[Discussion] How do you value life?

[Donald J Trump]

I think an interesting question to ask is: When does the experience you have in life get to the point where it's enough minus years on your life expectancy. Meaning, you rather live the next 20 years in an unbelievable way achieving all your dreams and having a blast every day (true enjoyment) or live the next 60 years mediocre-sometimes high-end life?

I mean mathematically if you think about it, the difference between 20 years and 60 years is near 0 when you compare it to the amount of time you have been absent from life. Do the 40 years extra make a difference and if so why? Why do you value the life length or the experience?

If life is all about achieving your goals and following your dreams and you are promised to complete that in the 20 years you will be given, then why not take it?


Personally, this is how I respond to the questions:

If I have to choose a guaranteed 20 years of achieving my dream over a guaranteed 60 years of mediocre with the occasional blast then I choose 20 years.

If I am to choose between 20 years of achieving my dream or live the next 60 years as I please (no guaranteed good or bad, I choose my fate) then I'll choose 60 years because I have a chance to achieve my dreams and live longer.

If I am to choose between the next 30 years of achieving my dreams or living the next 60 years as I please, then I choose the 30 years.


How about you?

 

[Dreckerplayer]

inconceivable.

 

[kimb]

Epicurus said that in the same way men don't choose food for having a larger portion, but for tasting more pleasant, the wise seek to enjoy the time which is most pleasant and not merely that which is longest. And I think most people can agree with that sentiment.

 

[TrueRage]

if make the most of every min of your life shouldnt mater how long or short it is. and for me dosent mater if i reach my goal in life as long as i give it my all ill be happy.

 

[Elio]

Definitely the 20 years.

 

[123fire]

wait what................???

 

[Donald J Trump]

wait what................???

Re-read. Everyone else managed to understand.

 

[Dreckerplayer]

I think an interesting question to ask is: When does the experience you have in life get to the point where it's enough minus years on your life expectancy. Meaning, you rather live the next 20 years in an unbelievable way achieving all your dreams and having a blast every day (true enjoyment) or live the next 60 years mediocre-sometimes high-end life?

The problem with the explanation is that it wasn't concise enough to understand right off bat, especially for someone that cares little. It takes someone who's feels SEVERELY entitled to grasp it, at first try.Or at least pretend to understand what you're trying to say. Don't take this personally.

This is why I said it was inconceivable.But I'm gonna give this a second try, and dig deeper. ...what you're speaking of is typically something commonly known as "Mid life crises", or when you hit 50s, etc. You made it sound so trivial in the way you've tried to explain. Your point wasn't concise enough to understand at first glance.

I mean mathematically if you think about it, the difference between 20 years and 60 years is near 0 when you compare it to the amount of time you have been absent from life. Do the 40 years extra make a difference and if so why? Why do you value the life length or the experience?

You say the "difference between 20 years and 60 years is near 0"...the difference between 20 and 60, is that 60 is 40 numbers higher than 20. This isn't clear, at all.

If life is all about achieving your goals and following your dreams and you are promised to complete that in the 20 years you will be given, then why not take it?

Are you saying a LIFE EXPECTENCY of 20 years?Then that'd be a waste of time. All of this, is ASSUMING you'd have enough time to achieve them.It doesn't make any sense, at all.This is you coming up with answers without considering the circumstances. So I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say.

Personally, this is how I respond to the questions:

If I have to choose a guaranteed 20 years of achieving my dream over a guaranteed 60 years of mediocre with the occasional blast then I choose 20 years.

If I am to choose between 20 years of achieving my dream or live the next 60 years as I please (no guaranteed good or bad, I choose my fate) then I'll choose 60 years because I have a chance to achieve my dreams and live longer.

There's no such thing. The life expectancy is 80 years, and you have the choice to achieve your dreams as long as you can walk and breath.The questions, when you get behind the logic of it, don't make sense to me, at all.

If I am to choose between the next 30 years of achieving my dreams or living the next 60 years as I please, then I choose the 30 years.

This still doesn't make sense.You say living the next "20/30 years achieving your dreams vs the next 60 years as I please"...That makes no sense, dude. Think about what you've typed. If you're living the next 60 years as you please, then you'd obviously spend that longer time living/achieving your dreams.I'm sorry but something about your point just doesn't make sense, it's too inconceivable.

I feel heavily that you're making some kind of comparison of something, that is just inconceivable.You can't theorize about something that's just plain incomprehensible.

How about you?

Honestly...I couldn't care less.

 

[Donald J Trump]

The problem with the explanation is that it wasn't concise enough to understand right off bat, especially for someone that cares little. It takes someone who's feels SEVERELY entitled to grasp it, at first try.Or at least pretend to understand what you're trying to say. Don't take this personally.

This is why I said it was inconceivable.But I'm gonna give this a second try, and dig deeper. ...what you're speaking of is typically something commonly known as "Mid life crises", or when you hit 50s, etc. You made it sound so trivial in the way you've tried to explain. Your point wasn't concise enough to understand at first glance.



