Everyone may seek their own meaning in life, if life had the exact same meaning for each person, then we would all be the same. The meaning and purpose of life could be outlined with a few descriptive words, describing the general main activities that people engage in, or it could be described in great detail, outlining the many things that people can do and the rewards they can get.

There are a great many activities that people can do, there are also a great number of intellectual and emotional pursuits people could have. People have motivations that are satisfied by the satisfaction of emotion, or intellectual needs that are satisfied by gaining wisdom. People could have fun and experience pleasure, or they could achieve some other goal that doesn't relate to emotional satisfaction, but an intellectual satisfaction such as doing good or the right thing or they could gain knowledge and wisdom.

People could also realize their potential and ideas, they could become the person they always wanted to be. This would be a type of intellectual satisfaction, though it would only be achieved if certain types of emotional satisfaction were met. You could have an idea of what you life should be like emotionally, and when you understand that your life is like this then you would be intellectually satisfied.

How is it that just "becoming the person you wanted to be" can be so fulfilling? It is really just a short way of describing everything in life and everything you could gain from it - you could easily be just as happy without understanding that you wanted to be that way, you don't need to have goals in order to live a fulfilling life. I would say that the only thing understanding if you have become the person you want to be brings is a conscious understanding of how meaningful your life is, it is possible that you could have a meaningful life without understanding that.

This statement is rather straightforward, it is simply saying to be bold and not care if others think you are being careless. However, it seems to be suggesting something more significant, "love action" implies that you are really doing something great, not just simply bold. This makes a lot of sense, if someone wasn't proactive, trying to do things actively, then life for them would be pretty boring, they wouldn't be seeking adventure or being invested in life at all.

So the words "love action" imply that you are really getting into life, that you aren't going to be stagnant you are going to love being aggressive and a go-getter. You are being ambitious and caring about life, to the point that you don't care if others think you are being rash.

It makes sense that the adventurous person would be the ideal our imagination can create. How interesting would someone be if they just sat around and did nothing and wasn't bold at all? People look up to people that are powerful and interesting. Even if it isn't realistic, people love heroes as well. A hero couldn't be a hero unless he or she "loved action".

The statement doesn't refer to heroes, however, it refers to the common person. Therefore, the common person can attain the qualities of a hero by being forward, showing an interest in action, and even idolizing himself to the point where it wouldn't matter if he was "rash".

Contemplation means thinking about something, paying attention to something (in a thoughtful manner), or basically just considering something. Saying that contemplation is the highest form of human activity is basically like saying that thought is the most important human activity, but not exactly. Contemplation includes an appreciation, an effort of paying attention to something that thought alone doesn't include.

If you contemplate something, you do more than just "think" about it - you focus on it, consider it, think about it carefully and attentively. So contemplation is just a higher form of thought. Saying it is a high form of human activity is placing intellect above other activities someone could do, such as a physical activity, a physical activity with little thought, or just thinking a little and not really being engaged with that thinking - not "contemplating".

So saying that contemplation is a high form of activity is showing how contemplation is similar to meditation, you are really focusing when you contemplate - showing care and really considering something. However, just saying that the deepest, most significant aspect of contemplation is "just really considering something" is downplaying how significant people think deep contemplation can really be. The highest form of thought, which is basically contemplation, can be something the people consider to be very powerful, moving and (most importantly) intellectually significant. That is why contemplation is a word often used when referring to how someone could think about God, you can "contemplate" God and the meaning of life, this isn't a trivial activity, it is a high and meaningful form of thought.

Thought is very significant to human beings, so it makes sense that there would be a word for the highest form of thought and this word (contemplation) would be considered to be the highest form of human activity. It should be obvious why thought is important to human beings, without thought, humans would just be like other animals that aren't conscious as human are. Contemplation, being a high form of thought, demonstrates the power of the human mind.

