3 ms·
Your view of what matters is really narrow. Not everything has to have an impact in the style or singular magnitude how Aristotle, Charlemange or Muhammad did.
by poisonborz 4y ago
Your view of what matters is really narrow. Not everything has to have an impact in the style or singular magnitude how Aristotle, Charlemange or Muhammad did. You could edit a wiki article that inspires someone to contribute to a software that has a button that someone will push and change things. Human life has billions of nuances like this every minute. And even if most of that is ericadated by a catastrophe, some percent of this experience might continue, containing an essence of it all. We must drive life forward with such beliefs, thinking not just of ourselves.
- raydiatian 4y ago> You could edit a wiki article... Yeah, "doing for others" is the point of life. I would argue it is an avenue in life, a very good avenue, and I don't discredit its morality, or correctness. But it is not the point of life, per se. You do for others for your own peace of mind, so that you can live, day to day, as you approach your death bed. Your doing for others is your avenue to a clear conscience. Play the "why" game on that one for long enough and it ends in "because bad is bad, and I don't want to feel bad infinitely". This is why I argue that your death is the point of life. It's your destination, it's why people freak out about leaving a legacy. Death is the great motivator. You wouldn't "do for others" if it was established wisdom that "doing for others" meant some experiential equivalent of eternal damnation. It's not that doing for others is wrong or something, it's just that it has an ontological derivative. If we did for others despite our deaths, I think that Adam Smith would have been lambasted as a heretic, and I think communism would actually work.