If you were given unlimited resources and total freedom of operation in the position of Head of School what would your strategy be to further the all-round development of children in a wholesome way?

What is the number 1 cause for poverty?

"Poverty," writes Professor Patten in his New Basis of Civilization, "is at so many removes from nature that it is omitted from the diagram." Without reference to the nature of the diagram, the reason for deliberately leaving poverty out of it is very significant. It expresses the new view of poverty--that it not only is not desirable and not inevitable, but is actually unnatural and intolerable and has no legitimate place on our diagram of social conditions. Wherever and whenever a glimmering of the new view of poverty is found, there is found also increased interest in its causes. This interest grows with the conviction that it is not desirable that there should always be a certain number of men naked and hungered and in prison, even for the sake of giving certain other men the privilege of clothing and feeding and visiting them. The social cost of the graces of generosity and sympathy is too great if they can be had only by maintaining a poverty class. As soon as poverty is recognized to be undesirable, from the point of view of both rich and poor, the question arises whether it is necessary. Any attempt to answer this question involves logically an inquiry into the reasons for the existence of poverty, but as a matter of experience this step seems to be omitted. We are unwilling to concede that anything in the economy of the universe to which we seriously object must be helplessly endured. With the formulation of the question we jump to denial, and hurry on to discover, not whether, but how, poverty may be diminished and prevented. In order to do this, however, we are again driven to hunt for its causes. Every excursion after causes confirms our hasty intuitive conclusion, because the causes themselves are found to be controllable; and every confirmation of the belief that poverty is unnecessary sends us out again to search among causes for our points of attack. A genuine anxiety to get at the underlying causes of poverty has been characteristic of the "new" charity of the last thirty-five years, often disparagingly designated as "scientific." Foremost in the search have been the charity organization societies, instigated by the National Conference of Charities and Correction and by university professors, and the superintendents of almshouses and other similar institutions, instigated by the United States Census Bureau. In all these investigations the method has been the same, and it is the method employed by Charles Booth in his study of pauperism in the Stepney and St. Pancras unions. The National Conference plan, formulated in 1888, was based on one already used by the Charity Organization Society of Buffalo. This method consists in studying a large number of individual cases of poverty, indicating in each case what is considered to be the cause, then adding up the number of cases ascribed to each cause and finding what proportion they form of the entire number of cases studies. The difficulty of fixing on one cause, out of the many existing circumstances which might be regarded as causative, led to the practice of assigning "principal" and "subsidiary" causes; and some scrupulous students went so far as to grade the contributing causes on a scale of ten. This method was hailed as scientific; it was lauded at many a national conference; it was advocated and used by the most advanced and "scientific" leaders in philanthropy and social research; and only within the last few years has any objection been made to it--except by the district agents and visitors who were called upon to decide which of the circumstances in and around each poor family under their observation was responsible for its poverty. Although the objections were not based at the outset on any abstract conviction of the unsoundness of the method, it was because of the difficulties which were encountered in its application that its unscientific character became apparent. It takes courage to protest against a method established by years of use and hallowed by names of high repute, but the protest must be made; for the method is open to fatal objections, and its undisputed dominance has delayed the advance that should have been made in the study of the causes of poverty.The method rests on the assumption (1) that in very case of poverty there is one chief or principal cause, and (2) that this cause will readily be recognized by the person who is told to find it. Here, for example, is a widow with two little children. Her husband died three months ago. She has been living on the insurance, or so much of it as was left after the funeral, and on contributions made by relatives. Her husband was intemperate, and therefore there were no savings. The woman herself can do nothing to support her family, except the "day's work" that is available for even the inefficient. The children however are delicate, and one of them is sick, so that the mother can not go out. Is this family's dependence attributable to death or lack of employment or inefficiency or illness or intemperance? A good argument could be made for any one of these recognized, standard causes. The problem, however, is still comparatively simple, for the elements of environment and distant heredity have not yet been considered. It is not strange that these and similar puzzles have led investigators to select "insufficient income" as the cause of numerous cases of poverty, just as physicians enter "heart failure" on death certificates when they do not know why the heart ceased to beat. What the decision will be in any case depends not on the facts of the case, but on the more or less imperfect knowledge of the facts possessed by the investigator, plus his own bias, determined by natural temperament and education, plus his ability to recognize a cause when he sees it. In other words, the decision is merely an expression of opinion and is of no scientific value. About four years ago the New York Charity Organization Society discontinued the practice of assigning principal and subsidiary causes of need when every a case was closed. This decision was due to the discovery that a tabulation of causes of need according to districts gave an excellent photograph, not of the needy families in the different districts, but of the mental attitude of the different district agents. The percentage of