People want emotional control so they don't experience pain. If someone could control their emotions, then they would stop pain from occurring. That isn't completely true, however, since a negative emotion could serve a functional purpose. It could provide a source of stimulation or thought. High levels of distress might produce high levels of negative emotions. If someone is in distress, it would probably be harder to control your emotions since you are experiencing large amounts of the emotion pain - it would be hard to feel the experience of many other emotions at the same time.

There is some control that people can have over their emotions, irrational beliefs don't allow a person to be reasonable and express a situation as moderately negative. If someone is being irrational, they may think that something really bad is happening to them, and therefore feel strong negative emotions because they believe themselves to be in pain. Irrational beliefs are rigid, absolutistic beliefs, expressed in the form of "musts", "shoulds" and "oughts". Rational beliefs are based on flexible premises, being expressed as desires and preferences.

If you think about it, your desires and preferences alone could help direct a positive emotional experience. If you understand what is going on in your life or in the situation you are in and think about it positively in terms of your desires and preferences, then you might feel really good because you are thinking about the situation in a very positive light. It is like just repeating to yourself the positives in the situation and this may help you realize or be aware of your own positive emotions.

That being said, people mostly cannot control their emotions. If something happens to you then you are probably going to feel the appropriate emotion and there is nothing you are going to be able to do about it. No one knows how thought exactly influences what we feel, but for certain if you don't have irrational beliefs that make the situation look negative and you instead focus on your own desires and preferences you will probably feel better, in addition to being in a better position to change what happens in the situation, which would also probably make you feel better.

There is a difference between honor and glory (though they are similar). Glory is more like fame, you gloat in the admiration of other people - that is glory. Honor, on the other hand, is your own personal belief of how respected you are. That also includes your own respect for yourself, which is why honesty and integrity (and the belief you are like that) is another definition for honor.

It is possible that honor can be gained by achieving glory or fame, or having a high social status. Anything that increases the respect you have would increase your honor. Unless you consider it honorable to be disrespected, everyone could have their own definition of what is honorable to them, however there would probably be a similar ideal of an honorable person in each nation or culture group.

In fact, there could be many ways a society defines or appreciates what qualities would be honorable in a person. Possession of certain goods, doing certain activities, having a certain job might all contribute to the communities perception of how honorable or how much glory a person would have. There are also certain people you might wish to present as honorable to more than others, such as your friends or family. Honor and glory could be extremely important to someone personally or to a society. They are worthy goals that might be very meaningful or fun to many different types of people.

The possession of material goods as well as pretty women can be indicators of status. The concepts of honor and glory are critical to understanding the motivation of the heroes in Homer’s Iliad. Glory was gained by great, heroic actions and deeds and was conferred upon an individual by others who witnessed and acclaimed the glorious actions. Major battles provided an opportunity for many to find glory at once. Honor was similar to glory, but while the public had to view actions and deem them glorious, each individual maintained their own sense of personal honor which did not always coincide with honor as defined or perceived by the masses. Honor was gained through heroism in battle, but also through compelling speechmaking, loyalty and other noble qualities that a person might demonstrate.

Can independence be considered a value? Is independence a core belief? How can independence be defined?

Independence, as related to a persons social interactions, isn't referring to someone being materially independent and able to provide for themself. It is referring to someone having an inner strength that allows them to be by themselves, mostly. Calling someone independent can mean a lot of things, on the surface it just means they like to be by themselves and rely less on others, but there are many other hidden subtleties of what this word means, all applicable.

Independence could be someones personal belief, they may believe themselves to be independent. That is one way to assess how independent someone is, by what their own belief of it is. It is possible that the person doesn't have any understanding of their own independence, however they are still very independent. Someones understanding could even be wrong, it is possible someone doesn't want to interact with people but really is actually heavily reliant on it.

Someone could value independence, believing greatly in their own strength, they could consider being independent to be very important, and that someone not independent is weak and frail. But then how could you say that this person likes interaction with people? If one believes so strongly in their own independence, then would they even like interpersonal interaction at all?

