Re: Survival is Insufficient?
Posted: 01 May 2017, 17:10
For the most part I would say survival in not enough. However, in dire situations or dangerous situations I would say it is possible to temporarily move into just survive somehow.
OnlineBookClub.org
Discussion Forums about Books and Reading | Survival is Insufficient? - Page 2
https://www.forums.onlinebookclub.org/
Survival is Insufficient?
https://www.forums.onlinebookclub.org/viewtopic.php?f=123&t=42731
Page 2 of 3
Re: Survival is Insufficient?
Posted: 05 Jun 2017, 21:07
I think of the adage "Don't just survive, thrive." But that only applies in ideal circumstances which aren't always there. When it comes to life or death, its an instinctive response to survive, down to the cellular level. It is sufficient.
Re: Survival is Insufficient?
Posted: 07 Jun 2017, 10:43
I think it would depend on the situation. You might just have to survive through a troubling time until you can get to a point where you can then live. It's not going to be such a clean line between the two
Re: Survival is Insufficient?
Posted: 09 Jun 2017, 04:08
I personally think that "JSS" mentality is ideal especially in post apocalyptic situation. By surviving, you can still have the opportunity to see tomorrow. It's good to be always hopeful in situations like these. Hold on to the belief that things may get better somehow.
Re: Survival is Insufficient?
Posted: 09 Jun 2017, 12:55
There isn't a point to survival when you aren't really living. The Walking Dead viewpoint has always seemed crazy to me. Why keep going? You're losing people you love and care about. You're constantly on edge. There's no purpose to your day-to-day life aside from making sure you don't die. That's no way to live. Survival is an instinct at that point, and it's a useless one at that.
Re: Survival is Insufficient?
Posted: 10 Jun 2017, 02:16
Living and surviving are two very different things.
-- 10 Jun 2017, 02:18 --
Living and surviving are two very different things. One must not confuse one with the other. Surviving means merely existing whereas living is having hopes and dreams, enjoying life.
-- 10 Jun 2017, 02:18 --
Living and surviving are two very different things. One must not confuse one with the other. Surviving means merely existing whereas living is having hopes and dreams, enjoying life.
Re: Survival is Insufficient?
Posted: 13 Jun 2017, 17:20
I agree. In my opinion, one has to choose to live. There must be a purpose or a reason for staying alive. Perhaps you aren't really alive if you are simply existing.Leese wrote:I'd go with Survival is Insufficient, simply because I don't think there's much to just simply existing for the sake of existing. I think there definitely has to be purpose to said survival in order for it to be worthwhile.
Re: Survival is Insufficient?
Posted: 13 Jun 2017, 23:52
I don't think that you ever gave us your own thoughts on the subject @Gravy What do you think?
Re: Survival is Insufficient?
Posted: 14 Jun 2017, 19:30
I added my vote to the third optionrssllue wrote:I don't think that you ever gave us your own thoughts on the subject @Gravy What do you think?
I guess I'm weird. I always thought surviving would be even more important during/after an apocalypse.khusnick wrote:There isn't a point to survival when you aren't really living. The Walking Dead viewpoint has always seemed crazy to me. Why keep going? You're losing people you love and care about. You're constantly on edge. There's no purpose to your day-to-day life aside from making sure you don't die. That's no way to live. Survival is an instinct at that point, and it's a useless one at that.
Re: Survival is Insufficient?
Posted: 14 Jun 2017, 21:03
I completely agree. Something to live for is a must. Life without purpose is horrible. I've seen it close up in others I care about. Might as well die and move on to the next realm or life.katiesquilts wrote:In my opinion, simple surviving isn't that hard to do. As long as you had food and water, you could lay on your back 24/7 and still survive. But no one wants a life like that. Even people with depression who find it hard to do much more than lay down for hours at a time still don't like it. Human beings need more than survival -- they need exercise, meaningful relationships, a cause or goal to devote themselves to, and more than anything, a reward for surviving. If, at the end of the day, all you can say is, "Great, I didn't die today!" then something is probably wrong...
Re: Survival is Insufficient?
Posted: 21 Jun 2017, 09:18
Sometimes survival is all there is to simply not dying, but other times what is the point of survival if you can not enjoy life to the fullest? I guess it depends on the situation really, and hopefully merely 'survival' is only a temporary state.
Re: Survival is Insufficient?
Posted: 03 Dec 2017, 07:13
I really think that it totally depends on the situation of a person. Some people pursue for more knowledge when they have achieved success but some don't even have food and water.
Re: Survival is Insufficient?
Posted: 06 Apr 2018, 14:35
When the fall of a civilization and all structure happens, its most important to keep everyone alive and just to survive. It will come to a point where people will have to settle and start farming and starting over/ making roots.
Re: Survival is Insufficient?
Posted: 22 Apr 2018, 04:53
I'd say surviving is insufficient. At one point, you can't just strive and live each day living in fears and uncertainty. You'll have to find a solution or else it will just be a tiring cycle. And I don't think this type of life is worth living.
Re: Survival is Insufficient?
Posted: 17 Sep 2020, 09:09
I picked "survival is insufficient," because I believe people need to have something to live for over the long term. The "just survive" mindset can work for the short term and get people through a crisis. Afterwards, though, the survivors will have to take stock and think about how they want to rebuild their lives.
In the 1940s, a psychologist named Abraham Maslow described a hiearchy of needs. He put survival needs like food and safety at the bottom, and he put emotional and psychological needs higher up. Such needs included friends, family, and significant others.
In the 1940s, a psychologist named Abraham Maslow described a hiearchy of needs. He put survival needs like food and safety at the bottom, and he put emotional and psychological needs higher up. Such needs included friends, family, and significant others.