honestly, the self-help gurus that i've seen who evince the idea that "life is wonderful" have usually been specialists, and as such associate and work within fields that they are more often than not passionate about (fachidiots). but, as someone who doesn't fit this bill, i have seen my fair share of individuals not content with their occupations, but merely satisfied in other aspects of their life, which they conflate with overall contentment; and sure, that reveals some complications in the nature of self-report, and their happiness isn't trumped by specialists who, with all else equal, differ only in their passion, but i wonder if any declarative form of happiness simply exists to cope with not meeting their expectations, which we are forcibly subject to as individuals within society.
because it seems to me far more common for an individual to be content in his relationship, despite working a job that he dislikes. my parents were met with misfortune early in their marriage, so they essentially had to scrounge up enough to live and work their way back up from scratch. now my dad works 7 days a week in order to save up for retirement. if i asked them, i'm sure they would consider themselves privileged when compared to others. but can satisfaction in one area negate dissatisfaction in others? is that a 'good' life, or just a life in which one has to scrounge on morsels of pleasure in order to survive? no doubt, my dad, as subject to the bourgeois rat race, would claim that he's lucky only so that, in comparing himself to others, he can take pride in what he's built for himself. i find this to be honourable, but i am still always a little saddened when i think about it. we can't escape socially inherited definitions of happiness. is society really so selective in who can live a good life? are those who are average or below simply cast aside?
because it seems to me far more common for an individual to be content in his relationship, despite working a job that he dislikes. my parents were met with misfortune early in their marriage, so they essentially had to scrounge up enough to live and work their way back up from scratch. now my dad works 7 days a week in order to save up for retirement. if i asked them, i'm sure they would consider themselves privileged when compared to others. but can satisfaction in one area negate dissatisfaction in others? is that a 'good' life, or just a life in which one has to scrounge on morsels of pleasure in order to survive? no doubt, my dad, as subject to the bourgeois rat race, would claim that he's lucky only so that, in comparing himself to others, he can take pride in what he's built for himself. i find this to be honourable, but i am still always a little saddened when i think about it. we can't escape socially inherited definitions of happiness. is society really so selective in who can live a good life? are those who are average or below simply cast aside?
