Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Would I rather exist than not exist at all?

WaterHat
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 8:17:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why is there something rather than nothing?
A question that philosophers and physicists still struggle to answer. I, however, struggle with an iteration of this question. A question that most find easy to answer.
Would I rather exist than not exist at all? Is existence a bless, or is it a curse?

Right now, you're probably thinking I'm just another person struggling with my bad luck in life, but that is not true. As a matter of fact, I live a life most would envy me on. I have a loving family, wonderful friends, wealth, health, and I can keep going on forever. It's not a lack of anything life can offer that is bugging me, but rather a lack of purpose.

I look around, and see people moving through life with strive and motivation, as if they can see the purpose of their lives right in front of their eyes. Many claim they do, and I envy those. No, not because I wish I had a purpose as they do. I envy them for their ignorance. The ignorance which acted upon them not realizing that the purpose they live for is as worthless as living with no purpose at all. Live to work only to die, or live only to die. Is there any real difference there? Is there any purpose that would actually make anything worthwhile?

Going a couple of years back, when I begun to question my sense of purpose, what keeps me going, I realized that every purpose needs a purpose itself.
I keep studying for the purpose of passing. I keep passing for the purpose of graduating. I graduate for the purpose of getting a well paying job. I do so for the purpose of securing my life. But.. What is the purpose of my life to start with?

Let me try again. I keep studying to gain knowledge. I gain knowledge to find an influencial job. I'll find an influential job to change the world.
Yes, that definitely sounds better. That can keep me going. And it did, only for a couple of years that is. Because sooner or later I had to question the purpose of changing the world.

Why would I want to change the world? For what purpose? To change the lives of others to the better? Why? To realize my potential and reach self satisfaction? Why? To feel happy? Hmm. Yes, happiness is definitely a valid reason. What else would I ask for if I was happy?

But, if happiness was the ultimate purpose, why shouldn't I take a shortcut? Why bother go through changing the world, if I can become happy through spending my life with my significant other. Or rather spend it on certain drugs scientifically proven to result in happiness. No, this is all temporary. What I seek is a lasting happiness. Yes, one that does not end by the gradual disappearance of affection, or by the death of my loved ones, or by regaining councousness.
But then again, is the happiness acquired through changing the world truly permenant? It is not, and I say that based on my humble experience with happiness. It fades. Happiness will always fail as a purpose. Happiness is simply a side effect of progressing through life towards a purpose, a side effect of realizing a purpose. And it fades as the purpose fades.

Well then, how about working for a purpose that will never fade. But wouldn't that automatically make it a purpose that is impossible to realizize? Maybe. How about a purpose which the realization of is ever lasting? Err, I'm lost. What could be a purpose that can be realized, and will keep being realized for the rest of my life?

I can hear you. Yes, I can hear your screams, religious folks, claiming that the purpose I am searching for is God. Is that so? Maybe. But how? Convince me. How is having God as the purpose result in a worthwhile purposeful life?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 1:16:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2014 8:17:30 AM, WaterHat wrote:
Why is there something rather than nothing?
A question that philosophers and physicists still struggle to answer. I, however, struggle with an iteration of this question. A question that most find easy to answer.
Would I rather exist than not exist at all? Is existence a bless, or is it a curse?

Right now, you're probably thinking I'm just another person struggling with my bad luck in life, but that is not true. As a matter of fact, I live a life most would envy me on. I have a loving family, wonderful friends, wealth, health, and I can keep going on forever. It's not a lack of anything life can offer that is bugging me, but rather a lack of purpose.

I look around, and see people moving through life with strive and motivation, as if they can see the purpose of their lives right in front of their eyes. Many claim they do, and I envy those. No, not because I wish I had a purpose as they do. I envy them for their ignorance. The ignorance which acted upon them not realizing that the purpose they live for is as worthless as living with no purpose at all. Live to work only to die, or live only to die. Is there any real difference there? Is there any purpose that would actually make anything worthwhile?

Going a couple of years back, when I begun to question my sense of purpose, what keeps me going, I realized that every purpose needs a purpose itself.
I keep studying for the purpose of passing. I keep passing for the purpose of graduating. I graduate for the purpose of getting a well paying job. I do so for the purpose of securing my life. But.. What is the purpose of my life to start with?

Let me try again. I keep studying to gain knowledge. I gain knowledge to find an influencial job. I'll find an influential job to change the world.
Yes, that definitely sounds better. That can keep me going. And it did, only for a couple of years that is. Because sooner or later I had to question the purpose of changing the world.

Why would I want to change the world? For what purpose? To change the lives of others to the better? Why? To realize my potential and reach self satisfaction? Why? To feel happy? Hmm. Yes, happiness is definitely a valid reason. What else would I ask for if I was happy?

But, if happiness was the ultimate purpose, why shouldn't I take a shortcut? Why bother go through changing the world, if I can become happy through spending my life with my significant other. Or rather spend it on certain drugs scientifically proven to result in happiness. No, this is all temporary. What I seek is a lasting happiness. Yes, one that does not end by the gradual disappearance of affection, or by the death of my loved ones, or by regaining councousness.
But then again, is the happiness acquired through changing the world truly permenant? It is not, and I say that based on my humble experience with happiness. It fades. Happiness will always fail as a purpose. Happiness is simply a side effect of progressing through life towards a purpose, a side effect of realizing a purpose. And it fades as the purpose fades.

