Why do we need to study and work hard for in fact we will be all going to grave?

Why do we need to study and work hard for in fact we will be all going to grave? Because if for no other reason that it gives some purpose and satisfaction in life to have an ultimate aim and purpose even though at some time we are all going to turn out toes up. The alternative would be to drift like a wind blown fart, mentally blank and completely useless. a sheer waste of space serving no purpose whatsoever. Do you really think that you would find that a satisfactory experience ? Going to grave is so natural as we study and do work. we study and then work hard just to sustain our needs and for social life,,, to make our life more easier and to do things that is acceptable to everyone, why life is so serious? I can t understand, but thing I know is I'm working and living my life for my family. Giving the things they need and wanted to have. for my self? I don't think I'm thinking for my own, living a life is for a reason and a purpose.just like everyone do.: >. To achieve happiness isn't a defeatist purpose. If your sole goal is to go to the grave, that's your choice. By studying and working hard, you learn how to become better person. All of us need recognition and life is all about that. Between birthing and going to grave is a long time it is meant to be spent well in useful ventures. Why working hard? After all, is God who maintains all species of life. Do the birds worry about their food, shelter, sex? Do the ant worry? Or the elephant? They don't have economic problems, sleeping problems, or sex problems, and they are not so intelligent like humans. Yet all millions of animals have their food, thanks to God. Why no humans? Why work hard like donkey @ss? The donkey is so stupid that he works hard day and night carrying burdens in his back and what he gets is only a bunch of grass that he can get everywhere without working. This is human society. If we are in a waiting room, then while we wait why waste time, to get bored dead, why not do something instead, not just to pass time, but take up a challenge for instance, to prove or disprove a point or two, or just to have fun, to enjoy being here. Besides, waiting room fees need to be paid as well for each day spent there waiting. You must be under delusional to think that the final procession, going to grave, is free, oh no sir, nothing in this world if free, everything costs something, funeral costs funeral expenses. One most interesting aspect of life is that of spontaneity. It could be argued that the order of life, on earth for instance, was not created or planted, but came into being spontaneously; it happened just as it could, just as it was naturally possible. It can therefore be inferred that nature in general is spontaneous, where things evolve as they cycle through seasons of their growth and decay. Then, it is possible that our mind naturally attuned not to sit idle but to remain active, to do this, to accomplish that, to achieve the and to dream about that. The fact is our business in the world where normally is naturally as well as personally beneficial and enjoyable, it is also a means to prolong our pregrave existence; that if your worked just hard enough, not only that you would be able afford a healthy lifestyle but could also be able to remain strong and healthy and therefore live longer. You don't "HAVE" to but I think any chance of enjoying the time you do have requires both study and hard work. Would you also argue that we should all stop eating, sleeping, loving, having hobbies that we love? After all, none of these will alter the outcome. You're here, you have a life so make the most of every minute and stop ruminating about the future. Then don't do it. You don't have to do anything you don't want to. Why would you be born just to work the rest of your life like you're in prison? For whatever reason you were born, that purpose shouldn't let you die, until the reason has been met. If you suffer because of this, then that is the reason for your existence.

Should philosophies in action not be above censure?

Because if you criticize someone when they're bullying someone, you're saying something very nasty about them obviously. The matter has to be decided case to case. Each case has to be decided separately. It should be only considered from some or the other philosophic angle. Nothing else. There should not be any leniency. Criticizing a bully says nothing 'nasty' about them except the truth. Nothing, and no one, is above censure. It's one of the fundamental percepts of philosophy. Without more definition all the academicwords are too broad to define what you're talking about. There's no specific meaning to them. I always feel like if you are ok with doing something, then you have no valid objection to others reporting what you do or bringing it up in conversation.

What is philosophy?

