Isn't the grass always greener on the other side?
I used to just laugh at all those wonderful quips and wive's tales that I heard as a kid.
i.e
"An apple a day keeps the doctor away!"
"The Grass is Always Greener on the Other Side!"
"Smoking leads to lung cancer!"
"Don't leave mommy alone on days that the pool boy is coming over!"
Footnote:
(I use exclamations because my mother would say these things in an upbeat manner, she was not yelling at me. I think there needs to be another exclamation besides just !. Because authors like Sue Grafton use the exclamation point about 3,000 times in each other her novels and since most of her novels deal with confrontations involving rape and murder, I think it has lost its meaning. The written word can really now only convey two feelings. A simple, "the cat ran to the market." leaves the reader feeling like this is just an everyday benign event. While, "the cat ran to the market!" makes the reader feel as though the cat is running to the market and is about to have a violent confrontation involving one of two scenarios: 1) Rape or 2) Murder. I don't know what the exclamation point would be but it needs to be softer. Using it to just show excitement feels redundant.)
Back to the main story.
I am starting to believe all of my mom's old sayings. The grass is always greener. I was only working and I craved to be back at school. Now that I am at school I am whining to myself about how hard it is.
Are we ever going to be content as people? Will we always want more?
Is that a good thing?
I have seen people whom appear to be content and I don't think they are happy. They work at Ross.
What do you guys think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Reid, I don't remember if you recall the conversation that some of us had while in Japan, but as far as this question concerns Jonny and I it appears that we will never be content. This is because we both associate contentment with laziness and apathy. I have moments where I am content but as a whole I hope I never rest there.
ReplyDeleteI used to think that some of my friends that aren't doing anything with their lives (at least it appears that way) are content and happy, yet I don't think they are, and if they happen to be happy working at Ross then I don't want any part in their contentment.
hahaha.
ReplyDeleteI do remember the conversation. I guess that it is just something that resurfaces a lot and cannot be wrapped up in on one scanty conversation.
Do you really not want any part of it?
I don't know if I believe that. I buy that you don't want to just settle, but do you really want to go to rest of your life feeling like your not doing what you really should be doing?
I don't want to be content working at Ross.
ReplyDeleteI think I would be content if I figured out my spiritual life and had 6 million dollars, at least for awhile.
First off, I'm glad we're back talking about things like rape, Sue Grafton, and the exclamation point. Secondly, I think what Kyle and I (I use both of us because we've completely figured out this "contentment" theory) are saying is that if one never craves or aspires more in life, one becomes content. Lots of underachieving people are content -- meaning they don't want to do more in life than what they've already done (which, in most of cases, is probably not too much).
ReplyDeleteNow, "wanting more" could be a multitude of things and isn't necessarily limited to success. It's fine to be happy with your life, and I hope all of us reach a point where we don't have too many complaints, but Reid, if you stop reading, exploring, or learning, your brain will stop being stimulated, it'll turn into mush and you'll become a drone like most people. I think what Kyle and I are referring to (and Kyle, jump in if you don't agree or think of another angle), is that we will never be content because there is always something more to achieve, however big or small.
The reason why we are smart people is because we have a thirst for knowledge and an insatiable curiosity about the world and life in general. Contentment doesn't factor into that equation.
Yeah...but....haha.. Mentally handicapped people are sitting there going. "I wonder if people find me intellectually stimulating" or "I wish I was smarter."
ReplyDeleteThey just look at a leaf. I know this sounds bad and I kind of set myself up for that, but they are content.
In the end, it doesn't matter if people think your smart or you feel respected. If your never content, then you'll never know what satisfaction feels like. If you don't care and can stare at a leaf and think, "thats a good leave, what a great life." Rather than, "I should read more Chomsky." Then imagine how happy you would be.
I understand and I agree. I'm just trying to be the devil's advocationary person.
Thanks Reid, for comparing me to a retarded individual. I may not be content but I will definitely live a more satisfying life than the person that finds a leaf eternally interesting. No one would say that a person like that is living "the good life," what Aristotle called eudaimonia. I know I'm getting all philosophical on your ass, but maybe I'll write a post about what he considered a life worth living (and I agree with his conclusion).
ReplyDeleteReid, how would we (you) know that said retard is content? Maybe they are raging inside in a way that only retards can rage -- they just don't have the motor skills to express it physically.
ReplyDeleteOh, and I don't think satisfaction and contentment are mutually exclusive sentiments.
Kyle, can we leave Aristotle out of this? While I respect his contributions to western philosophy, he has some of the most illogical, nonsensical theories that I have ever heard in my life (his "no idea can exist without a preexisting physical form of that idea" theory comes to mind). Utter bullshit.
He also has some of the most brilliant theories I've heard...like lets say limiting governments power by dividing rule into executive, legislative, and judicial systems.
ReplyDeleteYeah, and that's worked out fabulously for us.
ReplyDeleteLike "checks and balances," it's a good idea in theory, but execution is another thing altogether. But I suppose that's the great thing about being a philosopher: you just get to sit back and theorize and are never held accountable. Sweet gig.
It has actually worked out pretty well in reality.
ReplyDeleteThe three branches have successfully limited government power?
ReplyDeleteIn comparison to other systems that have tried to limit power I would say it's worked out the best. Still not great, but better than anything else we got.
ReplyDeleteI think philosophers are dumb for letting people that don't understand the theories implement them (or then again, maybe people are just too greedy to make a system like this work). I also think philosophers are held accountable, I mean you're criticizing them. Blaming Aristotle for our failure to execute his theory correctly? Really?
If you don't like the checks and balances example, how about democracy as a whole? No good?
P.S. You're probably going to ream me right now...