want to be more significant than algae. For a human, that's normal. (Of course, there is nothing more significant than algae, because without them, we wouldn't exist.)
Of course I want to be more significant than algae! Many don't care, or at least they never seem to realize they're living like algae.
You don't get to base your life - that's already happened. All you can do is narrate it, describe it, represent it, explain it, justify it, magnify and embellish and make a saga out of it. You may find an audience outside of yourself, maybe a very large audience, if your deeds are dramatic enough. But you and your deeds and your story and your following will still end sometime.
Yes, it's true. Ultimately ANYTHING we do perishes and is forgotten. So what is there to do, how are we to live?
So, what's stopping you? By all means, think about it. Choose a path, have an ambition, learn what you need to learn and then go and achieve stuff. Don't be whining that this takes too long and that's too complicated and the other thing will probably fail. Of course it does, is and will. Futility doesn't stop heroes. If you want to be a hero, find something magnificent and difficult to attempt.
I guess I have no other option, do I? Even if there's no meaning, I have to find one for me. Is there anything else I can do?.
I wasn't talking about hedonistic anything. I mentioned orgasm and beer and you ran off with that, instead of any of the more productive activities I mentioned. You made an unfounded assumption. I was talking about appreciating life. Being present in, aware of, and grateful for every minute that doesn't hurt. There is so much pain and misery in this world - a disproportionate amount of it directly caused by our own species - that I do not wish to produce any more by negating what's good and beautiful, simply because it doesn't last forever. The good and beautiful is often ephemeral: you have to be receptive or you miss it.
I'm not telling anyone to like the same things I do. I'm only saying that if you don't like anything, you lose out.
Ok, ok, now I understand what you mean. Actually, I've basically been doing that for a long time. You know, enjoying and appreciating the beauty of literature, cinema... philosophy too, etc. Only that now I feel this pressing to find beauty in a long-term activity, knowing that I can't live off my parents' earnings all my life and that I'll have to find something else by which I'll occupy my time (and generate my means of survival too). Working every day in something I don't enjoy just to experience those ephimeral moments of beauty and happiness is not worth the trouble to me.
I didn't suffer logically: shit just happened. I survived - so far. With luck, I have another ten years, but it's not looking easy.
Hahaha don't say that! Though it's probably better to die young honestly lol.
Nothing justifies anything. Shit just happens. You try to avoid as much of the pains as possible. Little people have little activities, which are not always pleasing. Great big important personages have great big important activities, which are sometimes horrific. Guess which group does the most self-justifying.
I don't know lol. But personally, I think that big important activities at least make other people's living easier. I mean, I've been thinking that if I can't come up with a personal meaning, maybe I should focus on making life better for people who don't need a meaning to live.
See the documentary The Age of Stupid. It's not conspiracies that cause the really severe shit; it's complacencies.
Isn't that movie about global warming? Or is it a critique of capitalism too?
Matt24
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:15 pm

Re: What is the point of life?

Post by Matt24 »

Nikolai and TheVoiceofTime, I'll get back to you soon. Just too busy lately to catch up with all the posts!! Sorry :oops:
Skip
Posts: 2553
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: What is the point of life?

Post by Skip »

