I find it
difficult to talk about the Good Life, let alone discuss my arbitrary views on
it. Similarly put forth by Aristotle[1],
I’m feeling a reluctance to discuss such a worldly applicable matter due to a
lack of worldly experience, and a lack of life experience. I’m not just saying
that out of sheer respect for the philosopher, or for any other people who have
lived twice the length that I have, but I feel it is the truth. Looking at it
from a biological perspective, when one begins to conduct an experiment, there
are many things that must be taken into consideration. There must be an
acknowledgment of the variables, and there must be a sample size of a
sufficient amount to yield results that make the original hypothesis plausible
and agreeable. Likewise, having only lived sixteen years, about 8 of which are
able to be recalled, I feel as if such a sample size lacks the sufficiency to
allow for any credible reading material.
The Good
Life, evidently, is an individual subject matter. One may be wealthy, healthy,
but unhappy on the inside, masking it with different shades of joviality.
Someone who is worse off would look at him and say, “now that is a good life!”.
But an outsider doesn’t see all, an outsider doesn’t see everything, sometimes
the individual doesn’t see everything, but that is what makes us only human,
and nothing more. The unhappy man thinks to himself in the meantime, “what life
is this, this is not a good life. I have money, I have my health, but I am
alone in a loveless marriage, I own a company that profits off victims of
society. I feel dirty.” Of course, this is purely hypothetical, but it brings
out an important aspect that must be considered in the discussion of the “Good
Life”; the good life is not a universal standard; the good life is purely
arbitrary and subjective.
No comments:
Post a Comment