nice question clearly put. does transience mean nothing has value? it can often feel that way, but the drachma did have value while it existed

One does not need reasons to have a "thirst" for something valuable in itself. They just have it, or not. And if not then reasons will not help either, drives and emotions are not rationally controlled. Reasons only matter when what is pursued is not valuable in itself but only derivatively, to get something else. Knowledge is not of this sort, so its pursuit now is "meaningful" regardless of what happens later.

because if you don't know stuff your stay on this Earth will be much shorter and less enjoyable? Unless one loves eating poisonous food, sleep in the cold and die of preventable illnesses, of course...

Why are you asking this question if you are just going to die anyway? (because that's your answer...)

Why should you eat if you'll later get hungry anyway?

It’s a good question with a very simple answer, but since you’re not interested in knowledge, there’d be no point in sharing it with you.

I enjoy understanding things, and knowing things. I also enjoy eating chocolate. The chocolate, and its taste, and the memory of its taste, will all be gone sooner or later (with my death at the latest, in the case of the memory). But that does not make eating chocolate meaningless, because I can enjoy it while it is there. Same for gaining understanding, and knowledge.

It's worth nothing that this seems to be starting with the assumption that our consciousness ceases to exist in any meaningful way when we die. Not all schools of thought take this as a given.

@MichaelMior I think that could be a good answer to the question, just for completeness' sake.

I don't think that the "opinion-based" close votes are warranted. The answers aren't "i think xyz is the best!", they're arguments based on Camus, evopsych, etc, or pointing out specific elements of flawed reasoning.

This is starting with the assumption that our consciousness ceases to exist in any meaningful way when we die. That assumption is not held by everyone. As one example, a number of religions believe in an afterlife where our consciousness continues to exist independent of our body.

When you've gained a lot of knowledge, you eventually discover some new knowledge, which nobody had before. If you then choose to share it, you become immortal. Problem solved.

While this question is tagged with and mentions "knowledge" outright, any noun could fill in this same question and get the same short piece of wisdom that I received: > Don't confuse the journey with the destination.

The question is valid but unnecessarily restricts itself to knowledge, as opposed to any experience of the ego. You're effectively asking "what's the purpose of it all?", which is the root of philosophy, and whose answer is generally pursued by further defining what "it" means in that question.

Therefore you'd better be interested in gaining knowledge in such a way to not loose any of it...

Wow. Closing a question that inspired several major philosophic movements in history? It only took a tiny edit to the title to remove any “opinion” request.

Amelia: Not sure why you replaced the grammatically correct '?' at end of question by a '?.'

@Dcleve There is a strong upsurge of literalism out here of late. Please consider adding your voice in here

Hi Amelia, I'm curious as to whether any of the answers/comments have helped you? You are a new user and this question seems to have taken on its own life.