muster up the courage and take that first step to your goal, never know where it may lead

They don’t hear me tho.

What I gotta do to make em understand?

and if you can't muster up the courage that's ok.

you can get loaded on beer from the gas station and get in a brawl with a stranger.

sure you'll be missing teeth in the morning and might be hypothermic

but damn at least you did something with your life

You alright guy ?

im channeling my inner carl from aqua teen hunger force

Real one detected

Let ‘em lose king
Some people only learn from experience

Nigerian pastor putting you on game but you too busy in g&g looking at dirty gifs

facts

OP woke up and chose facts 💯💪

One step one Love

I'll start with the most obvious: "What is the meaning of life?" - is the stereotype of the philosophical question. It is so hackneyed that it is hard to take it seriously.

I once saw this in practice. Nemi Pelgrom, whom I met in a model theory course, persuaded Sophie Machavariani and me to stand in downtown Uppsala with a FRÅGA EN FILOSOF/ASK A PHILOSOPHER sign.

People really stopped and asked us all sorts of questions. They argued passionately. Over two sessions of this sociological performance, at least a dozen passersby asked about the meaning of life. But not a single person asked the question without smirking. All remembered the meaning of life in jest, not expecting an answer.

Why is this question hackneyed to such an extent? Partly because, unlike many other questions, it can be asked by anyone.

Some philosophical problems are relatively simple. "Simple" not in the sense that they have one obvious solution that any reasonable person would agree with. No; different people may solve them in different ways. They are simple in the sense that they are not so difficult to formulate. Asking a question is, in philosophy, half the battle. And sometimes the whole thing. Sometimes, if you put the question well, the solution comes by itself and then seems obvious.

In this sense of the word "simple," the question about the meaning of life is one of the simplest of philosophical questions. To ask about the meaning of anything, it takes nothing: take that whatever-it-is and add "why" to it. Go to the polls - why? To study - why? Get out of bed in the morning - why?

Living - why?

Compare that to some more tricky question. For example: are a priori synthetic judgments possible? Or here is another question Socrates asks the Athenian Euthyphron in Plato's dialogue:

• Listen, Euthyphron," Socrates says in a free translation into modern Russian. - Do the higher powers love everything good because it is good? Or is everything good because the higher powers love it?

• What are you talking about, Socrates? - Euthyphro answers. - I don't understand.

The question "Why do we live, Euthyphron?" would hardly cause the same kind of bewilderment.

Anyway, adults rarely talk seriously about the meaning of life. Browsing over the meaning of life is for teenagers listening to music with lots of howls, wails, and minor chords. Every self-respecting adult has already found the obvious answer to the question, "Why live?" In light of this answer, simple and inescapable, all the existential angst, all the tears, ink and pixels spilled, seems like cute childish nonsense.

It usually seems that way to me, too. I, too, have my own obvious-simple answer to the question, "What is the meaning of life?" But I also think the most important thing about the question "What is the meaning of life?" - is not the answers per se. The most important thing is why we need those answers.

That's what the first part of my text is about.

Part One. The Meaning of Life.
For every question in philosophy, there are meta-questions. A meta-question is a question about a question. An attempt to clarify what the question is about. For example, what Socrates elicits from Euthyphron in my free paraphrase is a meta-question in relation to any problem in which the concept of "good" or "bad" appears.

Imagine if we were to argue the question "Is it wrong to hit children? Behind that question weaves an unstoppable meta-satellite: "What does 'bad' even mean?" After all, "bad" can mean many things. For example, "not pleasing to a higher power." Or "contrary to the Bible." Or "causes pain." "Harms personal development." "Disgusts me with the game slotozilla.com/free-slots ," after all.

Get these different options out into the light, and you can see right away: arguing about physical punishment without clarifying what "bad" is meant is a dubious business. Because yes, some kinds of "bad" include child abuse. But others do not, to put it mildly.

The question "What is the meaning of life?" also has a meta-company. One might, for example, clarify what is meant by the word "life." Biological life, i.e., from birth to death of the organism? Then it's a question of why live until you die. With death the problem is removed. Or is it about biological life plus an infinite postmortem existence, which many believe? Then death does not exempt from the existential cheeseball. It is no longer simply a question of why to live, but why to live forever. The answers must be appropriate.

Very original, I never thought or heard anything like it before.

This hits me hard fam