Does an Intellectual Life Endanger Peace of Mind?

[coberst]

Does an Intellectual Life Endanger Peace of Mind?

Few individuals discover and display a talent, a personal resonance that can truly excite public appreciation. Those who do display such a resonance are truly rewarded. However, I am not particularly interested in those few but I am interested in considering all the rest of us who have resonances (talents?) and especially all those that remain undiscovered by ourselves.

I am of the opinion that we all have a number of personal resonances (talents?) that if discovered give great emphasis to our life’s satisfaction. Those individuals who discover and exploit such a personal resonance can find great self-satisfaction. If that particular resonance strikes a social resonance then the accompanying social display of appreciation can add to the personal satisfaction to the individual.

I think a successful artist is a good example of what I speak. The singing artist who happens not only to discover a particular musical talent and, if that talent is in accord with a public musical taste, that individual would reap great personal and economic satisfaction. The actor or painter, or any of many possible talents that are appreciated by the public would serve as examples of what I mean by resonance.

It seems that society and all its institutions are focused upon making everyone of us efficient producers and consumers. Nothing prepares us for self-discovery when such discovery is not supportive of a drive to produce and consume. I think that most social pressure from birth to death is directed at the drive to make us effective producers and consumers.

I chose to use the word “resonance” rather than talent because I think our sense of the meaning of the word “talent” will distort the point I wish to make. “Talent” is such a ‘produce and consume’ word. In fact we have little vocabulary available when discussing what I mean.

At mid-life when our career ambitions dim and our family are cared for is the time that is available to us to begin to de-emphasize the world of ‘production and consumption’ and begin exploring the world of the intellect directed as an end-in-itself’. Our intellects have been so totally directed as a means to an end that we will have some difficulty thinking of knowledge and understanding that is considered as an end-in-itself.

Our first encounter with resonance, as the word is normally used, might have been when we first discovered on the playground swing that a little energy directed in synchronization with the swing’s resonant frequency would produce outstanding movement. What a marvelous discovery. We might make similar marvelous discoveries if we decide, against all that we have learned in the past, that the intellect can be used as an end-in-it-self.

I also think that if a person reaches mid-life without having begun an intellectual life that person will be unlikely to begin such a life. It appears to me that if we do not start such an effort before mid-life we will never have an intellectual life. After our school daze are over it might be wise for a person to begin the cultivation of intellectual curiosity even though there may not be a lot of time available for that hobby.

Get a life—get an intellectual life!

[Il Dante]

You're right in that most people are "pragmatic," in the sense that all they care about are little things like mortgages, credit card bills, career, etc. In other words, they use their intellect, but only to accomplish petty ends (e.g. getting money, surviving).

Where I disagree with you (and with other pro-philosophy intellectuals) is that the intellectual life should be an "end in itself." I agree that it is too low to only use the intellect for little things like the aforementioned; but I still think that the philosophic project should ultimately not be unto mere knowledge; rather, the goal of the philosophic/intellectual/artistic project should be to better understand reality, the universe, and humanity to the end that we can create a better reality, a better universe, and a better humanity. Thus I strongly feel that the intellectual life is not an end "in itself" but rather should be unto the highest end of a better world and a happier and more fulfilled human experience.

I quarrel with the "pragmatists" because I think they have tunnel-vision and endure an impoverished human experience. But I agree with them that if philosophy/art does not actually accomplish something then it is worthless.

[dizzydoll]

But I agree with them that if philosophy/art does not actually accomplish something then it is worthless.

Not necessarily. Our art might not accomplish anything for us personally, but it might inspire someone else who improves and builds something significant out of its simple idea.

[Scheherazade]

Does an Intellectual Life Endanger Peace of Mind?
Why should I worry? Lack both.

[dizzydoll]

Why should I worry? Lack both.

I dont know how you can say that. You have no clue what you say that might inspire others... like for example, you brought us the story on that Danish hotel who is offering a free meal to any guest who is able to produce electricity for the hotel on an exercise bike attached to a generator.

Who knows how many people carried that idea further, I know I did to others who were very impressed by its concept. 100% to you. That is just one example and there are many examples like this, for each and every one of us.

