What Are You Living For?

[RCSaunders]

I don't agree with the above.
Life is the primary default and death is merely a later inevitability.
To be born is to live; all humans are programmed to live till the inevitable.
Humans don't choose to be born so don't consciously choose to live rather they are spontaneously driven to live by Nature.

Humans [normally] only choose to die when they have sufficient self-consciousness - mostly in their teens. The majority of humans do not choose to die due to the default which drive one to live at least till one's active reproductive potential is over.

Thus the default is to live.
I agree being alive is [as you stated] "all about is living your life as well as you possibly can as a human being."
But to live optimally as a human being, one has to know, understand what is being-human.

Being-Human means the human being is encumbered with various inherent conditions, i.e. the inherent core of human nature with its limits and its potentiality. It is because of these inherent conditions that all human beings cannot freely and simply choose their purpose in life.
They must first give consideration to these inherent conditions, i.e. the inherent duties and obligations as being human before making the personal choice to be what they want to be.

This is why Socrates' maxim "Know Thyself" is very critical.
If this maxim is not mastered, then one life will not be optimal and efficient.

Talk about a slave mentality. You think life itself is something imposed on human beings against their will, that they have no choice about the kind of life they live or even if they live. What a wonderful way to live, believing your life is determined by causes and forces you have no way of understanding the cause or purpose of, because they are not your causes or purposes.

I hope you do not suffer to much from this demented view of life.

Point is you did not read my post properly.
You are way off tangent.
Where did I state we do not have a choice about the kind of life we want to live?

All humans are imposed with the restricted and limited conditions of human nature and also given the freewill [not absolute] to use discretion to live within the boundaries of the human conditions.

Note I stated above,

"They must first give consideration to these inherent conditions, i.e. the inherent duties and obligations as being human before making the personal choice to be what they want to be."

That means you must adopt Socrates' "Know Thyself" before using your freewill to do what you want.
Do you even understand what "Know Thyself" means.

It's none of my business, and I'm not interested in this at a personal level. I'm just curious what someone with your views actually does for a living. What kind of productive work do you do others willingly pay you for.

If you don't want to answer that, I'll certainly understand--and come to my own conclusions.

[RCSaunders]

To make Life, Itself, BETTER.

What are 'you', the one known as "rcsaunders", living for?

I'm living to enjoy my life to the fullest and be the best I can possibly be as a human being.

How can you achieve the above efficiently if you do not understand what is like to be being-human.

Hitler would definitely thought he had done his best and lived life to the fullest and committed suicide before the impending sufferings.

Have you done your best and lived your life to the fullest? I hope you have. Don't worry so much about what others do with their lives--just get yours right.

[bahman]

To know the truth and tell the truth.

If you ONLY speak or ONLY tell the truth, then, thee truth, you can ONLY KNOW.

By the way, if you are living for 'telling the truth', then you NOT doing a very good job at all at what you are living for.

I am doing my best.

[bahman]

To know the truth and tell the truth.

To know it and live by it is enough.

I don't think so.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'm living to enjoy my life to the fullest and be the best I can possibly be as a human being.

How can you achieve the above efficiently if you do not understand what is like to be being-human.

Hitler would definitely thought he had done his best and lived life to the fullest and committed suicide before the impending sufferings.

Have you done your best and lived your life to the fullest? I hope you have. Don't worry so much about what others do with their lives--just get yours right.

This is a philosophy forum not a market-square.
Anybody can claim they have done their best regardless, that is not philosophy, rational nor wise.
If you want purely subjective personal views then you should raise it in the chat section.

Any subject raised in the Philosophy Section is taken to be intended to be general and applicable to everyone.

For example, if someone claimed he has lived his life to the fullest with torturing children for pleasure and committing other terrible evil acts, surely we [the normal] will not accept that but will surely bring in the subject of how anyone-in-general should lead his life to the fullest.

I am not saying no one should state their personal views philosophically. My point is whatever the personal view, it will eventually has to gravitate to the general norm.

That was what I did, I avoid the frivolous and got direct to the eventual target, i.e. bring the subject to the general norm.

[RCSaunders]

How can you achieve the above efficiently if you do not understand what is like to be being-human.

Hitler would definitely thought he had done his best and lived life to the fullest and committed suicide before the impending sufferings.

Have you done your best and lived your life to the fullest? I hope you have. Don't worry so much about what others do with their lives--just get yours right.

This is a philosophy forum not a market-square.
Anybody can claim they have done their best regardless, that is not philosophy, rational nor wise.
If you want purely subjective personal views then you should raise it in the chat section.