need attributed to lack of work varied, for instance, from 16 per cent in one district to 67 in another; intemperance was held accountable for only five per cent in a district where many of the families were those of Irish longshoremen, but for 23 per cent in another district which had a large proportion of Italians. An examination of the case-records failed to reveal in the different districts any such variations in the amount of sickness or of idleness or of intemperance as would account for the varying importance assigned to these factors as causes. Only one conclusion was possible: that experiments along this line were primarily of interest in relation to the psychology of visitors. Since then the study of causes of poverty has been based on the study of conditions in the families. A demonstration of the fallacious character of the older method may be found in the returns from penal institutions obtained by the Committee of Fifty, and presented by them as showing mathematically the importance of intemperance as a cause of crime. In view of the popularity which this method attained and the persistence with which it was employed, it is interesting to note that its drawbacks were long ago perceived by its more intelligent supporters. It is a matter of record that problems similar to those presented above were publicly discussed. At the National Conference of 1899, for example, there was such a discussion, in which Miss Richmond, Miss Birtwell and Professor Lindsay took part. The obstacle presented by incomplete information was recognized in the rule, formulated about this time, that when in doubt you were to select the cause "farthest back" of which you were sure. The variations in the personal point of view were also recognized by some who promoted this method of research. At the same conference (that of 1899) Professor Lindsay said: The variations in the amount of poverty in different cities attributed to any one of these causes can be accounted for more rationally on the basis of differences in method and judgment of those who fill out the blanks than upon the basis of differences in the conditions of the population. But he nevertheless presented figures for three cities and accounted for differences in percentages by differences in the sanitary conditions and racial elements in those cities. The comfortable theory was advanced that the variations in personal equation might be trusted to correct one another; so that, for example, a tendency in one person to regard intemperance as the cause of poverty in every case in which intemperance is discernible will be offset by a tendency in another person to exaggerate the effect of inequitable industrial conditions. Of course these are variations which are quite as likely to be intensifies as to be neutralized by increasing the number of investigators, for there are fashions in thinking, and one-sided views are frequently held by large numbers of like-minded persons. It is not too much to say that this method of studying causes of poverty had a pernicious effect on the persons who were engaged in the collection of material. If the investigator felt no difficulty in assigning causes, the process tended to foster the false idea that every case of poverty is a simple result of one, or at most two circumstances; or if he felt the difficulties of his task, its mechanical execution tended to awaken in him a distrust of all social study, if such study must be based, as the wise ones said it must, on a foundation so little entitled to respect. These figures have nevertheless served a good purpose, for they have given occasion for a vast amount of profitable discussion, which has led us on from one view of the causes of poverty to another. The first classification of causes adopted by the National Conference had twenty-two headings: drink; immorality; shiftlessness and inefficiency; crime and dishonesty; roving disposition; imprisonment of breadwinner; orphans and abandoned children; neglect by relatives; no male support; lack of employment; insufficient employment; poorly paid employment; unhealthy and dangerous employment; ignorance of English; accident, sickness or death in family; physical defects; insanity; old age; large family; nature of abode; and other unknown. This classification had not been in use long before its defects were felt. A case of imprisonment of breadwinner was also a case of crime or dishonesty. A case of abandonment might fall also under almost any other heading. Lack of employment might be due to drink, a roving disposition, ignorance of English, insanity, accident or old age. Old age and a large family, it was seen, do not always, or even generally, involve dependence, and therefore these should not be listed as causes. The general dissatisfaction led, in 1899, on the initiative of Dr. Philip W. Ayres, to a revision of the list. An effort was made to avoid cross-classifications and to eliminate conditions not usually productive of dependence. The discussion at this time turned largely upon the difference between a "condition" and a "cause." The following classification was adopted: (1) Causes within the family: disregard of family ties; intemperance; licentiousness, dishonesty or other moral defects; lack of thrift, industry or judgment; physical or mental defects; sickness, accident or death. (2) Causes outside the family: lack of employment not due to employee; defective sanitation; degrading surroundings; unwise philanthropy; public calamity; and other unclassified causes. This is clearly a more logical classification; but during the nine years that have elapsed since it was made our ideas have been modified by the new knowledge we have gained of the relations between familiar phenomena, and we have arrived, almost unconsciously, at a new view of nearly all the causes in the first of these two groups. In general the change has consisted in moving the causes in the first group over into the second, placing them under the head "outside family." Behind "disregard and family ties" we see defective education of both boys and girls, instability of employment and the influence of institution life. Behind "intemperance" we see poor food, congested living, lack of opportunities for wholesome recreation and the power of the liquor trust. In the place of "licentiousness, dishonesty and other moral defects" (when these are causes of poverty and not, as is much more frequently the case, devices for escape from poverty) we are inclined to put our ineffectual penal methods and, again, defective