2007-09-04 23:40:59 · 33 answers · asked by Silkie1 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I'm alive, so I lack the ability to make an accurate comparision to the alternative.
2007-09-09 22:26:00 · answer #1 · answered by sarmirey 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great question this...this is supposed to be "its better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all". In its current state it doesn't make sense. Unless....what do you mean by lived? ...Enjoyed? Experienced? Seen the world? Ventured?
In the case of falling in love, I could not agree with the statement. Because if you have loved then lost... then you have lost. But if you have never loved then you will not know what that feels like, so you cannot feel such a loss....
so it is better never to have loved at all.
2007-09-05 03:12:15 · answer #2 · answered by Rico 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The light that burns twice as bright, burns half as long.
Better to live 1 day as a tiger than 1 year as a worm.
Better to burn out than fade away!
Heard any of these before? Its always better to have lived irrespective of the end result, you're born, you die. The bit in the middle is called life as you should live for all its worth even if you have to lose a little on the way!
2007-09-05 11:13:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely. I could write forever about how many wonderful oppotunities and experiences there are to be had in life. Of course, there is also a whole bunch of tough and painful stuff that comes with it -which is unpleasant at the time - but the good times far outweigh the bad. Just think; would you honestly be prepared to give up living, just in order to avoid pain?...
; o)
2007-09-06 10:15:32 · answer #4 · answered by blondepigeons 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if you lived and lost you did your best which is 100% better than not to have lived at all
2007-09-04 23:47:10 · answer #5 · answered by George 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
YES! It is better to have lived and lost
than to have lost the opportunity to live and win.
2007-09-06 19:10:17 · answer #6 · answered by 2Bright2LiveinDarkness 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well if you'd never lived at all, you wouldn't have anything to lose would you? And if you'd never lived at all, we wouldn't be answering this question, so we'd've lost this wonderful opportunity to earn 2 points.
So it would've read, Is it better to've lived and lost points when you didn't live at all?
Totally different question altogether mate!
2007-09-05 03:29:03 · answer #7 · answered by Val G 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it is supose to go
it is better to have loved and lost then to have never loved at all
we got no choice in liveing we make the choices of life
lost is death but not lost your human flesh is a tempary home we go back to spirit nothing lost we still live in a differant form and maybe wish boy i had that body again who's to say ????
2007-09-04 23:50:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
To live a life as a loser? No way! I'd rather never have been born, never lived at all. Fortunately, for me, I'm a winner!
2007-09-05 00:01:13 · answer #9 · answered by Elaine P...is for Poetry 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not really.
If you have "lived" and lost, you will feel sorry for your loss and thus make the rest of your "unlived" life miserable.
If you have never "lived", you may often wonder what it would have been like if..., and be miserable also.
My advise: "live", loose, learn and "live" again. Or if you don´t "live", don´t wonder.
2007-09-05 22:07:39 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd rather not live and lose because I'd remember and that would suck out all the fun out of anything coz you think what you could have had-rather go on living the innocent and peaceful life.
2007-09-04 23:48:11 · answer #11 · answered by Divalicious Angel 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