Matt24 wrote:
Skip wrote: That's because there isn't any.
But I need one.
So, if you haven't the ambition or imagination to invent your own, join a cause, movement, gang or cult. Plenty of demigods and demagogues out there happy to take your life and turn it to their own benefit.
Most of us need meaning.
I'm not sure who your "us" are, but you can exclude me.
Otherwise, if there is none, wouldn't suicide be the only rational consequence?
If you like. Death is exactly as purposeless and pointless as life. Here they are: choose.
(Remember, you can choose life as many times as you like, but you only get to choose death once.)
We are not animals.
Well, we're not vegetables or minerals, so that's the only real option left. Angels aren`t real.
You could argue we are "a special kind of animal" from an evolutionary perspective,
Special only in that we all have the crazy gene that in most other species is the rare exception.
but I think that's b.s. If our only purpose is to reproduce and "pass the genes", it might be better to just let our species go extinct
That will - must, as it does to all species - happen in due course.
Of course I want to be more significant than algae!
Why?**
Like I said, we couldn't exist without them. I was too polite to mention that algae can exist very well - in fact, much better - without us. Most other species can (possible exceptions are bedbugs and cockroaches - I think we're good for them).
More importantly: To whom do you wish to be significant? Cos' you know, algae are as significant to themselves as whales and Klingons are: every living entity is the center of its own universe. You`re already as significant to yourself as possible.
**This, right here, is the nub and kernel of your problem. Why?
Yes, it's true. Ultimately ANYTHING we do perishes and is forgotten.
It's worse than - or possibly not quite so bad as - that. Ultimately everything perishes and there is nobody left to do the forgetting.
So what is there to do, how are we to live?
As well as we can, according to our own lights. Using all your faculties and capabilities, devise a framework for your own life that makes you feel okay. If a drug-induced haze is the best you can manage, that's just wasteful - and unfortunate. If you can construct an ethical theory with rules and standards, and actually live according to your own criteria, it'll probably be a more interesting life for you, and you`ll probably be able to find others who want to share it with you, but there are challenges. Or, you can let somebody else set the criteria, write the narrative, invent the rituals, conflicts and sacrifices. But failure to live up to the standards, even if they`re impossible, will make you feel like shit and result in punished as well. Because you need a purpose and a total stranger with the barefaced gall to call himself father offers you one. A lot of people - most, I suppose - choose this option. It makes a lot of messes for the self-directed to clean up, but we're used to it.
I guess I have no other option, do I? Even if there's no meaning, I have to find one for me.
That's about the size of it.
Only that now I feel this pressing to find beauty in a long-term activity, knowing that I can't live off my parents' earnings all my life and that I'll have to find something else by which I'll occupy my time
Growing up can be difficult, but has its rewards, too.
Working every day in something I don't enjoy just to experience those ephimeral moments of beauty and happiness is not worth the trouble to me.
Nobody promised you a rose garden. There are alternatives - most of them unsavoury.
Or, you might find work that feels good. I've had half a dozen mini-careers that were enough fun to wake up for. The best trick is to invent your own work instead of renting your body out to the overlords.
(Employment is the biggest, nastiest crime of civilization. It divides people into two equally soul-destroying categories.)
Though it's probably better to die young honestly lol.
Bit late for me. One time, Grade 3 I think, I calculated how old I would be at the millennium ... 53! No way i'll live that long!
Hell, even one of my parents made it past AD2000. I have lost a country, five family members, all my worldly goods a couple of times; had injury and illness and recovered. It's amazing how resilient humans are.
But personally, I think that big important activities at least make other people's living easier.
No, they don`t. They make upheaval and misery. What makes life easier is growing wholesome food and building sturdy homes; raising bright kids and healthy cattle; painting nice designs on the amphorae and weaving cloth that lasts a long time; levelling the roads and balancing the canoes. Small stuff. If you figure out a better way to do any of those necessary things, fine - but calculate the long-term cost before you institute the new regime.

My keyboard`s gone stupid, so I can`t do the quote marks until I reboot.
Do something big, if you`re inclined to, and can. Or not. It really doesn`t matter - though, of course, I`d much prefer you didn`t blow things up - that never seems to accomplish what the guy who lights the fuse is hoping for.
Matt24
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:15 pm

Re: What is the point of life?

Post by Matt24 »

Nikolai wrote:Hey Matt

Have you read Tolstoy's Confession?If you not you should because its probably the book that discusses this stuff directly and is entirely autobiographical. Emerson is a lifelong favourite of mine, Thoreau at the time, because much of my anxiety was about finding menaingful employment and not wanting to do anything that was available to me. The philsophers are hard to read, Schopenhauer easier...but as long as you understand the significance of what they are arguing, that is the main thing. Just find books that explain it. Kant is completely world-changing, and might well give you the intellectual justification you need.
No, I have never read that one by Tolstoy. Actually, although I love to read him and Dostoevsky, doubts about the accuracy of translations prevent me from buying more of their works. Before I was a fan, I didn’t care about them. But when I discovered how different each translator rearranged the text, I began holding back from purchasing more of their novels until I could be sure I was buying a good translation.