education and, again, unwholesome conditions of modern city life. "Lack of industry, thrift or judgment" appears in many instances to be really the result of poverty, the physical and mental degeneration caused by years of privation showing itself in laziness and shiftlessness. Lack of industry in the grown man is not infrequently the result of premature employment which an earlier generation of social investigators would have commended as thrift. "Physical and mental defects" are today increasingly regarded as evidence of inadequate provision for the segregation and education of defectives, of neglect of the physical welfare of school-children, of unintelligent methods of instruction. "Sickness, accident and death" are analyzed. Preventable disease is traced to its causes--to bad sanitary conditions in dwellings and work-shops, to the ignorance of great numbers of mothers concerning the care of their babies, to the actions of commercial interests which make it a difficult matter for even the well-to-do to get pure milk and food, to governmental inefficiency exhibited in a contaminated water supply and dirty streets. For "accident" we read, in many cases, neglect of the employer to provide safe conditions for labor, and neglect of the legislature to require or neglect of the administration to enforce the establishment of such conditions. We know today that the great majority of deaths that cause dependence are preventable. This equivalent to saying that we have found causes farther back than "death," and that we have also found out how those causes may be controlled. In short, the recognized causes of poverty are in fact largely symptoms or results of poverty. They are, to be sure, potent to produce more poverty; they are evidences of a downward tendency and must be corrected; but they are not the "underlying" causes. Our ideas about the second group in this classification, the causes outside the family, have been less disturbed, probably because at the time they represented more recent thought on this subject. The relative importance attributed to this group as compared with the causes within the family has, however, been growing rapidly, and we read into "defective sanitation" and "degrading surroundings" an infinite number of new meanings. "Unwise philanthropy" seems to have undergone a curious change of content. It used to be applied in the case of a family in which the pauper spirit had been developed by an excess of generosity. This possibility no doubt exists; but if we were now to pick out a family whose dependence is due to the unwise administration of relief, we should be apt to select a widow broken down by over-exertion in supporting her children because we had not been generous enough in our help. An interesting tendency is noticeable, in the discussions of the last two or three years to restore to our list of causes one that had been discarded from the first classification, viz. "poorly paid employment." The conviction has been growing, among some of those who think most clearly and most carefully about these things, that there are classes of laborers whose wages, fixed by custom and not responding to the increase in the cost of living, are absolutely insufficient to maintain a normal family at the present standard of life. And we are coming, therefore, to think of "insufficient income," when it means inadequate compensation, not as a joke, but as one of the authentic causes of dependence. A new classification, which reflects the recent change in thought, was offered at the National Conference in 1906 by Dr. Lee K. Frankel. It consists of only four divisions: ignorance, industrial inefficiency, exploitation of labor and defects in governmental supervision of the welfare of citizens. Logic seems to demand that we reduce these four causes to two, cutting our ignorance and inefficiency as results. To some form of exploitation or to some defect in governmental efficiency most of the circumstances which we commonly regard as causes may be ascribed. For practical purposes, however, these two causes must be broken up into their components, and to account for all the poverty in existence, a third heading must be used expressing the defective will those chooses unwisely in the face of knowledge and the selfishness that evades responsibility. It is our faith that human nature is so susceptible to good influences that these defects may be reduced to a minimum by improving the environment. At any rate, the experiments thus far made have given reason for such a hope, and they encourage us to concentrate effort in eliminating and securing efficient government. The irreducible minimum of "natural depravity," "moral defects," or whatever it may be called, will remain and will have to be reckoned with, but may not be large enough to constitute a serious problem. A knowledge of the causes of poverty is of value in two ways. It is equally important in helping the individual family that needs assistance and in planning movements for the improvement of social conditions. We have learned that about one-third of all the deaths that leave women alone with little children to support are due to tuberculosis, and that the dying husband and father frequently leaves the disease as a ghastly legacy to one or more members of his family. We have also learned that this disease may be cured by a long and expensive treatment, and that its communication may be prevented. Our accurate knowledge of this cause results in a modification of our methods of treatment of families in which there is tuberculosis. Liberal relief is given to enable the husband, if he is the invalid, as he so often is, to take the long and expensive treatment; quick return to work is discouraged rather than urged; the family is moved to a better apartment where the consumptive can have a room alone, instead of being advised to reduce expenses by taking cheaper rooms; the children are examined, even if they seem well, in order that the earliest symptoms of contagion may be detected and danger averted; and, if all this is done in the right way, the family is not pauperized, but the man gets well and there is one less "widow with dependent children" than there would have been. Our knowledge of tuberculosis has led us also to organize what is called a "social movement" for dealing with this cause of dependence. This includes schemes for educating the public, through the newspapers, through special publications, through exhibitions, through lectures, through electric displays in the parks