4 ms·

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

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.

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.