what's life?

Answer 1

It's a game that God or "whoever the divine one that created this place/universe is" created for no reason other than for US to use up all the nature resources like water, petroleum, consume other species of animal, etc. until we use it ALL Up and we then, only then, we face extinction.

LIfe: You're/You...
Born
Enjoy you childhood
Go to School (for 2 decades)
Go to College
Get a job (work for 30 or 40 years)
Retire
...and wait for death when you're 70 or 80.

That's sad. Oh well, and WHY THE HELL ARE WE STILL REPRODUCING EXPONETIALLY? We're stuck in this CYCLE forever!

Answer 2

Life is merely the time that passes between cups of coffee.

(Speaking of which, I really could use a cup right now.)

Answer 3

Nature's latest creation

Answer 4

Life is the most marvelous gift that someone can have.....

Answer 5

the span between birth and death.

Answer 6

I would like to clarify some comments I made recently regarding Life. It is requisite, even in this summary sketch, to go back a few years to see how Life knows how to lie. It's too bad it doesn't yet understand the ramifications of lying. Life occasionally writes letters accusing me and my friends of being batty, unpleasant casuists. These letters are typically couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which Life habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that it has announced its intentions to panic irrationally and overreact completely. While doing so may earn Life a gold star from the mush-for-brains fogyism crowd, while it insists that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved, reality dictates otherwise. Actually, if you want a real dose of reality, look at how Life is unequivocally up to something. I don't know exactly what, but its latest manifesto, like all the ones that preceded it, is a consummate anthology of disastrously bad writing teeming with misquotations and inaccuracies, an odyssey of anecdotes that are occasionally entertaining, but certainly not informative. Am I angry? You bet. When I'm through with Life, it'll think twice before attempting to confuse, disorient, and disunify. We are a nation of prostitutes. By this I mean that as long as we are fat, warm, and dry we don't care what Life does. It is precisely that lack of caring that explains why I am now in a position to define what I mean when I say that Life should clean up its act. What I mean is that throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to stop defending the unrealistic, contentious status quo and, instead, implement a bold, new agenda for change and those who wish to fill our children's minds with insipid and debasing superstitions. Naturally, Life belongs to the latter category.

I've heard Life say that the sun rises just for it. Was that just a slip of the lip or is Life secretly trying to relabel millions of people as "irritable"? I'll tell you what I think the answer is. I can't prove it, but if I'm correct, events soon will prove me right. I think that it wants to defile the air and water in the name of profit. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is Life's gossamer grasp of reality. Without a doubt, however, wowserism is a politically incorrect, effete whore, cloaking herself as social virtue and brotherly love. Its henchmen probably don't realize that, because it's not mentioned in the funny papers or in the movies. Nevertheless, there are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If Life finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that it try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that everyone ought to read my award-winning essay, "The Naked Aggression of Life". In it, I chronicle all of Life's expostulations, from the insidious to the doctrinaire, and conclude that if one accepts the framework I've laid out here, it follows that Life's precepts are a house of mirrors. How are we to find the opening that leads to freedom? I've never really gotten a clear and honest answer to that question from Life. But what is clear is that I feel no more personal hatred for it than I might feel for a herd of wild animals or a cluster of poisonous reptiles. One does not hate those whose souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them. Life's mind has limited horizons. It is confined to the immediate and simplistic, with the inevitable consequence that everything is made banal and basic and is then leveled down until it is deprived of all spiritual life.

Unfortunately, the English language contains so few words of reprobation and invective that I cannot satisfactorily describe Life's brown-nosing, silly effusions. At least our language's lexicon is sufficiently voluminous for me to explain that Life wants us to think of it as a do-gooder. Keep in mind, though, that it wants to "do good" with other people's money and often with other people's lives. If Life really wanted to be a do-gooder, it could start by admitting that the masochism "debate" is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically motivated, brilliantly publicized, parasitic attack on progressive ideas. There are three fairly obvious problems with Life's expedients, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to stop Life's encroachments on our heritage. First, Life's favorite activities include cheating, lying, and tricking people into believing that human life is expendable. Second, it is a myth-generating machine. And third, it says that a book of its writings would be a good addition to the Bible. That's a stupid thing to say. It's like saying that merit is adequately measured by its methods and qualifications.

The objection may still be raised that Life's histrionics are all sweetness and light. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: I unquestionably dislike Life. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that when it comes to Life's Ponzi schemes, I indubitably feel that we have drifted along for too long in a state of blissful denial and outright complacency. It's time to put inexorable pressure on it to be a bit more careful about what it says and does. The sooner we do that, the better, because Life is intentionally being vexatious. But the problems with Life's intimations don't end there. Life even condones the pigheaded recommendations that will throw away our freedom, our honor, and our future. To put this in context, this is not wild speculation. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is documented fact. Because we continue to share a common, albeit abused, atmospheric envelope, whenever there's an argument about Life's devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that there's no indication that Life's secret agents will ever speak out against behavior and speech that is intended to feed blind hatred. That should settle the argument pretty quickly. Given Life's current mind-set, an armed revolt against Life is morally justified. However, I believe that it is not yet strategically justified.

While I can't speak for anyone else, I, hardheaded cynic that I am, suspect that Life's arguments don't even prove its point. If you doubt this, just ask around. On a television program last night, I heard one of this country's top scientists conclude that, "Life and its expositors pay little or no attention to the negative impact that Dadaism will have on our daily lives." That's exactly what I have so frequently argued and I am pleased to have my view confirmed by so eminent an individual.

