4 ms·

To first approximation, there are almost no people who would have a "grand legacy" that could extend centuries. How many do you know from 1850? Eventually, no o

To first approximation, there are almost no people who would have a "grand legacy" that could extend centuries. How many do you know from 1850? Eventually, no one will remember you, and that is true even if you are the most successful person on earth. The urge to have a legacy is a manifestation of the fear of death, and is primarily an exercise of ego. It does not have to overtake one's life.

AndrewKemendo 11y ago
It's not about being remembered, it's about your life having positive impact beyond those you can personally see.
- camillomiller 11y ago
  Yeah, but the question nobody's posing is: why should it? That's a question I personally can't answer. I don't see any higher meaning in "leaving a legacy". You'll be dead anyway. Why shouldn't we focus on living a better, more relaxed and less stressful life while we're here to recognize that?
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    And the reverse question would be: why shouldn't it? Why should I focus on living happily and have family and relationships? I'll be dead anyway, and so will everyone I ever loved. So I guess it's up to one to pick for him/herself. Some want to focus on their own small world, others want to leave behind some lasting change affecting many.
    - Dewie3 11y ago
      People try to be happy because they intrinsically want to be happy. Not because being happy matters after you're dead -- obviously you're not in a state to be happy after you're dead. At least not in this world. Why do people want to make a lasting change? Purely for intrinsic reasons? Or is there some hidden assumption like for example that it will make them happy in their later years?
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Satisfaction from seeing "fruits of your labor" improve the condition of everyone is also a source of happiness. I don't think it's worse than happiness from having a good family life. I also don't think there's some kind of "altruism" that isn't ultimately just another way of getting happiness - maybe a more intellectual one, out of the feeling of doing something one considers morally good.
        Dewie3 11y ago
        > Satisfaction from seeing "fruits of your labor" improve the condition of everyone is also a source of happiness. I don't think it's worse than happiness from having a good family life. Yet you seemed to want to draw a distinction between happiness and a lasting impact. Though the distinction was perhaps just with the family/local impact. > I also don't think there's some kind of "altruism" that isn't ultimately just another way of getting happiness - maybe a more intellectual one, out of the feeling of doing something one considers morally good. Right, but a family-related happiness is less because it's just a result of chemicals (oxycotine?) that are related to survival, a sort of failure mode? You said yourself that it is less fundamental. What is fundamental? And why is your derivation of happiness higher than those who go by the supposed more base instincts of focusing on their family? Because the hormonal causes are harder to pin down and analyse? So what? Something more complex and harder to describe is better? If you feel happy, I think the distinction of why is unimportant.
  - Killah911 11y ago
    Good question... Somehow if we can get out of the hyper rationalist maximization seeking robot mentality, an answer of some form may present itself. Accepting death helps. Not just my own but that of much more. Buddhism has some very interesting insights here. And I bring up belief deliberately, because the answer here is faith. Not certainty, but faith. Whatever it may be (leave legacy, do no harm, etc), it's doing what you believe that results in a satisfactory answer. If you were born into a very tough situation in a war torn or third world country, you'd do what you needed to with what was given to you. While we do