I once said that the purpose of life is to live. Then I said that there is no purpose. At first I thought both equate to the same thing, but now I realize that isn't the case. Both are contradictory statements.

Why are they not the same? 

I don't know, I had the insight last night. Still, I will try to recover it from my memory, the scraps of coherence that I have left.

Life had no purpose because whatever we do, the end, the outcome is the same for all: death. Whether it is the most productive, successful person in the universe, or just a plain loser, both shall meet the same end. Hence, the path we take in life ceases to be of much value.

However, if life's purpose is to live, its a different story. It shows that the aim is to make the journey, rather than reach its end. Though there is no particular purpose , the aim is just to live, not for achieving a particular end, or living in a certain way, but just to live. Its better than no purpose altogether.

Life is like a fruit and nut chocolate. Although there may be many bad parts to it (unless you like the fruits and nuts), it is still better to eat it than leave it, particularly when there is nothing else to eat. And should you throw it, there are no refunds, no returns whatsoever. This life is something that is given to us only once. We ought to make the best use of it while we can. Its the journey that counts, not the end or the means to reach it. 

Although the purpose of life is to live, that doesn't mean we should disregard all our morals either. Our morality isn't linked to the purpose of life, but it determines our choices and actions. Though inconsequential with regards to the end, it has consequences that would impact the quality of our journey, and of others making the journey of life as well. We must live life in the best way possible for us, in order to be able to live. 

Morality is a personal choice, and fulfilling it must not act as a constraint, but as something that adds meaning and satisfaction to our lives. To avoid the pain of guilt, we must not be guilty. And if one doesn't feel even the tiniest of guilt after, say, stealing from a child, no matter how justified, well...they have no morality, and are free from its framework, for better or for worse. 

But if they do feel it, and still commit the action, their being revolts against, they are not being themselves, and eventually the guilt would be destroyed, or would destroy them. In the case of an immoral person, morality and life are at constant war with each other, and each has the potential of destroying the other. The only way to stop this war is to stick to morality's frameworks in one's actions, which differ for each being, due to the erosion caused by life's events everyday, or to destroy it altogether, though with such freedom one still endangers themselves and others' lives.

More on this in the next chapter.