[janesmith]

This is an interesting post but, for me personally, difficult to answer. Having quite recently completed six years of study I am becoming extremely disillusioned about the worth of higher education in the depressed job market of today. I seem unable to secure any worthwhile employment even loosely related to my field of interest (education and English Lit/Lang). However, if I was given the choice of 'secure' employment for life or uncertain career prospects and a postgraduate qualification in a subject I adore I would still choose the latter. Does this answer your question?

[coberst]

I would say that an individual seeking to develop an intellectual life would after their school daze are over spend at least seven hours a week reading what I would call disinterested knowledge. After reaching mid-life that study time would increase to about 15 hours a week. After reaching 65 that time would increase to maybe 20 hours a week.

I would call this effort self-actualizing self-learning.

I am a retired engineer with a good bit of formal education and twenty five years of self-learning. I began the self-learning experience while in my mid-forties. I had no goal in mind; I was just following my intellectual curiosity in whatever direction it led me. This hobby, self-learning, has become very important to me. I have bounced around from one hobby to another but have always been enticed back by the excitement I have discovered in this learning process. Carl Sagan is quoted as having written; “Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.”

I label myself as a September Scholar because I began the process at mid-life and because my quest is disinterested knowledge.

Disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it. I mean the term ‘disinterested knowledge’ as similar to ‘pure research’, as compared to ‘applied research’. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.

I think of the self-learner of disinterested knowledge as driven by curiosity and imagination to understand. The September Scholar seeks to ‘see’ and then to ‘grasp’ through intellection directed at understanding the self as well as the world. The knowledge and understanding that is sought by the September Scholar are determined only by personal motivations. It is noteworthy that disinterested knowledge is knowledge I am driven to acquire because it is of dominating interest to me. Because I have such an interest in this disinterested knowledge my adrenaline level rises in anticipation of my voyage of discovery.

We often use the metaphors of ‘seeing’ for knowing and ‘grasping’ for understanding. I think these metaphors significantly illuminate the difference between these two forms of intellection. We see much but grasp little. It takes great force to impel us to go beyond seeing to the point of grasping. The force driving us is the strong personal involvement we have to the question that guides our quest. I think it is this inclusion of self-fulfillment, as associated with the question, that makes self-learning so important.

The self-learner of disinterested knowledge is engaged in a single-minded search for understanding. The goal, grasping the ‘truth’, is generally of insignificant consequence in comparison to the single-minded search. Others must judge the value of the ‘truth’ discovered by the autodidactic. I suggest that truth, should it be of any universal value, will evolve in a biological fashion when a significant number of pursuers of disinterested knowledge engage in dialogue.

At mid-life many citizens begin to analyze their life and often discover a need to reconstitute their purpose. Some of the advantageous of this self-actualizing self-learning experience is that it is virtually free, undeterred by age, not a zero sum game, surprising, exciting and makes each discovery a new eureka moment. The self-actualizing self-learning experience I am suggesting is similar to any other hobby one might undertake; interest will ebb and flow. In my case this was a hobby that I continually came back to after other hobbies lost appeal.

I suggest for your consideration that if we “Get a life—Get an intellectual life” we very well might gain substantially in self-worth and, perhaps, community-worth.

I have been trying to encourage adults, who in general consider education as a matter only for young people, to give this idea of self-learning a try. It seems to be human nature to do a turtle (close the mind) when encountering a new and unorthodox idea. Generally we seem to need for an idea to face us many times before we can consider it seriously. A common method for brushing aside this idea is to think ‘I’ve been there and done that’, i.e. ‘I have read and been a self-learner all my life’.

I am not suggesting a stroll in the park on a Sunday afternoon. I am suggesting a ‘Lewis and Clark Expedition’. I am suggesting the intellectual equivalent of crossing the Mississippi and heading West across unexplored intellectual territory with the intellectual equivalent of the Pacific Ocean as a destination.

[Emil Miller]

In other words, they use their intellect, but only to accomplish petty ends (e.g. getting money, surviving).

I don't see that surviving is a petty end, except in the circumstance that it is compared to living a meaningful existence. There again, what is meaningful to one person will not be to another. It is an unfortunate fact of life that all intellectual endeavour requires a certain amount of self-discipline which, by definition, endanger's peace of mind. There's a lot to be said for the expression "Ignorance is bliss."

[ktm5124]

You're right in that most people are "pragmatic," in the sense that all they care about are little things like mortgages, credit card bills, career, etc. In other words, they use their intellect, but only to accomplish petty ends (e.g. getting money, surviving).


