It’s easy to shun earthly possessions. All ya gotta do is die, which a total lack of earthly possessions generally leads to anyway.
Agnes’ confusion is caused by a belief that humans are beings of separate body and soul, as if they can exist apart. There are many terrible consequences of such a view, including suicide bombers in the name of one ancient holy book or another.
Sorry to get so grim as the first commentor, but ideas have consequences for individuals and entire cultures, and today’s strip puts some of the most damaging ideas right before us.
The key is in differentiating between wants and needs; “Man cannot live by bread alone”, but he can’t live without it, either.
I don’t personally believe in an “immortal soul”, but my “self” is not simply my material substance. “I am” my mind, not my body, and peace of mind/contentment has little to do with absolute conditions (again, provided that certain necessities for survival are met).
Judging the worth of your life by your material possessions, “Whoever dies with the most toys, WINS” is a poor way to achieve any sort of satisfaction, because there will always be someone else with more, and there will always be new toys that you “must” chase after.
Enjoy what you have to the fullest, but it’s all transitory, and at any moment you might lose everything. Simply deciding that you can live happily without what you wouldn’t have gotten anyway isn’t the same as “sour grapes”…
I must correct Fritzoid on one crucial point: He/She IS his/her mind AND body. Mind exists only as long as the body continues its myriad processes at every scale, from making a living down to the oxidization of glucose in brain cells. Only death death separates them, like a candle flame going out. The candle remains but the flame has simply ceased to be.
As for wants versus needs, this is a distinction we don’t need and shouldn’t want. Do you NEED happiness? Do you NEED love? Do you NEED health? Do you NEED a roof over your head?
To imply that needs are OK but there is something wrong with wants is to reject progress, success, and prosperity and ultimately the best in human life. “Less is more” only applies to Bauhaus architects.
We’ll never agree on this pschearer, but I stand by my argument at all points. Needs can be met, and any individual wants might likewise be met, but wanting as a way of life is a cycle that spins out of control so easily. Unless you can get enjoyment from what you already have, then it’s unlikely that you’ll be happy when you reach whatever carrot you’re chasing at the moment.
As I said, contentment has little or nothing to do with absolute conditions. “A loaf of bread, a jug of wine, and thou beside me…” is as good a recipe for an enjoyable evening, week, year as speeding between luxury casinos in next year’s Ferrari.
Yeah, you need a certain standard of health, or you will die, You need a certain amount of shelter, or you will die. Do you need happiness? Well, it’s certainly better to have it than not, and in fact my personal philosophy is to maximize happiness to the best of my ability, but what we’re talking about is “How is happiness defined?” as much as “How is happiness to be attained?” If you’ve ever spent time with a three-legged dog, you know that they’re pretty much as happy as any four-legged dog. Happiness is a state of mind, and you have more personal control over how you experience your worldly conditions than you do over the conditions themselves. Even people with debilitating illnesses and chronic pain can be happy, and I’m certainly not suggesting that people seek out illness and injury as a path to contentment.
There’s nothing wrong with setting goals. But have the sense to recognize when you’ve met them, and don’t make your prospect of happiness depend on meeting them, because circumstances beyond your control may keep them forever out of reach.
It’s not so much your “stuff” per se that impedes contentment, it’s your attachment to your “stuff”. How much aggravation are you willing to put yourself to to get more “stuff”? How much will you suffer if you lose your “stuff”, and how much energy do you spend worrying that you might lose it? How much enjoyment do you actually get out of your “stuff”? Is it so little that you constantly feel you need more? It’s probably not the “stuff” that’s causing your discontent, it’s YOU.
The modern conveniences that consumer society provides are exactly that - conveniences, not necessities. Yeah, I have a cell phone and a home computer. But I got along fine without them for many many years, and I could get along without them again.
pschearer Premium Member over 14 years ago
It’s easy to shun earthly possessions. All ya gotta do is die, which a total lack of earthly possessions generally leads to anyway.
Agnes’ confusion is caused by a belief that humans are beings of separate body and soul, as if they can exist apart. There are many terrible consequences of such a view, including suicide bombers in the name of one ancient holy book or another.
