Achievement.

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2010 06:54 pm
If one achieves nothing with their life, has it been a waste?

Or has it been right on target?
Having no effect means that nothing in the universe has been upset or distorted by you.
Does the universe run smoother without trying to impress upon it?
I use 'univese' here universally, means anything everything.

(Ultimatelty is the universe ever bent or convinced into being something bigger better different than what it just is? Can we change our universe? Can the our universe life ever be something different, something that can be changed from what it ultimately is? born, lives and dies as? Is the universe perfect already, is it unchangable? Is change the thing that will end it?)

To have lived a full life have you had to have changed others lives?
(I suppose a definition of 'full' here would be something you would have to define before answering, so please do, and full i suppose to me means productive, but is productivity personal change or exacted change? Is productivity change or is it making something, retaining something perfect design? Is our change upon the many billion and one universes when for good or positive just retaining what it is? keeping it from changing into something that is bad and negative? Does this mean that the universe is led or leads? And if leads how can there be such as the negative? and if it is led does this mean the universe has no design bu tthat which we decide for it?)

Are we achieving for ourselves or for the universes?
If we unachieve does htis mean the universe is not being treated properly?
Must we achieve for the universes sake or for our own sake?

If one achieves nothing with there existence has it been a waste to yourself and to the universes?
Should we care if the universe doesn't?

(one or anything, kiss kiss bang bang)
 
jgweed
 
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2010 08:00 am
@sometime sun,
The question can also be considered as asking whether one can adequately judge his own life and its influences during his own lifetime. One imagines, for example, that Nietzsche would have considered his philosophy a failure before his insanity and death; a century later, his position in the tradition is assured, and his influences especially in Europe, far from inconsequential.

The question can also be considered from another perspective: what is meant by achievement, either for oneself or "for the universe"? If the universe is the sum of all existence, then it seems difficult to imagine how acts or beings, outside of their pure happening, can contribute to "achieving" anything else (than making a contribution to the totality).
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2010 08:22 am
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;123772 wrote:
If one achieves nothing with their life, has it been a waste?



This question commits the "black or white" (sometimes called, "the either-or") fallacy. You are assuming that a life either achieves (whatever that is) or is a failure. And that there is nothing in between, and, also, that it cannot both achieve, and be a failure too. But both are clearly false. Lives can neither have achievement (again, whatever that is) nor be failures. And many are that way. And, of course, some people have achieved greatly, and also failed greatly. Napoleon the First, for example.
 
pantheras
 
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 02:38 pm
@sometime sun,
I think that we have to achieve more for ourselves. The wide-influence itself in fact doesnt really matter, because it would mean that personal invention putted on that act is less important.

The point is that - you do could influence more people, but in fact if more of them are affected, the more you are doing because of who they are, not because of who you are.
 
Lost1 phil
 
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 08:29 am
@sometime sun,
Achievement should never be the topic of a goal - It should only be the end results of a well defined goal that is accomplished. Even better is when it is others who call it an achievement.

Lost1
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 11:08 pm
@pantheras,
pantheras;125175 wrote:
I think that we have to achieve more for ourselves. The wide-influence itself in fact doesnt really matter, because it would mean that personal invention putted on that act is less important.

The point is that - you do could influence more people, but in fact if more of them are affected, the more you are doing because of who they are, not because of who you are.

Why do we invent if it is not for mass consumption?
Why would it matter if we only told oursleves a secret and no one else ever heard it.
It would be unknown, it would be forgotten unless you could give it to someone else, more so to better the life and being of the ever but no quite all but close to all else.
You cant live just for the self, you must achieve to push the boundaries that are shared by all. We share boundaries, the ultimate goal is to not just free yourself but to free the entire world.
Can you ever invent for just your own usage?
If it helps you realise yourself it would almost be selfish not to give the gift to another.
'the more you are doing because of who they are, not because of who you are', not entirely true if at all, the best we can do is to prove ourselves to other more than just ourself, what is the point of self discovery of self achievment if you cant prove yourself to others.
The 'I' is not as important as the 'we'.
We are not born to be hidden away, we do not achieve to be better than others either, we do because of a you.
You are more important to me, if I am more important to you.
I want to show you the all of me but only if you can understand me.
What is the point of understanding only your own if it cant lead to others understanding you as well?
There is little point in the self if it cant be seen to be believed.
We are only we if we understand and trust each other, you cannot do this keeping things to yourself.
I am not sure if there is anything wrong with 'the more you are doing because of who they are, not because of who you are'.
Not everything needs to be about you, infact most of it isn't and shouldn't be.

The best achievement is for we more than me. It is more substantial. Reality is shared not just owned dont cha know?

I want to be loved more than i love. Selfish though it may sound, there it is. I want to be remembered for the good i brought to you more than forgotten for what i kept for myself.
The two to love and be loved are joined and to be and do one is to be and do the other better.
Equal measure of me for you, equal measure of you for me.
It is how peace and truth is achieved, combined effort.
Each one making the other one better bigger braver.
You will be better if you understand prove me, i will be better if i understand prove you.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 11:28 pm
@sometime sun,
I don't believe in absolute best achievement. There are so many ways to measure. I learned 8 ways to present financial data, depending on internal/external use etcetera.
 