Anyway, after a quick search, I found out Confession is actually a short work, so maybe I’ll just read it on the Internet if it’s in the public domain.
Indeed, if they argue completely about this point, then I may not find it that difficult. However, my experience with philosophy tells me that there each topic is interconnected with many other works, ideas and authors, so I’m not too sure. I would really appreciate it if you could recommend me a particular not-too-complex work from them (if there is one like that at all!).

In order to transcend space and time we must realise and understand that space and time have no independent existence in themselves, but are rather categories of understanding. They have no intrinsic reality, beyond what we ascribe to them. Perhaps an example will help...

I am sat opposite to you, between us is a table and on it is a coffee cup with a handle. If i can lift it with my right hand, then that means the handle will be on your left. Left-handed and right-handed are both categories of understanding, which, according to the moment we are in, can be useful to us. We are wise enough to know that left or right handedness are not intrinsic properties of the cup. We have the mental flexibility to see that my right-handed cup is your left handed cup and as these are logically opposite terms, the cup cannot be said to be intrinsically right or left.

Now lets get back to time...

Time appears to us as a purely mental event. We cannot detect it with our senses. It always appears as a thought, either a 'memory' or 'expectation'. In other words the mental event represents or symbolises a point separate in time from the present.

But each of these representation is also its own reality happening Now! A memory is always, of necessity, a current and fresh event. Even the oldest of antiques is always a present mental event, freshly minted. But this nowness, this freshness is the opposite of time: it is eternity. It is not a mere representation, but a thing in itself.

Hopefully you can see that this is rather like left and right on the cup.

Wherever we see time, we also see eternity.

In face time and eternity are two perspectives on the same reality.

When you understand this argument you have transcended time and space. You have learnt to understand a different way of viewing things. Just as our understanding of the dual orientation of the mug is so natural that we don't have to think about it, so too will life appear as both temporal and eternal...now one, now another, according to the situation.

Existential crisis occurs when we are exclusively tied to a temporal worldview, and the hideousness of that is fully raised to consciousness. Most people are unconscious of what are the ramifications of their worldview. Perhaps they avoid it because the dimly suspect how hideous it is. But once you have become conscious of it there is no going back, however much you might want to. You must somehow come to terms with and understand exactly what time is.

The philosopher is getting uncomfortably close to religion and spirituality once he has solved the problem of time. If this bothers you, then too bad because there is no choice about it...and you will eventually get over it. You will start to see that science is less rational that you thought, and religion less irrational. And you yourself will be living in a way that has little further need for any of these explanatory systems. Reality, you see, needs no further explanation. The death you worried about it is also no-death at all.

All the comfort, power and security that we have gained through intellectual enquiry is ours automatically and directly the moment that we transcend time and space. Truth is something that you know with different faculty, call it what you like. Some call it the heart, but these are just words. Whatever it is, it is the solution to existential crisis and in the future you will come to explain it some way or other. Whether your explanation has a scientific flavour, a theological or philosophical flavour is immaterial. The peace and the joy will be yours.
Wow, thanks, but I’m still not sure I can fully understand all the logic behind this thinking.

This particular paragraph is what baffles me:
“But each of these representation is also its own reality happening Now! A memory is always, of necessity, a current and fresh event. Even the oldest of antiques is always a present mental event, freshly minted. But this nowness, this freshness is the opposite of time: it is eternity. It is not a mere representation, but a thing in itself.”

In what sense are memories happening RIGHT NOW? I fail to… understand the argument. I was thinking along the lines that, since our human time was so short in terms of the time of the universe; it transcends us, because universally it’s as if there was no time. But I don't think that's what you mean.

I don’t know, I’m still so confused. Sorry again, I still appreciate the effort though.
Matt24
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:15 pm

Re: What is the point of life?

