NeedToUseYou
Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005 From: None of your business Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit quote:
ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou What is the meaning of life.... hrmmmmm..... If there is a thing near to universal meaning of life. I'd say it's the desire to create and discover. What person doesn't like to create something. The cook likes creating dishes from parts of otherwise less desirable components. The engineer makes machines and structures, that serve a greater purpose than there individual parts. The artist creates pictures, or sculptures. The scientist seeks to understand how things are created and function. To see and understand the process of creation manifest. I'd say it would be impossible for anyone to be happy and content, living a life devoid of creating and discovering. It's just different people are interested in creating different things. If there was anything close to the unviversal meanign of life, it would be to destroy. Tress are destroyed by lumberjacks to create the paper for artists to create paintings on. Animals and vegetables are destroyed to create the food by cooks. A whole list of resources are destroyed to create the machines by engineers. All these new things that are created eventually get destroyed so other things can be created. For example, the food created gets destroyed by the restaurant customers to create energy for their bodies. It would be impossible for anyone to live a life of happiness and contentness without destroying something. Its just that some people like to destroy different things. So really...the universal meaning of life is to destroy. Well, there is always a valid counter argument... But, I prefer to look at it that the sum is greater than the individual parts. A tree is a tree, and if you cut down that tree a new one will grow back in a normal scenario. So, you still end up with one tree. If you didn't cut it down to make paper, then the writer would never have created. So, in the end you have 1 destroy tree, 1 new tree, and a new creative work. The food you speak of would have died over the winter, in many cases, so in a time frame of a year Life=Life. The only difference being, if the plant would have survived the winter, and wasn't slaughter for our ingestion is that we wouldn't have eaten it and shit it out to fuel the new life. So, you'd have old plant life versus new. It's ultimately a destructive and constructive process, but in the end from the examples you gave it's easy to infinitely maintain a positive constructive outcome. We aren't really doing that, we are in many cases, being destructive, to the detriment of the system, but my point is it doesn't have to exist in that state.
|