2007-08-23 00:53:41 · 8 answers · asked by Calchas 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
its better to live just for 20 years and inspire the world.
many players play for whole 90 minutes , but the difference is the substitute who comes for 2 minutes and scores a goal.
best luck
daya
2007-08-23 01:00:41 · answer #1 · answered by angelboy_23 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course, it depends on your definition of 'mundane'. I would gladly trade my boring life for Jim Morrison's, for instance (though he was a bit older than 25 when he died, 28 I believe). If I could live my dreams, even for 5 years, yes, I would accept an early death.
2007-08-23 08:06:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would choose the interesting life for sure.
70 years of nothing is 70 years too many.
2007-08-23 09:48:38 · answer #3 · answered by Tuna-San 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just live it and do not concern yourself with unknowns or 'betters' You only have now to live. All else is maybe/maybe not. One day lived to your fullest is all you can handle. You need a good several hours rest to begin a new one. Do not accumulate what you do not NEED. It slows you down and/or makes you unhealthy.
2007-08-23 11:45:39 · answer #4 · answered by midnite rainbow 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
why don't you ask Alexander the Great?
At an age when most of us are driving a compact sedan and thinking about their mortgage, he had united the most fractured civilization in antiquity and conquered the wealthiest empire that the world had yet seen, all with a paltry 30,000 men.
2007-08-23 09:26:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
25. people will remember you better. and if you could you would also have better memories.
2007-08-23 08:03:35 · answer #6 · answered by K.Kombuis 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Different strokes for different folks.
2007-08-23 08:28:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i would answer, Yes.
2007-08-23 08:57:34 · answer #8 · answered by peter m 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