What Are You Living For?

[Dubious]

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".

Why would you think that death is a journey? It's nothing more than a state of non-existence in which time itself ceased to exist. That which never existed or ceased to exist is devoid of any time dimension. Put another way if there were a hypothetical last judgement in a hundred, a thousand or a million years it would make zero difference. The moment you die you'd be instantaneously present for the outcome.

[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".

Why would you think that death is a journey? It's nothing more than a state of non-existence in which time itself ceased to exist. That which never existed or ceased to exist is devoid of any time dimension. Put another way if there were a hypothetical last judgement in a hundred, a thousand or a million years it would make zero difference. The moment you die you'd be instantaneously present for the outcome.

Fair point. I probably shouldn't have used the word "journey".

[Systematic]

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

No, I don't.

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.

I don't know what that means either. Far as I can tell, there are only three basic factors to living: utilitarian ethics; what is ideal; what is feasible.

Saunders seems to be querying about what is ideal. What's bad about that?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

No, I don't.

That is typical of the majority.
Since the emergence of evolution all living things and humans had been programmed to direct attention externally from themselves to facilitate basic survival, i.e. look out for food, threat, partners, etc.

But since humans are now endowed with self-consciousness and higher intelligence, humans has a duty to understand how their own internal system and mind works.
This is what is meant by 'Know Thyself'.

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.

I don't know what that means either. Far as I can tell, there are only three basic factors to living: utilitarian ethics; what is ideal; what is feasible.

Saunders seems to be querying about what is ideal. What's bad about that?

Fire-fighting mean to fight-fire one may identify the root source of the fire rather than merely putting out what one is seeing as burning with fires. If one do not deal with the root cause, the fire will start again and again.
It is the same as dealing with weeds, one need to pull out all its roots and rhizomes rather than pulling what is seen on the ground.

I presume you know the above.

Point is humans suffer all sorts of problems in living and to deal with them effectively one must understand the proximate root causes.

• Utilitarianism is a family of normative ethical theories that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being for all affected individuals.
  -wiki

Utilitarianism deals with what the maximum possible but not the ideal.

Kantianism deal with absolute ideals but merely use the ideal as a guide and not something that must be achieved since in practice the absolute ideal is impossible to achieve.

[Systematic]

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

No, I don't.

A. That is typical of the majority.
Since the emergence of evolution all living things and humans had been programmed to direct attention externally from themselves to facilitate basic survival, i.e. look out for food, threat, partners, etc.

B. But since humans are now endowed with self-consciousness and higher intelligence, humans has a duty to understand how their own internal system and mind works.
This is what is meant by 'Know Thyself'.

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.

I don't know what that means either. Far as I can tell, there are only three basic factors to living: utilitarian ethics; what is ideal; what is feasible.

Saunders seems to be querying about what is ideal. What's bad about that?

C. Fire-fighting mean to fight-fire one may identify the root source of the fire rather than merely putting out what one is seeing as burning with fires. If one do not deal with the root cause, the fire will start again and again.
It is the same as dealing with weeds, one need to pull out all its roots and rhizomes rather than pulling what is seen on the ground.

I presume you know the above.

D. Point is humans suffer all sorts of problems in living and to deal with them effectively one must understand the proximate root causes.

E.

• Utilitarianism is a family of normative ethical theories that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being for all affected individuals.
  -wiki

Utilitarianism deals with what the maximum possible but not the ideal.

F. Kantianism deal with absolute ideals but merely use the ideal as a guide and not something that must be achieved since in practice the absolute ideal is impossible to achieve.

A. We are tribal. Our internal is the group internal, I presume.

B. What's the advantage of doing that?

C. I think that the first rule of putting out fires is to stop the spread, or failing that, to save whatever you cannot replace. Like with the dumpster fire of Critical Race Theory, I would start saving copies of the science as it exists now.

D. Would you please elaborate on what those are?

E. When I think about the way that societies are generally run. There is too much emphasis on gaining money and power through force. That is, in my opinion, not just unethical. It thwarts development of the majority of individuals. Nietzsche and Machiavelli won the war, so take care of the slaves. That's common sense. You don't want to rule over crack-heads and the diseased. They can't do the work.

