What is important to you?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » What is important to you?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 01:45 pm
What is important to you right now?

For me, it goes something like this:

Primary: Philosophy
Secondary: Love, Food, Music
Tertiary: Faith, Hope, Sports, Languages, Scientific Knowledge

This hierarchy may change as I grow as a person, but right now it's like something like the above.

How about you?
 
dust1n
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 08:13 pm
@platorepublic,
platorepublic;168173 wrote:
What is important to you right now?

For me, it goes something like this:

Primary: Philosophy
Secondary: Love, Food, Music
Tertiary: Faith, Hope, Sports, Languages, Scientific Knowledge

This hierarchy may change as I grow as a person, but right now it's like something like the above.

How about you?


Reading, writing, good conversation, playing music.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 09:48 pm
@dust1n,
It may sound glib, and there may be more besides, or it may just all be for the same reason,
My sanity.

My sanity is the most important to or for me.

What if you were to ask what do I find important for myself to give others?
What is most important to or for others? (not even to or for myself)
The answer may be longer or may in fact be just the same.

My sanity may be best all round.

And the best I can do or be for myself or do or be for others is to be sane.

Beside the fact it is nigh on impossible to instil sanity into any thing other than yourself.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 11:06 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;168390 wrote:

My sanity is the most important to or for me.

I think this is a deep statement. I've been playing with the phrase "emotional hygiene" lately as the agnostic term for "spirituality." All the great lovers, friends, books, food, etc. in the world means nothing if we are too messed up to enjoy it.

Indeed, sanity is the "most needful thing."

Allow me to steal you answer and use it also for myself.

SANITY!

your friend, reconstructo:flowers:
 
platorepublic
 
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 03:27 am
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;168390 wrote:
It may sound glib, and there may be more besides, or it may just all be for the same reason,
My sanity.

My sanity is the most important to or for me.

What if you were to ask what do I find important for myself to give others?
What is most important to or for others? (not even to or for myself)
The answer may be longer or may in fact be just the same.

My sanity may be best all round.

And the best I can do or be for myself or do or be for others is to be sane.

Beside the fact it is nigh on impossible to instil sanity into any thing other than yourself.

Yes, sanity is definitely important when you have it.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 01:10 pm
@platorepublic,
platorepublic;168476 wrote:
Yes, sanity is definitely important when you have it.

Have you ever known someone without it?
Have you ever been with out it?

Not nice right!

Sanity is not necessarily some thing one can easily measure, how would you describe it?
How would could you measure it?
How did you know, how can you know if someone is without it?

Can you measure sanity by your own?
 
harlequin phil
 
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 02:27 pm
@platorepublic,
hmmm...honestly, i can't think of anything that is important to me, including my life. none of this matters in the long run. whether you believe in an afterlife or not, this is temporary, and so, nothing matters, not even leaving a "legacy." do you think, right now as you are reading this, shakespear, plato, einstien, or even douglas adams (happy towel day) knows or cares that they did things that we still talk about?

so, ultimately, nothing is important to me.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 03:05 pm
@harlequin phil,
harlequin;168691 wrote:
hmmm...honestly, i can't think of anything that is important to me, including my life. none of this matters in the long run. whether you believe in an afterlife or not, this is temporary, and so, nothing matters, not even leaving a "legacy." do you think, right now as you are reading this, shakespear, plato, einstien, or even douglas adams (happy towel day) knows or cares that they did things that we still talk about?

so, ultimately, nothing is important to me.

Actually I do think they cared enough at the time to be read so think they would have been proud they were still being so.
I have only met one philosopher who denied this fact and that is Nietzsche, all the rest I believe would like to think their work outlasts them.

I do agree life is temporary but literature need not be.
 
platorepublic
 
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 03:31 pm
@harlequin phil,
harlequin;168691 wrote:
hmmm...honestly, i can't think of anything that is important to me, including my life. none of this matters in the long run. whether you believe in an afterlife or not, this is temporary, and so, nothing matters, not even leaving a "legacy." do you think, right now as you are reading this, shakespear, plato, einstien, or even douglas adams (happy towel day) knows or cares that they did things that we still talk about?

so, ultimately, nothing is important to me.

So if it's so unimportant, why is that so important that you have to voice it out here?

---------- Post added 05-25-2010 at 10:50 PM ----------

harlequin;168691 wrote:
hmmm...honestly, i can't think of anything that is important to me, including my life. none of this matters in the long run. whether you believe in an afterlife or not, this is temporary, and so, nothing matters, not even leaving a "legacy." do you think, right now as you are reading this, shakespear, plato, einstien, or even douglas adams (happy towel day) knows or cares that they did things that we still talk about?

so, ultimately, nothing is important to me.

What if temporary was only temporary?
 
harlequin phil
 
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 02:09 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;168724 wrote:
Actually I do think they cared enough at the time to be read so think they would have been proud they were still being so.
.......


what i meant was, NOW that they are dead, do they NOW being dead, care? when they were alive i'm sure they were hoping people would talk about them long after they were gone, but now, being dead, do they care? there is truly no way to be sure, but i'm gonna guess and say right now, being dead, they don't know or care we still talk about them.

---------- Post added 05-26-2010 at 02:12 PM ----------

platorepublic;168750 wrote:
So if it's so unimportant, why is that so important that you have to voice it out here?