have a lot of material wealth and might have more free time, we still face the same great equalizer: death. As do our civilizations and our planet (and likely us, way before that). Given the constraints, you can simply "try your best". Living without regrets might be a job to one person, a 90 hour startup to another, traveling and learning to others. Whatever your belief is, following it is the best that you could do. Ultimately you have to answer to yourself & be able to live with yourself. Personally, living selfishly, while it maximizes certain things simply goes against my core beliefs. I don't necessarily know that living less selfishly is necessarily better. But for me, it is. Your beliefs, may defy logic, and may not necessarily maximize legacy, wealth or whatever, but in having acted you will have done your best given the situation to be able to live with yourself, which is all you can ask of yourself.
    - randallsquared 11y ago
      > Somehow if we can get out of the hyper rationalist maximization seeking robot mentality, an answer of some form may present itself. If you have to be less rational to accept an answer, doesn't that imply that the answer is wrong?
      - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
        And if you're supposed to come to an emotionally satisfying view of life by rejecting rationality, doesn't that screw-over those of us who gain emotional satisfaction from obtaining rational answers to things? Oh, wait, everyone with a scientific turn-of-mind has already been labelled a "robot". Beep boop, then /s.
- mattlutze 11y ago
  Legacy is about being remembered; it's your name attached to tangible achievements, your name credited for effects. Impact exists with our without legacy. The network effect of your friends' lives may be outwardly invisible, but the impact of their work, on the lives of anyone they lived near and around, had fun near and around, served near and around, worked near our around... is quite vast. You don't have to be Abe Lincoln or John Rockefeller to have lived a meaningful life.
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  Pardon me to interrupt strive for greatness, but the world I live in is massively interconnected, and it's becoming more and more every day. Even if you try hard to avoid it, you have some impact, mixed with impact of other people. Yes, it might be local, and in some really unfortunate situations it might really eventually +-die, but let's focus a bit on average joe. The world I see does indeed need to improve a bit, on all possible levels. If you strive to improve mankind as a whole, or at least big parts of it, please go ahead and do your best. Just don't neglect that personal, "local" aspect as so many do these days (ie crappy parents raising even crappier kids). This world also needs happy, balanced and positive people, not only depressed, exhausted overachievers (or overaimers) I see so often around me. I tend to focus locally (friends, family, coworkers), and let the effects seep wider if possible, on their own. One example - 2 weekends ago, I took my girlfriend to Mont Blanc with guide, on skis, and on top, after gruelling march on skis, I surprised her proposed marriage. The reactions from people around, but also total internet strangers were overwhelming, quite a few wrote that in these (for them) depressing days, seeing this gave them positive energy and hope (for life, relationships, people around etc.). Did I change the world with it? Of course not, I am not the first nor the last guy that did it. Does this have some, maybe minor but positive impact on other people? Definitely yes. Enough drops in the pond can also have an effect.
nitrogen 11y ago
One can want a legacy without fearing death, and one needn't die to have a legacy.
tomjen3 11y ago
There are lots and lots of people with a legacy, granted few of them may be mentioned on a day to day basis, but when the talk falls on specific topics that is another matter. For one Lincoln was around that time, so was a host of others that are famous.