and advertisements in the street-cars; it includes also comprehensive plans for sanatoria and hospitals and dispensary systems, and all the other devices that have become so familiar that it is hard to realize that they are mainly the growth of the last six years. We know now, to take another example, that premature employments results in a stunted maturity and a premature old age which are causes of poverty. This knowledge saves us from the folly of inculcating habits of industry when habits of play are more needed, or of finding "easy work that can't hurt him" for an under-sized, illiterate boy of thirteen, in order to provide the last three dollars a week the family needs "to get along," congratulating ourselves that we have "rendered the family self-supporting." It leads us, at the same time, to organize all over the country a systematic campaign against child labor, in order to secure laws that will guarantee to every child a chance for the physical and mental development that he needs to ensure him against being dependent on charity when he shall have become a man with a family. Knowledge of causes is indispensable to good work in either direction, whether in helping an individual or in improving social conditions. This has been said again and again, but when it comes to applying this maxim our ideas have been rather confused. "Distress cannot be permanently relieved except by removal of the causes of distress" is the principle we have clung to. If this is as true as it sounds, then a knowledge of causes is of use only in preventing the development of poverty. It will make us improve housing conditions, prohibit child labor, provide a rational system of education, clean the streets, purify the water supply, forbid all home work in the tenements, checker the map of the city with small parks, abolish quack medicines, build hospitals of all sorts and keep in them the people who ought to be there, ensure the purity of drugs and foods, revise our entire correctional system and, perhaps, even regulate wages. In our care of individual families it will keep us alert to recognize the existence of causes that have not yet begun to show effects; it will make us urge and aid families to move from dark basements to well-ventilated rooms, to keep their children in school until they can safely go to work, to go the hospital or sanatorium when they need to do so and before it is too late, to learn how to buy and how to prepare nutritious food. But if it is true that "distress cannot be permanently relieved except by removal of the causes of distress," we must infer either that a knowledge of causes is of no help in our efforts to relive existing poverty, or that the conditions which we are trying to change, the symptoms of poverty which we are trying to remove, are in reality causes. The second alternative is the true explanation. There has hardly been a discussion of causes of poverty that has not contained a reference to Oliver Wendell Holmes's oracular statement that it is necessary to begin two hundred years ago to cure some cases of disease. This is always quoted to show that the existing conditions are not the "underlying causes," and that, in order to decide in a given case what the cause is, you must look back two hundred years. No fault can be found with this statement when it is applied to increase our understanding of present conditions or to impress us with the necessity of looking ahead two hundred years from the present in making our plans; but if it is applied to the problems of relieving existing poverty it leads to despair. The underlying causes of two hundred years ago, or even of the preceding generation, may be crystal clear to us, but we cannot affect them; the existing conditions are what we have to deal with, and our practice has been to deal with them more hopefully than our theories would warrant. The results have justified the hopefulness; and a new theory is now emerging, namely, that there is in human nature recuperative power of such strength that the removal of the existing visible effects of the "underlying causes" will do almost as well, as far as the individual case in concerned, as the removal of the causes themselves; or, in other words, that poverty is itself one of the most potent causes of poverty and one of those most responsive to treatment. This is a truth that Mr. Bernard Shaw happened upon the other day in London, when he said that the whole trouble with the poor was their poverty, and that this could be made all right by dividing among them the money contributed for charity without any intermediate waste in salaries. The newspapers of the better sort sprang to the defense of the relief methods which require salaried services, and ridiculed Mr. Shaw's pronouncement as a begging of the question. It did not beg the question; and, however naive his practical application of it was, it contained a truth which had been stated long before: "The wealth of the rich is their strong city; the destruction of the poor is their poverty." For practical purposes, the important thing for us to know, in relation to a dependent family or in relation to a community burdened with dependents, is: What adverse conditions are present which can be corrected? In the community these adverse conditions are "underlying causes." In the single families they are the results of the previous action of these or of earlier underlying causes, but they are also certain causes of future poverty. They must be corrected and their recurrence must be provided against. The first step, therefore, in the treatment of a family or a city is to find out what adverse conditions are present and to what extent; and this it he first step also in the rational study of the causes of poverty. These adverse conditions are facts, and they are ascertainable facts. They either do or do not exist in the family or in the city. Their prevalence can be measured. We have already a pretty definite idea what conditions are adverse, what conditions breed poverty, in a family or in a city; but of the extent and relative importance of these conditions we have little accurate knowledge. Our ideas as to what constitutes an adverse condition in a family are the result of a study of the characteristics of families which have become dependent. Our ideas of what constitutes an adverse condition in a city are acquired in another way: we begin, for some reason or other, generally from our observation of individual cases, to view with suspicion some feature of the city's life, and