F. In my experience, ideals can even be counterproductive.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, I don't.

A. That is typical of the majority.
Since the emergence of evolution all living things and humans had been programmed to direct attention externally from themselves to facilitate basic survival, i.e. look out for food, threat, partners, etc.

B. But since humans are now endowed with self-consciousness and higher intelligence, humans has a duty to understand how their own internal system and mind works.
This is what is meant by 'Know Thyself'.

I don't know what that means either. Far as I can tell, there are only three basic factors to living: utilitarian ethics; what is ideal; what is feasible.

Saunders seems to be querying about what is ideal. What's bad about that?

C. Fire-fighting mean to fight-fire one may identify the root source of the fire rather than merely putting out what one is seeing as burning with fires. If one do not deal with the root cause, the fire will start again and again.
It is the same as dealing with weeds, one need to pull out all its roots and rhizomes rather than pulling what is seen on the ground.

I presume you know the above.

D. Point is humans suffer all sorts of problems in living and to deal with them effectively one must understand the proximate root causes.

E.

• Utilitarianism is a family of normative ethical theories that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being for all affected individuals.
  -wiki

Utilitarianism deals with what the maximum possible but not the ideal.

F. Kantianism deal with absolute ideals but merely use the ideal as a guide and not something that must be achieved since in practice the absolute ideal is impossible to achieve.

A. We are tribal. Our internal is the group internal, I presume.

You need to stretch your thinking a bit more.
Don't you know your internal brain has around 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 connectors? Just imagine the number of possible connection and combinations from them.

B. What's the advantage of doing that?

What I am referring to is you need to understand at least how the main mechanisms in your brain work and how can you manage and control them to the best of your ability.

Tribalism is only one of the many other critical processes in the brain. There are pros and cons of tribalism, so how can one promote the pros and avoid the cons?

Therefore there are loads of advantages for oneself, if one understand how one's internal mechanisms work and then cultivate the pros [positive] and avoid the cons [negative].

C. I think that the first rule of putting out fires is to stop the spread, or failing that, to save whatever you cannot replace. Like with the dumpster fire of Critical Race Theory, I would start saving copies of the science as it exists now.

It is very unfortunate for you not to understand the principle of resolving any problem at their root causes.

D. Would you please elaborate on what those are?

Note for example, fears and worries of health, finance, etc.; sadness that lead to depression; fear of death for some; subliminal fear of death and existential crisis.
If only theists understand the root cause that drove them to cling to God, and if they are able to manage those causes, there would not theists. If there are no theists, there would be no theistic-driven killings.

If you are an average person, you are like to have fears, worries and all other types of problems. If you understand the mechanisms that cause you fears and worries, you would be in a better position of modulate and mitigate the problems you faced.

E. When I think about the way that societies are generally run. There is too much emphasis on gaining money and power through force. That is, in my opinion, not just unethical. It thwarts development of the majority of individuals. Nietzsche and Machiavelli won the war, so take care of the slaves. That's common sense. You don't want to rule over crack-heads and the diseased. They can't do the work.

Why is there "too much emphasis on gaining money and power through force?"
The most effective solution to the above is to understand the root causes of the 'why' and then establish effective strategies to deal with it.

F. In my experience, ideals can even be counterproductive.

Ideals will not be counterproductive if one know how to use them whilst understanding their limitations.

I presumed you have had bad experience with ideals because you may have literally expected to achieve ideals and when you don't achieve them you feel disappointed. Did you expect an ideal wife and it did not turn out to be the case? or could it be the ideal job, the ideal company, the ideal whatever?

Ideals should only be used a guide and that will leverage one towards continuous improvements.

For example if one were to take a test, one should set an ideal target to get 100/100 marks or even 150/marks and then take the relevant actions to achieve those impossible ideal marks.
The point is whatever the results one will be better off than adopting a lackadaisical. give-up or indifferent attitude to achieve the best.

[Systematic]

A. That is typical of the majority.
Since the emergence of evolution all living things and humans had been programmed to direct attention externally from themselves to facilitate basic survival, i.e. look out for food, threat, partners, etc.

