Do we live to destroy? Or do we live to create?

Question

Do we exist only to destroy? Or do people live to create? Both of these questions seem to be different, but both aren't really questions that can be answered by us. Who would we ask and how could we research this?

If we live to create then why do we destroy? If we exist only to destroy then why are born? I believe there is balance in everything, but for some reason I don't see it here. Perhaps we exist only to consume and disperse matter. Is life the opposite of matter or is it the energy that animates it?

Answer 1

both-bush and saddam - destroy living
mother theresa and pricess d - create love

Answer 2

Life is experiments in creation, conservation and recreation out of the existing materials in our surroundings that we cannot transcend. We cannot transcend, because we simply do not know how to, we are bound to the yoke of ignorance, to the ferocious tyranny of contingent need.


Because of the way creation is, life is compelled to be sort of cannibalistic, in the way that the strong eats the weak or the less strong, the more astute and thus stronger animal eats other less astute animals and vegetables, vegetables eat or poison to death and destruction other vegetables, other life, thus everything dismembering and eating ingesting digesting everything else out of the available materials.

When we do not directly destroy other beings, we may want to consume them in other ways, to exploit them, we rule them, we restrict or limit them, or we are forced into some sort of morally determined association and solidarity of convenience with them.

We eat sunrays in the way of absorbing light and warmth, and we synthesize nourishment from all earth-life that suits our needs for survival.

We cannot create without destroying, by the simple fact that whatever we may use to create something, we take it out of the existing existence, thus modifying, but most often destroying, dismembering - as I said, other forms in order to keep ourselves alive, and so to prevail, and so get off-spring, and in order to make and consume artifacts of whatever sort in order to try to satisfy our needs and our survival.

There is some sort of transcendental meaning behind all this that is not up to us to fetch. We are not much wandered into transcendence, and we have anomalous and always doubtable ideas of our teleology that are based on our experiences of the past with our more or less superstitious and stongly restrictive sectarian religious depictions of the meaning of our life and of the thereafter, and with our ever more or less naive and apparently never developing philosophies.

We cannot yet go much further than this, we cannot grasp a better meaning. Maybe after many metamorphoses, most of them more or less unconscious and not really depending on us, we may become able to wander out and into some fantastic apotheoses of illumination and of bliss where nothing will be destroyed but everything can be created or constructed.

Answer 3

The category 'we' is not homogeneous. There are some who live to create, some who live to destroy, but most people are neither creative nor destructive. There is this Divine unknown balance of these things in nature.

Answer 4

To this I would say that existence itself must inherently involve both the acts of creation and destruction.

In order to live, we require energy just like any living biological entity, which means consuming resources both living and nonliving.

Just by the seemingly innocent act of living in our own homes is predicated on huge levels of "destruction"--displacement of habitats and species in preference to our standards, consumption of plant and animal life, creating waste and pollution, using natural resources, etc.

But we also provide carbon dioxide for plants (although they'd do just as well without us); take measures to assure the survival of our species in terms of health and relationships; and beyond the animal need to survive is our capacity to create art.

If you are talking about the attribution of purpose by some greater destiny or power than ourselves, well, that's what religions and philosophies have been addressing for thousands of years.

However, to me such pondering comes only with the narcissism inherent to human consciousness, so oddly enough, it makes the question less compelling to me. I'd rather just except my humble role in that greater cycle of life and death, two vital forces operating a dynamic universe.

Answer 5

We exist to exist. What we do while carrying out our existence is inconsequential and a choice that is purely the individual´s. However, I would say that the majority´s -intent- is to create. But in order to create, you must first cause some form of destruction. (I.e. you must cut down trees to build a house.)

If your asking this on a biological level, then I would say that it´s vise versa. We consume and disperse in order to live.

Answer 6

For every meal you've eaten, something had to die.

Life and death are bound, to create one thing is to destroy another.

From dust we come, to dust we go. We do not consume mater, we just rearrange it for a time.

Enjoy your time.

Answer 7

Most people live to earn money. Not just money - MONEY! Only few of them care. Except that, creating smth means destroying another... The entropy grws...

Answer 8

Some live to distroy and there some who creat.

Answer 9

We live to love our neighbor and fellowmen..
We live for Christ sake and family sake