Post by Matt24 »

The Voice of Time wrote: No, but sometimes you get the answer nevertheless, usually by inference when they address similar questions or subjects. I ask similar questions, but not exactly focused on those three.
True, true. Analyzing the life of a person is not that difficult when you ask the right questions (or even when that other person is willing to tell you all about their life).
In that regard I'm actually not too much of a relativist, I engage in people's ethical life based on whether I have the time and resources and feeling in the mood for it, but I do engage when I see something I don't like. Too often I don't really care why they do it because the likelihood of a sufficient reason is so small that it's more efficient to address their wrongness directly, and then they often complain I don't know them and stuff like that, which is usually the time I have to tell them I don't really care who they are, because it's so wrong they'd really have to have a gooooood and unlikely reason for me not to react as I do. So I'm "shoot first, ask later", but I shoot only warning shots though x) If I am to cause serious consequences outside of the momentous engagement into their sense of right and wrong, I act with more care, I don't shoot to injure anyone before they'd been able to make their case. Something more than a few people on this forum should know.
Indeed, sometimes their reason is underdeveloped or it does not even underlie the action. Still, while not every act has a reason, I believe that actions are a product of the personal morality and philosophy of a person, which in turn have a reasoning or a why.

I wouldn’t directly accuse anybody in any case if I were you. Sometimes in life you find that the person you judged contemptuously was not that wrong in the first place. Of course, one usually can’t help criticizing other people’s decisions (it comes naturally) but we should try to make the best effort to restrain myself. It’s already good that you know when to hold your judgment back, however, in my mind, it’s better to hold them back forever after (in case your intuitions fail and you misjudged the situation). Anyhow, you decide what’s best for you lol I don’t know how I got to be giving advice (me of all people).
Oh, I thought we were talking about your family, not strangers. Okay, but strangers do care if it's serious, like if you've got asthma they'll probably help you acquire an inhaler for free.
If you persevere enough, then you will eventually find a benevolent person to buy it for you. However, it’s not that easy to get people to give you money. They usually think it’s a scam (or that’s what they seem to say).
You don't really get to forget your past by constantly retelling it x)
No, I never argued that. But I thought that once in a blue moon, when the occasion arises he might retell some of his experiences. Even if they were unrelated to the actual fighting. I understand that he could be reluctant to talk about it though. Probably recalling the environment makes him feel bad.
Not really. Looking through some marsh land after a lost kid is not really a very exciting moment. It's walking and walking and walking without end, only to find some dead body, or nothing, or somebody lost in the landscape stuck in the mud (lolz, reminds of a Norwegian movie where a company of really old labour party members singing along to old commie songs get stuck in the mud and slowly but surely get consumed by it, everyone holding each other's hands till the very end... btw it was a comedie x) ).
That sounds very interesting to me. When they actually find the person, of course. How did they get lost? Or how did they die? Does he get to know all that information?
Nope. But I knew a Brazilian who studied with me in China (mandarin), and he spoke very perfect and fluent English, so you never know.
Hold on, you went to China? Dude, I hate you (not really, you know) you’ve done too many exciting things and been to many places. It’s like your Voyager I and I’m a boring satellite of the Earth. Seriously.
Denmark and Iceland are greener x) Denmark is world-leading on wind power, and Iceland world-leading on geothermal power.
Well, well, still by international standards Norway is one of the greener countries out there. You also gotta keep in mind that not every country can create all kinds of renewable energy, it depends much on its geography.
Well if you're a drug addict you may not have the balance in your life to spend the money you get to pay for rent, so you don't own your own place (though only a few are that bad), but there are places where you can sleep, I once slept at such a place for one night and it had recently opened and the quality of those beds were far greater than any bed you get at Ikea for instance... they were wonder-beds!