Sorry to get so grim as the first commentor, but ideas have consequences for individuals and entire cultures, and today’s strip puts some of the most damaging ideas right before us.
MisngNOLA over 14 years ago
I think Aesop put it more succinctly with the “sour grapes” fable.
fritzoid Premium Member over 14 years ago
The key is in differentiating between wants and needs; “Man cannot live by bread alone”, but he can’t live without it, either.
I don’t personally believe in an “immortal soul”, but my “self” is not simply my material substance. “I am” my mind, not my body, and peace of mind/contentment has little to do with absolute conditions (again, provided that certain necessities for survival are met).
Judging the worth of your life by your material possessions, “Whoever dies with the most toys, WINS” is a poor way to achieve any sort of satisfaction, because there will always be someone else with more, and there will always be new toys that you “must” chase after.
Enjoy what you have to the fullest, but it’s all transitory, and at any moment you might lose everything. Simply deciding that you can live happily without what you wouldn’t have gotten anyway isn’t the same as “sour grapes”…
SherriannPederson over 14 years ago
..’Finding yourself can take a great deal of soul searching..’
pschearer Premium Member over 14 years ago
I must correct Fritzoid on one crucial point: He/She IS his/her mind AND body. Mind exists only as long as the body continues its myriad processes at every scale, from making a living down to the oxidization of glucose in brain cells. Only death death separates them, like a candle flame going out. The candle remains but the flame has simply ceased to be.
As for wants versus needs, this is a distinction we don’t need and shouldn’t want. Do you NEED happiness? Do you NEED love? Do you NEED health? Do you NEED a roof over your head?
To imply that needs are OK but there is something wrong with wants is to reject progress, success, and prosperity and ultimately the best in human life. “Less is more” only applies to Bauhaus architects.
fritzoid Premium Member over 14 years ago
We’ll never agree on this pschearer, but I stand by my argument at all points. Needs can be met, and any individual wants might likewise be met, but wanting as a way of life is a cycle that spins out of control so easily. Unless you can get enjoyment from what you already have, then it’s unlikely that you’ll be happy when you reach whatever carrot you’re chasing at the moment.
As I said, contentment has little or nothing to do with absolute conditions. “A loaf of bread, a jug of wine, and thou beside me…” is as good a recipe for an enjoyable evening, week, year as speeding between luxury casinos in next year’s Ferrari.
Yeah, you need a certain standard of health, or you will die, You need a certain amount of shelter, or you will die. Do you need happiness? Well, it’s certainly better to have it than not, and in fact my personal philosophy is to maximize happiness to the best of my ability, but what we’re talking about is “How is happiness defined?” as much as “How is happiness to be attained?” If you’ve ever spent time with a three-legged dog, you know that they’re pretty much as happy as any four-legged dog. Happiness is a state of mind, and you have more personal control over how you experience your worldly conditions than you do over the conditions themselves. Even people with debilitating illnesses and chronic pain can be happy, and I’m certainly not suggesting that people seek out illness and injury as a path to contentment.
There’s nothing wrong with setting goals. But have the sense to recognize when you’ve met them, and don’t make your prospect of happiness depend on meeting them, because circumstances beyond your control may keep them forever out of reach.
It’s not so much your “stuff” per se that impedes contentment, it’s your attachment to your “stuff”. How much aggravation are you willing to put yourself to to get more “stuff”? How much will you suffer if you lose your “stuff”, and how much energy do you spend worrying that you might lose it? How much enjoyment do you actually get out of your “stuff”? Is it so little that you constantly feel you need more? It’s probably not the “stuff” that’s causing your discontent, it’s YOU.
The modern conveniences that consumer society provides are exactly that - conveniences, not necessities. Yeah, I have a cell phone and a home computer. But I got along fine without them for many many years, and I could get along without them again.
pschearer Premium Member over 14 years ago
Fritzoid is right on one thing: We’ll never agree on this.
MisngNOLA over 14 years ago
My “sour grapes” comment was specifically directed towards Agnes’ situation, not all of mankind’s. There, I cleared that up nicely, didn’t I?