we study that feature, trying to ascertain what bad effects it produces and why it produces these effects and what can be done about it. The basis for a statement of the adverse elements present in the circumstances of dependent individuals and families is general observation, which is really an unconscious collection of statistics. Only conscious collections, of which we have few as yet on this subject, can give accurate knowledge of the relative importance of the various elements, but the unconscious collections may be trusted to the extent of basing on them a mere enumeration. The adverse conditions tending to involve dependence which have been observed are these: absence of natural care for children; lack of provision for old age; physical disability; mental defects; certain forms of criminality and moral obliquity; and inefficiency. Dependence is the normal state of children and of the aged, but this normal dependence is on relatives. Childhood, however, may be deprived of natural care by the death of one or both parents if other relatives are lacking or are inaccessible, and also by neglect of maltreatment on the part of parents; and old age may lack the children or friends or savings that are its normal accompaniments. Both of these periods, during which dependence is the normal state, are lengthening at the expense of the working period. The tendency among well-to-do families to prolong their children's preparation for life has its counterpart in the legislation which is compulsorily prolonging that of the poorest. Simultaneously the upper limit of the working age is apparently being depressed. There is certainly a tendency to begin work at a later age. The latter tendency is one which counteracting influences may and should eventually overcome; but in many occupations it has been a conspicuous feature of modern industry. At the same time the average age at death is increasing. There are thus three factors tending to decrease, absolutely or relatively, the portion of life in which a man may work, and to increase, absolutely or relatively, the periods of dependence. Until wages have fully responded by an increase that will enable the average man not only to support his children for a longer time, but also to provide in a shorter working period has been materially lengthened, this adverse condition will persist. In it we find the reason why the problem of old-age pensions has become acute; from it comes much of the misery which gives point to radical socialistic proposals. Physical disability may either incapacitate the wage- earner or merely increase the family expenses. It may consist of permanent defects, permanent or temporary injury from accident, industrial or otherwise, or acute or chronic illness. Sickness and physical disability in its various forms give to the workers among the poor in their own homes their chief occupation, and to social workers for the improvement of general conditions their best opportunity. Mental defects tending to involve dependence vary from insanity and feeble-mindedness down to peculiarities of temperament, such as obstinacy or a quick temper, which interfere with economic success. While this field of work is less encouraging, so far as improvement of the individual is concerned, there is here even greater need for a wise system of institutional care, and there is here an opportunity to introduce radically preventive measures. Crimes and moral defects are adverse conditions in the family from an economic standpoint when they result in imprisonment of the wage-earner or inability to keep work or evasion of family obligations. Desertion, intemperance and vagrancy are from this point of view more significant than the more startling crimes. Inefficiency (not amounting to defects) may be physical, mental or moral; and it may be due to such varied causes as malaria, intemperance, neglected teeth, defective education or unaccustomed surroundings. It may be environmental rather than personal, and it constitutes the first point of attack for all thorough-going reforms in the educational system. Public disasters, such as fire, flood, earthquake, volcanic eruption or tornado, produce conditions not merely adverse but wholly abnormal. Of somewhat the same nature are the abnormal industrial conditions at times of financial crisis or wide-spread strike, when men in the prime of life, of reasonable education, health, industry and capacity, find it impossible to support a normal family of the average size. But even in normal times there are adverse conditions in every American city. There are unsanitary houses, over-crowded apartments, ill-ventilated factories, germ-laden dust in the streets and germ-laden water in the mains. Little children are in glass-works or selling papers, when they should be at school or in bed. Men and women are working over-long hours in disease-breeding surroundings. The police are conniving with criminals; the courts are imposing sentences that confirm tendencies to crime. Men are exploiting, for their own profit, the weaknesses of their fellows, both as employees and as consumers. The study of causes, enlightening to the student, indispensable to the statesman, elementary to the social worker, beneficent to the poor, need not wait for hard times or times of great calamity, but may proceed at all times, under the most favorable conditions yet known in any community. Study of the causes of poverty at this stage of our knowledge should consist of investigations into the prevalence of adverse conditions. What we need to know, for practical purposes, is not whether twenty per cent or thirty per cent or fifty per cent of the poverty in existence is due to illness, but how much illness there is, of what kinds it is, how much of it is unnecessary and by what means we may eliminate the unnecessary part. What we need to know about congestion is not what percentage of criminality and dependence is attributable to it, for that we can never find out, but where the congested districts are, how far the adverse features of life in them may be overcome, and what can be done to induce or to compel people to move elsewhere. In the language of current philosophical discussion, pragmatism affords our best working program. We are to look away from "first things, principles, categories, supposed necessities" and look towards "last things, fruits, consequences," facts. We are to look for those particular ideas and facts which will "help us to get into satisfactory relation with other parts of our experience.