What is philosophy? Philosophy is the unclassified residuum in the search for knowledge. When any part of this search for knowledge becomes systematic and capable of building upon itself, correcting its errors from generation to generation whenever THAT happens, we call the consequence a science. In such situations, some body of scholarship that had formerly been part of philosophy has split off from it. But fields of scholarship that haven't become systematic and selfcorrecting yet, that are still sloppy and selfrepeating, the unclassified residuum, remains. Love of wisdom. Exploration of truth and enriching life with wisdom. The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning. Some others have the view that philosophy is love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral selfdiscipline, mental control, social orderliness and strict adherence to some highest level of moral standards. What is philosophy? It is. "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence". So in a sense it is a search for the truth We all have our personal and collective realities.So our/your/my philosophies may be worlds apart I think the most important observations on truth.about ."knowledge, reality, and existence". are the observations that effect us all .and have the biggest impact on the world But it seems we human beings. even have a hard time agreeing on what these truths actually are So. we philosophize.On what is .and how it could be Philosophy is 'original critical thought'; Critical Thinking Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking As opposed to the 'scholastic'; "."philosophologists", a term coined by Robert Pirsig "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", "Lila" to denote people who study other people's philosophy but cannot do philosophy themselves. He also says that most people who consider themselves philosophers are actually philosophologists. The difference between a philosopher and a philosophologist is like the difference between an art and aesthetics; one does and the other studies what the other does and theorizes about it." The study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Tom Morris' good "Philosophy for Dummies" explains Western philosophy. For the philosophy section, it is what some gatekeepers choose to allow. For most anywhere else, people are more giving and willing to broaden their horizons more than those who feel they're above the little people. Seems it might be what people choose it to be.

Why did Descartes stop at "I think, therefore I am"? Isn't "there is a thought" the obvious next reductive step?

Why did Descartes stop at "I think, therefore I am"? Isn't "there is a thought" the obvious next reductive step? Why did Descartes stop at "I think, therefore I am"? Isn't "there is a thought" the obvious next reductive step? ~ "Cogito Ergo Sum!" "I think, therefore I am!" Descartes This saying is exactly true, as it refers to the egoic construct of autonomous existence of a 'self', an 'I', as opposed to a 'you'/'other'. 'Ego' is the same, one and the same, as 'thought'! Hence 'thought' being where this egoic 'self' exists. That is the 'I' to which the quote refers! No 'thought/ego' = no egoic 'I'! There can be no 'I' without 'thought'. Thought, though, does not 'create' the egoic "I", they are one and the same, as perceived! We don't 'think outside the box', 'thought' IS the box! The above referenced 'I', or small 's' 'self' cannot exist in a thoughtless state, such as a Zen state where no such distinctions can be perceived. There only exists 'one', capital 'S' 'Self!', which is 'Universally all inclusive'. Which does not disappear when 'thought' is no longer perceived! Ask any successful meditator, or check it out yourself. Capisce'? It is 'thought' that says, "I am not that!" "Thou Art That!" tat tvam asi The next step is: "I think I think, therefore I think I am" cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum. Seriously though, it is the human capacity of selfawareness and the ability to adopt a point of view outside of ourselves to "look" at ourselves that makes us what we are in comparison to the rest of the animal kingdom. Sounds right to me. Here I sit, thinking, therefore I exist. But that I am thinking implies that thought also exists. Right. I'll do my best to answer your question. "I think therefore I am" implies existence because thought is one thing that is said to be located in reality. Clear thought applies itself unconditionally as to what the outer reality means or represents. Therefore, because thought is open to reality or whatever stands in its place, and there is little alternative to perceptions such as thoughts to perceive reality, therefore, thoughts imply reality. Philosophy sometimes works by doublenegatives. Doublenegatives are considered 'true'. They lie in the domain of rational thoughts that are as unquestioned as mathematics, because they exist 'inside the head'. So, to construct a counterargument you would have to believe in something that disproves that thought implies being. So, you could argue that thought is not required for perception. Or you could argue that the experiences we have are somehow unreal, specifically unreal vis. perception. Even if you argue that the combination of thought and reality is a coincidence, in the loose sense that Descartes means the cogito, coincidence might be enough to establish a correspondence. Metaphysically, if one thing implies another, it may simply mean that both exist, and that one allows the other to exist for perception. My opinion is that Descartes is not trying to prove perception, but instead the link between causation and self. It may be important to recognize that Descartes was affirming both being and thought independently before he made the statement that one implied the other. For him, the idea that illusion could bring his perspective into question was his own idea. If that was the case, he could argue that he created the demon, and thus that he had control over reality. "Isn't "there is a thought" the obvious next reductive step?" No. Thoughts do not exist independently from the brain, just waiting to be discovered. Just part of the process of realizing himself as a real activity. Something many of us have problems with today. Dont make it complicated. He just meant he exists becouse hes aware of himself. Kinda like saying i feel becouse i just stepped on a lego and im Wishing i didn't, Screaming your head off and all lol. He didn't stop there. That was the end of the process of doubting realizing that doubt is impossible unless one exists. He then went on from there. ? A thought presupposes a thinking thing; thoughts can exist without at least one thinker. Research? The Meditations is a pretty short book. You could read it, without a huge investment of time. I mean, if you're trying to understand Descartes that woudl be the rational thing to do. I believe Descartes intention was the very same as yours, "finding out what is the very, very least we can say that is absolutely, undeniably true." He did not feel it necessary to elaborate any further because, for him, that is as concise as he could put it and as far as he could see things. I personally, believe it is the other way around and feel Descartes view is limited and inherently contradictory by supposing thinking or thought precedes one's existence, while the statement, "I think" already asserts one being before 'thinkingness' arises. For a thought or the capacity to thinking to be possible there must be a context of existence preceding thought in order for them to be. Descartes assertion can be debunked by the fact that one still existence whether thought or thinking occurs or not. One exists before one is even aware that it is "I who thinks". If you "Are" that is enough. No need to split hairs. Joke: Descartes walks into a tavern. The barkeep says, "Want your usual?" Descartes says, "I don't think." <poof> he disappears.