But to your question: in theory? No. But for various reasons, people can make themselves homeless, but it usually requires them to work hard to remain homeless x) There's been done parodies on how the Norwegian welfare system constantly asks to give you money, to cover all sorts of things. So if you want a home, you'll get it definitely, and should be within a very short while. When I once ended up homeless, for reasons I'm not gonna say (nothing to do with the journeys I've been on), I was sent to an apartment hotel! And the Norwegian government paid more than 3000 euros for me to stay there for like 2 weeks! Although it was unintentional that I should have the place I got, which I only got because of a booking problem, what I ended up with was a fully furnished prime apartment with my own kitchen, two bathrooms, a big living room, TWO bedrooms, and so forth... so I'm an example that you really have to mess up your life hard constantly to stay in any crap :D
Hahahaha that’s cool!
So you basically don’t see anyone begging/sleeping on the streets when you go outside? Woah. It’s almost like a different world.
Yes, illegal immigrants may not often get the same treatment as legal ones, as they are there illegally, but immigrants receive the same benefits, are given housing and helped into jobs and given free education and health care like everyone else.
I see. But the illegal ones may still live in poverty then (although probably less poor than in their native countries). That’s unavoidable though. It’s good to know that at least the legal ones are welcomed and well-supported. Unlike in Switzerland…
Nothing to be impressed about, most the western world has that now.
Not really. Depends on your definition of “most” and "western". Great Britain doesn’t allow abortion on request (first to come to my mind); most of the USA still doesn’t permit same-sex marriage (neither does Germany or Italy).
We're among the best in the world along with the rest of the Nordic countries on those matters x) (http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results/)

Ungrounded. Corruption has nothing to do with welfare states. Corruption is caused by bad policy implementations and governance, neither of which has anything to do with the policy behind them. In fact, I'd say inequality leads more often to corruption because people are more aimed at exploiting each other as they view each other with natural envy.
Stop bragging hahaha. No, seriously speaking, isn’t there ever any corruption scandal or anything of the like? I’ve always hypothesized that politics comes hand-in-hand with corruption (in a broader or lesser scale, depending on the government of course) but that ultimately there was always some. Norway just refutes my theory completely though.

Bad policy implementations is, in my opinion, too broad a term to make it a cause. And it does not always hold that it correlates with corruption. The Obamacare policy wasn't implemented well, but that doesn't mean it was affected by corruption.

As I said, I always related corruption to power. Any kind of power. But I don't know, maybe you're right that it's inequality instead.
Faulty reasoning. As I said, bad policy implementations and governance leads to such problems. https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 2rank.html

Norway has 4th highest budget surplus in the world. What other countries are on the list with surplus? Brazil, Germany, Switzerland... all of which have extensive welfare systems, including universal health care, which is guaranteed in all countries (though, some, like Switzerland, has a "guarantee of payment" system, which means it's based upon insurance, but insurance is compulsory for everyone, covers everything so that you don't have to worry if you have the wrong disease, and if you can't pay the government subsidizes you).

In contrast, the countries in the world that really suffer, are the more militarized countries, like France, UK, USA, China (yes China does not have a surplus, it's currently suffering from internal debt accumulation, and they do not have universal health care), Russia (which is suffering more as they are currently spending money to save their currency, so their reserves are shrinking up), Spain (though not particularly known for being militarized, and maybe not fair to put them on this list, but they recently commissioned a new air craft carrier they don't afford to operate...) and Greece (Greece has had outrageous military spendings).
I agree on this 100%. I believe in the welfare state, and I'd rather have a few corrupt politicians and a budget deficit than a privatised welfare system. That doesn't mean the former aren't problems to be dealt with. You gave good examples of well-managed welfare states, but there are some which are badly-managed (Italy, Spain too - I don't think they spend that much on the military tbh -, Portugal).
Sometimes people don't need all your time to enjoy you. I don't think that the more time you spend with each other the more qualitative is the friendship. That's like saying the more hamburgers you eat the more fed you get, when in truth at some point you are not just fed, you are throwing up... all in balance I say. And different people require different balances.
But can you claim to be a burger lover if you only eat them once a month?
Broaden your concept of mutual interests, don't think about just tv shows or movies. It just have to be something worth talking about. Your friendship has to be based on something that seems satisfactory, so I'm sure when you do spend time, you find things to ground your experience in. My current best friend was not a big friend of mine in school, we got better acquainted at the very end of school. I have little to no contact with my friends in school, which I ended up not having enough in common with and not being particularly fitting with. They were good people, but not particularly interested in me.
Same thing happened to me. I ended school with only two "friends", one of which I almost lost contact with. I still see the other one, who used to be my best pal, but I can already see how we're beginning to distance ourselves.
Or maybe not enough patience to find it x)
Hope so.
Hmm... well. I don't really share a lot of emotions with my friend, our friendship is based upon the good sides of life and not the bad. That said, I don't really know how to appreciate sharing my emotions with people... because I'm an open person in general I'm able to do it, but I never feel relieved by it... you could say that I'm not particularly emotionally intelligent. I know how to enjoy things, but I don't really know how to be sad or stuff like that, it just appears so... inefficient... to me x) If I'm sad, I might lie down in bed to shed a couple of tears, then just relax, and/or I eat a chocolate and play a game, or visit my silent but moaning friends on youporn.com. Either way, it works to some degree.

