Maverick Philosopher

Nihil philosophicum a me alienum puto

To promote independent thought about ultimates. Philosophy, commentary on the passing scene, and whatever else turns my crank. Since 4 May 2004. By William F. Vallicella, Ph.D., Gold Canyon, Arizona, USA. Motto: "Study everything, join nothing." (Paul Brunton) Latin Motto: Omnia mea mecum porto. Turkish motto: Yol bilen kervana katilmaz. (He who knows the road does not join the caravan.) All material copyrighted.

Life is Hard

Even if your life is easy physically, economically, psychologically, and socially, it is bound to be difficult ethically, religiously, and philosophically. Having solved the lower problems, the higher problems loom.

The higher his problems, the higher the man.

Posted by William F. Vallicella on Thursday July 10, 2008 at 1:59pm
Vlastimil Vohánka (mail) (www):
"Having solved the lower problems, the high problems loom."

Yes, so it seems to me, too. Isn't generally the level of hardness (and of happiness) approximately the same regardless of physical, economical, psychological and social differences in periods of one's life, historical periods or geographical areas? Are we more/less happy than 15 years ago/our ancestors/people in the Third World? I suppose there are some relevant shifts, but the prickles always remain. "All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing." (Ecclesiastes 1:8)
7.14.2008 4:06am
Court (mail):
This is why we read Schopenhauer, is it not?

From my nook of the Third World, it appears to me as though people are madly scrambling to climb the ladder of discontent, leading one to wonder if they were really the happy-go-lucky peasants they once appeared to be.
7.14.2008 5:20pm
Account:
Password:
Remember info?
1. Leaving comments is a privilege, not a right. The site administrator is under no obligation to accept comments at all, let alone from any particular person. And to underscore the obvious: nothing in the nature of a weblog requires that it accept comments from readers.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.