Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth
i guess that depends on how you mean "we exist to..", imo
cause we literally exist to reproduce
but maybe you could come up with a more poetic alternative that makes sense figuratively
like if im really into eating a sandwhich atm, then i might feel like i exist just to eat this sandwhich right now
but speaking strictly objectively... that's not actually true
|
That depends on your point of view. To the person taking the joyride, it's all about doing whatever they want and having fun. But if someone in a large tower was watching them as they drove along, not knowing that they were just mindlessly driving without a destination in mind, but could see a bunch of possible destinations in the distance that they were getting closer to, then they're likely to think that the driver was specifically trying to get to one of those destinations.
So which person is right? Technically, they both are. The driver
is just doing whatever they want, but they also
are heading towards a destination.
It's kind of like a painting; if you stand very close to it, all you can see are blurry smudges. If you back up too far away from it, you can't make out the details. In both scenarios, even though the painting remains the same, it has changed exponentially purely because of how close or far the observer is. If you back away from life, it seems like it exists purely to replicate itself. If you get right up to it, it seems like life is all about following desires, and fulfilling wants and needs. But if you stand at a reasonable distance, the two come together, and in that balance you can see the whole picture, while also catching it's details. You and I are both critiquing the same painting based on our points of view; I am right up close, examining it's details, while you're far back, examining the big picture. If we both just adjusted ourselves, we'd see that we're both looking at and describing the same thing, just from different distances, and that neither of us is right or wrong.