That said, I think a really warm and intelligent woman should be able to make any person soften in their emotions, but those women are rare, and too much of either just scares you off or makes you think they are silly.
Hahahaha so it's quite subjective, I see. Still, that's how I feel. To me, you don't get to know me until I truly "open up" my soul. I get it, it doesn't really happen with friends (esp. in adulthood) but I wish it did happen.
User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: What is the point of life?

Post by The Voice of Time »

Oyoy, you started being so late with your answer that I was suspecting you had found a new interest xD Then again, you did answer in the end. But you know, this conversation can last for weeks if you never stop answering, lolz ;) I've been on this forum for years now, and am not gonna leave it anytime soon, so be in for an eternal game of ball!
User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: What is the point of life?

Post by The Voice of Time »

Matt24 wrote:I don't agree, it's this amusement that embodies the selfishness and superficiality I talk about. It may be that's not the accurate term. I don't mean "amusement" as a synonym of fun, but as the kind of entertainment you get when you interact with say, a book or a TV show. The kind of entertainment you crave for at one specific moment, though you lose interest in it when you find something better to do.

It might be related to being used, depending on your point of view. To me, all those kinds of plan-B/C friendships (excuse me for using the same adjective over and over) are just a way of maneuvering people at your disposal. Friendships should involve having fun, of course, but they shouldn't be discarded when you find something more amusing to do with other people.
Sounds very much like being "used" yes. I don't really inspire people to use me for amusement a lot, but when it does happen I've either responded with anger after warnings to "put them in place" (if they are being bullies), though I probably have more sophisticated methods now since that was when I was a kid. Else I've been used for amusements that do not really bother me... like girls teasing me in erotic fashions without really being interested in me, I really don't mind that x) Because of my independent attitude (and experience with a narcissistic and scheming mother) I'm not prone to being fooled into anyone's scheme, I'm usually not baited, maybe out of a combination of both spotting warning signs (like uncaring or excessive behaviours that appear unstable or faked) and general disinterest in people I have not rationally chosen to engage myself with.
Matt24 wrote:Well, in my opinion, people aren't really able to love their neighbours... simply because they keep this "distance" between them. I don't think this means they're bad people, they simply don't realize their superficiality makes them be dishonest and fake, and as long as they "amuse" themselves for a while when interacting with their superficial friends they're all right.
People are, they just not have the capacity to share their time and effort with everyone, as well as lacking the proper personality skills sometimes. Like I imagine myself able to engage with desperate catastrophic situations, because I'm very hard to stunned or awed, being constantly open to new stimulus. But some people are very easily surprised in these kinds of fashion. I'm relatively easy sometimes to momentarily scare (like.... "BOH!" <<me stumbling a meter backwards in momentous fright>>), but not out of the moment. So this is a personal skill I have, but doesn't mean I'm "better" than the person next by, who may not have those necessary skills. However, disinterest in the consequences of ones own actions, that's being a bad person, or at least relative to what is the underlying value-judgements of situations. I'm often acting badly towards people because I reason their expectations are stupid, irrational or automated (instead of thought through), but my underlying value-judgement is that if I am to respond as to how people always expect me to, I'll never be able to properly act and development myself in a direction I consider ultimately desirable for everyone, so I reason it a good action when everything comes down to it. However, if I didn't have this sense of a goal and a direction and a value-judgement, I'd be doing it out of spite and lack of general care... that would make me a bad person under any non-extreme perspective.
Matt24 wrote:Maybe I'm not being completely honest, you're right. But as I said above, I don't think I could manage to.. break it off. In a certain sense I've been following your advice on "looking for greener fields" in some situations, yet I can't do it "for good" you know? I can't bring myself to say "Ok, I'll look for a greener field and I will ignore you forevermore because of your lack of appreciation".
You'd have to live in a very big hell to not find something eventually. You could of course increase your patience, but shouldn't really be that much of a problem unless you are 1) exceptionally unlucky, or 2) really desperate, but if you that desperate you might need something like a psychologist to talk to so you get regular human interfacing on a deeper level. It's not the same as a friend, but it absolutely helps for the desperate.
Matt24 wrote:Is being left completely absolutely alone the price to pay for being honest? Because hey, maybe I prefer a slow breakup as a result of time and losing contact than a sudden end which will forever offend the other person.
You'll have to judge this as by case basis, however I just strongly recommend to avoid automated response, so you keep in contact with your rational sense of what's going on and why.
Matt24 wrote:Hahahaha you're spot-on about that. I hate when people are together just for sex. Those kinds of relationships don't usually prosper much, as the search for pleasure ends up leading one of the members to cheat on the other or to break up when they grow bored of their current bf/gf.
If you are a really good person you care about the ones you associate with because they are a person and not because they are some special love-of-my-life thing. So it's about being open, but then again this has to be done in a fashion that does not overwhelm the individual... meaning the individual must have the time and energy to address each issue sufficiently, which is why a lot of relations is a bad idea. However, you could safely have three-four and maybe even five relations, as long as those individuals in turn have somebody more than just you, because you can't entertain and help solve the life problems of half a dozen people or near that.
Matt24 wrote:That's a good way to maintain relations, yes, but sometimes you end up liking the activity you are doing more than you enjoy the company of the other. Couldn't that be damaging in a relationship?
Hmm... don't really have that much experience with something like that. In my view, a person consists of what they have to offer as well as their humanity. What they have to offer brings you closer, and may increase your basic priority for them, but it's their humanity that makes you care about them... to care about someone merely because you are in a relationship is... somewhat... wrong to me. So what can I say? I'd say no, it couldn't by itself, but in the right situations perhaps it could. But me liking to play a particular game more than I like the person I'm playing it with does not really ruin our relationships, unless I like the game so little that the person I'm with has negative value x) Then they might disturb my awesome playing. But doing something I enjoy with someone, should only increase my positively associating value with that person.
Matt24 wrote:
That wouldn't be too polite, would it?[/quote]

