Pick anybody real who you consider a sage. Were they always so wise? Of course, not. How could they have been? Who would have wisdomous insights into life and people without having lived much, like they wouldn’t have done when they were young, or even a child if they became wise even in their youth. No sage starts out as one. Now, in that regard, here are some fun thought exercises to try. What stupid things would these sages have engaged in in their lives before they became sages? And at what point would they have become sages? It’s not like they weren’t a sage one day, and a sage the next, so “point” would probably be a time span over which time more and more people considered them wise, rather than a moment in time.
Author: Digital Citizen
Peace of mind is the breather to feeling alive
I’ve heard happiness described in a lot of ways, with two dominating. One is feeling alive, while the other is having peace of mind. I definitely do understand both. One is euphoria, flow state, and similar exaltations, while the other is being satisfied with how everything is in the moment so that you’re not wanting more. The former is not sustainable, though, even if that feeling alive state can be far longer than brief bursts or moments of joy. And if one felt joy all the time, the joy would either become the norm, or one would be chasing more joyous joys all the time, and that can’t be 100% happiness. The latter, meanwhile, seems to be a calm and neutral state that lacks the joyous aspect of happiness that is a natural high to humans. Besides, life would get pretty boring pretty quickly if one were always satisfied with everything, even if satisfaction was mere acceptance, and never being able to exhibit desire that is a pretty human quality. However, the two can complement each other, which is what I am positing. Have and chase all the goals you want that will make you feel alive. But when you’re not doing that, try to find the peace of mind required to let you accept everything the way they are, until you’re able to feel alive again.
Be biased about people over money
Do I really need to expound on this? Of course, I do. How many people and instances do you know where they should know this but don’t listen to it or abide by it? But, of course, I don’t need to expound no this. It’s not like some form of this hasn’t been said before. Many times. Many ways. Many cultures. Me saying it in my own way isn’t going to make a difference with all that history. There’s nothing revolutionary or ear opening about the way I’m saying this. If lots of people haven’t listened before, they won’t listen now because of the way I’ve said this. They also won’t listen in the future, to this or any similar form of it. But it is nice to have my own mantra about it that’s tidier than similar advice, maxims, proverbs, and such that I have heard.
Choice is the burden of freedom
Almost everybody wants choice. Autonomy is considered one of three legs of a stool in one model of happiness, and is generally considered to be good for happiness. Yet, when you give people lots of choices, lots of people can’t decide. Or they often make a decision and become unhappy about not taking a different option later. And if the situation allows for it, they make poorly thought out decisions, regret it or just move on like it was a meaningless choice, and just take another option in endless cycles like fast fashion. Then, when some think hard about their decisions among many choices, they end up with analysis paralysis, of which the more serious kind can lead to emotion breakdowns or worse outcomes for their lives and health. But even when there is little consequence, the fact you have to make a decision, even the lightest of decision, is a burden like a duty you have to perform. So regardless of decision magnitude or difficulty, choice is a burden of freedom. I used to also think choice was a responsibility of freedom, but soon realized that a lot of people get away with poor choices and/or don’t accept responsibility for them, even when they can’t get away with it, so I removed the responsibility aspect of my views on choice and freedom.
Humanity can live without war, but we prefer not to
War is, of course, unnecessary. So what percentage of time in recorded history would you expect there to have been no war, if war was defined as a conflict claiming at least 1000 lives? Just 8% or 268 years in 3400 years of recorded history, according to a New York Times article in 2003. You can make that 268 years out of 3422 years as of 2025. That data suggests that to war is at least as human as to err. But if that’s not convincing enough, consider the popular, fictional Star Trek series of as realistically rosy a future as the 60s hippie could envision. Humanity has solved all of its unnecessary, universal problems like hunger and war. So what do we do? We go to war with aliens like the Klingons and Romulans! Of course, we didn’t start these wars, and we are only forced to engage in them, as we supposedly are wiser than that. However, I’m not convinced that if we were so wise, we wouldn’t be able to convince other intelligent species of the futility of war. It seems we can’t exist without war as a species, at least not for long from the suffering peace causes to some. Besides, how good a show would Star Trek be without its wars?
Digital Citizen 