Well then, how about working for a purpose that will never fade. But wouldn't that automatically make it a purpose that is impossible to realizize? Maybe. How about a purpose which the realization of is ever lasting? Err, I'm lost. What could be a purpose that can be realized, and will keep being realized for the rest of my life?

I can hear you. Yes, I can hear your screams, religious folks, claiming that the purpose I am searching for is God. Is that so? Maybe. But how? Convince me. How is having God as the purpose result in a worthwhile purposeful life?

If you're looking for an uninterrupted happiness, then, you're looking for no happiness, at all. Happiness only makes sense as contrasted by sadness. A life of unvaried emotion sounds less like heaven and more like hell.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 8:18:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There is no "rather"
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 9:44:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2014 9:23:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/15/2014 8:18:55 PM, sadolite wrote:
There is no "rather"

Are you saying he only exists?

I don't know? I don't even know if I said anything? Why did I even respond? Why did you respond? Why is this thread even here? If you respond back, is there anything to respond to? Why would you respond back? These are all very complex questions in the world of no questions.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 10:04:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I never understood why the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" supposed to be some difficult question. Isn't it obvious? Something self-evidently must necessarily exist. Ergo, there never could have been complete non-existence. That is why something exists rather than nothing.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 10:25:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2014 9:44:17 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/15/2014 9:23:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/15/2014 8:18:55 PM, sadolite wrote:
There is no "rather"

Are you saying he only exists?

I don't know? I don't even know if I said anything? Why did I even respond? Why did you respond? Why is this thread even here? If you respond back, is there anything to respond to? Why would you respond back? These are all very complex questions in the world of no questions.

You and I are in correspondence because you and I exist.

However, that's not the question. The question was does he only exist. In other words, we know he exists; there is no doubt; yet, because he does exist, it must be true he does not exist, also. If it weren't, then, at no time or in no place could we say he doesn't exist.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 10:43:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2014 10:25:55 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/15/2014 9:44:17 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/15/2014 9:23:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/15/2014 8:18:55 PM, sadolite wrote:
There is no "rather"

Are you saying he only exists?

I don't know? I don't even know if I said anything? Why did I even respond? Why did you respond? Why is this thread even here? If you respond back, is there anything to respond to? Why would you respond back? These are all very complex questions in the world of no questions.

You and I are in correspondence because you and I exist.

However, that's not the question. The question was does he only exist. In other words, we know he exists; there is no doubt; yet, because he does exist, it must be true he does not exist, also. If it weren't, then, at no time or in no place could we say he doesn't exist.

No, the question was would he "RATHER" exist than not exist. This implies there is knowledge of being, inferring and knowing in a non existent world. There is no rather to choose from. There is no other choice. One can not infer that one does not exist after the fact. There is nothing to infer other than existence. You have no choice but to exist.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 11:00:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2014 10:43:25 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/15/2014 10:25:55 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/15/2014 9:44:17 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/15/2014 9:23:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/15/2014 8:18:55 PM, sadolite wrote:
There is no "rather"

Are you saying he only exists?

I don't know? I don't even know if I said anything? Why did I even respond? Why did you respond? Why is this thread even here? If you respond back, is there anything to respond to? Why would you respond back? These are all very complex questions in the world of no questions.

You and I are in correspondence because you and I exist.

However, that's not the question. The question was does he only exist. In other words, we know he exists; there is no doubt; yet, because he does exist, it must be true he does not exist, also. If it weren't, then, at no time or in no place could we say he doesn't exist.

No, the question was would he "RATHER" exist than not exist. This implies there is knowledge of being, inferring and knowing in a non existent world. There is no rather to choose from. There is no other choice. One can not infer that one does not exist after the fact. There is nothing to infer other than existence. You have no choice but to exist.

There is no rather, inference, or choice about it. The fact is he does and does not exist. I can say, "He is" and "He isn't." Both statements are true. If they weren't, I would not be able to make both statements.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 8:53:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2014 11:00:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/15/2014 10:43:25 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/15/2014 10:25:55 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/15/2014 9:44:17 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/15/2014 9:23:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/15/2014 8:18:55 PM, sadolite wrote:
There is no "rather"

Are you saying he only exists?

I don't know? I don't even know if I said anything? Why did I even respond? Why did you respond? Why is this thread even here? If you respond back, is there anything to respond to? Why would you respond back? These are all very complex questions in the world of no questions.

You and I are in correspondence because you and I exist.

However, that's not the question. The question was does he only exist. In other words, we know he exists; there is no doubt; yet, because he does exist, it must be true he does not exist, also. If it weren't, then, at no time or in no place could we say he doesn't exist.

No, the question was would he "RATHER" exist than not exist. This implies there is knowledge of being, inferring and knowing in a non existent world. There is no rather to choose from. There is no other choice. One can not infer that one does not exist after the fact. There is nothing to infer other than existence. You have no choice but to exist.

