Everything I do is designed to make my life easy in some ways.
A good life is a mix of the two. Technically, the hardest life would be living in a shithole in Durfur and dying of tuberculosis at age 3 but I don’t think that’s what anyone wants. On the other hand, life like the fat pigs abord the starship Axiom in “Wall-E” doesn’t look fulfilling, either.
Life should be made of tough challenges that yield big results. Goign through BasicTraining was hard but I’m so glad I did it; it gave me opportunities, let me make great friends, gave me life skills. University was hard, but it gave me an education and opportunities to make lots of money. Raising a kid is very tiring but the rewards are wonderful beyond measure.
Define “better”, as in “what are the desired results that make one idea ‘better’ than the other?”
You can live a hardscrabble life and end up a worthless, bitter, ignorant mass of hatred and fear. You can live the life of luxury and end up like Paris Hilton. Is either really ‘better’, other than that Paris is probably enjoying herself more than the guy with the hard luck?
So please define the “better”, and you’ll get better answers.
I think that either you are misrepresenting the book, or this “professional” has no clue what he’s talking about. I require something a lot stronger than second hand claims about a book I’ve never read by I guy I’ve never heard of before I disregard the observed behavior of so many people who have suffered and NOT gotten better from it. Frankly, it sounds rather suspiciously self serving; after all, if people improve by suffering, you can ignore their misery or even add to it and feel virtuous.
The Bible is a stronger source than a second hand story about claims made in an unknown author’s book? There are scores of hands, fantastical if not downright unbelievable claims about some guy who in strong probability lived two thousand years ago. At least the book he was talking about is current.
It is what it is. Some lives seem easy, some lives don’t. Mine, for instance, has been mostly easy with a couple of terrible, terrible hard things in it. I don’t think those terrible things have “made me what I am today” and I am most definitely not grateful for them. I do admit to a certain satisfaction that I was able to cope with the terrible things - but really nothing in my life had “prepared” me for it. I was lucky to be born tough, I suppose. Can’t take the credit and have no entity to thank.
And I agree with your other point, too, that we want to hear how someone has overcome some horrible thing, because that makes it less our problem when horrible things happen. If suffering is good for the soul, why, who am I to interfere with your soul-improving lot?
I think there’s a survivor bias at work here. We hear about and admire those who become better people by being forced to overcome great adversity. But not everyone faced with great adversity triumphs; many people are just weakened or broken. For every Abraham Lincoln who overcame a lack of public schooling by learning to educate himself, there were hundreds of people who just remained uneducated dirt farmers. For every Franklin Roosevelt who overcame polio, there were hundreds of people who spent the rest of their lives bedridden. For every Barack Obama who overcomes racism and growing up in a single parent home, there are hundreds of people who spend their lives in a ghetto. It’s great that some people have the strength and moral character to succeed against long odds. But we need to realize that most people don’t have that extraordinary strenth and moral character but they might have succeeded in better circumstances.
It is neither one. It is how you react to your life circumstances. Some born wealthy are able to be good and reasonable people. Then there is Paris Hilton.
Some poor people spend a lifetime trying to help others who share their problems. Many poor people spend time working in shelters and helping the people they share life with. Others think being poor justifies being a junkie or a thief.
I don’t know about that. The guy with the easy life can spend his time learning about whatever he wants or pursuing whatever hobbies he wants. The guy with the hard life is just trying to survive. I’d say the more"interesting" life to live is the one that’s more intellectually stimulating.
Easy, here. In fact, if I were given a button that I could push to permanently eliminate the idea that “suffering builds character” from the minds of every present and future human being, I’d do it. In a second.
Sophie Tucker said" I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor. Rich is better". I think she is right. When you don’t have to worry about losing your home or where your next meal is coming from’ it has to be better. Those worries stay with you every waking moment.
I agree with you. And yet, I was listening to the radio the other day and the dj had one of those “news of the weird” moments, you know the kind where they talk about some odd news item? The story was about some woman, no idea who she was, who was receiving $40,000 per month from her ex husband in alimony or child support–I don’t remember which–and she was claiming that she couldn’t live on $40,000 a month. The dj was snide and sarcastic about it, and obviously the woman is a fool if she thinks that’s not enough money to survive on. She gets in a couple of months what I make in a year and I survive. She gets in a single month what a lot of people make in a year and they survive. Heck, when I first got married I was making $18,000 a year and my husband’s medical bills were more than that.
But that woman, she’s convinced that her life depends on that much money. I can’t even imagine being that chained to money. And yet we all increase our expectations right along with our incomes until $40,000 a month is our just deserts and we can’t be happy without it and more.
There’s a middle ground. I hope there’s a middle ground!
The Bible is a collection of myths, many physically impossible, created by ignorant barbarians, and taken far too seriously by modern day fools. It deserves to be “dissed”, as do its followers. I don’t see what that even has to do with this conversation - I’m certainly not claiming the author of this other book is a Bronze Age barbarian, nor have I said that his supposed claims violate the laws of physics.
You’ve apparently confused yourself with Der Trihs.
But you haven’t read it. You are spouting second-hand claims about a book you’ve never read, which is exactly what you condemned. Thus:
I require something a lot stronger than second hand claims about a book I’ve never read by I guy I’ve never heard of before I disregard the observed behavior of so many people who have suffered and NOT gotten better from it. — You
Isn’t that a bit creepy on your part? I mean, frequenting a message board where you argue with people you don’t respect? I certainly find it creepy. I engage you only because I keep hoping that something — anything — might eventually come out of one of your posts that is something besides an expression of hatred and bigotry. But as time wears on, that hope is evaporating.
Yeah, I’m supposed to rush out and read the book in a few hours so I can respond to a messageboard. :rolleyes: Since when has been throwing out book titles been considered a serious argument ?
Nor did I simply “condemn the book”; I said that I thought that either the book was wrong, or it was being misrepresented.
And I still don’t get what the Bible has to do with it.
Am I supposed to lock myself in a box ? There are people I don’t respect EVERYWHERE.
Despising religion isn’t “bigotry” any more than despising racism or sexism is bigotry.
And I thought talking to people you don’t respect was “creepy”. Doesn’t that make you “creepy” then ?