To create that which our spirit urges us create. To thine own self be true.

To create that which our spirit urges us create. — Rich

My spirit urges me to create a mental dustbin for those kind of vague comments brimming with faux profundity and lacking in merit.

The question is too generalised to give a proper answer. We're individuals, not the Borg.

You just created. It is you. It defines who you are. Read your post and learn about yourself. This is how we evolve.

You just created. It is you. It defines who you are. Read your post and learn about yourself. This is how we evolve. — Rich

I have read my post, and I've learnt that I'm a pretty cool guy, and that I must surely be evolving towards a point at which I will become a being cooler than which nothing can be conceived.

Keep at it. Also observe what others write. Creating something new is all about observation. You are doing it for yourself and no others. All of your posts are your own creations.

We should search for meaning.

So, we should create stuff and search for meaning, both of which we unavoidably do anyway by our very nature. What next? Should we eat, sleep, and defaecate?

, both of which we unavoidably do anyway by our very nature. — Sapientia

Yep, that is what it is all about. Creates a very interesting and diverse life. The more one exercises ones creative ability the more interesting life becomes. We are all different experimenting with different paths.

We can safely assume human being do exist (except for some abstract metaphysical arguments).
We are almost certain that individuals have finite lifetime on earth (except for Popperian arguments).

Question - Is there any particular purpose/ target we already have set ourselves or should we set ourselves during our lifetime? — Santanu

So we have no telos- final ends we are working towards except survival and entertaining ourselves. I call this concept "Instrumentality". It is the idea that we do to do to do, because we can do no other. What people will often say is meeting some goals or preferences- achieving goals in other words, is what we should strive for. That is what we do anyways, however modest those short or long term goals are, but this is not "THE PURPOSE". Rather, life consists of a lack that is constantly deprived and we are always trying to fill with goals, lest we get bored and find other ways to entertain ourselves. Don't forget most of your life will probably be focusing on tasks that have to do with getting paid so you can survive in a post-industrial economy. The next thing you will focus on will be maintenance- cleaning, fixing up, replenishing stocks of consumer items, etc. Lastly, you will have your "free time" for entertainment, which is just a way of saying you try to flee from boredom with various activities so you achieve some sort of flow state or engaging cognitive/physical task so you do not have to think about the boredom that is mainly the default state when there is nothing else going on.

So we have no telos- final ends we are working towards except survival and entertaining ourselves. — schopenhauer1

This notion of an "end" consisting of entertaining yourself, is the way you live. Why? Only you know that. Evidently that instrumental living is something that you hold very dear, because you're quite unwilling to let go of it. You can let go of that way of your instrumental way of life anytime you're willing to--in other words, never.

Obviously there are routine matters of getting-by that must be taken care of. That isn't the purpose of your life. But you needn't strive for and pursue things that you like. Even if you devote yourself to getting by and being helpful to others, things you like will continue to come your way, without your pursuing them.

But of course you can also intentionally do something you like, but needn't live instrumentally, living for results. If the present is never good enough, then obviously, when the future becomes the present, it won't be good enough either.

In your talking about the misery of instrumentality, you often say "We". No, it isn't "We". It's "You", and those who live instrumentally, as you do. I guess there are lots of you. Most likely, most people are like that. But they needn't live that way.

I call this concept "Instrumentality". It is the idea that we [No, you do] do to do to do, because we [No, not "we"] can [are willing to] do no other.

It's more a matter of whether you're willing to let go of your instrumentality.

What people will often say is meeting some goals or preferences- achieving goals in other words, is what we should strive for. That is what we [Not "we", but you] do anyways, however modest those short or long term goals are, but this is not "THE PURPOSE".

Who says there has to be a "PURPOSE"?

Rather, [your] life consists of a lack that is constantly deprived and we [No, you] are always trying to fill with goals, lest we [you] get bored and find other ways to entertain ourselves.

[...]

Lastly, you will have your "free time" for entertainment, which is just a way of saying you [No, you do] try to flee from boredom with various activities so you achieve some sort of flow state or engaging cognitive/physical task so you do not have to think about the boredom that is mainly the default state [for you] when there is nothing else going on.

.

You've heard a lot of comments about your much-cherished instrumentality, and, instead of answering any of them on their own terms, you just continue repeating the Existentialist-Angst.

Don' t you see that you're determinedly, doggedly, clinging to instrumentality, and the misery that you're able to derive from it, because it's what you want, like and need? Admit to yourself that you like it, and that you're doing what you like.

Michael Ossipoff

My spirit urges me to create a mental dustbin for those kind of vague comments brimming with faux profundity and lacking in merit.

The question is too generalised to give a proper answer. We're individuals, not the Borg — Sapientia

Let me elaborate the question in a different way?

Individuals choose various ways for living. Some influence others to get organised into institutions, political entities, states etc. some choose to be self centred irrespective of surroundings, some choose to disrupt life of others, yet some choose to just eat, sleep, work. All dies ultimately. It seems without any general aim, there is no relevance of what we do, how we do with the life.

There was a sect led by Goshala Mankhaliputta during 7th century BC from India (contemporary to Buddha and Jainism) that there is no significance after death, hence one should enjoy life in any possible means, if required resort to fraudulent means, stealing, or robbery. Although it is not known whether he himself used these means, his philosophical thoughts on fate or destiny had a strong influence later including Jainism, Buddhism.

Is there a way to find out which one is better than other? Guess that can be judged/derieved only if we know what is our target.