And, if one meets this goal, have they succeeded in life? Jackie would say no, since we all die anyways.
This is sheer nonsense. You have completely misunderstood the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but this is common among mysticophiles with only cursory knowledge of physical science. Suffice it to say, observers don't always affect the outcomes of their observations or experiments. This is just Eastern mystics running amok and trying to hide behind the apron of a science which they scarcely understand, if at all. Seriously, does any sane person believe the Hubble Telescope affects the light-years-distant astronomical events it observes and records?
+1 Equating dying with losing is just bizarre and morbid. I agree 100% with Fireplace that it's what you do with the time you have. "winning" or "losing" is relative - every person has to define that for themselves. Were Mother Theresa, Einstein, Newton etc... "losers" just because they couldn't avoid the inevitable? Who knows? maybe in their own minds they were, but it certainly had nothing to do with their deaths. Pretty sure if I developed the theory of relativity and changed the world as we know it, I'd be feeling pretty good on my deathbed. This thread sure took a disturbing turn...
Wrong again, and combining this with your frankly psychotic notion that death = losing, I can see why you are seen as stupid, at least here in ET. Just another arrogant fool to add to my ignore list. Good riddance.
The Macbeth quote is only one take on life - I assume you interpret it to mean that life is brief and that our actions are somewhat preordained and therefore meaningless in a sense. But does a life have to be eternal in order to have meaning? Using the physician reference, they may help save a life or they may not - both parties will end up dead anyway. Does this mean that the actions of the doctor have no relevance whatsoever?