Should we "live" while we're young?

[AALLLSFFH]

I've heard a lot of people say that you should go out and "live" while you're young: go to parties, drink, meet people, do stupid but hilarious stuff, have lots of girlfriends, etc. They say that if you don't do it while you're young, you'll regret it later.

 

Is this true?

Is there some kind of value in "living" like that?

Has anyone here not "lived" and then regretted it later?

[Drew.]

I mean, I think for these people, it's pretty accurate. The times that were the most enjoyable for them were when they had the least responsibilities. I would imagine that people who say this no longer have the freedom to act in such a manner, as they have responsibilities compounded on responsibilities (kids, marriage, mortgage, car payments, student loans, etc). As they have grown older, their lives have been more about acting on willpower than passion and drive. They don't have any joy in their lives, and these pursuits, in general, are an act of escapism, so they don't even have that anymore.

 

I acted like that when I was younger. To me now, it seems like one of the least interesting things that I want to do (go to parties and drink that is).

[aviet]

A good question.

I only lived in that ballpark from the age of about 14-16. It was a useful experience and even more useful was that I got out of that ballpark when most people from my school were just going into it.

It was useful to see what people who built their lives around things such as cannabis, getting hammered etc. lived like then and to see who left that world, how they turned out and how those have turned out who have essentially tied themselves to these lifestyles forever.

I certainly have some good memories from those days, but it soon looses the novelty and excitement. You also have nothing productive to show for yourself after years of living like that. As Mr. Davis alludes to, as you grow older other things that do not result in such instant gratification (or really longing for the old days of instant gratification) become important. The sort of things that really gives value to your life and leave you feeling fulfilled are such things as building a business, raising children who are capable of independent thought, refining your philosophy etc. Things that fulfill you typically require persistence and time. Pressing the buttons of downing a shot, grabbing a mammary or bumping a line do not work.

Conversely, a lot of people I knew never really reveled in the world of pleasure seeking and had their head screwed on from a young age. These people are now typically several years ahead of those who sought pleasure emphatically. These pleasure seekers change their ways in later life and have nothing to show for the pleasure. And there are many who have still not changed their way for whom it is probably too late. One guy I know blew his entire student loan during his first month of university. I am fairly sure it was to do trying to fit in as Mr. Cool and on the Edge. He got his degree in art and has subsequently gone into the world of living off government grants for artists and the welfare of art endowments. He's also taken a lot of drugs, womanised at the threat of what could have been a wholesome relationship. Now he's cleaned himself up a bit and for the last 2-3 years he has been contemplating becoming an architect, which I believe takes seven years of education. He's been in a very bad mental space for the last year or so, being displease with his position in life. If he wants to change course now, he's going to be almost 38 years old by the time he has his first real job, start saving for a pension, start paying off student loans for 10 years of university, start saving for a house, have a family... And that would be a good ending for someone who has sought pleasure for 14 years.

With all that said you can skip ever having anything to do with pleasure seeking just by looking at the aged people who have made the mistake of instant gratification over long-term building.

[dsayers]

I don't think "live" is defined here. I know you provided examples, but without a definition, it's hard to know if these examples even contribute. If live means to provide future you with a better life, then I hardly see how killing brain cells to lower inhibitions to do stupid things so that people will spend time with you adds to that.

 

Is there some kind of value in "living" like that?

Clearly there is as people who have already engage in the behavior repeat it. However, I think this is again a problem of a lack of definition. Value compared to what? If you are hungry and somebody donates to you a pair of pants, they have added value to your life. But the value is not useful to you in the context of the problem you're facing.

 

To me, the examples you put forth would be better defined as avoiding self-knowledge. Avoiding the processing of the trauma of one's past. Creating the illusion of social connection in order to avoid making more authentic connections with more authentic people. It's a way of feeling like you've escaped the abuses of your keepers, when in fact the perpetuation of this isolation serves them.