What is the meanning of life?

Here are a variety of answers from WikiAnswers contributors (in no particular order of priority):To live in many different waysLife is short enjoy it while you can! The importance of life is to live it to its fullest. To live it to its fullest and stop trying to figure everything out.Life's meaning is what it means to you! The meaning of life, to me, is to live life anyway I choose: What do you value in your life? Everyone has their own meaning and their own perception of life. Britannica says it's the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual, one or more aspects of the process of living, or a way or manner of "living".The meaning of life - to learn from mistakes. Without mistakes no one ever really learns how to live. You will make some mistakes, as all of us do. We learn from them and grow stronger. We all do the best we can and learn from our mistakes because, quite simply put, humans on earth are on a 'learning ground' and thus, we learn, make mistakes, learn from them, hopefully, and do the best we can.To appreciate the beauty and amazing things going on around us on the Earth that was originally intended for us to enjoy. Since it is no longer entirely in that pure state, we have the job to care for what does remain and, more importantly, to point others to the time when it will be possible to live in a truly perfect place once more through what Christ has done to enable us to be there if we choose. Finding your purpose therefore will be determined by your ability to appreciate every moment by making the most positive use of it because every breath of life you take you are one breath closer to death. So live right and do good always enjoy the existence you have now and if you awaken and realize that this was all a dream, then make it a sweet dream.Life is what you make it: The meaning of life is not the same for everyone. Your life has one meaning, the life of another person will have another meaning, and my life will have another meaning too. You are the one to give meaning to your life by making something of it. Every person is allowed to live their life as they want to. Find the way you want to live your life and live it like that. Be happy. Be healthy. Be loved.Although I'm just seventeen and have my whole life ahead, life has shown me that whatever I put in, I get out., That means for all the effort I put into something, I will get something out of it, I will be rewarded in some way. I tend to live naturally, to love, to learn, and to help, I tend to love knowledge, because it makes me satisfied, it makes me know how things work, it makes me build up ideas and have something to say. It makes me know how to listen, how to talk and spread my ideas. I think the meaning of life is to understand how it is best suited for you and how it will make you satisfied, happy, successful and loved. But one thing I can guarantee: no one out there will tell you the meaning of life, nor the meaning of your life for you will have to find that out by yourself. Take it as a challenge. After all, you wouldn't be asking that if you already knew it, or if mostly everyone knew it.According to Douglas Adams the answer would be 42. The meaning of life, of the universe, and of everything is 42. But put science fiction aside! Look at the smaller, less complicated life species, they live just to live. More complicated life species live and help keep other life alive. We, as humans, should live to be alive and help others be alive. Taken a step further, life is about experience; one should live to experience one's own life and the life of others. (But do not try to live through another person's life). You have to give your own life meaning and not rely on someone else's opinion to give you one.The meaning of life is to live until you die, and to change the world in some little way -- no matter how unknown you are.The meaning of life is to live forever. The true meaning of life is for humans to reproduce so that the human race lives forever and conquer the universe (and multiverses, if they exist) so that humans can rule everything forever.To tell you the truth, I don't think anyone knows the true meaning of life. People say that the only way to know the true meaning of life is to live a full life with many near death experiences, then God tells you an instant after you have died. If you have a complex enough mind, and when God wants us to know, he will tell someone after they die and let that person be revived to tell the rest of the human race. If that never happens then we will just have to live life with many questions and as best we can. That's what God wants us to do. That's one way to look at it.To live the life of God's creation and Gods painting of life.According to me the point of life is happiness. We all are trying to find a place where we are happy, be it by earning money or fame or getting married. Even a person who commits suicide is trying to be happy, thinking that it will end his misery. So I think, the point of life is to stay as happy as possible in any given circumstance and to create a better tomorrow for ourselves.The meaning of life is to grow physically, mentally and spiritually. It's about traveling down different paths of your life and making decisions. It's about being true to yourself, standing alone sometimes when you really believe in something and not fearing retribution. What is the meaning of life has been an age old question since the beginning of time and it's like trying to define the meaning of love. It means to love those around you, help where you can, be known as a person that can be trusted and just do the best you can. If we didn't feel sadness we could never experience happiness; if we didn't get angry on occasion we would never know peace, and if we didn't trust our hearts we'd never know love. Yes, it's about pro-creating, but life is much more than that if you open your eyes, ears and heart and listen!The point of life lies in the question of whether or not you are just living to die. Because every breath of life you take, you come one breath closer to death. So the time you spend bothered by what could or should be is time wasted in imagination and fantasy.A person who cannot find contentment, cannot find peace. A person, who cannot find peace, cannot find fulfilment. Prosperity, Power and Popularity are not the solutions to human suffering, because you may have them all and still feel incomplete. There are many prosperous, powerful and popular individuals who need mind altering drugs and other freaky activities to keep them excited, and still aren't content.The meaning of life is to make life meaningful.Many people believe that there is no "point" per se to life; life simply exists, and the meaning of an individual's life is up to the individual.In Buddhism the meaning of life is found in the "true insight" of Enlightenment, which is called a "perfect peace".The point (purpose) of life for each individual depends on his/her beliefs and values. The choices people make are usually dependent on the psychological conditioning they are exposed to, from the moment of foetal conception, to the point of completion of their social/cultural programming. This social/cultural programming is similar to the programming of a computer's processor with data that is considered to be factual. The computer then compares all incoming data against its programmed intelligence, in order to generate a conclusion. Similarly the human intellect processes incoming data based on the morals/values they have been conditioned with. Some of these morals/values are