I don't think that money or survival are petty ends. Getting bread on the table has historically been the aim of many working classes throughout history. Today it is the aim of many inner-city families in America. There are mothers and fathers working three to four jobs to support families with just as many kids... and these people do not have the time or incentive to pursue an intellectual life. But this is not to say their lives are petty - for these people, putting bread on the table (surviving) is a worthy end itself.

As for money - money grants access to pleasure. There is nothing wrong with people wanting multi-million dollar houses, or to own their own NFL team, or to bounce across Europe on five-star hotels. I have a good friend who wants to be a lawyer so that he can afford these luxuries, and he happens to be one of the best people I know - someone I am sure will make an outstanding husband, father, and friend.

At the same time, there are people who lead intellectual lives and turn out to be *******s - pretentious, obnoxious, uncaring. There are obnoxious people in all walks of life - they are not only found among the rich. In conclusion, I don't think one's career or calling determines the richness of one's life. I think people should choose their career, or calling, because it is what makes their life most rich - and this can just as well be law, business, or investment banking as it can be an intellectual life.

[Il Dante]

I don't think that money or survival are petty ends. Getting bread on the table has historically been the aim of many working classes throughout history. Today it is the aim of many inner-city families in America. There are mothers and fathers working three to four jobs to support families with just as many kids... and these people do not have the time or incentive to pursue an intellectual life. But this is not to say their lives are petty - for these people, putting bread on the table (surviving) is a worthy end itself.

As for money - money grants access to pleasure. There is nothing wrong with people wanting multi-million dollar houses, or to own their own NFL team, or to bounce across Europe on five-star hotels. I have a good friend who wants to be a lawyer so that he can afford these luxuries, and he happens to be one of the best people I know - someone I am sure will make an outstanding husband, father, and friend.

At the same time, there are people who lead intellectual lives and turn out to be *******s - pretentious, obnoxious, uncaring. There are obnoxious people in all walks of life - they are not only found among the rich. In conclusion, I don't think one's career or calling determines the richness of one's life. I think people should choose their career, or calling, because it is what makes their life most rich - and this can just as well be law, business, or investment banking as it can be an intellectual life.

My choice of words was unfortunate, because I did not mean to imply that the lives of inner-city people are petty. Nor did I mean to imply that the lives of people in developing countries are petty. Neither did I mean to imply that putting bread on the table for the family is petty. I should have made my meaning more clear.

What I DID mean is that if one lives in a wealthy region such as Western Europe or North America and yet still only cares solely for little things such as money--THAT is petty. I'm not saying it's evil or immoral. I'm not judging it. I'm just saying it's petty.

The dictionary defines petty as: little, trifling, inconsequential. Thus something is petty if it is small or unimportant. I do not think there is anything immoral or evil about wanting to be rich, have palaces, or have Porsches. I just think that such a life is small in that it places prime value on relatively unimportant things... like sports cars and caviar. What's really important is humanity. People. What's the meaning of it all. And how can we achieve a better world. Things like these are what matter. And a life in the pursuit of these things, and things like them, is not petty.

I think that a life lived in the sole pursuit of wealth is not particularly wise because wealth, contrary to popular belief, is not the key to happiness.

Here's a true story. I know a man who works directly with the CEO of one of the largest and most powerful corporations in America. And this CEO once told him, with tears in his eyes, that he had wasted his life; his family situation was a mess; he had sacrificed his family life on the altar of wealth; no one loved him, but rather he was beset on every side by syncophantic leeches eager to get a chunk of his money. After becoming one of the richest men in America (by sacrificing his family life, working long hours, crushing his workers' unions, and alienating his wife) another business leader, Henry Ford, said "I was happier when I was a mechanic." Felix Dennis, owner of Dennis Publishing and one of the richest men in the United Kingdom, wrote a book sarcastically titled "How to Get Rich"; but the book is all about why you SHOULDN'T want to get rich; Dennis argues that getting rich isn't a good idea because you have to give up part of your humanity to do it.

In contrast, all of the happiest people I have ever known were non-rich. Some of the happiest people I've known were some of my professors from my college experience. Why? Because they had a personal life, a relatively normal family situation, and, moreover, they were doing what they loved every day. In all honesty, I also happen to be one of the happiest people I know, and I am far from rich.