I agree. Try "Please change subject." or "I'm not in the mood for a conversation with you." or "Please stop talking, I've heard plenty." But these might not be long-term effective enough, and if not... try being more forceful "Please, I do not enjoy your... bla bla bla comments... spare yourself from telling me them at... bla bla bla frequency/ever".
Matt24 wrote:Well yes, of course there should be some inquiry too. I referred to the specific case of this issue, which is not something that everybody understands. The few I've mentioned it to were like: "So maybe you need to study something else and find out what you want to do...", but that's like totally missing the point. I would like it if someone made the effort to understand me and try to be supportive (even if that means they can't give me a suggestion on what I should do), instead of just thinking they can make a stupid suggestion and avoid talking about these deeper issues immediately.
One usually have to understand oneself before other can understand one. And if you already understand yourself, you might need to learn to teach others about yourself more explicitly. Besides that, I don't really have much more help to offer, as I don't know you either, and can't know what it is they should know and inquire about.
Matt24 wrote:I don't think it's because of the context in time. Usually this is the case with people I only still know quite superficially. If that's not the time to pursue a fruitful relationship, then when is the time? Should I just remain a fake superficial friend for decades?
Well something has to bring you together, it's certainly not gonna happen on spite and for no reason. In fact you might have to wait decades for the opportune moment, but obviously you don't spend time waiting, you just but it on hold until something appears or there's a better moment. And it's a bit like catching a fish, as sometimes your fish dodges the hook and still takes the bait... so you know, even with a good opportunity it doesn't always happen. But that's life, if friends were cheap we'd all have plenty x)
Matt24 wrote:And even if that were the case, and they don't feel like talking anymore after their internet issues, why not at least excuse yourself next time we chat? Something like: "Oh, by the way, sorry I didn't answer back the other day, I was having problems with my Internet connection".
You'll have to question yourself whether that's really so important, I don't really expect anyone to do that, but you know, maybe it's preferable maybe it's not? I can promise you that empty talk like that I don't need to hear from my buddy. It's a waste of words to me, and if I know him right he'd concur. But that's our relationship, you'll have to shape your own, and maybe a better choice for you is somebody who does remember details like that.
Matt24 wrote:There can be limits and exceptions. I don't mean it in an absolute sense. But is that hard to count on your friend's supportiveness, I don't know, 50% of the time at least? One thing is exceptions and another thing is periodicity.
Now, hypothetically, if you are really stupid, your friend might have to give you much less support than you want, because you are the one doing the wrong. But if that friend really thinks you are that stupid, they should either 1) express it explicitly so that you can correct yourself, 2) maybe re-evaluate how they should treat you (maybe your stupidity deserves more pity?) or perhaps 3) re-evaluate the friendship... maybe the hypothetical you is too stupid for the friendship. I know I've neglected to develop friendships because I think the person is just too stupid to be around and I'd only be able to criticize them. But I also know that I'm a person with a lot of faults... occasionally I'm a clown, forgetting the most basic things... like here the other day I forgot and went to the wrong cinema although I knew the right one -.- and me and my buddy have fun laughing at such things, so that's a way to treat faults in a more positive manner. But sometimes it's hard to turn it into something good, especially if you deal in illegalities or you are being an asshole etc. etc. against other people and basically just get what you deserve in return... then the friend might want to wait for until you are ready for a redemption and change of yourself instead of supporting your wrongdoings.
Matt24 wrote:I don't know, I feel like from your point of view, there wouldn't be any true friends. It would all be defined according to the activity you do "my sports pal", "my classmate", "my colleague". So yeah, now that I think about it, that's the realistic (and superficial) way relationships are. That's exactly what I don't want to be/have.
"My saving angel", "my cry-shoulder", "my protector against evil", "my personal hero", "my life mentor", "my amateur-psychologist", "my life coach", "my pardoner"? x) You see I got them covered as well! ;)
Matt24 wrote:Well, but as long as the excuses are not frequent and there's an effort by the other to make up for it some other time, I wouldn't mind it.
I don't see the need to "make up for it", unless you really need it, but then it'd be based on another criteria than your lost chance.
Matt24 wrote:Again, I go for a greener field too when it's obvious they don't want to be with me much, but I just don't put my heart into developing the relationship as I had done before.

