to be or not to be?

Answer 1

That is a very good question. You took the idea from my question, though, so that is MY question!

Answer 2

80% of humanity, the religious folks, don't need to ask the meaning of life, the church tells them....the supernatural explanation. But the rest of us can't swallow religious dogma, because there's no evidence. Nobody can prove that there life after death, that people are tortured or rewarded after life or that there's invisible spirits running around.

I've come to two conclusions recently:

1. Life has no meaning
2. Life has a million meanings.

First, there's a certainty that death and annihilation awaits not only you, but the Earth in general. It's an astonomical certainty that our sun will supernova and leave the earth a burnt crisp, not to mention all the other extinction level events around the corner.

Second, the million things that give us meaning are the pleasurable experiences we can conjure up during the short period we are here on the earth, in the form of the relationships we have with our kids and other people, and the 'housekeeping' types of purposes. What i mean by that are the curing disease, ending hunger, improving literacy, reducing crime, preventing war, helping other kinds of things.

So the bottom line is, we only have a temporary meaning to life, to reduce pain and increase pleasure, other than that everything is lost to oblivion.


To be or not to be? "To be" is temporary and "not to be" is inevitable.....

Answer 3

It depends upon the nobility in the mind, whether a mind is willing to accept the challenge of being, or not. As it has also been said, 'to do is to be', which I find to be profoundly meaningful, and not even a question. According to my understanding here, in the reality of all things in being, action is central; it is only by the virtue of action that things are saved from annihilation. The river is a river because it flows, and then fish swim, birds fly, the Sun shines, and planets role, flowers bloom and bees buzzes as their gather nectar of the spring that comes into swing ever time after its wintry slumber.

If it were not for the virtue of being, nothing would ever have come into existence. Therefore, if it is to be, it is to be by doing, and then it is to be by doing than it is to be with courage alone – can you realise how daring it is even to breath in existence where even giant stars crumble and eventually turn into ashes, and how brave it is for human heart to beat amidst loud echoing drums of death and jarring crackles of decay everywhere.

Then remember that the dilemma of prince Hamlet was his inability to act, unable to forgive and equally unable to exact vengeance upon the antagonist led him to his eventual doom, and fall of the sate his was a rightful heir to.

Most personally speaking, I would choose to be, but for the purpose of general consideration, it is the mind of many minds that determines what is it is going to be.

Answer 4

That is the question.... Whether tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortunes, or to take up arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing, end them....

Isn't that how it goes?

Now, what are you really asking?

Answer 5

both are inseparable. They are the opposite faces of the same coin. Remember we are in a world of binaries.

Answer 6

I'd prefer to 'be' if you don't mind. To 'not be' insinuates that I am just a figment of your imagination... and I'd hate that. But then again, if I am a figment of your imagination, my thoughts and cares don't count.

Answer 7

its simplifying to be stand in divider if u really u want to cross the road of either side u have to go on one side whatsoever it could be right or left.u have to either be or not to be

Answer 8

that is your only real choice. One that you already made. Every decision you make follows suit. Sooo which one did you choose?

Answer 9

Actually I'm A-Positive

Answer 10

Just give me the outrageous fortune.