 

For me, "living" was being promiscuous. Not slutty in terms of volume, but cheap in terms of compromising myself to achieve what I thought was a measure of a man's worth. I survived it all without any STDs or pregnancies, so one could argue that no damage was done. This couldn't be further from the truth though. I spent so much time chasing the wrong things that by time I knew better, I had squandered nearly a quarter of a century. That's time I could've instead parlayed into having grandchildren at this point had I been raised peacefully. Or at the very least children if I had taken that time to process the trauma of my past.

 

I do not beat myself up for not knowing then the things I know now. That I didn't know these things was by design at the hands of my abusers and others that wished to subjugate me that my parents did not adequately prepare me for.

 

I didn't truly "live" until I began to pursue self-knowledge. Until I started processing the trauma of my past. Until I started thinking rationally. Indeed, until I began putting effort into actually developing ME. More on that here. It was then that I was able to establish real connections with real people, starting with myself. And experience virtuous love instead of all the shit I had been chasing earlier in life.

 

For me, the best "proof" is my relationship with my best mate. We have been friends for nearly two decades. I've only been what I would consider worthy of his friendship for less than four years now. And it wasn't until this year that we had begun to have very meaningful, PERSONAL conversations. As a result, the quality of his marriage of 11 years has increased significantly as of late due to the value he gets from who I am today. It's far more wonderful a feeling I got compared to when I was "living."

[Matthew Ed Moran]

If you're around crappy people, in my opinion and visceral experience it is not worth it. If you're around good people, then you'll be living but you probably won't be drinking or having sixteen girlfriends a week. I don't see anything necessarily regrettable about doing stupid hilarious stuff, but if you have someone you can connect with than you can at least be honest at the end of the day and repent or make adjustments if you need to.

 

As someone who did a lot of stupid hilarious stuff in my teens, it grew very isolating over time, until it felt more like a coercive force over me to continue what I was doing, rather than be able to reflect on my life and make choices from the knowledge I gained. My experience is that doing the same thing over and over kills the soul, because nobody actually would want to do the same thing over and over if they had another option. People who drink tremendously and sleep around I think feel tremendous pressure to keep doing it, despite having worse and worse regrets in the moment and in the moments following. 

 

The vision I get is literally of a person being coerced to put toxic chemicals into them, to sleep with people they don't like. This visceral, personality crushing brutality on one's conscience is to me a form of self coercion, or self harm, for a society that doesn't care about their personal well being, vitality, health, freedom of conscience, freedom from child abusers, at all. So to harm oneself for these people will unleash an inhuman rage at the base of the spine at the disgusting injustice. I can see no positive from doing it, given that there are other options.

[A4E]

I would never advice someone to use the most dangerous drug (alcohol).

[algernon]

I would never advice someone to use the most dangerous drug (alcohol).

 

I think that's a bit subjective. In a high enough quantity water can kill you.

 

People consume drugs to self medicate, if you're a broken person you're going to over medicate. That doesn't make the drug dangerous, just the person.

[A4E]

I think that's a bit subjective. In a high enough quantity water can kill you.

 

People consume drugs to self medicate, if you're a broken person you're going to over medicate. That doesn't make the drug dangerous, just the person.

What about the people using alcohol in front of others, and/or talking about it, advertising it. Are they dangerous?

 

What about the people selling alcohol or making alcohol, are they dangerous?

[algernon]

What about the people using alcohol in front of others, and/or talking about it, advertising it. Are they dangerous?

 

What about the people selling alcohol or making alcohol, are they dangerous?

 

No.

[A4E]

No.

I understand your position, which I assume is based on for example that guns are not dangerous, just certain people using them, which I agree.

 

Would you also say that casino's and gambling is not dangerous, nor the people offering it, just people going into the casino with (all) their money? I am not sure what stance to have. Just curious about your thoughts.

 

How about people making landmines, and spreading them around in an area? Sick example, but Is it dangerous to make the landmines, or apply the landmines, or just dangerous for people who know that there are landmines in the area to walk around there?