The reason for this is that the deepest satisfaction and the highest bliss in the human experience is found not in things, but in persons. In friends, brothers, sisters, parents, children, lovers. We are constructed in such a way that things like Porsches and palaces can never compare with human love. The quest for wealth is perhaps, IMHO, not such a good idea because it requires that human relationships be compromised. It requires long hours at the office. Working overtime. Preoccupation with business affairs. And alienating all who are close to us. This is precisely what the movie, Citizen Kane, depicts.

The rattle of golden coins cannot compare with human kindness shown by a person cares for you.

[ktm5124]

In contrast, all of the happiest people I have ever known were non-rich. Some of the happiest people I've known were some of my professors from my college experience. Why? Because they had a personal life, a relatively normal family situation, and, moreover, they were doing what they loved every day. In all honesty, I also happen to be one of the happiest people I know, and I am far from rich.

The reason for this is that the deepest satisfaction and the highest bliss in the human experience is found not in things, but in persons. In friends, brothers, sisters, parents, children, lovers. We are constructed in such a way that things like Porsches and palaces can never compare with human love. The quest for wealth is perhaps, IMHO, not such a good idea because it requires that human relationships be compromised. It requires long hours at the office. Working overtime. Preoccupation with business affairs. And alienating all who are close to us. This is precisely what the movie, Citizen Kane, depicts.

The rattle of golden coins cannot compare with human kindness shown by a person cares for you.

But can't people be rich and also happy? People have various needs and desires. I think that the desire to be rich can coexist with the desire to be there for family. My friend, for instance, wouldn't be as good a friend and father if he were not allowed to chase his dreams. These dreams aren't for the betterment of society - they are simply for his own pleasure - but without them there wouldn't be a balance in his life of tending to himself and tending to others.

Everyone has different needs, and some people just don't feel the need to examine their own life, to improve society and reach out to humanity. Some people try to combine a lucrative career with a healthy family. These two things are not mutually exclusive. I am also opposed to the idea that this kind of life is in some way "smaller" than a life that aims to improve society. I think that this kind of hierarchy of callings exists to justify and promote certain callings - for instance art and literature. But we don't need to justify art and literature, since the needs of a population will always produce artists, will always produce writers...

[Il Dante]

I would respond, but I think we're drifting off topic...

Coberst posts the question: is the intellectual life worthwhile even if our intellectual activity is never "discovered" or appreciated. He affirms that it is.

This is the main issue.

I think it depends. The intellectual life sometimes leads to less peace of mind; sometimes it even leads to despair (see, T.S. Elliot, Arthur Schopenhauer, et al). But sometimes the intellectual life leads to happiness and optimism (see, Percy Bysshe Shelley). But maybe these aren't good examples because their intellectual lives were well known, whereas Coberst's question relates to the rest of us who remain unknown.

[dizzydoll]

That was a good debate.

[mal4mac]

Where I disagree with you (and with other pro-philosophy intellectuals) is that the intellectual life should be an "end in itself." I agree that it is too low to only use the intellect for little things like the aforementioned; but I still think that the philosophic project should ultimately not be unto mere knowledge; rather, the goal of the philosophic/intellectual/artistic project should be to better understand reality, the universe, and humanity to the end that we can create a better reality, a better universe, and a better humanity. Thus I strongly feel that the intellectual life is not an end "in itself" but rather should be unto the highest end of a better world and a happier and more fulfilled human experience.

I quarrel with the "pragmatists" because I think they have tunnel-vision and endure an impoverished human experience. But I agree with them that if philosophy/art does not actually accomplish something then it is worthless.

Socrates and Feynman lived the intellectual life to the extreme, and came came to the conclusion that we understand nothing, in their various fields of endeavour. Why should your intellectual life then lead to "understanding reality"? Can you even begin to say what reality is?

If you can't, don't get upset, realise that anything we do should be to make us happier, not to find some spurious "ultimate reality". Of course, the pursuit of happiness is also an endless, in a sense futile, pursuit. But when I'm feeling bored and disquieted (like now!) I can at least remind myself that I'll be reading King Lear tomorrow. That will bring great pleasure, partly intellectual, partly aesthetic. It will not give me ultimate knowledge of reality - that's too much to ask for. And I'll soon feel bored when I move on to filling in a tax form, or whatever. That's life, a continual seeking after pleasure, and an avoidance of displeasure, with mixed results. Avoiding 'ultimate reality seeking' will greatly increase pleasure...

