What does it mean to live life?
It would seem to me that many modern westerners live their lives vicariously through the medium of media. It is a vent of all our modern ages pent up desires funneled through a safe means that is not only without consequences, but is socially acceptable. Passion, war, love, adventure, action are desires innate to the human psychology but no longer acceptable in North American sociology, much less ecclesiology. But is not rejecting core human components rejecting the meaning of humanity, the distinctive between us and other living organisms? What is a live lived thorough artificial means? It is fake, simulated physical and emotional risk that is, that must be, incomparable to its real human origins. Imitation can never be as good as the original.
So we, modern humanity, have given up our natures for simulations on a screen wishing that we were the ones behind the gun or kiss—and silently we mourn the death of some inner desire that longs for that life. We are taught from a young age the rule of safety—everything in this society is focused on living life within this parameter. Isn’t society better off for it? Aren’t we happier because we live longer lives than ever before in the history of mankind? Perhaps it is time to reconsider the meaning of life and the social rule that a long life is always preferable to a short one. The first question one asks of a deceased person is the age when he/she passed away. Why can life not be judged by the fullness of life and the impact it made instead of age? It is time to live life and judge it by fullness, not length; impact, and not wealth.
Sometimes to live life fully one must risk greatly. But is not an attempt at full human life worth the thousand daily deaths we die in this sterile environment? Would an early death pursuing full life not be considered gain?
These are the questions we must ask.