Was there no other way besides unhappiness available for us at that moment?

Was there no other way besides unhappiness available for us at that moment?


How do we know what’s really possible for us at any given time? How can we possibly know in advance? Does anything ever turn out the way you thought it would when you were younger? When you were planning your future as a child, did any of the things that actually happened match up with what you had imagined they might be like? How could they have possibly matched up when there are so many possible futures of which only one is chosen to become reality and there was no way for me to see into your future to know what it would contain or how much unhappiness or joy it might hold for you (or me)? Why should I expect that my life will turn out differently from yours just because our lives are different now than when we were children and making plans about our adult lives together in the present moment? And yet I do expect this. Is this why I am unhappy now (with my life) because I don’t believe that things will change or get better soon even though there isn’t necessarily any logical reason why they couldn’t if enough effort is put forth into changing them (and therefore no logical reason why they should)? Or am I simply being childish in expecting that my life shouldn’t have contained as much unhappiness as it has thus far, instead of accepting the fact that all human lives contain some amount of pain and struggle and trying to find meaning in the happinesses instead?


How do we know what choices are available to us at any given moment unless we choose one of them without knowing whether another choice might lead us somewhere better than where we currently stand? Is there a way to peek over into other people’s minds and see their thoughts before they choose a path through their lives so that we can compare notes on which choice offers more potential for happiness than another does in order to make an informed decision about which path is best before choosing one of them without knowing whether another choice might lead us somewhere better than where we currently stand (i.e., looking backward at my own past choices)? Or does each path always look equally good until after choosing one but having chosen one who can say with certainty whether another choice might have led us somewhere better than where we currently stand right now (i.e., looking forward at my own projected future choices)? And if this latter possibility holds true then why not assume, as an exercise in practicing belief in free will, that each path always looks equally good until after choosing one but having chosen one who can say with certainty whether another choice might have led us somewhere better than where we currently stand right now? In other words: What if these questions don’t need logical answers because free will exists outside logic altogether — meaning: Their answers aren’t knowable by logic alone but instead exist beyond logic altogether outside time and space and are therefore unknowable by us as human beings inside time and space? Meaning: Would it really matter if the answer to these questions was logical or not?


Why do we assume that logic is the only way to know things at all? Is there any proof that this is true (meaning: A logical proof)? And if there isn’t then why do we think it’s true anyway? When did we decide that logic was the only way to know things at all anyway instead of trusting our ability to feel our way toward knowing things in a more direct way free of having to use logic afterward as a referee keeping score based on whether or not an idea conforms with certain rules and patterns instead of looking for an ultimate truth beyond all ideas about what’s true and false in order to determine which ideas are more likely than others to be true? Why does this seem less logical than trusting in our own ability, as human beings with ever-evolving brains capable of communication, imagination, empathy, love, etc., to intuit some basic truths about what makes life worth living without needing outside validation from a set of rules and patterns that might have been created thousands or millions of years before us by people who were different from us but just happened to make similar mistakes due either (1) To never having discovered their inherent fallibility or (2) To never having evolved past needing superstitious rituals like following certain sets of words written down long ago in order for them not only to survive but also perhaps even prosper over others when they were alive because they had no other choice available due either (1) To never having discovered their inherent fallibility or (2) To never having evolved past needing superstitious rituals like following certain sets of words written down long ago in order for them not only survive but also perhaps prosper over others when they were alive because they had no other choice available except through ritualized worshiping practices involving rote memorization and mindless repetition until those rituals became so deeply ingrained into their psyches that many people today don’t even realize how superstitious these practices still are today.


It seems much more logical, however — meaning: Directly intuitively felt — , than treating logicians as gods who can create laws out of thin air with which everyone else must comply so long as they wish their lives not only continue but also thrive. In other words: Why would anyone choose one path knowing full well another might lead somewhere better than where you currently stand right now without knowing if another choice might lead somewhere better than where you currently stand right now? You can see how ridiculous this idea is. It doesn’t make sense logically yet many people act this insane anyway every day. They choose one path knowing full well another might lead somewhere better yet choosing one anyway without any real reason why except maybe tradition, habit, inertia, or fear of change.



Why does anyone choose one path knowing full well another might lead somewhere better than where you currently stand right now without knowing if another choice might lead somewhere better than where you currently stand right now? And how can we trust our ability to know things directly intuitively felt the same way we trust science when it comes to the outer world yet not trust this direct feeling ability inside ourselves and instead rely upon logic and outside validation for what’s true in order to judge what’s logical and what isn’t? Is this not an example of double standards? To believe one thing about yourself in one part of your life but a different thing in another part of your life — as if you can be two different people at the same time — seems logically inconsistent no matter how you look at it. And yet that’s exactly what most people do every day without even realizing they are doing it because they have been trained from birth by their parents, teachers, society, culture, etc., to behave this way. Why would anyone choose one path knowing full well another might lead somewhere better yet choosing one anyway without any real reason why except maybe tradition, habit, inertia, or fear of change? They don’t know any other way to live. They haven’t been taught anything else except for choosing paths based on tradition or habit or inertia or fear (and sometimes even these don’t seem like reasons).


How do we know which choices are available unless we choose them first with no knowledge whatsoever about whether the paths ahead contain more happinesses versus unhappinesses than other potential choices available at that moment (or even moments afterward)? Meaning: How can we possibly know which choices will offer more happinesses versus unhappinesses until after having chosen a path and moving forward down it toward finding out whether there are more happinesses versus unhappinesses on that path than there would have been on others available at that moment (or even moments afterward)?


And so therefore why not assume that all choices always contain equal amounts of happiness versus unhappiness before having chosen a particular option if indeed they always do contain equal amounts until after having chosen a particular option? In other words: Why not just assume equal amounts of each possibility until after choosing a particular option instead of assuming unequal amounts beforehand as most people tend to do when making major life decisions? Who chooses marriage believing beforehand there will be fewer moments with their partner than without them over many years because marrying is required by society in order for them to feel fulfilled enough afterward so long as they remain married in order to sustain feelings associated with being married; whereas who chooses divorce believing beforehand there will be more moments with their partner over many years because divorcing is also required by society except for opposite reasons although both decisions ultimately come down only partially due to society’s rules about what counts as acceptable reasons for choosing one versus another?


And yet who chooses marriage believing beforehand there will be fewer moments with their partner than without them over many years because marrying is required by society in order for them to feel fulfilled enough afterward so long as they remain married in order to sustain feelings associated with being married; whereas who chooses divorce believing beforehand there will be more moments with their partner over many years because divorcing is also required by society except for opposite reasons although both decisions ultimately come down only partially due to society’s rules about what counts as acceptable reasons for choosing one versus another?


Who chooses a job believing beforehand there will be fewer moments of happiness within that career path than without it over the next ten or twenty or thirty years until retirement age, etc., because of all the preparation and study required before ever even stepping foot inside an office on day one?

6 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All