What if separation from people causes anxiety? Is someone weak if they need to be with other people in order to avoid pain? Does the emotion generated from interpersonal interaction make someone weak? What if the people you depended on didn't like you. You could need someone emotionally but not like them very much, though that wouldn't seem to make a lot of sense. It would seem that if you liked them more, they would generate more emotion and provide you more support.

Being invested in life isn't silly or stupid. Being invested in other people is, however because people cannot be relied upon, physically or to generate support and emotion for you. It isn't like other people are there just to provide you with support, people have their own lives and you are just one tiny aspect of that life. It is hard to assess even how much you enjoy interactions, though this could play a role in perceived independence.

People assess how much they enjoy interactions, it is automatic, you "know" if you like someone and you "know" if interacting with them is fun. Your unconscious understanding of how good a relationship is is much more complex then your conscious understanding. Consciously you only have a vague description of how good the relationship is. You might think, "this person is really important to me, he or she is really fun and supportive emotionally". But that is very vague, there are countless ways to measure how helpful various people are to you, yet consciously you can only describe a sentence or two with your idea of how good the relationships are.

How much you enjoy interactions, and how much you need them, is going to play a role in how independent you actually are. That is different from perceived independence, someone may look very independent but actually not be independent at all. How is it that your unconscious assessment of an interaction is much greater than your conscious one? All the emotional benefits of a relationship are felt unconsciously, you only have a simple understanding of how much fun it is, but in reality the emotion it generates is very complex and dynamic.

Individualism is a social theory advocating the liberty, rights, or independent action of the individual. An individualist enters into society to further his or her own interests, or at least demands the right to serve his or her own interests, without taking the interests of society into consideration. The individualist does not lend credence to any philosophy that requires the sacrifice of the self-interest of the individual for any higher social causes.

Individualists are chiefly concerned with protecting individual autonomy against obligations imposed by social institutions (such as the state or religious morality). So what does this indicate the individual that believes in individualism is like? Would an individualist be someone more independent in general? Would an individualist therefore not like having strong social ties to people like friends? Probably not, but perhaps they would like less ties to the government.

With such a strong desire to achieve their own objectives, it makes you wonder if an individualist cares about the needs of other people. By disregarding what society wants them to do, an individualist is disregarding what "most people" in the society believe life should be lived in that society. This doesn't necessarily mean that the person doesn't care about his or her society, maybe they believe that their way of doing things would be best for everyone, or maybe they think both people's objectives can be accomplished simultaneously.

Someone that doesn't care if society functions better as a whole, and instead just cares about him or her self or the individual, might believe that each person seeking out his or her own objectives is the best way a society should function. That is what capitalism is, competition makes the economy function more efficiently. But what if it was that the government functioned better trying to make life equal for everyone (such as a system like communism)? Someone that wouldn't believe in such a system would, to put it shortly, "have no heart".

People care mostly about themselves, so therefore they are going to be mostly interested in studying their own feelings and experience of the world, their "inner life". This concept is more complicated than it may seem - it is the entire concept of being aware of yourself and consciousness. How much about your own life do you actually understand? How can someone get a greater appreciation and understanding of themselves and their own life?

Many different types of reflection could help someone gain a greater understanding of their inner life. They can reflect on what they have done recently, simply think more about what is going on their lives. I don't know what the difference would be between saying you are "studying" you own life or just "thinking" more about it, however. People naturally think about their own lives and analyze what is going on their life all the time.

People actually engage in two different types of self-analysis: self-reflection (enjoying analyzing the self) and self-rumination (not being able to shut off thoughts about the self). Self-awareness represents a higher form of consciousness which makes it possible for us humans to become the object of our own attention and to acknowledge our own existence. When self-aware we actively examine our personal characteristics, that is, our physical appearance, typical behaviors, emotions, motives, personality traits, values, attitudes, thoughts, sensations, etc.

Differences in levels of self-focused attention deeply affect our behavior. For example, past studies suggest that if you are highly selfaware you will know yourself better than less self-aware people, engage more effectively in self-regulation (i.e., monitoring and modifying your behavior), feel emotions more intensely, behave more consistently with your attitudes, conform less to social pressure, self-disclose more in intimate relationships, and react more strongly to social rejection.

