Lurhman.vs.doorman

[keon]

LURHMAN (http://www.theplace.ru/rating/voter.php?pic=bjork/img/French_Box-Bjork01.jpg&name=Bjork)
Don't worry if you don't know what to do with your life. Lots of interesting people i know did'nt know till they're 40.Most interesting i know still don't.
DOORMAN (http://sfy.iv.ru/sfy.html?script=fight_club)
If you don't know what you want, you end up with a lot you don't.

[rich]

I recently reached the age of 82.

Am still wondering what I want to be when I grow up. ;) :ph34r: :shakehead: :dunno: :rofl:

[buzzlightyear1982]

I agree with Lurhman, I have tried college three times and I'm about to try it again for a fourth time. My main issue was I didn't know what I wanted to major in. But recently I came to an coclusion that I am going to explore all of my interests...one degree at a time. Then hopefully by doing that I'll figure out what my real passion in life is B)

[scameter]

I personally think both are true; the first is true in the essential way that buzz said, and the latter is true in that in the search for what you want, you encounter many things, and learn many things that you wouldn't have if you would have always known what you wanted to do/be, and because of this, one often ends up with alot of stuff they don't really want, because of the amount of knowledge the acquire in their search. But, perhaps I viewed that incorrectly, especially the second one. <_<

[Smurf]

wow 82 Rich? respect :thumbsup:

I agree with both aswell, but perhaps the latter might need a "want" on the end?


"If you don't know what you want, you end up with a lot you don't [want]."

? <_<

[sonrisa]

so then you know what you don't want. Process of elimination B)

[buzzlightyear1982]

""If you don't know what you want, you end up with a lot you don't"

Yes, however, knowledge is power...and the knowledge you obtain while finding what you want can only help you determin what you do want...think of it as dating if you will B)

[scameter]

Not always, however. For instance, if I love science but don't know it, knowing about history will not necessarily help me to know that I love science.

[buzzlightyear1982]

"if I love science but don't know it, knowing about history will not necessarily help me to know that I love science."

However, history you know will provide you with the names of historic scientist so you can know about science. Everything is a stepping stone...the history in this case was a stepping stone in the direction of science. I this in todays society that people give up far too easily...you have to use what you know to learn what you want to know...if that makes any sence B)

[scameter]

True, somewhat. But not all history is about science. I could study history and learn nothing about science. And, as with many if not most scientists, I could study science and learn nor care anything for nothing about history. Not all knowledge is complementary, or necessary for another knowledge.

[buzzlightyear1982]

"Not all knowledge is complementary, or necessary for another knowledge."

True...but don't you get a reassured feeling just knowing that you have that little bit of knowledge even if you don't use it. Think of it as insurance or an lawyer...you know you always have them but you may never use them B)

[scameter]

Of course; all unharmful knowledge is good. But, it isn't necessary.

[buzzlightyear1982]

If you break it all down nothing in life is necessary... B)

[scameter]

Indeed. Or important. Thus, anything and everything is important, if we believe it is so.

[buzzlightyear1982]

"Indeed. Or important. Thus, anything and everything is important, if we believe it is so. "

Are you propsing that the concept of necessary and important is a 'matial' concept created by our desires and wats <_<

[scameter]

If indeed nothing is important or necessary, yes.

[Winfried]

Nothing is important. In the end, we're all dead.
But maybe it's not the destination, but the road you walk towards it <_<

[buzzlightyear1982]

"Nothing is important. In the end, we're all dead.
But maybe it's not the destination, but the road you walk towards it"

I like this concept...the value of necessary and importants is measure and valued by the parth you take to achieve it B)

[scameter]

I don't think the path matters either, except how it matters to the individual, as is with everything.

[Winfried]

If it matters to someone, it still matters.

[Smurf]

Hmm, compared to the infinite?

[buzzlightyear1982]

"I don't think the path matters either, except how it matters to the individual, as is with everything."

Well everything in life is perception...and if the path to an indivisuals 'importants' was rocky and difficult then I concider it unfair of you to say it doesn't matter B)

[scameter]

Indeed winfried, but not inherently. And, buzz, it still doesn't matter to the things that are seen as important in their inherent selves, only to the individual.

[buzzlightyear1982]

"it still doesn't matter to the things that are seen as important in their inherent selves, only to the individual."

I still disagree...everyone affect everyone directly or indirectly so there for even if they don't relize it at first one indivisuals path does matter to anothers indivisual...for there path may just depend on the path of another indivisual B)

[scameter]

But not necessarily. There are many people I have come across that either didn't even notice me, that I didn't notice at all, or both; and thus, our paths were not consciously affected. But, even if they were affected in a grander view, that still does not make them important. They simply exist as they are, whether affected or not. We place importance; importance does not exist inherently, beyond something's importance as simply being here, which isn't really importance from the usual standard.

[buzzlightyear1982]

"There are many people I have come across that either didn't even notice me, that I didn't notice at all, or both; and thus, our paths were not consciously affected"

First point I would like to make is you can't know if a path has been affected until you stop looking for an affection in the path. It like one of those 'where's Waldo' pictures, you don't really see him till you stop looking. So to say the path for your future wasn't affected while in the pressent really doesn't work B)

"But, even if they were affected in a grander view, that still does not make them important"

Everything that happens to you is important, even if you don't see it. Someday you might see it when your looking at things from a differant view point B)

"We place importance; importance does not exist inherently, beyond something's importance as simply being here, which isn't really importance from the usual standard"

I have something from my childhood to which I will never part with, not even to my children, and I plan to be burried with it. To me it's important because it holds happy memories and it protected me while I was growing up. So to hear, read, you say that importance does not exist is beyond obserd to me. And while were on the topic what exactly is a 'usual standard' <_<

[scameter]

First point I would like to make is you can't know if a path has been affected until you stop looking for an affection in the path. It like one of those 'where's Waldo' pictures, you don't really see him till you stop looking.

<_< That doesn't make sense...

So to say the path for your future wasn't affected while in the pressent really doesn't work

By future is effected by the present, as the present is effected by the past. But my future is it's own.

Everything that happens to you is important, even if you don't see it. Someday you might see it when your looking at things from a differant view point

That can be said of everything, although I disagree. I don't think it is right to say something is or is not important, because we can't know definitely.

So to hear, read, you say that importance does not exist is beyond obserd to me.

If you will read what you said before this, you said to you it is important because, then the reason. You placed importance on that thing. Ultimately, that thing simply exists and existed.

And while were on the topic what exactly is a 'usual standard'

That wasn't my point with that phrase. I meant that usually, importance is considered meaning, something seeable and identifiable, not that something is important simply because it exists. For instance, you didn't say that the thing you want to be burried with is important to you because it exists; you gave a specific reason why it is, which you placed. That is what I mean.