 

In my mind I can compare the alcohol to the landmines, and also to the casino. All 3 can end your life or harm you in various ways. But I am not so sure where to put the blame if someone dies. One reason is that in all of them there is a factor of many people not knowing about the dangers. I guess I agree that if people have been thoroughly instructed in the dangers of something, then it is they themselves who put themselves in danger. But I would say a lot of people are not instructed in the complete dangers of these examples, and therefore perhaps there is some eligibility in calling these things dangerous, not just people who are in contact with them.

 

The difference for me between guns, and the 3 examples of alcohol, landmines, and a casino, is that with a gun you usually have 100% control over what you are doing. That is not the case with the 3 examples.

[dsayers]

How about people making landmines, and spreading them around in an area?

You cannot control the yield of an anti-person explosive. In the case of a landmine, you cannot even control under what circumstances it detonates. Even if we assume that the mines are placed on one's own property, I think the disparity between trespassing and death are such that we can easily determine this to be aggression. What do you think?

[algernon]

I understand your position, which I assume is based on for example that guns are not dangerous, just certain people using them, which I agree.

 

Would you also say that casino's and gambling is not dangerous, nor the people offering it, just people going into the casino with (all) their money? I am not sure what stance to have. Just curious about your thoughts.

 

How about people making landmines, and spreading them around in an area? Sick example, but Is it dangerous to make the landmines, or apply the landmines, or just dangerous for people who know that there are landmines in the area to walk around there?

 

In my mind I can compare the alcohol to the landmines, and also to the casino. All 3 can end your life or harm you in various ways. But I am not so sure where to put the blame if someone dies. One reason is that in all of them there is a factor of many people not knowing about the dangers. I guess I agree that if people have been thoroughly instructed in the dangers of something, then it is they themselves who put themselves in danger. But I would say a lot of people are not instructed in the complete dangers of these examples, and therefore perhaps there is some eligibility in calling these things dangerous, not just people who are in contact with them.

 

The difference for me between guns, and the 3 examples of alcohol, landmines, and a casino, is that with a gun you usually have 100% control over what you are doing. That is not the case with the 3 examples.

 

Do you believe in personal responsibility and self ownership? These principals should easily answer your questions.

 

Regarding the landmines, if I fence a part of my yard that says "Danger, land mines buried" and someone that is morally responsible for their actions (Appropriate age, can read, not mentally handicap, etc.) decides to walk through my fenced in yard regardless, how am I responsible for their actions?

 

Let's start throwing car manufactures in prison and suing them for car wrecks too, while we're at it. Car wrecks are the single highest cause of death in America. 

 

What about if you've never learned to drive and get in a wreck, do you get to sue the car manufacturer for not properly training you on the operation of a vehicle?

[Iron Horse]

In my mind I can compare the alcohol to the landmines, and also to the casino. All 3 can end your life or harm you in various ways. But I am not so sure where to put the blame if someone dies. One reason is that in all of them there is a factor of many people not knowing about the dangers. I guess I agree that if people have been thoroughly instructed in the dangers of something, then it is they themselves who put themselves in danger. But I would say a lot of people are not instructed in the complete dangers of these examples, and therefore perhaps there is some eligibility in calling these things dangerous, not just people who are in contact with them.

 

The difference for me between guns, and the 3 examples of alcohol, landmines, and a casino, is that with a gun you usually have 100% control over what you are doing. That is not the case with the 3 examples.

 

I get the strong impression you are speaking from personal history about the dangers of alcohol.  In the West, I do not believe any sizeable number of people are unaware of the dangers of intoxication or indeed many of the things that cause harm.  We are all aware of what it does to the body, to our minds, to our perception.  The reason it happens?  They just do not care enough, about their family, their work, their home, their friends to stop them from showing the worst of themselves when abusing the drink.  It may be addiction, it may be apathy, regardless the result is they care for intoxication more than those around them.

 

In a casino you are fully aware of your surroundings and what the overwhelmingly result is going ot be, we know they are designed to take money.  We are completely in command of our actions.  If you believe pissing your hard earned money up a wall in the hopes of striking it big is worthwhile, go for it, the casino will not stop you.  If you get drunk and do the same, it is entirely their fault as no action was taken against them to force them to play.