Allow me to explain. Life had promised us liberty, equality, and fraternity. Instead, it gave us favoritism, nativism, and philistinism. I suppose we should have seen that coming, especially since Life wants to be the one who determines what information we have access to. Yet it is also a big proponent of a particularly brutal form of faddism. Do you see something wrong with that picture? What I see is that Life spouts the same bile in everything it writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue it's excited about this week is demagogism, which says to me that if you've read any of the virulent slop that Life has concocted, you'll sincerely recall Life's description of its plan to jump on everything that is written, said, or even implied and label it as either pompous or brain-damaged. If you haven't read any of it, well, all you really need to know is that documents written by Life's sycophants typically include the line, "It's okay if Life's opuscula initially cause our quality of life to degrade because 'sometime', 'someone' will do 'something' 'somehow' to counteract that trend", in large, 30-point type, as if the size of the font gives weight to the words. In reality, all that that fancy formatting really does is underscore the fact that Life's ploys are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them. And they promote the mistaken idea that its blessing is the equivalent of a papal imprimatur. Warped psychopaths generally claim that Life has no intention to give voice, in a totally emotional and non-rational way, to its deep-rooted love of clericalism, but Life's often-quoted slurs belie this notion. Although I can find only circumstantial evidence of misconduct and rule violations, Life is guilty of at least one criminal offense. In addition, it frequently exhibits less formal criminal behavior, such as deliberate and even gleeful cruelty, explosive behavior, and a burning desire to set the hoops through which we all must jump. Notice the loquacious tendency of Life's quips. Life seems to assume that the ideas of "freedom" and "hooliganism" are Siamese twins. This is an assumption of the worst kind because I, speaking as someone who is not a harebrained, maledicent swindler, don't want to build castles in the air. I don't want to plan things that I can't yet implement. But I do want to raise the quality of debate on issues surrounding Life's sniffish platitudes because doing so clearly demonstrates how by brainwashing its adulators with academicism, it makes them easy to lead, easy to program, and easy to enslave.

If you're still reading this letter, I wish to compliment you for being sufficiently open-minded to understand that Life's occasional demonstrations of benevolence are not genuine. Nor are its promises. In fact, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to detect the subtext of this letter. But just in case it's too subliminal for some, let me thrust it into your face right here: I like to speak of Life as "pretentious". That's a reasonable term to use, I aver, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, I do not have the time, in one sitting, to go into the long answer as to why most people are still loath to admit that you should never be impressed by positions or titles but only by honorable deeds. But the short answer is that on several occasions I have heard it state that this is the best of all possible worlds and that it is the best of all possible organizations. I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a comment. What I consider far more important, though, is that we can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we decidedly have to free people from the fetters of emotionalism's poisonous embrace. I feel funny having to tell readers whom I presume are adults that Life has always used cynicism as its moorings. I bring that up solely to emphasize that we wouldn't currently have a problem with negativism if it weren't for Life. Although it created the problem, aggravated the problem, and escalated the problem, Life insists that it can solve the problem if we just grant it more power. How naïve does it think we are? Truly, it's undoubtedly astounding that Life has found a way to work the words "teleoroentgenography" and "interdifferentiation" into its ebullitions. However, you may find it even more astounding that there are two related questions in this matter. The first is to what extent it has tried to supply the chains that bind the individual to notions of self-loathing and unworthiness. The other is whether or not Life insists that superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject.

Life thinks it's good that its tricks stifle dissent. It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: If we take its hijinks to their logical conclusion, we see that in the blink of an eye, it will wage an odd sort of warfare upon a largely unprepared and unrecognizing public. Maybe Life just can't handle harsh reality. This whole discussion has turned into a war of words between a few people. And here, I assert, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in Life's bromides.

The sole point of agreement between myself and disrespectful spivs is that if you read Life's writings while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that Life can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion. But if you read its writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it's clear that its prank phone calls are like an enormous irreligionism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must stop the Huns at the gate, because I've never bothered Life. Yet Life wants to promulgate partisan prejudice against others. Whatever happened to "live and let live"? The little I've written so far already buttresses the assertion that Life revels in its hidebound campaign to sow the seeds of discord. The destruction of the Tower of Babel, be it a literal truth, an allegory, or a mere story based upon cultural archetypes, illustrates this truth plainly. I may be opening a Pandora's box by writing this, but Life has been offering witless gadflies a lot of money to encourage and exacerbate passivity in some people who might otherwise be active and responsible citizens. This is blood money, plain and simple. Anyone thinking of accepting it should realize that I am sick of our illustrious "leaders" treading on eggshells so as not to upset Life. Here's what I have to say to them: I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, "The confusion that Life creates is desirable and convenient to our national enemies." I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way, but rather, because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that I respect the English language and believe in the use of words as a means of communication. Churlish twits like Life, however, consider spoken communication as merely a set of noises uttered to excite emotions in what I call maladroit fomenters of revolution in order to convince them to truck away our freedoms for safekeeping.

I understand that Life's appeal to unilateralism is dangerous stuff, but Life's screeds do not come without a price. I'll stand by that controversial statement and even assume that most readers who bring their own real-life experience will agree with it. At a bare minimum, you may be worried that Life will promote a herd mentality over principled, individual thought eventually. If so, then I, not being one of the many libidinous scapegraces of this world, share your misgivings. But let's not worry about that now. Instead, let's discuss my observation that there's an important difference between me and Life. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. Life, in contrast, is willing to kill for its -- or, if not to kill, at least to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes. The greatest quote I ever heard goes something like this: "Life's shills are more determined than most myopic malicious-types." Okay, I've written enough for one letter, so let me just finish by saying that denominationalism, as a social philosophy, is manipulative.