[Il Dante]

Avoiding 'ultimate reality seeking' will greatly increase pleasure...

This is where I disagree with you. It is easy for blind persons to stub their toes and fall off cliffs—unpleasant experiences that someone with some measure of sight could better avoid. Similarly, having some approximate understanding of the world or human nature can save us a lot of pain and can allow us to live a happier, more fulfilled life.

As for your premise that knowledge of reality is impossible... it depends on what you mean by knowledge. Most intellectuals agree that "knowledge" in the sense of knowing that "2 + 2 = 4" is probably impossible for anything other than mathematics and tautologies. Socrates, as you said, believed that.

HOWEVER: Socrates still had a belief system, even though he knew he couldn't be SURE it was correct. And Richard Feynmann (one of my favorite scientists) talked about "the joy of finding things out." Finding stuff out was what gave him the greatest joy. Feynmann said that science tells us how, but it does not tell us why. But I think that knowing how is better than knowing nothing at all.

Using logic/reason, we can construct an approximate image of the world, which is better than nothing; it is also better than appealing to magick. We can't be sure of ABSOLUTE truth, but we can at least get a rough idea of the way things are given certain basic assumptions.

[mal4mac]

How can you know that we aren't blind persons about to fall off a cliff? That's certainly our situation regards to death - we see nothing of that dark kingdom and are about to fall off the cliff into it. We can see no way to avoid the fall. We don't even have an approximate understanding of what comes after death, if anything, no idea if we are going to have a lot of pain (see Dante's Inferno!) or know anything that would, for sure, allow us to live a happier, more fulfilled afterlife, if there is such.

Is knowing how better than knowing nothing at all? I'd rather listen to Mozart than 'find something else out' (like yet another physics fact. I've had enough fact learning, enough to earn me my daily bread, that's enough...)

Using logic/reason Hitler created an approximate image of the world that seems to me much worse than nothing. Oppenheimer's more accurate(?) version probably seemed a lot worse than nothing to the citizens of Nagasaki & Hirsohima.

Can we get a rough idea of the way things are? How do you know? We may be blind men trying to judge the shape of a stationary elephant by poking a pen through a hole in its cage...

[blazeofglory]

I do not think the experience of death is likened to falling off a cliff. Death is not the end of everything. We cannot know about it. It is the unknown. We have too many presumptions about what death is and is not. We are told by books of theology, mythology about death and the life thereafter. There is no life thenceforth. A mystery descend on us and where that mystery takes us is also a mystery, but never to the cliff to throw us from there

[Cunninglinguist]

Does an intellectual life endanger peace of mind?

To start off by answering this question, no, it does not. To make a general statement: typically intellectuals who do not have “peace of mind” did not have this “peace of mind” before they started their intellectual life, and the ones who do have it generally started with it, and if they lose it, it is never because of the process of reasoning. In the interest of time I will not divulge examples. In the case of these distressed intellectuals, their intellectual pursuits are merely a means to solve or distract themselves from their problems.

To digress from that particular topic but by no means from your original post, you state that intellectual pursuits are an end in of themselves. I must point out that the intellect, curiosity, memory etc. are all faculties designed by evolution to aid in our survival and our specie’s ultimate immortality (we are necessarily organisms/systems designed with this goal, if we were not we would not exist!). In this sense the process of reason, discovery, etc. can never be ends in of themselves in the exact same way that eating, drinking, sleeping, sex, etc. can never be ends in of themselves either, even though the process may feel extremely pleasurable and thus an end in of itself. Happiness is just our mind and body’s way of telling us that we’re doing a dandy job of meeting that goal we were necessarily designed with. (Note: I suppose someone could turn the argument on its head and say that meeting this goal is the means and pleasure/happiness is the end, in which case the pleasure of exercising ones reasoning faculties is an end in of itself along with eating, sex, and other things of the like. But this would be a semantic distinction, i.e. the underlying concept expressed in this upside down argument is exactly the same but the words used in its expression are different) Thus, disregarding the note, education and knowledge are means to an end. Even matters of metaphysics that philosophers like to squabble over are merely here to inform our moral arguments.