Taking the good and bad of life and accepting it?

Lately I've been depressed because I feel like I'm unable to understand and accept that there will be things in this world that I may not like. The things I worry about range from small things in my personal life to big things that are happening in the world. Majority of these worries are way out of my. All you need to know is that reality behaves in a way that regards us. Lower the values of all you care about, and be prepared for the day that will come. Nothing is either good or bad. All things are simply that which they are, nothing more or less. Learning to live without judgment so that one can see that which is for that which it is and so to realize one's own true nature and essence is the moment of emerging and awakening into enlightenment. Wakarimasu, tomodachi? To maintain my focus and keep myself out of "the funk", I use this modified serenity prayer I seek to have the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, The courage to change the things I can, And the wisdom to know the difference. You are on the right step. Sht HAPPENS, and even with a really good life, some of it still happens. Buddha told us this is how it is. And then he went on to say that is it not the Sht that is bad .. but OUR reaction to it. And that is what he focused on . .how WE make our unhappiness through how we handle the things of life. It really IS all about how you deal with it. Cognitivebehavioral psychology is beginning to discover the same thing. Except CBP only handles the symptoms .. while Buddhism uproots the underlying causes of our unhappiness but it takes a lot more work and a lot more time. You will be like everyone else. You have some happiness and some unavoidable unhappiness. And what makes the unhappiness hurt is the feeling that something is wrong and we have to "fix" it somehow. Really . why should you or I be any different from anyone else? It is our need to have everything a certain way and ONLY hat way .. that creates our unhappiness. In Buddhism, Nirvana is defined as the ability to relax into whatever is happening. We cannot control what happens .. only how WE react to it. Please stick to your principled stand and proceed further with high hopes and aspirations. Since there is no question from your side, I also feel that you should accept. Your will be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel. It will lead you to your ultimate aim, goal or objectives in life. It's not that you should avoid the negative and embrace only the positive. You should accept them both as part of life. Being happy isn't about getting what you want. It's about wanting what you have. The questions you should ask yourself are "What can I do, and what can i not do?" and "What do i need, and what can I live without?". That's really all that matters. Be honest with yourself and you can accept yourself. Also, worrying over things that you cannot change is a waste of energy. If it is beyond your ability to change it. Express your regret, then let it pass and apply that energy to things that you can affect. Matthew 6:34 " So never be anxious about the next day, for the next day will have its own anxieties. Each day has enough of its own troubles." I'd have a little story for you but it's too long, simply my advice is you can choose to dwell on th ebad things of life or you can choose to dwell on the good things on life. Some people love crying movies, so they can cry all the time, some others choose to laugh. In the end the ones who chose the crying path will pay big way, not so the ones who chose to see the positive side instead. Look up the serenity prayer. You told us that the answers you read have been somewhat able to help you feel better. And you recognize that the issue is what you choose to focus on. So you already have all the tools. Focusing on the positives enough to keep your spirits up is a good habit. And a habit is something you can work on deliberately. When you realize that stewing on something is getting in the way of your best life, rather than spurring you towards your best, then take that moment of awareness and redirect your thoughts. Changing a habit is not easy, and you may get frustrated sometimes that you are still bothered by the negatives. Be gentle with yourself. We need all types of people in this world, and sometimes we need to be reminded by folks like you to come out of our comfort zone and protect the exploited and the overwhelmed. But, if you can enjoy your life better by ALSO learning to enjoy the good while you are at it, that will be worth your effort. Just try and try again.

Is everything people, earth stars, galaxies, space, time, etc figment of my imagination?