Any subject raised in the Philosophy Section is taken to be intended to be general and applicable to everyone.

For example, if someone claimed he has lived his life to the fullest with torturing children for pleasure and committing other terrible evil acts, surely we [the normal] will not accept that but will surely bring in the subject of how anyone-in-general should lead his life to the fullest.

I am not saying no one should state their personal views philosophically. My point is whatever the personal view, it will eventually has to gravitate to the general norm.

That was what I did, I avoid the frivolous and got direct to the eventual target, i.e. bring the subject to the general norm.

What is the, "general norm?" It's what the mass of ignorant superstitious human beings believe? Pity anyone who comes to that.

Noticed you never answered my earlier question:

It's none of my business, and I'm not interested in this at a personal level. I'm just curious what someone with your views actually does for a living. What kind of productive work do you do others willingly pay you for.

Since you provided no answer I assume you don't do anything to produce a product or provide a service anyone would willingly pay you for.

[Systematic]

This is a philosophy forum not a market-square.
Anybody can claim they have done their best regardless, that is not philosophy, rational nor wise.
If you want purely subjective personal views then you should raise it in the chat section.

Any subject raised in the Philosophy Section is taken to be intended to be general and applicable to everyone.

I thought that Saunders' point was deep and relevant. Do you not have free time? Are you being forced to serve with all your time?
If you do have free time, why not spend it not watching television? Accomplish something.
It is especially relevant if you ever have power over something or someone, or if you can convince them to go along.

For example, if someone claimed he has lived his life to the fullest with torturing children for pleasure and committing other terrible evil acts, surely we [the normal] will not accept that but will surely bring in the subject of how anyone-in-general should lead his life to the fullest.

I am not saying no one should state their personal views philosophically. My point is whatever the personal view, it will eventually has to gravitate to the general norm.

That was what I did, I avoid the frivolous and got direct to the eventual target, i.e. bring the subject to the general norm.

What are you talking about? That is obviously an attack argument. Who the heck has achieved that perfected objectivity—never subjective. That's ridiculous to expect from anyone. Dare I say? It is also a foolish request. No one can get to the truth, never having explored the options.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is a philosophy forum not a market-square.
Anybody can claim they have done their best regardless, that is not philosophy, rational nor wise.
If you want purely subjective personal views then you should raise it in the chat section.

Any subject raised in the Philosophy Section is taken to be intended to be general and applicable to everyone.

I thought that Saunders' point was deep and relevant. Do you not have free time? Are you being forced to serve with all your time?
If you do have free time, why not spend it not watching television? Accomplish something.
It is especially relevant if you ever have power over something or someone, or if you can convince them to go along.

Do you have any idea what Socrates' 'Know Thyself' means or refer to in terms of the latest knowledge and potentials of human nature?

For example, if someone claimed he has lived his life to the fullest with torturing children for pleasure and committing other terrible evil acts, surely we [the normal] will not accept that but will surely bring in the subject of how anyone-in-general should lead his life to the fullest.

I am not saying no one should state their personal views philosophically. My point is whatever the personal view, it will eventually has to gravitate to the general norm.

That was what I did, I avoid the frivolous and got direct to the eventual target, i.e. bring the subject to the general norm.

What are you talking about? That is obviously an attack argument. Who the heck has achieved that perfected objectivity—never subjective. That's ridiculous to expect from anyone. Dare I say? It is also a foolish request. No one can get to the truth, never having explored the options.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
I did not assert nor even imply anything related to "perfected objectivity."

Generally what I getting at is, for whatever the effects [e.g. what are you living for] always be mindful of the proximate root causes and not merely fire-fight on impulse.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Have you done your best and lived your life to the fullest? I hope you have. Don't worry so much about what others do with their lives--just get yours right.

This is a philosophy forum not a market-square.
Anybody can claim they have done their best regardless, that is not philosophy, rational nor wise.
If you want purely subjective personal views then you should raise it in the chat section.

Any subject raised in the Philosophy Section is taken to be intended to be general and applicable to everyone.

For example, if someone claimed he has lived his life to the fullest with torturing children for pleasure and committing other terrible evil acts, surely we [the normal] will not accept that but will surely bring in the subject of how anyone-in-general should lead his life to the fullest.

I am not saying no one should state their personal views philosophically. My point is whatever the personal view, it will eventually has to gravitate to the general norm.

That was what I did, I avoid the frivolous and got direct to the eventual target, i.e. bring the subject to the general norm.

What is the, "general norm?" It's what the mass of ignorant superstitious human beings believe? Pity anyone who comes to that.