It's ok to be sceptical of those two terms I used. They can be interpretated in different ways, but I think that all in all, we could agree on what it means to be a genuine and just friend, at least in a non-technical generalized sense.
Maybe, but we might deviate as well, as we haven't explored it sufficiently to know.
Matt24 wrote:That is very, very true. But what constitutes the amount of necessary time for a friendship to progress? To continue with your economic analogy, what if I'm wasting resources sowing seeds in an environment where they can't grow?
Well to further the economic analysis, you have to be able to predict with a large accuracy what are good growth environments and whether you'll have them. A friendship is more like running a venture capital firm... many failures, but a few good successes that makes up for it.
Matt24 wrote:A total mindset reshape? Man, that sounds difficult to achieve. Is there any book that can guide me through?
Many self-help books out there, but I speak from personal philosophy and not any book in particular... I know somebody kind-of a friend-friendish guy, who would recommend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle. I have a book of his, I don't like it too much, not clear enough writing, but it's famous and seems to have helped people, so try it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Earth (subtitled: "Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose"). The book explores a mindset reshape, but not in the exact fashion I'm talking about... but at least it's a written guide. You might like it by how I understand you up until now.
Matt24 wrote:This is also very challenging to do. I understand now what you mean, however, noticing that which I ignore is something complex to do especially if I'm not actively working on it. I'll try to, but I don't think I'll succeed lol.
You can't really fail, you can just succeed less x) So keep that in mind!
Matt24 wrote:That's the thing. It's so hard to realize if a goal is worth it. Nevertheless, I guess it's better to make a mistake and follow the wrong goal than not having a goal at all.
Yes. But do think it through.
Matt24 wrote:I'll reply to both Chapters again tomorrow :)
Failed! xD See, people do not always have the time ;) And I'm not holding anything against you for that.
Post Reply