It's like we desire transcendence, but that desire manifests itself in us as a never ending cycle of constantly trying to improve, and hold on to what we've already got, never realizing that there's really no end game, and that if there was, we probably wouldn't want it. — I don't get it
Things such as air, food, water, shelter, family, friends, praise, affection, acceptance, status, career, land, possesions, not to mention all the personal goals and projects one might be interested in achieving or completing. — I don't get it
Subjective well-being might be largely determined by genetics; that is, happiness may be a heritable trait. — Wikipedia
If you feel like your life can't be better, you become depressed. — I don't get it
If you feel like your life can be better, you can't rest until you improve it. — I don't get it
Is life even worth living in light of this view? — I don't get it
Krishnamurti develops the ideas you have expressed rather well.
You've lumped all these ideas in together and they are not necessarily connected at all. Perspective.
Many people I know have almost no interest in material things other than what is necessary. This is of course an inexact idea but that doesn't make it hard to live by.
The problem I have with this natural tendency, is that it appears to be totally insatiable. — I don't get it
Most of the men I have known like sex and pursue it enthusiastically. What they do not do is spend more and more time obtaining more and more sex. The amount of sex they want (and get) tends to reach a plateau and stay there. Why? Because enough is enough--literally
Hope I clarified things a bit. — I don't get it
that doesn't change the fact that it is a process with no end. — I don't get it
Sorry, Man, no. I rarely see this happening. Except where people are unhappy or have a mental illness.
Still think you need to separate out those things you have described which are necessary for life to exist - food, water, shelter, air.
See what happening? People getting burned out? People feeling loss more than gain? That's all pretty basic human psychology if you ask me. — I don't get it
They still long for things, and experience loss in life. — I don't get it
Or have I just created a false dilemma, a non-problem? — I don't get it
It's not an accident that our entire economy depends on people buying crap they don't need. It's a deliberate plan. — fishfry
I'm not trying to be an asshole, — I don't get it
I just really have had this thought that things are screwed no matter what lie heavy on my head recently. — I don't get it
Yeah, but my question was about how best to live one's life with the knowledge that things are bad either way. — I don't get it
how does one live in the face of this knowledge? Is life even worth living in light of this view? — I don't get it
you are somehow wrong. Everything is not related to this tangible things.Things such as air, food, water, shelter, family, friends, praise, affection, acceptance, status, career, land, possesions,
You have created a non-problem.So, my question is, how does one live in the face of this knowledge? Is life even worth living in light of this view? Or have I just created a false dilemma, a non-problem? — I don't get it
In Early Buddhism, such an insight is a starting point for the quest for the end of suffering.So, my question is, how does one live in the face of this knowledge? Is life even worth living in light of this view? Or have I just created a false dilemma, a non-problem? — I don't get it
But was it ever meant to offer guidance?Then it seems like this is pretty much only saying "those that are already happy will be happy, and those that are not will not." That doesn't really offer much guidance. — I don't get it
Sure, but this misses the point. The point is that one keeps having desires. Once one desire is satisfied, another one comes up. One satisfies the desire for food, and the desire for sex comes up; satisfying that, the desire for fine art comes up. And so on, so endlessly on. This is where the problem is.Of course, and obviously: our needs and wants are satiable, and are regularly satiated. There are outliers whose only response to desire is MORE. They are both outliers and abnormal. Most of the men I have known like sex and pursue it enthusiastically. What they do not do is spend more and more time obtaining more and more sex. The amount of sex they want (and get) tends to reach a plateau and stay there. Why? Because enough is enough--literally.
/.../
Moderation is actually necessary to maintain pleasure. If one drank only the finest and rarest of whisky in quantity (as much as one could drink) it would no longer be a pleasure. One would be too drunk to care what one was drinking, and one's taste would become jaded. — Bitter Crank
the desire for sex comes up; satisfying that, the desire for fine art comes up — baker
Jesus. One desire follows another. The selection and order are not universal. After sex, some people want to smoke a cigarette, some want to collect fancy sports cars and others collect garden gnomes, or whatever. The point is, they keep desiring things after they have satisfied one desire.Personally, I haven't found that a desire for fine art follows sexual satisfaction. A cigarette, maybe, but please, no fine art in the bedroom. — Bitter Crank
It's not like people typically become desireless. They just stop desiring the things they already have (now that they've obtained them), and they desire other things. "Things" here means very broadly -- from material things like clothes and food to less material things like a successul career or reputation.Are you sure the insatiable-and-ever-rising-desire model is valid? Left to our own devices, I think most people would be reasonably satisfied once their broadly-defined basic needs are met.
And it works precisely because we operate by the insatiable-and-ever-rising-desire model.We, though, are NOT left to our own devices. For at least the last 100 years, retailers and manufacturers of all sorts have been using an array of communication methods to entice us into continually desiring more and "better".
You want to argue they were desireless?The amount of consumption that occurred in most households began to rise sometime in the late 19th / early 20th century. Why, in 1915, was a house with 850 square feet of floor space considered adequate for 2 adults and perhaps 1 child? It was adequate because people didn't buy so much stuff!
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.