Amperage
 
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 11:39 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
I don't believe any life is a "waste" or even can be. All life serves it's purpose from Hitler, to Jesus, to the 1 day old baby who dies of complications. Our very presence impacts others be it positively or negatively. That in itself is an achievement. In many ways our journey is the only thing that matters.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 11:43 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;125615 wrote:
I don't believe in absolute best achievement. There are so many ways to measure. I learned 8 ways to present financial data, depending on internal/external use etcetera.

Maybe not an absolute achievement (not less we all clock out at once) , but would you agree that a shared global achievement is fuller possibly worth more than a achievement that gratifys just one person?
To better the whole every world, not just one not just alone?
Achievement ought be shared ought be more than just for one, if the goal is to be recognised for it?
I do suppose it all depends upon impact, sometimes just changing one is achieving everything possible.

---------- Post added 02-07-2010 at 05:45 AM ----------

Amperage;125618 wrote:
I don't believe any life is a "waste" or even can be. All life serves it's purpose from Hitler, to Jesus, to the 1 day old baby who dies of complications. Our very presence impacts others be it positively or negatively. That in itself is an achievement. In many ways our journey is the only thing that matters.

Can you ever know you have travelled have journied anywhere without thinking you have achieved anything, even if it is just an achieved peaceful ending?
 
Amperage
 
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 11:57 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;125620 wrote:
Can you ever know you have travelled have journied anywhere without thinking you have achieved anything, even if it is just an achieved peaceful ending?
It doesn't matter what one thinks of oneself. I'm sure you've heard the old adage: Each of us are 3 different people. We are who we think we are, we are who are friends think we are, and we are who we really are.

I may die thinking I achieved nothing and that I was a failure, however, I'd be wrong.
 
Lost1 phil
 
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 09:09 am
@Amperage,
Amperage;125624 wrote:
It doesn't matter what one thinks of oneself. I'm sure you've heard the old adage: Each of us are 3 different people. We are who we think we are, we are who are friends think we are, and we are who we really are.

I may die thinking I achieved nothing and that I was a failure, however, I'd be wrong.


I have to disagree -- the person we think we are is the one we base all our choices. It is the only one that counts.

Lost1
 
pantheras
 
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 04:54 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;125610 wrote:

'the more you are doing because of who they are, not because of who you are', not entirely true if at all, the best we can do is to prove ourselves to other more than just ourself, what is the point of self discovery of self achievment if you cant prove yourself to others.


I meant by that in other words - if you are doing things for other people, the more of them are receiving, more you have to adapt and be like them, otherwise they will not understand.
The only purpose of life should not be to prove yourself to others, even if it means more benefits for you and quality your life. Because you will not develop yourself by a different way anymore, just in the way which could be proven to others.
 
Amperage
 
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 04:59 pm
@Lost1 phil,
Lost1;125732 wrote:
I have to disagree -- the person we think we are is the one we base all our choices. It is the only one that counts.

Lost1
what did Hitler think of himself I wonder? And was he right? And did that matter?
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 05:30 pm
@pantheras,
pantheras;125887 wrote:
I meant by that in other words - if you are doing things for other people, the more of them are receiving, more you have to adapt and be like them, otherwise they will not understand.
The only purpose of life should not be to prove yourself to others, even if it means more benefits for you and quality your life. Because you will not develop yourself by a different way anymore, just in the way which could be proven to others.

Not the only pupose of life to prove yourself to others, but it should be top two, joint first.
The first is to have something worth proving.

---------- Post added 02-07-2010 at 11:32 PM ----------

Amperage;125891 wrote:
what did Hitler think of himself I wonder? And was he right? And did that matter?

He did think it mattered, but only to himself. Not for a single other living being.
Did he ever have children?
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 02:02 am
@sometime sun,
He married with Eva (Braun) before they committed suicide in their hide-out. He didn't have children as far as I know, but his ideas still linger on.
 
Lost1 phil
 
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 06:58 am
@Amperage,
Amperage;125891 wrote:
what did Hitler think of himself I wonder? And was he right? And did that matter?



If he was honest in "Mein Kampf" he thought he was the answer to all of mankind's problems.

I wish I could remember the edition of Time that had Hitler on the cover as "Man of the Year" -- it explains his achievement of many of his goals. Even today there are those who believe that if Germany had not ran out of supplies, mainly fuel, and a means to replace lost military goods the war might have taken a different course.

The percentage of persons who believe that he was right is extremely small.

Lost1
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 05:55 am
@Lost1 phil,
Lost1 phil wrote:
Mr. Green Not Equal 2 Cents Drunk
Achievement should never be the topic of a goal - It should only be the end results of a well defined goal that is accomplished. Even better is when it is others who call it an achievement.

Lost1
Mr. Green

I agree with Lost1
 
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/12/2022 at 06:54:44