Luis Teran (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} lost1nplace) wrote,@ 2006-11-20 16:27:00 |
|
Phil 115: Entry 14
"It is not good to be too free.
It is not good to have all one needs."
Pascal hits a chord within us that makes us agree with his rendering of the human condition. The 'wretchedness' as he calls it, is the nature to be consistently inconsistent. While the soul is a complex thing to undersatand, one thing is definitely clear across his writing; he is against excessive experiences (well, except maybe his..) and he conveys so in such simple lines.
It's a matter of intuition that too much freedom and too much of anything is not good for the soul. Give one total freedom and they will become directionless; give one all that they need and they will implode on themselves, because life without adversity has no merit to it. What is there to fight for when life gives us no opponent to take on? Having said that, one consistency in man that arises from the unhappiness excess brings is the need for a fight.
While people say they much prefer life to be handed to them on a platter, the truth is quite the contrary. We all complain about the hardships of life, but we'd rather fight for what we want than to have it given on a whim. Do we value our first car the same way if we worked for it ourselves or not? The prospect of challenge that we experience in our every day life makes things worth chasging, worth wanting, and the opposite is true as well. If life really were a cakewalk, then eventually the fun really is over, and the taste is never quite as good again. Going from one peak to the opposite never fulfills anything, as one side of the spectrum is always left untouched.
"It is not good to be too free.
It is not good to have all one needs."
Pascal hits a chord within us that makes us agree with his rendering of the human condition. The 'wretchedness' as he calls it, is the nature to be consistently inconsistent. While the soul is a complex thing to undersatand, one thing is definitely clear across his writing; he is against excessive experiences (well, except maybe his..) and he conveys so in such simple lines.
It's a matter of intuition that too much freedom and too much of anything is not good for the soul. Give one total freedom and they will become directionless; give one all that they need and they will implode on themselves, because life without adversity has no merit to it. What is there to fight for when life gives us no opponent to take on? Having said that, one consistency in man that arises from the unhappiness excess brings is the need for a fight.
While people say they much prefer life to be handed to them on a platter, the truth is quite the contrary. We all complain about the hardships of life, but we'd rather fight for what we want than to have it given on a whim. Do we value our first car the same way if we worked for it ourselves or not? The prospect of challenge that we experience in our every day life makes things worth chasging, worth wanting, and the opposite is true as well. If life really were a cakewalk, then eventually the fun really is over, and the taste is never quite as good again. Going from one peak to the opposite never fulfills anything, as one side of the spectrum is always left untouched.
