Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There certainly is another path. The one where you let the Creator handle the battles that are too big for you to fight alone (or where those who should help are too afraid to lose what isn't theirs in the first place).
Perhaps we should all stop trying to chase that perfect life fallacy we all been spoon-fed since we were kids?
I mean am I insane for saying this? Even if we got rid of just about every humanitarian issue out there, from poverty, to bullying, to racism, to war, to wealth inequality, to political polarization, to environmental degradation, perhaps life will find another way to test us all one form or another? Is this the reason poorer countries perhaps have lower suicide rates and even lower overall depression rates?
The way I see it is, if we need to eat, drink, breath air and sleep to get by, that is already part of the cycle of suffering, whether we want to acknowledge it or not is a different matter altogether
Am I philosophizing life a little too much here perhaps?
I don't think you're philosophising too much, but I do think you are generalizing. Not everyone is looking for that perfect life. Life for a lot of people is plenty good already. I personally think you're looking at things a bit negatively, at least that's what I gather from the way you write.
I don't really believe in a perfect life, but I've lived a lot of moments where I have thought "this is perfect". I guess having bad times in your life is inevitable, but it can make you appreciate the comfort and safety and good moments even more^^
Oh man, I just knew it! It's a conspiracy dude!! We all know having a living wage with disposable income, strong social connects and safety nets, high minimum living standards, and great medical care are NOT the keys to happiness. Instead, being dirt poor, living in violent crime ridden cities, and having crumbling infrastructure are what makes people happy
I don't think it's that simple. We retired to a "poor" country and the people seem very happy and content. The minimum wage ($400/month) is low but so it the COL. Everyone has a smart phone, somehow. They also have STRONG social and family connections (multi-generational homes) and socialize a great deal, not on their phones all the time. "Great" medical care because it is free so no stress there like the U.S. experiences.
Strong safety nets because vacation, retirement, and medical is all covered.
Not as violent as the U.S. by far. Sure, some "crumbling infrastructure" but look at parts of the U.S. who has plenty of money to fix stuff, but doesn't.
Scandinavia consistently rates highest for all the reasons I listed here about my poor country, so it really depends on many factors besides money. Like, how your gov't allocates it.
I believe God was the ultimate alpha male created to give man (including women) a central figure that would make them feel safe...if they followed the rules of course. Our biology inheritly seeks out the dominant male, a father figure, and Gods provided that, especially in cultures where they tried to promote monogamy.
As a species we chase pleasure and avoid pain... All animal species do. They wouldn't be able to survive otherwise. Life would never have evolved. In the end the laws of nature will take over if civilization breaks down. Our animal instincts will reassert themselves and become more dominant.
Perhaps we should all stop trying to chase that perfect life fallacy we all been spoon-fed since we were kids?
I mean am I insane for saying this? Even if we got rid of just about every humanitarian issue out there, from poverty, to bullying, to racism, to war, to wealth inequality, to political polarization, to environmental degradation, perhaps life will find another way to test us all one form or another? Is this the reason poorer countries perhaps have lower suicide rates and even lower overall depression rates?
The way I see it is, if we need to eat, drink, breath air and sleep to get by, that is already part of the cycle of suffering, whether we want to acknowledge it or not is a different matter altogether
Am I philosophizing life a little too much here perhaps?
I mean, perhaps some individuals will always be driven to see life through a lens of suffering. I have had a hard time with that "life is suffering" notion (and in fact there's argument about translation on that. Some believe that the accurate phrase is "life is change.") I feel that some people embrace suffering and define their experiences with it more than others.
I've been in really low places in life, but always had a stubborn optimism and a belief that my work had a purpose and I would, sooner or later, have the happiness I push towards. At my lowest, I just sleep a lot. Let time pass. It is really hard to get me down. People have tried. I wonder if my defiance of those people in my life history is a huge part of why I don't react with suffering to hard conditions? It's part of it.
I've even become quite good at accommodating physical pain without experiencing suffering. I started learning that with my tattoos. Hours of pain, which I certainly felt, but keeping myself calm, breathing slowly and analyzing the sensation from a slightly detached perspective. "Yes, it hurts, but you are fine."
To the bold, I think that how and if one acknowledges a hardship with a negative emotional response, that is not beside the fact, that defines whether the thing is a matter of suffering or it is not. I don't see the need for sustenance or sleep or air to be "part of a cycle of suffering." At all. It is full of much joy, a gift of a life that I GET to live. Even though at times it was painful or difficult.
Maybe we both philosophize too much, if in completely opposite directions.
As for happiness, depression, and economies... I have heard that it isn't the overall poverty or wealth of a given nation or society that determines its people's happiness. It is the distance between the poorest and the richest within it. I would say that the way I interpret this is, if you are "poor" (but not to the extent of watching your offspring starve to death) but so is everyone else in your village and you don't have the internet, and you never met a rich person or saw a palatial home, your humble existence is all you know...and your ancestors made a living and you make a living and you have every reason to believe that your descendants will make a living... There is every reason to be happy! And surely many human beings would be happy living that way. But I think that in a society like America, even if one sits comfortably in the middle class, one can still clearly see homeless camps and impoverished and desperate people around. And then contemplate the very wealthy and powerful and wonder if some or any of them deserve what they have, or maybe some are criminals who can get away with anything... Feelings that things are deeply unfair and many are being exploited in some way, bring a great deal of unhappiness in a population.
A very wide wealth gap where the people clearly see haves and have-nots in stark relief, is where the high levels of despair and depression happen. And the harder it is to achieve whatever is seen as "normal life"...the more people will suffer.
The faulty logic in your idea is the object of the classic observation that "Perfection is the enemy of progress".
What most people seek in all aspects of life is improvement. Why are theft and rape and murder illegal? Not because anyone thinks we're going to eliminate those things, but because we want to reduce them. There is value in every such reduction, no matter how incremental. If a child is being abused, do you think that's just 'part of the cycle of suffering', therefore unworthy of being resisted? I certainly don't. Will there always be suffering in life? Yes. And there will always be a degree to which we can mitigate however much suffering remains. To state that there should be no attempt to reduce suffering because we cannot eliminate it is a non sequitur, for the goal is not perfection.
The way I see it is, if we need to eat, drink, breath air and sleep to get by, that is already part of the cycle of suffering, whether we want to acknowledge it or not is a different matter altogether
Not everyone perceives life as a ‘cycle of suffering’; hence (the collective) we need not acknowledge it.
The faulty logic in your idea is the object of the classic observation that "Perfection is the enemy of progress".
What most people seek in all aspects of life is improvement. Why are theft and rape and murder illegal? Not because anyone thinks we're going to eliminate those things, but because we want to reduce them. There is value in every such reduction, no matter how incremental. If a child is being abused, do you think that's just 'part of the cycle of suffering', therefore unworthy of being resisted? I certainly don't. Will there always be suffering in life? Yes. And there will always be a degree to which we can mitigate however much suffering remains. To state that there should be no attempt to reduce suffering because we cannot eliminate it is a non sequitur, for the goal is not perfection.
Nothing about this is illusory.
yup. Its like when people say "if there is no free will then means no morals" its nonsense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