You say the "difference between 20 years and 60 years is near 0"...the difference between 20 and 60, is that 60 is 40 numbers higher than 20. This isn't clear, at all.



Are you saying a LIFE EXPECTENCY of 20 years?Then that'd be a waste of time. All of this, is ASSUMING you'd have enough time to achieve them.It doesn't make any sense, at all.This is you coming up with answers without considering the circumstances. So I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say.




There's no such thing. The life expectancy is 80 years, and you have the choice to achieve your dreams as long as you can walk and breath.The questions, when you get behind the logic of it, don't make sense to me, at all.



This still doesn't make sense.You say living the next "20/30 years achieving your dreams vs the next 60 years as I please"...That makes no sense, dude. Think about what you've typed. If you're living the next 60 years as you please, then you'd obviously spend that longer time living/achieving your dreams.I'm sorry but something about your point just doesn't make sense, it's too inconceivable.

I feel heavily that you're making some kind of comparison of something, that is just inconceivable.You can't theorize about something that's just plain incomprehensible.



Honestly...I couldn't care less.

I'm going to be brutally honest with you, I can see the that you quoted me and took time to respond but god, I am not reading that much text written by you. Don't take it personally.Keep your chin up, kid.

 

[Tyrance sasuke]

I would live a blast life instead of a mediocre long lasting trash life. Period.

 

[Dreckerplayer]

I'm going to be brutally honest with you, I can see the that you quoted me and took time to respond but god, I am not reading that much text written by you. Don't take it personally.Keep your chin up, kid.

Yeah, too much ego collapse for you in one day.Protect yourself, I understand. Yet you expect others to comprehend that garbage.

I take nothing personally, and my chin is always up. =)

 

[Dreckerplayer]

I would live a blast life instead of a mediocre long lasting trash life. Period.

Me, personally...I wouldn't take a short-lived fun life,cause that's just materialistic, or a mediocre long lasting life. Either way, you're short-changing yourself.It's limiting expectations.

 

[Tyrance sasuke]

Me, personally...I wouldn't take a short-lived fun life,cause that's just materialistic, or a mediocre long lasting life. Either way, you're short-changing yourself.It's limiting expectations.

Philosophical as always lol.

 

[Dreckerplayer]

Philosophical as always lol.

Wait, but is the thread not about "the value of life"?I thought that was the point? Honestly, it sounds like you're trying to mock me.You have ways about you, I think you have something to say. You are short-changing yourself, either way.

For me to be philosophical, I'd have to be devoted to the "fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence"...kind of not that serious, kind of an exaggeration,when I'm just simply honest about the way I feel and view things.I'd hope everyone else is. Do I have to be discredited and categorized as "philosophical", rather than just acknowledging the "Actual-ness" of the post? I don't say things to seem "philosophical".If what I'm saying to you seems so "big" and "beyond" to you,cause you have a smaller way of thinking, then that's just YOUR fault...don't mock me, and try to make me look like I'm spewing charlatan garbage.There's a purpose.

Don't try to discredit me by saying "philosophical as always", totally sounds like a jealous sneak diss, the way you said it.So secretive.

You were premeditated, cause your comment wasn't the right time or place to say such a thing. You had already prejudged my character, before you encountered my post. I even noticed that you had something to say when you sent those visitor messages.You were low-key trying to make fun of me,passive aggressively... you have a problem.

I guess, when all else fails, you kill em with "kindness"...well, I kill kindness, too.

 

[Tyrance sasuke]

Wait, but is the thread not about "the value of life"?I thought that was the point? Honestly, it sounds like you're trying to mock me.You have ways about you, I think you have something to say. You are short-changing yourself, either way.

For me to be philosophical, I'd have to be devoted to the "fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence"...kind of not that serious, kind of an exaggeration,when I'm just simply honest about the way I feel and view things.I'd hope everyone else is. Do I have to be discredited and categorized as "philosophical", rather than just acknowledging the "Actual-ness" of the post? I don't say things to seem "philosophical".If what I'm saying to you seems so "big" and "beyond" to you,cause you have a smaller way of thinking, then that's just YOUR fault...don't mock me, and try to make me look like I'm spewing charlatan garbage.There's a purpose.

Don't try to discredit me by saying "philosophical as always", totally sounds like a jealous sneak diss, the way you said it.So secretive.

You were premeditated, cause your comment wasn't the right time or place to say such a thing. You had already prejudged my character, before you encountered my post. I even noticed that you had something to say when you sent those visitor messages.You were low-key trying to make fun of me,passive aggressively... you have a problem.

I guess, when all else fails, you kill em with "kindness"...well, I kill kindness, too.

I didnt mock you lol . I meant it as a compliment , seriously . I respect your blunt honest posts . Lol

 

[Opiuchus05]

Big booty hoes