The scientific definition: life is its own purpose. It exists simply to exist, survive and to perpetuate itself in its own image, which it why all living things reproduce. We seek other purposes because we can think, sense the future, recall the past and theorize.

But we can define our own purpose. For me, it is to know whatever I can humanly know. However, being happy and being useful aren't two separate things. If one chooses to be useful, one will innately be happy. We are a cooperative social species and can never be happy in isolation. All purely self serving persons are forever miserable, no matter what material wealth they possess.

Life's purpose is a very personal decision. Everyone has varying ideas of what they want their life to be like, and happiness can be totally different person to person. It's good to draw inspiration from others, but in the end what you want out of life and to leave behind is yours alone.

People worry a lot about finding purpose and wanting to know what they're "supposed" to do. It can get overwhelming realizing how much the world has to offer, so I see why people end up feeling lost. We've all been there. I think most people, like you, would want a compromise between happiness and fulfillment instead of strictly picking one. There isn't any right or wrong answer, I think.

Chac Mool, anything and everything becomes a problem the moment it is taken to the extreme of being an ideology. It goes without saying that philosophy and ideology are polar opposites, incompatible with each other. Ideology is a politically motivated thing that attempts to brainwash people and hide true knowledge. Philosophy does the opposite.

True, being useful provides happiness to oneself and possibly to the others as well. But what about happiness itself? In its very definition, happiness is selfish. So is love. No doubt many will disagree but just look at the basic statements: Who is happy? I am. Who loves? I love. There is no happiness and no love without the I. Ego. Therefore the idea of service or altruism are based on ego. There is nothing unselfish about them.

Yeah, there is indeed that place in philosophy, that ideal untouched place.I´m not a mathematician but I always like to imagine it´s true for them as well when they talk about these impossible, yet possible places. The same could be said about love and happiness and a God I guess why not? But could be also not? mmmm is there a purpose to this discussion? :)

Chac Mool, there's a technical distinction.

Sure, all ideologies including religions as well as all things like capitalism, communism, socialism, racism, feminism, liberalism, conservatism and any other ism one can think of, are apparently based on some basic philosophy. But in making it some kind of enforceable or desirable dogma, it crosses over into the dark realm, the realm which forbids thinking outside the set dogma. This is the polar opposite of philosophy, which by definition is love for knowledge unlimited.