I would also like to point out that if we all sat around and thought about stuff all day society and civilization would never get anywhere. In every age man has had to find a golden mean between work and play to preserve his sanity. I presume as technology progresses with time our posterities will be able to play more than us. The value of education is immense, but so is the value of food, water, cloths and a roof over your head.

@mal4mac If you had just been bitten by a rattlesnake would you rather listen to Mozart or a doctor?

P.S. I don’t see how your encomium praising the intellectual life answers your initial question, as there are clearly cases of people who lead the intellectual life but are not happy, not “rewarded,” which you do not address and do not provide an explanation as to why the intellectual life is not responsible for their unhappiness.

[coberst]

Common sense is a phrase that we use to communicate about that which most people will agree to be reality. Common sense reality is primarily “seeing is believing”. “Know is see” is a common metaphor that I suspect we might change to “know is smell” if we had any talking dogs.

One might say that ‘objectivity is our shared (common) subjectivity’. Common sense is reality, i.e. objective, because it is common.

Sophistication is a state of comprehension that goes beyond common sense. A sophisticated person is one who is deprived of naïve common sense simplicity to some degree. Our (American) educational system, K-12, provides us with a small degree of broad sophistication while our higher education system generally provides us with sophistication in a narrow specialty. Our educational system fails to prepare us to develop a broader degree of sophistication.

I conclude that we are bipartite creatures with a creative side and a mechanical side. I think that a very fortunate few of us find a way to make a living using our creative side. The Industrial Revolution has slowly diminished our creative self and has replaced it with our mechanical self.

We have slowly morphed into mechanical workers and this has resulted in an atrophying (wasting away) of our creative self. A major part of our life is spent in the work place and since this work place not only requires little creativity it often finds any form of creativity to hinder efficiency. What corporation wants its machines to set around thinking when ‘doing’ is the ‘game’?

A fortunate few keep their creative self on the job but I wonder if even those few tend to lose their creativity; often because the society has become individuals without creativity. Even those who are creative on the job have exchanged that creativity for objects (money). We all sell our time for money. I think the social sciences call this “equivalent values”.

Ours is a commodity economy that has morphed into a commodity society because our education, values, religion, politics, etc. have all become commodities (objects of commerce). We relate to one another as objects in which the exchange of things is the means for establishing the value of a person.

This is a dramatic change from what we started out as a nation. I think that comparing the rugged individual of the frontier and the family farmer of our origin might be a useful means for illuminating how different we are from our origins.

The rugged individual as farmer and as merchant and as social being, wherein each person was a jack-of-all-trades and master of no trade but master of her domain, might be compared with the herd of commodified creatures we have become. We have traded quality for quantity—perhaps this is a good trade but it needs to be understood and given careful consideration.

[mike thomas]

II dante said
"Finding stuff out was what gave him the greatest joy. Feynmann said that science tells us how, but it does not tell us why. But I think that knowing how is better than knowing nothing at all."

The fact is neither he, nor anyone else really knows anything. We kid ourselves that we know, but we just simply don't.

II dante also said
"Using logic/reason, we can construct an approximate image of the world, which is better than nothing; it is also better than appealing to magick. We can't be sure of ABSOLUTE truth, but we can at least get a rough idea of the way things are given certain basic assumptions."

But no matter how or by what means we try to understand or make sense of our surroundings, we really have no idea of what is what. We fool ouselves constantly from birth to death. Why is it better than appealing to magic? How do we know that the universe etc isn't the product of some kind of 'magical spell'.

Nothing is true nor is anything really certain. That's why anything goes in philosophy.

[Cunninglinguist]

How hypocritical is the man that says the only truth is that there are no truths? For any reasonable man truth is what is practial. Reason is better than magic because it is shown to produce better methods of acheiving happiness.

The man stuck in the existential crisis is miserable, and misery always loves company.

Our purose isnt to find abolute truth, it is to be happy. Therefore, once again, for any reasonable man truth is what is practical.

@coberst of course there is a great emphasis on our capitalist ideals in our country. But I am confident that over time this emphasis will diminish. Society will evolve into a system that produces less materialistic individuals, and it is dicussions like this that facilitate its evolution.

[dizzydoll]

How hypocritical is the man that says the only truth is that there are no truths? For any reasonable man truth is what is practial. Reason is better than magic because it is shown to produce better methods of acheiving happiness.