Is everything people, earth stars, galaxies, space, time, etc figment of my imagination? Unlikely. Because the same people might ask the same question about you . If you ask "Is everything people, earth stars, galaxies, space, time, etc INCLUDING ME figment of my imagination?" Then the answer is Likely. I think about how in human physiology they describe how vision and the eye works. All of the external world is frequencies that the eyeball picks up and those frequencies go to the back of the eyeball around the optic nerve into the optic chasm into the back of the brain and then the brain creates an image. Did you say imagination? Well, image is it's core and the image in your brain is imagination. So, yes, it is. Proof, I know that what is purple to me, maybe green to you and orange to Dedicated to Evolution, and red to Methane Mama, violet to MOMMAH. What we all agree on is the title we have given that image we see in mind as a collective human site. Because we can point to it, we give it a lable we all agree to. That "everything" represents your interpretation of the data your senses provide to your brain is unquestionable. Does this mean these data are imaginary? No. Your retinas accurately record the visual information just as a camera lens would. Of course the "INTERPRETATION" of these data could be distorted by the brain schizophrenics often do this but this does not mean that the entity producing the data on the retina is "imaginary". Nothing is a "figment of my imagination" but the interpretation interacts with imagination but, under normal circumstances, does not produce gross distortion. Is everything people, earth stars, galaxies, space, time, etc figment of my imagination? No. I could say just as everything is merely a figment of imagination, you are a figment of imagination in my mind. But then, you might say since I am but a figment of imagination in your mind, so all the figments of my mind are indirectly figments of your mind . inconclusive, as it will only get us arguing upon something that really cannot be proved or disproved. What if I say, if everything is but a figment of your imagination then, the very thought, the doubtfulness, that everything is but 'a figment of imagination' is not real either, and yet another figment of your imagination. Then, may be your very being is merely a figment in the mind that knows itself as you, or knows you as you? You see the problem with the figment theory is that it leaves nothing to spare, nothing to stand on to make the point; for there has to be something real against which anything else could be declared imaginary. So, if everything in the world is but an illusion then, as they say, one illusion to another is each other's reality, one just as real as the other. The fact is the world, whatever it is, is but all real, in that it is all there is, the way it is. The distinction between what is merely in the mind and what is really out there is made very clear. You see this when some of your dream fail to materialise, when the even the noblest of your ambitions and aspirations need strongest of your efforts if they are ever to be accomplished. If what you have in the mind is all real then why are there failures and why there need to be so much effort put in? Reality is home. It is bonanza by God that we receive through our senses; dreams are far off enchanted lands that could visions of some distant reality. I think, YES, Figmentation Experiencing the Imagination With the Figments. IT could be I think, therefore I am the only thing i know for sure is that i exist, beyond that, everything is open to interpertation For example, i think im sitting in my room, answering questions, texting my friends, avoiding homework, but i may as well be in a mental hospital running around with my eyes closed thinking of all this as a life i could never had, and no one could tell me different Jim Jefferies Yes, but its that. Interacting with other entities figments of imagination. Until you learn how to hack it, your forced to also live in their world, the shared world.   ????  If everything were a figment of yours, then you in turn would be a figment of theirs,   If you imagine figments enough so, that you only figment imagination itself, then at least comatose becomes a matter of life support, thus the plugin is the means to support your theory, until they imagine you no more,   Since I am as we are real, and you are here reading this, you are then of a real fragment of this universes continuum, but for a fraction of the cost per type, you at least have your say,   If you pI nch yourself, you would not feel the imagined pain of reality, since you choose not to, then imagine if you did,   'Tis April fools day, imagine the many things you can pull off, and yet not really, .. Universe with its people, earth, stars, galaxies, space, time, etc., is not figment of imagination, but real. While universe exists for ever, the people, earth, stars, galaxies, etc change with time. What you see now may not be there tomorrow. While there is a day every day, the circumstances and events are not the same every day. That does not mean what you see now is figment of imagination. You can at best call it fluid.. It is like water in a stream. The stream with perennial flow of water is real and exists for ever. But the water you see now is not there next moment. It flows away and you see a different mass of water next moment. Thus water is fluid, changes with time and is not figment of imagination

a simplistic topic/branch when compared to the others of Philosophy like Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Logic?