inherited from genetic sources and the others are learnt from the environment to which the absorptive mind is exposed.A humanist would say we each make our own meaning by the way we live. The meaning is whatever meaning/purpose you care to assign to it... or none at all. If you have a religion, you could find meaning there; a particular philosophy, ditto. If you're a nihilist, you might conclude that there is no meaning at all.We, being animals, the meaning of life is to reproduce ourselves to continue the species. All the other stuff is just to make it interesting.One aspect to enjoying being alive is considering how incredibly complex the function of your body is and how it is difficult to believe that we consist of billions of living cells that allow us our senses and work literally like they were programmed, just to keep us alive.The meaning of life is to utilize our main driving force, curiosity, without which none of us would even exist. Discover and find out new things. Space travel, for example, will lead to great new discoveries - including life near and far from us.No one really knows the answer to this. Philosophers and religionists have been debating it for thousands of years.I think that there is absolutely no point in life. God does not seem real, so we are all going to die without an afterlife.I don't believe in God. I think eating pie and watching football is good enough for me.Live fast and die young.The irony in life these days is that, in order to find its meaning, you merely have to Google it.The meaning of life is that we exist, that we are products of a force called creation, and that we should all support and affiliate with that force in every one of its manifestations. The difference between life and the inanimate is that life has consciousness.No one knows the meaning of life, some choose God, and some choose self or try to be God. Life is full of discovery and to give you a little hint on discovery try thinking outside the media. I recommend studying quantum physics or learning more about the superstring theory or the chaos theory. Everything is composed of waves, sound waves ranging at all frequencies, you could almost say that we are just a wave in this world seeking complete harmony.Living with a meaning: "To be the eyes and ears and conscience of the Creator of the Universe, you fool." - Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions.The meaning of life is purity.There is no meaning of life. Nobody asks to be born, but you're here anyway. Make the best of things while you're here. If your life needs meaning, then join a cause.You can make your life to be what you want it to be, within reason, and you don't have to become famous or rich to do it. Some of the most successful people have been those who gave without question, such as a teacher that cares about his/her students and makes a difference, or a doctor, a mother, father, a person with disabilities of their own, etc. One can volunteer for people, children or pets and ease some of the suffering of all. I live by rule of thumb ... when you are lucky financially (that's just keeping your head above water) and even though you may be limping through life, you should always give back to those less fortunate. One day you just never know when you'll need someone there for you too. This makes your mind, body and soul one. It gives you a source of peace when the world around you is going mad.Consider this when trying to understand the meaning of your own life. An old guy once told me that the meaning of life was survival. I thought he was crazy, but as I get older, I think that the crazy guy may have something.The answer to life is being. It is all anything has ever done, it is all anything will ever do.The meaning of life to you is dependent on your value system. Your particular set of morals/values are those that you inherited from genetic sources and from the environment within which you were raise. What is the meaning of life is finding the answer to the following questions: Who am I?Where am I?Why am I?The meaning of life for you depends on your belief systems.Who are you?Are you an organism that was created from a chemical combination of other organisms?Are you just living to die or is there an existence beyond this body that was created from organic digestion (the food you eat)?Are you an absolute entity called a soul?What gives all of matter its intelligence?Where do atomic and subatomic nanoparticles get their intelligence?Can something be created from nothing?Why are you here?Did you have a choice in the matter?Does your existence have a purpose?Do you add value to the universe?Are you a link in the cosmic chain of evolution/creation?Where are you?Are you resting on a bed somewhere dreaming all of this?Do you know that you are dreaming when you are dreaming?How do you know that it was all a dream (illusion/virtual-reality)?Are you a speck of dust in a massive cosmic sphere?The meaning of life is yo die and multiply.Many great minds have pondered 'what is the meaning of life' and it basically comes down to each individual and what their needs are. Some people enjoy peace, living on a farm or ranch, while others want to hit the big cities for careers, investments, etc., but we all have to make ourselves happy and feel fulfilled no matter what and I doubt that most humans will ever totally attain that. There will always be some regrets. We should be kind, considerate to our fellow man. We should have some belief system of higher power. We should know the good from evil and help those that can't help themselves. We should not constantly feel powerful over another, but be humble enough to know where help is needed. That's power!The only reason I know for life is that it's a test that we have to pass the right way for reward in the life hereafter.Evolution has determined that the point of life is to reproduce and to be the most successful species. That is the meaning of life for all creatures. If it was not their point in life that species would've died off long ago. (Mainly it is the urge to pass along your own genes).Life is to just live. We should enjoy each and every moments. If you are suffering from a problem, really you are great. The problem came to you because you can solve the same and come up in life. At every situation remember one thing. This present is not permanent. It may be either a sad time or a good one. Follow these tips: 1. Do not vex if sad,2. Do not enjoy to the core when in joy3. Share your feelings to your beloved. Both sad and sweet4. When you grow respect others5. Maintain patience at any cost.6. You should know that there are thousands of people suffering a lot more than you.We as organisms of infinitely complex chains of chemical reactions truly designed through creativity, formed by atoms attracted by neutral chemical compositions, actually interpret ourselves, the universe, and the atoms we consist of to ask these kind of questions. There is no question that the only thing that keeps us alive is the flow and exchange of electrons. The integration of god and morals is still a question of, right or wrong, what do we do, what do we not do; relatively, why are we here or why are we not here. Life is not just humans interpreting their surroundings; trees through inter-cellular communication interpret gravity and the location of the sun. And just as the tree stretches out for the sunlight, we as humans reach out for each other and strive for knowledge and meaning. In this way, life is a necessary outcome in the displacement of energy and completes necessary chains of events. "Life" allows these