Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by hansda, Feb 1, 2012.
I thought we were discussing who they were getting upset by
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
What should be our GOAL of life ?
To stay alive!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Each person has strong and weak points. The initial goal of earlier life is to strengthen your weak points until you learn to become more balanced. The strong points will develop no matter what you do. Vanity and the herd will urge you to do what comes easy, so you can look good to others. But that is short term thinking, which places limits on your future. If the weak links are strong also, your options become unlimited.
Once you find your balance, you will be able to find your natural center, from that balance. If you are lopsided, the center of gravity is not natural but shifted to far left or right. Form this center, you then find your unique niche, that optimizes your natural talents. This will feel natural to you. Then you work to make it grow into fruition.
The goal of life according to Darwinism is to have as many descendants as possible.
Some of the people who achieve that are ferkin idiots,
but that's natural selection fer yer.
We still are.
I just anticipate that as a theist, you will place the whole blame on the non-theists:
That it is because we are jaundiced, karmis, naradhamas, lowest of mankind, rascals, fools, idiots, etc. etc.
that we are upset when theists call us jaundiced, karmis, naradhamas, lowest of mankind, rascals, fools, idiots, etc. etc.
and that it's not that you hit us too hard, it's that our bones are too soft.
The principle is simple , whoever is more truthful will win .
That means they can not win their goal .
May be they dont like interacting much with others but that doesnt mean they love being unknown .
More truthful? How does that relate to being known or not?
So in this case being known (which you define as "winners") means they actually lose?
If you don't love something, then I would have thought that doing it will ultimately cause stress.
But let me rephrase the example:
If one's goal is happiness, and the only way they can be happy is to remain unknown, are they losers?
If somebody is really unknown being successful ; this case is only possible theoretically . Practically this case is not possible .
I said 'known for their achievements' .
Here you are right .
For one to be unknown , he has to lead a lonely , secluded life . Is it really practically possible ?
But I still don't get how this relates to whether one is "more truthful"?
You did. But the question still stands... if someone's achievements make them known, and that makes them unhappy, are they winners for being "known for their achievments", or losers because their goal (happiness) is now unachievable as a result?
Yes, although the term "lonely" is more a term used when one craves company but does not have it.
Some people can be alone, solitary, secluded - and very happy as a result - and become unhappy when having to deal with other people.
" Victory of The Truth " , is eternal principle .
So , whoever is more truthful will win .
Separate names with a comma.