How can you say this? Yesterday the big bang was 'the truth', today after discovering more its 'the big bounce'. This means yesterday's truth didn't exist, much as I expect today's 'truth' doesn't exist either, as I have no doubt -- with new discoveries ahead -- that big bounce theory could just as well be replaced by 'yet another truth'. Until then: Big Bang is replaced by a Big Bounce (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week280.html)

Regarding reasonable men, your comment brought to mind this quote [can't recall who said it]:

Reasonable men adabt to the world around them,
unreasonable men adabt the world to suit themselves.
Progress always comes from unreasonable men.

On top of that none of us can determine what makes another happy. I know people who love money, power and privilege, it makes them happy. You can see it on their faces after they have made their daily loot. Without money they are unhappy, look no further than the 1920's depression to find out how many people jumped out of skyscrapers after they lost their silk shirts.

So this means no-one can determine what makes another happy. How many people are on earth today? I bet that's how many different forms of happiness you will find. If practicality works for you, so be it but that doesn't mean all people are practical. Life is a perception, not a reality.



@coberst of course there is a great emphasis on our capitalist ideals in our country. But I am confident that over time this emphasis will diminish. Society will evolve into a system that produces less materialistic individuals, and it is dicussions like this that facilitate its evolution.

Yet again I disagree with this premise. During the Industrial Era people worked long hours for next to nothing. Today in the Information Era, the world is moving at a tremendously fast pace and it all costs money. Information costs money, people have more of it today and technology brings more tomorrow. New technology is expensive, and there is always something new to buy and therefore something new to work towards. Our living conditions and health care are better now than they have ever been in history and society wants more.

Those who don't have the money to pay for this technology will be left behind, plain and simple, and its those individuals who don't have it who will be most unhappy in the long run. For those who don't prepare financially to live to a much older age, they will suffer, I believe its in this area that the education system is failing to prepare its pupils worldwide. No good complaining about it, it's a fact of life.

To expect capitalist ideals to diminish is naive. People will never become non-materialistic only their values might change, to perhaps place something else above materialism, but even then it will not eliminate materialism in itself.

I am always amazed at how society speaks about evolution as if 'they' are the god's who determine it. No-one on earth knows what 'the ultimate truth' is and I'm under the impression that our humanity is only at the very early stages of its evolution. This means we know precious little and if we had the capability to view our position 200 years from now, we would clearly see just how little we know at this present moment in time.

Coming back to peace of mind. Peace of mind is knowing you can pay your bills today and tomorrow -- now that's living a practical life. Its got nothing to do with intellectual ability. Please don't see my response as a personal attack, it's not intended that way, we simply agree to disagree.

P.S. Of topic, but relative. I am not a money-hungry vixen that my post may seem to imply, but I can see the practicalities of handling ones finances efficiently to provide a dignified life in old age. Money is a serious topic and no-one wants to discuss it, preferring to live in denial instead. Well, there is only one thing that could be worse than delusion and that has to be living in denial. I would urge all young people to begin learning as much as they can about money right now, and where to invest it into solid companies, but still I caution you as most agents only work for their commission when advising you on money matters -- they might not recommend or even know the best companies to invest your future into.
Make it your business to find out! Oh, an afterthought, NEVER put all your eggs into one basket!

I might not be as educated as y'all but I definitely have common sense.

http://serve.mysmiley.net/rolleye/rolleye0012.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net)

[blazeofglory]

How hypocritical is the man that says the only truth is that there are no truths? For any reasonable man truth is what is practial. Reason is better than magic because it is shown to produce better methods of acheiving happiness.

The man stuck in the existential crisis is miserable, and misery always loves company.

Our purose isnt to find abolute truth, it is to be happy. Therefore, once again, for any reasonable man truth is what is practical.

@coberst of course there is a great emphasis on our capitalist ideals in our country. But I am confident that over time this emphasis will diminish. Society will evolve into a system that produces less materialistic individuals, and it is dicussions like this that facilitate its evolution.

Is not truth and happiness is a mismatching domain? They are mutually disagreeing. Truths at times become unpalatable, bitter and make us unhappy and yet we have to accept them. We at times delude ourselves in a world of illusive imaginations and once we wake up to truth we realized that what we call happiness was not the real one. King Oedipus was a happy king and the truth unfolded once he realized that his happiness was accursed