AndrewKemendo 11y ago

It's not about being remembered, it's about your life having positive impact beyond those you can personally see.

camillomiller 11y ago
Yeah, but the question nobody's posing is: why should it? That's a question I personally can't answer. I don't see any higher meaning in "leaving a legacy". You'll be dead anyway. Why shouldn't we focus on living a better, more relaxed and less stressful life while we're here to recognize that?
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  And the reverse question would be: why shouldn't it? Why should I focus on living happily and have family and relationships? I'll be dead anyway, and so will everyone I ever loved. So I guess it's up to one to pick for him/herself. Some want to focus on their own small world, others want to leave behind some lasting change affecting many.
  - Dewie3 11y ago
    People try to be happy because they intrinsically want to be happy. Not because being happy matters after you're dead -- obviously you're not in a state to be happy after you're dead. At least not in this world. Why do people want to make a lasting change? Purely for intrinsic reasons? Or is there some hidden assumption like for example that it will make them happy in their later years?
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Satisfaction from seeing "fruits of your labor" improve the condition of everyone is also a source of happiness. I don't think it's worse than happiness from having a good family life. I also don't think there's some kind of "altruism" that isn't ultimately just another way of getting happiness - maybe a more intellectual one, out of the feeling of doing something one considers morally good.
      - Dewie3 11y ago
        > Satisfaction from seeing "fruits of your labor" improve the condition of everyone is also a source of happiness. I don't think it's worse than happiness from having a good family life. Yet you seemed to want to draw a distinction between happiness and a lasting impact. Though the distinction was perhaps just with the family/local impact. > I also don't think there's some kind of "altruism" that isn't ultimately just another way of getting happiness - maybe a more intellectual one, out of the feeling of doing something one considers morally good. Right, but a family-related happiness is less because it's just a result of chemicals (oxycotine?) that are related to survival, a sort of failure mode? You said yourself that it is less fundamental. What is fundamental? And why is your derivation of happiness higher than those who go by the supposed more base instincts of focusing on their family? Because the hormonal causes are harder to pin down and analyse? So what? Something more complex and harder to describe is better? If you feel happy, I think the distinction of why is unimportant.
- Killah911 11y ago
  Good question... Somehow if we can get out of the hyper rationalist maximization seeking robot mentality, an answer of some form may present itself. Accepting death helps. Not just my own but that of much more. Buddhism has some very interesting insights here. And I bring up belief deliberately, because the answer here is faith. Not certainty, but faith. Whatever it may be (leave legacy, do no harm, etc), it's doing what you believe that results in a satisfactory answer. If you were born into a very tough situation in a war torn or third world country, you'd do what you needed to with what was given to you. While we do have a lot of material wealth and might have more free time, we still face the same great equalizer: death. As do our civilizations and our planet (and likely us, way before that). Given the constraints, you can simply "try your best". Living without regrets might be a job to one person, a 90 hour startup to another, traveling and learning to others. Whatever your belief is, following it is the best that you could do. Ultimately you have to answer to yourself & be able to live with yourself. Personally, living selfishly, while it maximizes certain things simply goes against my core beliefs. I don't necessarily know that living less selfishly is necessarily better. But for me, it is. Your beliefs, may defy logic, and may not necessarily maximize legacy, wealth or whatever, but in having acted you will have done your best given the situation to be able to live with yourself, which is all you can ask of yourself.
  - randallsquared 11y ago
    > Somehow if we can get out of the hyper rationalist maximization seeking robot mentality, an answer of some form may present itself. If you have to be less rational to accept an answer, doesn't that imply that the answer is wrong?
    - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
      And if you're supposed to come to an emotionally satisfying view of life by rejecting rationality, doesn't that screw-over those of us who gain emotional satisfaction from obtaining rational answers to things? Oh, wait, everyone with a scientific turn-of-mind has already been labelled a "robot". Beep boop, then /s.
mattlutze 11y ago
Legacy is about being remembered; it's your name attached to tangible achievements, your name credited for effects. Impact exists with our without legacy. The network effect of your friends' lives may be outwardly invisible, but the impact of their work, on the lives of anyone they lived near and around, had fun near and around, served near and around, worked near our around... is quite vast. You don't have to be Abe Lincoln or John Rockefeller to have lived a meaningful life.
saiya-jin 11y ago
Pardon me to interrupt strive for greatness, but the world I live in is massively interconnected, and it's becoming more and more every day. Even if you try hard to avoid it, you have some impact, mixed with impact of other people. Yes, it might be local, and in some really unfortunate situations it might really eventually +-die, but let's focus a bit on average joe. The world I see does indeed need to improve a bit, on all possible levels. If you strive to improve mankind as a whole, or at least big parts of it, please go ahead and do your best. Just don't neglect that personal, "local" aspect as so many do these days (ie crappy parents raising even crappier kids). This world also needs happy, balanced and positive people, not only depressed, exhausted overachievers (or overaimers) I see so often around me. I tend to focus locally (friends, family, coworkers), and let the effects seep wider if possible, on their own. One example - 2 weekends ago, I took my girlfriend to Mont Blanc with guide, on skis, and on top, after gruelling march on skis, I surprised her proposed marriage. The reactions from people around, but also total internet strangers were overwhelming, quite a few wrote that in these (for them) depressing days, seeing this gave them positive energy and hope (for life, relationships, people around etc.). Did I change the world with it? Of course not, I am not the first nor the last guy that did it. Does this have some, maybe minor but positive impact on other people? Definitely yes. Enough drops in the pond can also have an effect.

nitrogen 11y ago

One can want a legacy without fearing death, and one needn't die to have a legacy.

tomjen3 11y ago

There are lots and lots of people with a legacy, granted few of them may be mentioned on a day to day basis, but when the talk falls on specific topics that is another matter. For one Lincoln was around that time, so was a host of others that are famous.