We hear and use the term frequently, and this thread was prompted by a thread in another section.
I’m curious to know what other people would define as having “a life”. Taken literally then anyone who is alive has one, but of course that’s often not what we mean. The phrase is normally used to indicate someone whose life is lacking in someway (they don’t have a life), although most people would be unhappy at the idea of being told they don’t have one.
My take on this would be to say that having a life means an existence where you are happy (at least) more often than not, or most of the time. This would (for me) require:
[ul]
[li]a job I enjoyed and found interesting[/li][li]a social circle that I was happy with[/li][li]good health[/li][li]enough money to live comfortably[/li][li]a relationship with someone[/li][li] a family of some description (probably children, whether mine or someone else’s) [/li][li]enough confidence to go out and do the things that I want to do and not be inhibited in doing so, but at the same time feel comfortable in my own company and pursuing lone pleasures[/li][/ul]
What do other people think? Is there one formula or shopping list that equals having a life? Should I just re-read the Nichomachean Ethics?
Most of the time when I hear people say this, its in reference to not having what’s thought of as a good/active social life. You could have good health, a good job, and be in a relationship, but if you spend your weekends staying home and playing Parchesi instead of going out to bars and night clubs, people will say you “have no life.”
I think that the phrase advocates being sufficiently stimulated and fulfilled by one’s own life (which would normally include the elements on your list) to keep own’s nose out of other people’s lives.
You don’t need to go to bars and clubs, but ideally you should have something social you do with other people.
“Having no life” generally refers to a life that is out of balance or too focused on one aspect of your life. IOW, if you work 90 hours a week or spend all your time raising your children, you might be considered not having a life.
Heh, I dunno, people say that comic book geeks, gamers, trekkies etc… all who have a fairly big social circle via these particular venues, have no life.
It’s just the “Cult of Cool” trying to make you feel less good about yourself so that they can feel better about their own insecurities by helping you share in them.
Sometimes, when a person says, “Get a life!” this roughly translates to “Don’t you have something more important to do?”
Thus, someone who “has a life” is someone who has something “important” to do with his life. And someone who doesn’t “have a life” is someone whose life is wasted in trivialities, and/or in living vicariously (TV-watching, or sticking ones nose into other people’s business, or Walter Mitty-style fantasizing) instead of firsthand.
“Having a life” and “Getting a life“ are phrases some individuals use to say, in effect, “If you aren’t engaged in all of the misery-inducing practices that I am, I take it upon myself to invalidate your existence. Hah, hah. You’re invalidated.”
Such practices include, but are not excluded to: marriage, having children, a concentration on one’s “career,” involvement in a popular religion, involvement in any number of other popular fantasies, politics of any kind, membership (express or implied) in any organization, any and all things commonly designated as “hobbies,“ a concern with attending “cultural” events, and rooting for a certain sports team(s).
The only life worth “having” is one of incessant devotion to one’s own health. If everyone were doing that, foolish judgements and qualifications would cease to exist.
That’s how I’ve always interpreted it. If you’re doing something silly and pointless but it’s not disturbing me, I’m unlikely to tell you to get a life.
Right, that’s how I’d interpret it as well. The person who classically should “get a life” is the person who’s obsessed with some tiny complaint that makes other people roll their eyes. Like the person who was overcharged by 50 cents and undertakes a crusade against the company that overcharged him.
To me, the people who need to “get a life” are the one who are neglecting living their own lives because they are trying to live someone else’s life: caring more about whether someone else gets married/divorced/whatever than about their own marriage/divorce/whatever.
I think your definition is perfect. I was wondering what it meant, as i would definitely would say i didn’t have one and was trying to find out what it would be, and that lists everything i’ve failed to achieve at 42 and everyone else has. This recession’s lasting a long long time!
It could apply to any number of situations. If one has to manufacture drama for the sake of some stimulation she needs a life. If one is overly involved in others lives it could apply. If one is seemeinly just wasting away would be another good example.
As a teenager, college student and young, post-college adult, “Get a life” or someone doens’t “have a life” meant social* life, but as a regular adult, it usually means something slightly different- usually it means that someone works too much and/or is too wound up in the compnay that they work for, and that they need to do something (i.e. develop interests and friends) outside of work.
The way I’ve heard it, it usually comes down to: “Why aren’t you interested in the same things I’m interested in? Why don’t you go out and waste your time doing the things I waste my time doing? How dare you live by your own priorities, when mine are so much better?”
I think that’s a bit harsh on the “get a life” crowd. Generally, the one accused of not having a life has elevated a hobby to a level of importance that involved the kind of attention that most people put to career, family, or education in real-life subjects. You can have two people who both enjoy Star Trek movies and shows, and one will still think that convention-going Trekkies need to “get a life.”