Noticed you never answered my earlier question:

It's none of my business, and I'm not interested in this at a personal level. I'm just curious what someone with your views actually does for a living. What kind of productive work do you do others willingly pay you for.

Since you provided no answer I assume you don't do anything to produce a product or provide a service anyone would willingly pay you for.

Nah, you are changing the subject from what is in your OP in addition you are very ignorant of what philosophy is and even of your own nature.

What I am trying to say is,
Before one deliberate on "What Are You Living For?" one need to 'Know Thyself' first within whatever knowledge we have on hand at present and possibly in the future.
Note Socrates' "The unexamined life is not worth living."

The general norm is to focus on the substance, foundations and principles of what is life as a human being rather than spout whatever one's is doing on the surface of life.

Rather than spouting what one is doing at present, e.g. chasing pleasure in work, sex, food, etc. it would be more effective to fall back on the principles of living as being human.

Say if one were to live on life to the fullest via a sailing around the world continually, obviously the critical thing is to know thyself to understand one capabilities, weaknesses, strength and know the same thing for the boat one is using to sail round the world.
It would be stupidity and irrationality for one to jump into any boat and start sailing around the world without doing any of the above requirements.

Note the Stoics view on how to live and what one should be living for;

Stoicism is a school of Hellenistic philosophy founded by Zeno of Citium in Athens in the early 3rd century BC. It is a philosophy of personal ethics informed by its system of logic and its views on the natural world.

According to its teachings, as social beings, the path to eudaimonia (happiness, or blessedness) is found in accepting the moment as it presents itself, by not allowing oneself to be controlled by the desire for pleasure or fear of pain, by using one's mind to understand the world [& Know Thyself] and to do one's part in nature's plan, and by working together and treating others fairly and justly.

The Stoics are especially known for teaching that "virtue is the only good" for human beings, and that external things—such as health, wealth, and pleasure—are not good or bad in themselves (adiaphora), but have value as "material for virtue to act upon".

Alongside Aristotelian ethics, the Stoic tradition forms one of the major founding approaches to virtue ethics.[1]
The Stoics also held that certain destructive emotions resulted from errors of judgment, and they believed people should aim to maintain a will (called prohairesis) that is "in accordance with nature".
Because of this, the Stoics thought the best indication of an individual's philosophy was not what a person said, but how a person behaved.[2]

To live a good life, one had to understand the rules of the natural order since they thought everything was rooted in nature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

[Age]

To know the truth and tell the truth.

To know it and live by it is enough.

Do you KNOW 'the truth'?

If yes, then do you live by 'the truth'?

[Age]

What are you living for?

To make Life, Itself, BETTER.

What are 'you', the one known as "rcsaunders", living for?

I'm living to enjoy my life to the fullest and be the best I can possibly be as a human being.

Could you enjoy 'your' life any more than you do EVERY moment of 'your' life?

What, exactly, is involved in being the 'best human being', or, what does it take, exactly, to be the 'best human being''?

[Age]

To know the truth and tell the truth.

If you ONLY speak or ONLY tell the truth, then, thee truth, you can ONLY KNOW.

By the way, if you are living for 'telling the truth', then you NOT doing a very good job at all at what you are living for.

As if you would know.

As if I would know 'what', exactly?

I don't do it to please you,

You do not do 'what', exactly?

I do it to please me,

You do 'what', exactly, to please 'you'?

and because I love implacable ruthless reality. I always conform to reality and it always treats me well.

How could 'reality', itself, treat you any other way than 'well'?

By the way, when you wrote this were you aware that I was replying to some one "else" here?

[Age]

To make Life, Itself, BETTER.

What are 'you', the one known as "rcsaunders", living for?

I'm living to enjoy my life to the fullest and be the best I can possibly be as a human being.

That's what everybody wants to do; question answered. What else is new?

What 'we' want to do, but what 'we' actually do do, can be two completely opposite things.

[Age]

To know the truth and tell the truth.

If you ONLY speak or ONLY tell the truth, then, thee truth, you can ONLY KNOW.

By the way, if you are living for 'telling the truth', then you NOT doing a very good job at all at what you are living for.

I am doing my best.

Is that even the real and actual full and whole Truth?

Because if you are doing your best, then that infers that you could NOT do better.

And, if you could NOT do any better than you are now, then that could imply that 'you' are PERFECT.

[Gary Childress]

What are you living for?

I am living for the sake of living. I believe death is too unbearably scary of a journey to willingly undertake. Therefore "to be" has always been my choice over "not to be".