Some philosophers have taught us that to have meaning in your life you need to have some sort of a defining commitment (an ultimate concern) and usually to something finite and temporal. While on the other hand, Buddhists say that to lead a life free from suffering one should have no attachments.
So my question here, are a suffering-free-life and a meaningful-life mutually exclusive?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I believe that in order to lead a meaningful life, one should be passionate about something and make it part of him/her. Our work gives meaning to our lives and is the only thing we leave behind as our contribution to the growth of this universe. To lead a simple life that is devoid of such attachments in order to spare ourselves of the suffering that can encounter us strikes me as ludicrous. Suffering is a small price to pay compared to the meaningless emptiness that would be our lives otherwise.
Suffering is an emotion like any other. Leading a meaningful life is not like leading a pointless one. Unfortunately, so many people try to give their lives a meaning while doing whatever they can to avoid all discomfort. This results in a distorted reality that is harmful, meaningless, and unhappy.
To answer your question, I believe you can't have two first priorities, something has to come in second place....
Not if you are Hedonist!! Life should be about pleasure. For me, a meaningful life, is a life full of pleasure.
you can make a combination of both. at the back of our heads, everyone has an ultimate concern or highest priority, you can live the day for the day, be free in your actions and still attached to your goals, but can we get to goals without plans? technically no, you need 20% of your time to make that happen, but it all comes down to one thing, how high are your standards, how far do you want to go?
Post a Comment