 

You entire argument is one against personal responsibility, people are aware of the dangers of almost every dangerous thing they can encounter, stray dogs, guns, casinos, cars, motorbikers, planes, fast food, sugary drinks, too little exercise, swimming pools, rotten meat, disease, bacteria, banks and indeed landmines.  You give people far too little credit and yourself far too much.

[A4E]

You cannot control the yield of an anti-person explosive. In the case of a landmine, you cannot even control under what circumstances it detonates. Even if we assume that the mines are placed on one's own property, I think the disparity between trespassing and death are such that we can easily determine this to be aggression. What do you think?

If anyone set up anything lethal on their property without a clear warning, that is definitely a tense situation. And you are probably right.

 

Do you believe in personal responsibility and self ownership? These principals should easily answer your questions.

 

Regarding the landmines, if I fence a part of my yard that says "Danger, land mines buried" and someone that is morally responsible for their actions (Appropriate age, can read, not mentally handicap, etc.) decides to walk through my fenced in yard regardless, how am I responsible for their actions?

I get your point at a basic level of course, but I focus on the implicit agreement that we all want a peaceful society, so I might have to go with even if you put up any amount of warnings, that it is too much repercussion for trespassing as Dsayers noted. And I would think any court would side with the trespassers family, as any decent lawyer would be able to point out the injustice.

 

Lets imagine you are building a test area for a ray gun with sensors that will destroy anything which triggers the sensors. And this is your livelihood and contract to make this ray gun. My opinion is that you should make damn sure to fence off the area, and with as many warnings as possible, so much so that it is virtually impossible to get inside there without some serious tools. And then if someone wants to cut through the fences to get inside, to be destroyed, the landowner should not get in trouble.

 

 

 

 

Let's start throwing car manufactures in prison and suing them for car wrecks too, while we're at it. Car wrecks are the single highest cause of death in America. 

 

What about if you've never learned to drive and get in a wreck, do you get to sue the car manufacturer for not properly training you on the operation of a vehicle?

Do you mean people driving cars into wrecks killing themselves? That the makers of the cars could be blamed according to what I said? My answer is no, because like a gun, you have 100% control over it. Same with hammer, knife.

 

I did not understand the last question.

[A4E]

In a casino you are fully aware of your surroundings and what the overwhelmingly result is going ot be, we know they are designed to take money.  We are completely in command of our actions.

The text in bold is not true. If a gambler was offered a million dollars to stop gambling for a day, sure he would probably have enough control to stop for that day. But emotions and illusions will make a person chase loses and continue without them feeling in control. Just read stories from former gamblers. They will all say that they did not have much control or any at all.

 

 

 

 If you believe pissing your hard earned money up a wall in the hopes of striking it big is worthwhile, go for it, the casino will not stop you.  If you get drunk and do the same, it is entirely their fault as no action was taken against them to force them to play.

 

 

In a perfect information world where everyone can get detailed information about anything on the spot, I would agree 100%.

 

But lets say I am 18 years old and somehow avoided getting any information about alcohol. And I am in front of a big crowd and a person brings a bottle of hard liquor to me and tells me that I am a nobody if I do not drink everything in the bottle, and if I finish it I will be one of the cool guys, and its perfectly ok and safe to do so. The crowd starts cheering me on, I give in to the overwhelming social pressure. And get very sick and harm myself badly. Where can we put the blame?  (Did not happen, just an example)

 

 

 

You entire argument is one against personal responsibility, people are aware of the dangers of almost every dangerous thing they can encounter, stray dogs, guns, casinos, cars, motorbikers, planes, fast food, sugary drinks, too little exercise, swimming pools, rotten meat, disease, bacteria, banks and indeed landmines.  You give people far too little credit and yourself far too much.

I did not understand the last phrase -'and yourself far too much'.

 

I dont know if I have any argument yet. I do support advocating personal liability on the whole, because it mostly works in the same way as agreeing to have a peaceful society. I just started thinking a little different after Algernon's first post here. I got triggered that he could brush aside alcohol as not dangerous by itself I guess.