---------- Post added 05-25-2010 at 10:50 PM ----------


What if temporary was only temporary?



i never said it was important to voice it here. i'm just answering the question, giving fodder for discussion. just because it's not important doesn't mean i won't do it. it's just not important.

if temporary was only temporary it wouldn't be temporary, would it? and if it isn't, oh well. only one way to find out, eventually we'll know. too bad we can't share the knowledge.

i am about 100% on this life being temporary. haven't met or read about or heard anyone to prove otherwise. you would think if life here on this plane of existence wasn't temporary, someone would have said something by now.
 
platorepublic
 
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 02:40 pm
@harlequin phil,
harlequin;169171 wrote:
what i meant was, NOW that they are dead, do they NOW being dead, care? when they were alive i'm sure they were hoping people would talk about them long after they were gone, but now, being dead, do they care? there is truly no way to be sure, but i'm gonna guess and say right now, being dead, they don't know or care we still talk about them.

---------- Post added 05-26-2010 at 02:12 PM ----------




i never said it was important to voice it here. i'm just answering the question, giving fodder for discussion. just because it's not important doesn't mean i won't do it. it's just not important.

if temporary was only temporary it wouldn't be temporary, would it? and if it isn't, oh well. only one way to find out, eventually we'll know. too bad we can't share the knowledge.

i am about 100% on this life being temporary. haven't met or read about or heard anyone to prove otherwise. you would think if life here on this plane of existence wasn't temporary, someone would have said something by now.

Perhaps temporary is what motivates us to do things in the first place.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 04:57 pm
@harlequin phil,
harlequin;169171 wrote:
what i meant was, NOW that they are dead, do they NOW being dead, care? when they were alive i'm sure they were hoping people would talk about them long after they were gone, but now, being dead, do they care? there is truly no way to be sure, but i'm gonna guess and say right now, being dead, they don't know or care we still talk about them.


I would actually agree with this as I also pointed to this fact in my response by saying 'at the time', but I suspect we differ on what dead is.
Correct me if I wrong but do you mean to say, dead means gone over and out? No longer existing?
Where as my idea of when they are dead and not caring any longer means death takes away any notion of pride and emotion for that matter.
So I mean to say they are dead and no longer care not because they are gone but because life and what accompanies life such as emotions are gone.
Interesting thought, that although death may take your emotional value possibly meaning even taking away your humanity, stripping the human to what? would the 'spirit' or soul that is left still firstly be ABLE to 'care'? and secondly if you have added to humanity with what you left behind and what you once cared for would not the 'spirit' soul be REQUIRED to care in some fashion of that which has and still is and will always be an advantage to those who must still live and contend with their emotions?
What if their proud work brings more closer to the acceptance and understanding of being pure soul would not their lifes contribution still then be acceptable as 'still' caring?
Personally I think it the former, I think 'care' becomes something unknowable by the living and to say this also means 'care' once dead and soul becomes something that is the only knowable.
Once shed of the body emotions and life we are going to understand all that there needs to be understood which may mean the body emotions and life don't need to be.
This is not to say that whilst alive one must not try to understand life, but perhaps caring about life is only worth caring about when alive.
Perhaps life is no concern of the dead.
Perhaps dead is the only concern of the dead.

I think choice is the occupation of the living.
I think decision is the occupation of the dead.

The only question left is MUST the dead care? even if caring in a way you could not ever do when alive?
All I can say is if the dead do still care when dead it will not be a choice and not human 'care'.
It will be soul care.
All for the soul.
And as humans have soul they would care for what aids the soul even if still human.
If as said the soul really cares about being human or can care only as a soul cares for that which is not soul.
Meaning a soul care like a soul.
A human cares like a human.
Humans will try to emulate soul.
I doubt soul will try to emulate human.

(This also answers for me at least why souls stay out of human business)
 
harlequin phil
 
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 06:25 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;169255 wrote:
............
Correct me if I wrong but do you mean to say, dead means gone over and out? No longer existing?..........................................

This is not to say that whilst alive one must not try to understand life, but perhaps caring about life is only worth caring about when alive.
Perhaps life is no concern of the dead.
Perhaps dead is the only concern of the dead.
.............................

(This also answers for me at least why souls stay out of human business)


by "dead" i mean, no longer of this world physically walking around on this planet. gone. my grandfather is dead. wherever he is, be it conscious in another plane of existence or rotting in the ground where we put him, that is what i mean.

what you said up there, "Perhaps life is no concern of the dead.
Perhaps dead is the only concern of the dead.
" is what i believe.

when we die, we either 1 - rot in the ground, complete cessation, nothing follows, or B - go on to exist in another plane of existence. ( i know it's wrong, i like to follow 1 with B because it makes me laugh)

if 1, we rot, then we don't care what is going on, we are not "there" to care. we "aren't."
if B, we exist elsewhere, then we either exist in a heaven, a hell, or something completely different.

if we are in "heaven," blissed out like a hippie at woodstock basking in the glory of god, anything going on down here on this ball of dirt is trivial and meaningless. we don't care.

if we go to "hell," we are too busy gnashing our teeth and suffering torments of the unholy host of the netherworld to notice or care what goes on here. we don't care.

if we are somewhere else....hmmmmm....maybe we look back at this ball of dirt and see what they say about us....but i can't conceive why we would do that. we would most likely be busy doing whatever we are doing there, and possibly have no way to see what goes on here, nor care.

sorry to ramble, i do that.

short answer - whatever we do once we leave this earth, that is what we are paying attention to. kinda like you said.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » What is important to you?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 06/12/2024 at 12:41:50