necessary connections in the flow and displacement through forms of energy; as humans, as trees, as the flow of a river or the explosion of a volcano. This interpretation, communication, and ultimately exchange, could be said is the meaning of life. The atoms, quarks, muons and gluons that we as humans consist of can indirectly, through many exchanges and chemical reactions, interpret the direct energy displacement of other prominent metabolisms of energy (like other humans) and other things that effect the chemical reactions through communication of light, sound, pressure, and temperature. This is why we are "conscious". Every atom is either repelled or attracted to each other; the fact that this occurs means that every atom is effected, or "conscious", of another. The exchange of electrons with another atom and change in composition, are the same exchanges occurring in our brains to make "conscious" decisions and interpretations.I've got two theories. There is no meaning but of what you make it like some of you may be to have kids, find a lover, climb a mountain that stuff. The other theory is that it is change, meaning nothing lasts forever accept change, one day I will die, the worms will eat me, and a bird will eat that it will reproduce. What I mean is there is always a state of change nothing will last forever everything hangs on a tip of a knife the balance always changing.Life's meaning is having fun and living through the bad times and good times and that makes you the person you are. The meaning of life is to take care of our planet. To be hard working and serve God. To help out in fixing communities - that's what life is about; you should not live only for fun but help others enjoy life too.The meaning of life is to contemplate questions like this.The purpose of life is to serve your soul's purpose as a human.Here is a variety of religious views from WikiAnswers contributors (in no particular order of priority):The true meaning of life is to love and serve God.Perhaps the true meaning of life is to find peace with God. For most people it is impossible to believe in God because it doesn't make any scientific sense for such an entity to exist. But to others the "Big bang" as a cause for the creation of the universe might be equally difficult to believe in. To find God is peace. To find God, you need Jesus, because he can free you from your sins. But while we're alive on this Earth, we might as well try our best to have a good life and be the best we can be, as long as we stay true to ourselves.The "meaning" of life is a test. This is only a test. Our life here is so brief yet our spirits are eternal. The "purpose" of life is to choose whom you will be loyal to. Either you will show yourself willing to live under the rule of the God of the Universe or you will choose to live as a slave to self and to sin.There are a lot of answers to what is the meaning of life and they are all so detailed, but too detailed so they miss the point. The meaning of life/purpose in basic terms: 1. to acknowledge a Creator of the universe and all2. to know He's one and only3. to know He watches your very moves to see if you do good in life hoping for your success in life4. to give praise to Him, so He can praise you back5. to obey HIS book of wisdom, The Torah of succeeding with perfection. For a Jew obey the 613 mitzvot of the Torah, for a non-Jew to obey the 7 laws of Noah and this will make you gain perfection opening a spot for you in heavens glory.The meaning of life is that God created us and loves us, and wants us to know and love Him, and to join Him in Heaven one day. He has created the way for us to do so, by sending Jesus His Son to die for our sins. Now we can receive Him as our Lord and Saviour and have a new life in Him on earth, and one day join Him in Heaven. Life is like a test. God wants to see what you can do, and if you do good things in life and help others.To live the life of God's creation and Gods painting of life.If you believe in the Bible, the meaning of life is Jesus Christ, because He is the only one that defeated death.To understand the meaning of life we have to turn to the source, or creator. If you believe in such things, that is God. If he put us here, it was for a purpose. So He may be the only one able to provide us with the answer. Some people will acknowledge that everything we need to know about the purpose of life and about God himself is found in one book, the Bible. If you believe in the Bible, the meaning of life is in God's inspired words: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it." Luke 9:23.Ecclesiastes 12:13 "Fear God and obey His commandments for this is the whole duty of man."I believe it's to enjoy the beauty of God's creation.Any Christian should know the purpose of life is simple: to serve God. Any Christian who doesn't know this needs to build up their relationship with God; He'll show you all you need to know.The Serenity Prayer: God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.Jewish answer: The philosophy of Judaism is that this world is a purposeful creation by God, in which all people are tested concerning their use of free-will. We possess a soul which lives on after the body dies and is held responsible for the person's actions. Anyone who is worthy, Jewish or not, can merit reward in the afterlife. The world is not chaotic or the result of chance. Life is the work of a deliberate, purposeful, intelligent and kind Creator; not a melancholy chaos or a string of fortuitous accidents. God is at the center of reality and the center of our world-outlook and thoughts. God's ways are also eternal. God is not capricious, forgetful or fickle. Investing in a relationship with God is the only thing that will bear eternal benefits.'What is the meaning of life' is a question that some find difficult to answer because it's very subjective. To some, the meaning of life is we are born, we live our life and then we die. To others, they believe that they have a purpose in life. This might be something to do with a career or chosen lifestyle. Life is a test. We are being tested by our actions and how we deal with challenges and. We have what is called free agency which is the ability to choose from right and wrong and we are being tested on how we use that free agency. Life is also a chance for us to gain a body and live on this Earth.the mining of life is to live life and do what you wantThe collection of all your memories in locked inside your subconscious mind will describe the meaning of life, which is why they say the meaning of life is different for everyone.Do everything you wanna do cos life's too short to live with regrets and 'what ifs'

If you were given unlimited resources and total freedom of operation in the position of Head of School what would your strategy be to further the all-round development of children in a wholesome way?

Add your answer:

What is wholesome demand?

What is the number 1 cause for poverty?

What is the meanning of life?

What organizations stresses the responsibility of the community for children wholesome development?

A sentence for wholesome?

What is the aimed of physical education?

Is wholesome a verb?

What part of speech is wholesome?

What is the comparative form of wholesome?

How do you use wholesome in a sentence?

The meaning of wholesome?

What is it that when you take away the whole you still have some left?

From where is wholesome water required to be supplied?

When was The Misadventures of the Wholesome Twins created?

If you take away whole some still remains?

Resources

Top Categories

Product

Company