a simplistic topic/branch when compared to the others of Philosophy like Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Logic? I think ethics is somewhat simpler. It's almost more of a science than a philosophy. We can conceive of eventually knowing all about the evolutionary development of morality, what people generally think morality is, what the most useful definition is, what actions are moral and immoral, etc. The problems in ethics are largely solvable problems I think. Logic is mostly a set of rules for reasoning which is applied to other fields in philosophy, so logic is unique in its own right. Metaphysics and epistemology have many problems which may never be solved. Yes. You are right. Ethics is simple when compared to the other branches in philosophy. I also recommend you to put emphasis on ethics only. It is simple if your a professional. Violate the rules of the ethics your profession entails and your out of a profession. Simple. Not simple at all. Ethics is a combination of metaphysics and epistemology and all 3 combine to create political science. Until you act on your metaphysical beliefs according to your epistemological premises, there can be no ethics. Ethics is a code of action. "A moral code [ethics] is a system of teleological measurement which grades the choices and actions open to man, according to the degree to which they achieve or frustrate the code’s standard of value. The standard is the end, to which man’s actions are the means." [insert added] Your ethics will mirror your metaphysics and epistemology if you follow them closely. If you don't know them intimatelyconsciously or subconsciouslythen your moral actions will be all over the map, and you will confuse even yourself. But to the extent that you know and execute them well, your code may be remembered for a long time, such as the Code of Hammurabi, the Ten Commandments; or perhaps your code will be remembered for its unintelligibility, such as Kant's Categorical Imperative, an example of why idealism metaphysical idea doesn't work.

Why is life so Futile?

Why is life so Futile? Because reincarnation exists. Perhaps in part due to "lack of knowledge"? Related: "The Answer You're Looking for Is inside You;" "Man, Master of His Destiny;" "The Great Divorce;" "For Couples Only." Because you're apparently clueless. Those of us who do have a clue do not find it futile at all. You'd think with such an avatar image that you would consider life sacred. Who made your life futile? Who would be responsible for making your life profitable? If you have kids and are working two jobs to feed them, is life futile? If you think everything you do goes away in the end, your wrong. You leave a small change in the world, life isn't futile, but it may be a struggle.

What do you think is revolutionary in science right now?

What do you think is revolutionary in science right now? I think you're the type of person that would enjoy reading the article put out by Ray Kurzwiel. It is a article that comes out every so often, once every one to three days. My favorite technology that is going to show signs of improving over the next generation is called the Emotive. It is communcation through brain waves with all other forms of technology. Its going to be telekentic and telepathic technology. If you are interested there is a community know as H+ that tries to convert the future to the now, using convergence theory. I think, I Heard That There is the Chances for the Child Birth with 3Parents for the Disease less Child. I'm a little biased, but I think synthetic biology has a lot of potential. I don't mean creating entirely synthetic life, but rather modifying existing life to some beneficial purpose. It's basically the genetic engineering that we've all heard about for so long, but mixed with biochemistry and taken up a notch. There is so much. The discovery of multitudes of extrasolar planets. The discovery of the Higgs boson and it's effect on the existence of matter. The recent announcement of a muchmoreefficient space drive which might get us to Mars in 90 days instead of years. The advances in molecular analysis and treatment of cancer. The advances in human/machine interface and the prospect of artificial limbs, eyes, etc. that function as well as the originals. The ability to "grow"new organs from one's own cells. That's just a few. Genetics and if the government wouldn't be causing problems, stem cell research

Why do cultures turn to imaginative literature to teach morals and values?

I've been noticing this in some of the books I'm reading in English class and want to know why it does it. Imaginative literature is future oriented. It paints a picture of a moral dilemma before you experience it. Or, if you have experienced it, it paints a picture that is common to the writer and the reader so that the moral "lesson" is provide in a common context. Perhaps it is an effective method? We have to teach the children how to behave and play nice with others somehow. Good parents, anyway. The results of lousy parents are all over the place. trolls!! truth is freedom. lots of groups do not like to see a free people which is why most, if not all, the greatest examples or moral action are hidden deep in allegory and metaphor. They use these tactics to teach lessons because they're more easily received if they come from an indirect source. Let's take a lesson such as lying for example. It can damage a persons ego as well as deter them from following the correct path if you directly attack someone as performing this "wrong" action especially if they haven't done it yet. However, if you teach them beforehand that lying is wrong with a book like Pinocchio I realize your literature is probably far more advanced, it does not damage their ego and it is more easily accepted because they do not feel threatened by getting in trouble. Also, it is easier to identify certain characteristics with characters. Likeable characters can do the right thing and villians can do the wrong thing. it is easier for others to understand drawings and pictures than in writing.