Why?

[Chaosblade02]

Each individual creates their own reasons as to why they exist. Which is in the form of free will, in whatever route that takes them. If someone decides for themselves that they have no purpose or reason to exist, they won't have one.

[InternetTherapist]

Each individual creates their own reasons as to why they exist. Which is in the form of free will, in whatever route that takes them. If someone decides for themselves that they have no purpose or reason to exist, they won't have one.

 

Explain free will to me, please.

[hoshi23]

Each individual creates their own reasons as to why they exist. Which is in the form of free will, in whatever route that takes them. If someone decides for themselves that they have no purpose or reason to exist, they won't have one.

thats very head driven. none of that actually matters when imploding into is.

 

and free will is a resistance to that. like maybe this here is better for "me". i can preserve myself and my story.

but with that of course comes cost in energy to keep it up. which creates a friction. and that friction is a slight pain.

and that pain is to bring you to that.

 

so you live it and then it is gone. the circle is closed or in that case you are the being.

so it goes on with every part. but if you want to think that intellectually you cannot.

for you not the same after it. so leave the head aside. and simply be.

 

you cannot figure out being. cannot figure out what you already are.

 

seeing that comes great respect for every small thing in life almost spontanous.

effortless. yet one owuld not even need havin to write effortless. it just is.

[InternetTherapist]

Each individual creates their own reasons as to why they exist. Which is in the form of free will, in whatever route that takes them. If someone decides for themselves that they have no purpose or reason to exist, they won't have one.

thats very head driven. none of that actually matters when imploding into is.

 

What do you mean imploding into is?

Imploding, into, is.

 

He said "Which is in the form of free will", so imploding into free will?

What does imploding mean in this context?

[hoshi23]

Each individual creates their own reasons as to why they exist. Which is in the form of free will, in whatever route that takes them. If someone decides for themselves that they have no purpose or reason to exist, they won't have one.

thats very head driven. none of that actually matters when imploding into is.

 

What do you mean imploding into is?

Imploding, into, is.

 

He said "Which is in the form of free will", so imploding into free will?

What does imploding mean in this context?

 

well you say i am this, i am that, i am hot, i am cold, but first there is i am.

it is not for the intellect. because how can you think i am?

thus imploding into is.

[nosisab]

Each individual creates their own reasons as to why they exist. Which is in the form of free will, in whatever route that takes them. If someone decides for themselves that they have no purpose or reason to exist, they won't have one.

thats very head driven. none of that actually matters when imploding into is.

 

What do you mean imploding into is?

Imploding, into, is.

 

He said "Which is in the form of free will", so imploding into free will?

What does imploding mean in this context?

 

well you say i am this, i am that, i am hot, i am cold, but first there is i am.

it is not for the intellect. because how can you think i am?

thus imploding into is.

Not everyone here is a native English speaker (myself as example). To us the lack of a clear distinction for the transitory meaning of the verb "to be" may be confusing sometimes.

 

The phrase "imploding into is" need to be cleared indeed, is it meant to be "imploding into 'is'?" if so the meaning here is the intrinsic, inherent to the being or it's the transitory meaning, the "passing by" or "passing through"?

 

Yet the original meaning may be something else, I'll not speculate about.

 

The important here is "Each individual creates their own reasons as to why they exist. Which is in the form of free will, in whatever route that takes them. If someone decides for themselves that they have no purpose or reason to exist, they won't have one."

 

As placed, the above statement falls in the "individual opinion" category and is about decisions and motivations, not reasons. Whenever the life exists it has a reason, free will (not the religious connotation) almost never is determinant in that, actually it's quite the opposite. This is what I think Hoshi meant.

 

Still the OP seems to be asking for the general and universal aspect of the famous philosophical question about the meaning of life. It has not a single answer, maybe it's just "to live". Maybe we have a cosmic purpose but I prefer to think "whatever comes from it" is only part of the process.

 

PS: Just to clarify myself, with "individual opinion" I meant just it, as opposed to universal approach, not personal opinion.

[RebelOConner]

We don't need any reason to exist, we exist, that's all, and we have to do with that.

[SilverDNA]

We don't need any reason to exist, we exist, that's all, and we have to do with that.

 

Right you are!

 

Let me be Dundee!

 

To debate the individual meaning of existing leads to chaos, because every individual has it's own view of existence. It's like debating the views of life different animals have. Viewing the life of a dog is different from that of a cat or a mouse. Let us please remind our self's that the question is : "Why do WE exist?"

 

SilverDNA

[Naktis]

We exist so we could die. :unsure:

[nosisab]

We don't need any reason to exist, we exist, that's all, and we have to do with that.

 

Right you are!

 

Let me be Dundee!

 

To debate the individual meaning of existing leads to chaos, because every individual has it's own view of existence. It's like debating the views of life different animals have. Viewing the life of a dog is different from that of a cat or a mouse. Let us please remind our self's that the question is : "Why do WE exist?"

 

SilverDNA

(to the quote) That is a practical approach, still doesn't prevent philosophers from ever trying to understand the life's purpose.

 

I don't understand why the debate leads to chaos, should be noted, again, it is not about particular vivence. It's not about particular motivations. The question is broader, actually it should not even be restricted to the human existence although that one is, comprehensibly, our first concern.

 

The monist approach is the extremist one, it is the reason and cause of so many abuses and intolerance.

 

Absolutes are not possibles in our universe, there is no place for absolute chaos or absolute order in it.

 

These two are one the fundamental formant dualities, they form one the main existence's intervals. Chaos is responsible for the dynamics and order for the form. If it would be possible ever, achieving one these two is negating life itself.

 

There is not such thing as dumb answer or dumb question in the end. These are stages mankind as a whole and individuals in particular passes. Newer answers not always are better than older ones.

All the while man specializes he narrows the vision too. Be him not aware of it and soon he will believe his limited portion as the whole that exist.

 

No greater example I know of chaos and order sharing than life itself. It's the most marvelous thing in the entire universe. Nothing comes near it in complexity, life is too many times more complex than the universe itself. It may not have a purpose but certainly carries a reason in itself. Will we ever know that reason? I don't know but certainly it'll not prevent us from trying.

 

PS: "The absolute is relative and the relative is absolute" to understand this statement none the two can be taken alone, they themselves are not possible else together in the form of the interval where things exist. An imaginative reader will notice the similarities in "relative similar to chaos" and "absolute similar to order"; that similarity carries out in math to zero and infinite too.