B. But since humans are now endowed with self-consciousness and higher intelligence, humans has a duty to understand how their own internal system and mind works.
This is what is meant by 'Know Thyself'.


C. Fire-fighting mean to fight-fire one may identify the root source of the fire rather than merely putting out what one is seeing as burning with fires. If one do not deal with the root cause, the fire will start again and again.
It is the same as dealing with weeds, one need to pull out all its roots and rhizomes rather than pulling what is seen on the ground.

I presume you know the above.

D. Point is humans suffer all sorts of problems in living and to deal with them effectively one must understand the proximate root causes.

E.

• Utilitarianism is a family of normative ethical theories that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being for all affected individuals.
  -wiki

Utilitarianism deals with what the maximum possible but not the ideal.

F. Kantianism deal with absolute ideals but merely use the ideal as a guide and not something that must be achieved since in practice the absolute ideal is impossible to achieve.

A. We are tribal. Our internal is the group internal, I presume.

You need to stretch your thinking a bit more.
Don't you know your internal brain has around 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 connectors? Just imagine the number of possible connection and combinations from them.

B. What's the advantage of doing that?

What I am referring to is you need to understand at least how the main mechanisms in your brain work and how can you manage and control them to the best of your ability.

Tribalism is only one of the many other critical processes in the brain. There are pros and cons of tribalism, so how can one promote the pros and avoid the cons?

Therefore there are loads of advantages for oneself, if one understand how one's internal mechanisms work and then cultivate the pros [positive] and avoid the cons [negative].

C. I think that the first rule of putting out fires is to stop the spread, or failing that, to save whatever you cannot replace. Like with the dumpster fire of Critical Race Theory, I would start saving copies of the science as it exists now.

It is very unfortunate for you not to understand the principle of resolving any problem at their root causes.

D. Would you please elaborate on what those are?

Note for example, fears and worries of health, finance, etc.; sadness that lead to depression; fear of death for some; subliminal fear of death and existential crisis.
If only theists understand the root cause that drove them to cling to God, and if they are able to manage those causes, there would not theists. If there are no theists, there would be no theistic-driven killings.

If you are an average person, you are like to have fears, worries and all other types of problems. If you understand the mechanisms that cause you fears and worries, you would be in a better position of modulate and mitigate the problems you faced.

E. When I think about the way that societies are generally run. There is too much emphasis on gaining money and power through force. That is, in my opinion, not just unethical. It thwarts development of the majority of individuals. Nietzsche and Machiavelli won the war, so take care of the slaves. That's common sense. You don't want to rule over crack-heads and the diseased. They can't do the work.

Why is there "too much emphasis on gaining money and power through force?"
The most effective solution to the above is to understand the root causes of the 'why' and then establish effective strategies to deal with it.

F. In my experience, ideals can even be counterproductive.

Ideals will not be counterproductive if one know how to use them whilst understanding their limitations.

I presumed you have had bad experience with ideals because you may have literally expected to achieve ideals and when you don't achieve them you feel disappointed. Did you expect an ideal wife and it did not turn out to be the case? or could it be the ideal job, the ideal company, the ideal whatever?

Ideals should only be used a guide and that will leverage one towards continuous improvements.

For example if one were to take a test, one should set an ideal target to get 100/100 marks or even 150/marks and then take the relevant actions to achieve those impossible ideal marks.
The point is whatever the results one will be better off than adopting a lackadaisical. give-up or indifferent attitude to achieve the best.

A. That makes sense. It's quite a resource. I wouldn't want to leave its function to chance.

B. I'm going to assume that you mean this by positive and negative: Positive is able to perform his own duty. Negative is not.

C. I appreciate that you want to stop people from knocking over that first Domino in the cascade. But life always gives us problems. For which I have found three tactics. The first is, to avoid/not to cause, emergencies as a default. The second is to solve emergencies that arise; that is usually risky, but necessarily so. The third is to be skilled at those things that can help in emergencies.

D. Same as "A".

E. As far as I can tell, the root cause is a divergence of the human species into masters and servants for the sake of efficiency of the whole for the sake of survival. But it now threatens our survival.

F. I find that often the bar is raised too high for beginners but too low for the acclimated.