Maybe you personally know people who spend a lot of time analyzing themselves—they seem to constantly be “beating around the bush”, re-evaluating themselves, always questioning their behavior and appearance, being unsure of themselves, nervous, etc. This is self rumination: anxious attention paid to the self, where the person is afraid to fail and keeps wondering about his/her self-worth. Then maybe you have other acquaintances who are also highly self-aware, but instead of being anxious about themselves, they have wisdom they know themselves very well, are the “contemplating” type, feel secure, have depth, and are philosophical about their shortcomings. This is self-reflection: a genuine curiosity about the self, where the person is intrigued and interested in learning more about his/her emotions, values, thought processes, attitudes, etc. So we all analyze our inner thoughts and feelings (self-awareness), but some of us feel anxious about what we might discover about ourselves (self-rumination) while others feel intrigued and fascinated about ourselves (self-reflection).

Love can be a means to achieve peace between two people. If they see that there is love, then they might see that they don't have to be hostile anymore. Love could be a goal that gives both parties something instead of being hostile, which might not give either party in an encounter something.

Why would love give both people or sides in an interaction something? Love generates positive feelings, that is why. If people are being hostile to each other, being hostile alone isn't going to generate positive feelings. It may achieve some other objective, but it isn't going to make either person feel good. That is perhaps why love can solve problems, because it has the power to make people happy.

This doesn't mean, that if there is an interaction, the two people fall in love with each other. It means that the two people experience positive emotions toward each other instead of hostile ones. Love, being the most extreme positive emotion, is just the emotion used to represent all the positive emotions because it is so powerful. So when someone says, "just use love" they don't mean to actually fall in love, they mean use love to achieve a positive atmosphere or attitude and therefore experience the benefits of that, which are similar to the experience of love.

Why is love such a powerful positive emotion? If you think about it, just the emotion happiness isn't as powerful as love would be. Love is powerful because people really like romantic relationships, love represents the good and gentle aspect a romantic relationship could have, that is why it is so powerful.

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation among intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). So someone who might be considered to have morals would be someone who is considered to "do the right (not bad or wrong) things". What would this meabe for that persons personality as a whole? Not every action someone does could possibly be the "right" thing to do. Even if that were the case, what would someone with perfect morals be like?

How do people define what the right and proper action is in a society? There are norms of what the right things to do are, certain behaviors are generally accepted in each society as either right or wrong. Therefore someone that always did what was considered to be "right" would just be an ideal citizen, because he or she only does what his or her society believes to be the correct thing. It isn't that straightforward, however, because while they might agree on a few behaviors, most people would disagree on what most of the right or wrong behaviors are.

For instance, most people would agree that murder is wrong, and something therefore someone without morals might do, or without morals for those types of behaviors, at least. However, what about most behaviors? Not all behaviors are either labeled as "right" or "wrong", though they could be. In someones opinion, they could label anything someone else does as either "right" or "wrong", though it would be hard to argue how something like choosing one profession over another could be the "wrong" thing to do. By using the label "right" or "wrong" it is implied that a "wrong" thing to do is really bad, that the person doing it is being evil or breaking some sort of moral code or societal standard of goodness.

For certain someone that does the proper right thing all the time would be looked up upon, probably because doing honorable actions is "good". People like people who are nice because it makes them feel good. Someone perfectly moral would be one of the nicer types of people because everything they did would be considered to be kind and good. It should be obvious why someone doing the right thing would be looked up upon, I don't know of anyone who would want someone to destroy society - it is something we all live in and everyone wants at least what is best for themselves.

Valuing things that are "above the senses" shows a more intellectual type of value instead of a physical, pleasure based one. It is interesting that the "true reality" would be this intellectual, above the senses world because that is a world you cannot feel physically, so you would think that the true reality would be a world you can actually literally feel instead of one that you only feel with your mind and imagination. However, considering different viewpoints, it could be viewed that the world you create in your mind is the true reality instead of the world which you can only physically feel.