Philosophy, peace, and happiness.

Life is boring and disappointing when you rely on the intellectual capabilities of a randomly-sampled large number of human beings.

One question that remains unanswered, however, is how should one accept one’s own limitations?

If I, for example, am frustrated at the ignorance and apathy of others, what does that say about my own ignorance and apathy?

I suppose that the nature of individualism comes into play, and I must say that I accept my own ignorance and apathy as a human being with individual desires, and, therefore, must accept the fact that others have that same volition.

However, if the volition of other human beings is of such a nature that it causes repulsion on my part, of course, I accept that other human beings will react with disgust to my own volition.

Therefore, what does this mean about conflicting volition of respective human beings?

What does this mean for comprehension of truth? And what does this mean for apathy?

First and foremost, I would have to say that any conclusions involving any amount of perfection must be eliminated. To say that there is a “perfect” balance of tolerance and stubbornness is to tell a lie. There is no “perfect” balance of such. Therefore, is there a “best” balance? How much “tolerance” and “stubbornness” must be had by individuals to maximize whatever the end goal is? And what is the end goal? No doubt, I would say peace and happiness. Therefore, what are the maximum amounts of “tolerance” and “stubbornness” to maximize, say, peace? Peace implies happiness: one cannot be peaceful and be unhappy. The opposite of peace is unrest, and one cannot be happy while one is restless. This is implied by the meanings of the words; or “verbal logic“. Therefore, what maximizes happiness? Given the large amounts of conflict, what maximizes happiness when people are angry at others? If one wants to eliminate conflict altogether (a complete impossibility evidenced by the simple fact that this would mean that all human beings must have the exact same desires, or would have to have infinite patience, which is a human impossibility), then one must find a way to make the volition of all human beings the same. And there are people who try to do such a thing, by trying to teach other people that which they themselves hold dear. And, quite often, it falls upon deaf ears, because of the volition of the individual listeners, who may just not be interested in such a thing. So what does this ultimately mean? Of course, one conclusion is that human beings are simply diverse. But is that a bad thing? Is it a bad thing if not all human beings become, say, doctors? What determines who becomes an entertainer, or who becomes a doctor? Who creates functional material products, and who fixes them? Who molds the minds of children, and who simplifies labor processes with technological machinery? And what does that mean for how many people become specific things, and how that benefits individuals, and how many individuals it benefits?

In other words, what does this mean for the maximizing of happiness for humanity?

I suppose that I much accept the axiomatic given: that individual tastes cannot and will not be absolutely uniform, because of human nature. I am not implying any other value judgments upon this fact: I am merely saying that it is a given, and will neither say that it is a “good” thing or a “bad” thing, because I could not provide sufficient evidence either way (to suit my own desires to be in-depth and objective) and would have to rely upon a vague cliche which never satisfies my desire for absolute completeness and thoroughness…

However, I will have to say that I must conclude this enigma by accepting that the volition among human beings is naturally diverse by the nature of being a human being; that I must accept the fact that my constitution may be opposed to the volition of others; that, by nature, the constitutions of some others must be opposed to my own volition; and that any such standard based on perfection where absolute peace is completely achieved throughout the duration of man’s existence upon earth is doomed for failure, deduced from the understanding that humans are not perfect (that which is not perfect can never be perfect, because if something could be perfect, it already would be perfect, as that in and of itself would be “perfect”, and thus, would already exist…) and, therefore, attempting to obtain any such perfect standard is contrary to human nature, and can only lead to decreased peace and happiness



Voluntarism and Capitalism.

A Philosopher’s Mind.


1 thought on “Philosophy, peace, and happiness.

  1. Pingback: A “black and white”, “absolute”, “axiomatic” (or, if you want to use “synonyms”, “bigoted”, “racist”, “sexist”, “oppressive”, “patriarchical”) trut

Don't make an ass of yourself for the whole internet to see. No pressure ;)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s