real vs. false life philosophy

read this article today:

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/the- ... free-life/
(yes, it's a comedy website, but wong's articles are rarely meant as comedy)

quick summary, he asks you to write a list of what you did yesterday, and a second list of your highest values in life. then he prompts you to throw the second list away, because it is meaningless, and you are bs-ing yourself about who you are. basically a "you are what you do" kind of thing.

i thought of posting this here because the comment section on that is divided like a mofo, and it ties in with some of the topics we had recently.

it's hard to argue that sitting in a corner with your good intentions and your values will change the world around you, but they do have an effect on *you*, and how you deal with the world. so how meaningless are they really? aren't there multiple aspects to this? what do you think?

*this is more of an abstract topic, i guess, because of how many people here deal with lack of motivation/avolition in general, but it's interesting nontheless.

He is probably right, which is why hedonism is the only real philosophy of life that makes any sense. I would put back eating and sleeping, etc. in the list though, because they are part of life too, probably the most important ones. Now, unfortunately, I don't do those things well. I eat whatever in a hurry, and sleep in a hurry as well, but it is still enjoyable.

OneRinger wrote:He is probably right, which is why hedonism is the only real philosophy of life that makes any sense.

it kinda makes me think though. a lot of people would have lists comprised of things that are benefitial or necessary for us as a society. if we didn't have that lifestyle of work until you drop, meaning, if people had the means and energy to pursue different things, in which direction would the changes likely go? would we be more likely to "do our part" or waste away even more?

I'd argue that most peoples beliefs don't greatly impact their day to day lives, but I think they would have a large impact in extreme/unusual/polarized situations

Well what you do is meaningless really, but that's another debate and lets pretend there is such a thing as meaning.

I've always found the "you are what you do" (having first heard of it in Total Recall) concept to be flawed as people understand it. In one sense of course your action define you, however so do your thoughts. Its a combo, its only when faced with a situation where either you stand by your thoughts or betray them "e.g. Thoughts- I'd never kill anyone under any circumstances, Action – I killed the man that raped my child", that you find out your true views/beliefs. That said deluding yourself does not make you something e.g. a billionaire claiming to be charitable, but doesn't even give pocket change to a homeless person on the street.

Feleanoctis wrote:it kinda makes me think though. a lot of people would have lists comprised of things that are benefitial or necessary for us as a society. if we didn't have that lifestyle of work until you drop, meaning, if people had the means and energy to pursue different things, in which direction would the changes likely go? would we be more likely to "do our part" or waste away even more?

I don't think the situation is that dire for most. The days of the 14 hours days are pretty much over, and people retire eventually and don't die from their work.
There is a lot of pastimes, and that is what people do when they have a chance. What this exercise demonstrate is that people have a lot of great ideas for others, buy they have no intention whatsoever to do anything themselves. If you see an ecologist, he is probably trying to coerce you into signing a petition on a piece of tree so that someone else makes a policy that will coerce some people into doing something, instead of the ecologist planting trees or doing something actually useful.
It is the same with everybody. They might watch the news or some thing, and get an opinion about world peace being needed or something, but what they are actually doing is watching television and commenting. What they are actually saying is that they wish others to stop their war. Now, if it is their own war, then that would be different, and they would forget about world peace and would start talking about human rights, or whatever their enemy is doing wrong.

This being said, there is nothing wrong about ideas that you don't actually do. There are some people that would want a philosophy to be actually followed by the one proposing it, but I don't think it is necessary. Still, if it is really far apart of what you actually are living, you pretty much have to wonder what value it can really have and if the person actually knows what he/she is talking about.

It is quite common for someone to believe in something but actually want the opposite, like this:

Failing to see the relevance to SPD here? If anything it's anti-relevant, considering the motivation levels of schizoids. So yeah... abstract.

nprkntlny wrote:Failing to see the relevance to SPD here? If anything it's anti-relevant, considering the motivation levels of schizoids. So yeah... abstract.

no, you're not failing, there just is none. it happens.

Life philosophies are ideals. They are not false ideals, but you have to deal with your reals before you can tackle your ideals. It doesn't mean that you don't actually have the ideals you hold, but the people who are able to pursue their ideals in big meaningful ways often have the support of others to deal with their reals. And then there are a few people who ignore their reals for their ideals and are able to burn brightly for a small amount of time.

I don't have much to say, because to be honest, I don't have any personal life philosophy to mention nowadays. I used to have a lot of values, but *"sob story" warning* with my worst depression I felt that my identity and opinions crumbled completely, and what I've built up after that is survival stuff or "values" that somehow just are/happen on their own, without doing things.

But I don't believe in that "you are what you do"-stuff anyway. I might be what I do from some practical perspective or even from the perspective of other people, but that's only the external side of "who you are". Of course I can't go around telling others that I'm sporty when I never do sports, or something like that, but I think I have the right to define myself to myself - even as "sporty" (what a bad example) if I really felt that way deep inside.