cam.bankord Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 I had a theory that passion and emotion, understanding of what is happy and good, and what is sad and bad, to be put simply. We derive feelings of happiness from relative harm in the past. And feelings of sadness from relative happiness in the past. Meaning, that a life full of joy can only lead to inevitable strife at any small inconvenience, while a life of sadness will lead to inevitable happiness at the smallest convenience. So a perfect society could not exist, because it would eventually lead to its eradication. A middle ground is the only possible reality of harmony. Does this make any sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flake Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Interesting theory. However it doesn't necessarily follow that a life full of joy will lead to inevitable strife at any small inconvenience or that a life of sadness will lead to inevitable happiness at the smallest convenience. People who have lived a life of sadness usually become pessimists so any small convenience will be just seen as temporary and people who have lived a life of joy for the most part will see a inconvenience as temporary so won't see it as that bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasDoubts Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 A perfect society could never exist, particularly if it's defined as one where sadness never takes place. A free society is another story. Recognizing one's happiness or sadness is information. How you interpret that information and act upon it will determine it's value. Sadness, harm, stress, pain, etc. are simply weights for your mind to exercise with. The more you lift them, the lighter they'll become, provided you're exercising correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts