To me, they are the same things… human concoctions; words for things that do not exists anywhere else but in our imagination. Then again, I hope I am wrong about that.
The text states:
Some of these things are important. Some of them are unimportant.
It should have read:
Some of these things are important to you. Some of them are unimportant to you.
But even then it still implies that things that are important and unimportant exist for you. It is a statement of fact where no fact exists.
The best way to have phrased that would be something like:
You can make yourself believe some of these things are important to you, and some unimportant.
To me (again, I hope to be wrong) what is said here translates as: ‘You can make yourself believe anything in order to be happy’. And that just doesn’t feel right. Besides, personally I don’t see how I can make myself believe something full knowing it is just a belief.
“It should have read: “Some of these things are important to you. Some of them are unimportant to you.”″
The importance being relative to you is implied and I believe that most people get the implication. Remember the Typical Mind Fallacy.
“But even then it still implies that things that are important and unimportant exist for you. It is a statement of fact where no fact exists.”—what you don’t think people have things they consider important?
what you don’t think people have things they consider important?
On the contrary. I think people are very good at believing in things, including what is important to them. My point is, that that doesn’t make it important because importance doesn’t exists as an empirical concept but only as a cognitive construct.
My question is: Why do we need that construct? What is it that makes people need to be able to believe in something before it becomes real to them? Can’t you just enjoy the things you like without giving them an arbitrary value?
The problem I have with this, is that importance -like any construct- will get a life on it’s own. Much like economy, politics, religion, ideologies etc. And before you know it, people are wanting for something that is just an idea and any relation to the factual enjoyment is gone.
We need food. We get food in exchange for money. The money itself is just a construct. But most people say money is important because we can exchange it for food. And so money/economics grew into something huge, and now many people cannot get good food they need because they have no money. That is just silly if it wasn’t so sad.
‘Life purpose’? Life has no purpose. That is the bare, harsh truth. Shouldn’t we just accept that and deal with it together instead of trying to believe in our individual mental constructs to hide in?
Perhaps I am missing the point. If so I apologise. But I fail to see the rationality of inventing my own personal purpose or importance. What does that do? I will concede that many if not most people will sleep better and feel good about their lives if they do. But in the end all this means is that you lived a self-created lie.
Is that what life is? Just something we make up for ourselves? is that what this article is telling me?
I’ll conclude here the same as above in my other reply: Life is objectively without purpose afawk. The rational thing to do is accept that. To invent subjective purposes is to deny the objective truth. that’s all I am proposing.
The idea is that identifying what you consider to be important and not important is more tractable than trying to discover your “life purpose”.
To me, they are the same things… human concoctions; words for things that do not exists anywhere else but in our imagination. Then again, I hope I am wrong about that.
The text states:
It should have read:
Some of these things are important to you. Some of them are unimportant to you.
But even then it still implies that things that are important and unimportant exist for you. It is a statement of fact where no fact exists.
The best way to have phrased that would be something like:
You can make yourself believe some of these things are important to you, and some unimportant.
To me (again, I hope to be wrong) what is said here translates as: ‘You can make yourself believe anything in order to be happy’. And that just doesn’t feel right. Besides, personally I don’t see how I can make myself believe something full knowing it is just a belief.
“It should have read: “Some of these things are important to you. Some of them are unimportant to you.”″
The importance being relative to you is implied and I believe that most people get the implication. Remember the Typical Mind Fallacy.
“But even then it still implies that things that are important and unimportant exist for you. It is a statement of fact where no fact exists.”—what you don’t think people have things they consider important?
On the contrary. I think people are very good at believing in things, including what is important to them. My point is, that that doesn’t make it important because importance doesn’t exists as an empirical concept but only as a cognitive construct. My question is: Why do we need that construct? What is it that makes people need to be able to believe in something before it becomes real to them? Can’t you just enjoy the things you like without giving them an arbitrary value? The problem I have with this, is that importance -like any construct- will get a life on it’s own. Much like economy, politics, religion, ideologies etc. And before you know it, people are wanting for something that is just an idea and any relation to the factual enjoyment is gone.
We need food. We get food in exchange for money. The money itself is just a construct. But most people say money is important because we can exchange it for food. And so money/economics grew into something huge, and now many people cannot get good food they need because they have no money. That is just silly if it wasn’t so sad.
‘Life purpose’? Life has no purpose. That is the bare, harsh truth. Shouldn’t we just accept that and deal with it together instead of trying to believe in our individual mental constructs to hide in?
Perhaps I am missing the point. If so I apologise. But I fail to see the rationality of inventing my own personal purpose or importance. What does that do? I will concede that many if not most people will sleep better and feel good about their lives if they do. But in the end all this means is that you lived a self-created lie.
Is that what life is? Just something we make up for ourselves? is that what this article is telling me?
I’ll conclude here the same as above in my other reply: Life is objectively without purpose afawk. The rational thing to do is accept that. To invent subjective purposes is to deny the objective truth. that’s all I am proposing.