There is no rather, inference, or choice about it. The fact is he does and does not exist. I can say, "He is" and "He isn't." Both statements are true. If they weren't, I would not be able to make both statements.

How do you figure you have proved he does not exist by simply saying he doesn't exist.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 11:03:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 8:53:29 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/15/2014 11:00:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/15/2014 10:43:25 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/15/2014 10:25:55 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/15/2014 9:44:17 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/15/2014 9:23:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/15/2014 8:18:55 PM, sadolite wrote:
There is no "rather"

Are you saying he only exists?

I don't know? I don't even know if I said anything? Why did I even respond? Why did you respond? Why is this thread even here? If you respond back, is there anything to respond to? Why would you respond back? These are all very complex questions in the world of no questions.

You and I are in correspondence because you and I exist.

However, that's not the question. The question was does he only exist. In other words, we know he exists; there is no doubt; yet, because he does exist, it must be true he does not exist, also. If it weren't, then, at no time or in no place could we say he doesn't exist.

No, the question was would he "RATHER" exist than not exist. This implies there is knowledge of being, inferring and knowing in a non existent world. There is no rather to choose from. There is no other choice. One can not infer that one does not exist after the fact. There is nothing to infer other than existence. You have no choice but to exist.

There is no rather, inference, or choice about it. The fact is he does and does not exist. I can say, "He is" and "He isn't." Both statements are true. If they weren't, I would not be able to make both statements.

How do you figure you have proved he does not exist by simply saying he doesn't exist

This is how it is I figure. He can only exist if he does not exist, also. His existence is relative to space and time. To say I can't know his nonexistence is to say I can't know his existence, also; and, that's ludicrous. If you say, "He isn't...," regardless of that whichever it might be, you're declaring his nonexistence.

.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 4:14:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 11:03:35 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/16/2014 8:53:29 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/15/2014 11:00:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/15/2014 10:43:25 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/15/2014 10:25:55 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/15/2014 9:44:17 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/15/2014 9:23:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/15/2014 8:18:55 PM, sadolite wrote:
There is no "rather"

Are you saying he only exists?

I don't know? I don't even know if I said anything? Why did I even respond? Why did you respond? Why is this thread even here? If you respond back, is there anything to respond to? Why would you respond back? These are all very complex questions in the world of no questions.

You and I are in correspondence because you and I exist.

However, that's not the question. The question was does he only exist. In other words, we know he exists; there is no doubt; yet, because he does exist, it must be true he does not exist, also. If it weren't, then, at no time or in no place could we say he doesn't exist.

No, the question was would he "RATHER" exist than not exist. This implies there is knowledge of being, inferring and knowing in a non existent world. There is no rather to choose from. There is no other choice. One can not infer that one does not exist after the fact. There is nothing to infer other than existence. You have no choice but to exist.

There is no rather, inference, or choice about it. The fact is he does and does not exist. I can say, "He is" and "He isn't." Both statements are true. If they weren't, I would not be able to make both statements.

How do you figure you have proved he does not exist by simply saying he doesn't exist

This is how it is I figure. He can only exist if he does not exist, also. His existence is relative to space and time. To say I can't know his nonexistence is to say I can't know his existence, also; and, that's ludicrous. If you say, "He isn't...," regardless of that whichever it might be, you're declaring his nonexistence.


.

Oh,OK A litany of oxymorons in 2 sentences. I get it now. Thanks for clarifying.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 7:53:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 4:14:25 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/16/2014 11:03:35 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/16/2014 8:53:29 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/15/2014 11:00:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/15/2014 10:43:25 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/15/2014 10:25:55 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/15/2014 9:44:17 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/15/2014 9:23:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/15/2014 8:18:55 PM, sadolite wrote:
There is no "rather"

Are you saying he only exists?

I don't know? I don't even know if I said anything? Why did I even respond? Why did you respond? Why is this thread even here? If you respond back, is there anything to respond to? Why would you respond back? These are all very complex questions in the world of no questions.

You and I are in correspondence because you and I exist.

However, that's not the question. The question was does he only exist. In other words, we know he exists; there is no doubt; yet, because he does exist, it must be true he does not exist, also. If it weren't, then, at no time or in no place could we say he doesn't exist.

No, the question was would he "RATHER" exist than not exist. This implies there is knowledge of being, inferring and knowing in a non existent world. There is no rather to choose from. There is no other choice. One can not infer that one does not exist after the fact. There is nothing to infer other than existence. You have no choice but to exist.

There is no rather, inference, or choice about it. The fact is he does and does not exist. I can say, "He is" and "He isn't." Both statements are true. If they weren't, I would not be able to make both statements.

How do you figure you have proved he does not exist by simply saying he doesn't exist

This is how it is I figure. He can only exist if he does not exist, also. His existence is relative to space and time. To say I can't know his nonexistence is to say I can't know his existence, also; and, that's ludicrous. If you say, "He isn't...," regardless of that whichever it might be, you're declaring his nonexistence.


.

Oh,OK A litany of oxymorons in 2 sentences. I get it now. Thanks for clarifying.

You're welcome. If anything I would not have you is confused.