Eudaemonia - A state of complete well-being, as defined by the philosophy of Aristotle; good fortune; true happiness as arising from a rational satisfaction.
Eudaemonic - Of, pertaining to, or tending to produce happiness; concerned or done for the sake of happiness.
Eudaemonism - The doctrine that happiness or welfare, as defined by a reasonable man, is the chief good.
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
'Tis it?
"'Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all."
- Alfred, Lord Tennyson
Since these two states are mutually exclusive how would anyone ever test such a proposition?
Why must everything be tested can't we just know some things? Can we not infer from times in our life where we did not know love now having known love and to have lost it, it is still better to have known and lost?
Actually I think you could argue that at one point many people have not known love yet sought it out. Once they found that love there were many who lost it and yet they did not choose to live without love but sought it out once again. Therefore...
"Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all."
I never said it wasn't true or even that one couldn't come to understand each perspective from the other.Yet, still there is that whole "never" part. I would hope that none have to actually live with such a "never", but it does preclude the experience (i.e. "testing") of the other state and vis versa.
Here's an interesting thought. People in either of these states may look at the other (at various times) both in longing and in self-condolence..."At least I loved"/"Oh, that I'd never loved at all!" .... "Would that I'd loved just once!"/"At least I've never lost a love"
And because Lord Tennyson deserves so much more contemplation of his masterpiece than my initial off-hand thoughts here is the complete stanza and link to the work in full:
I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all.
4 comments:
Why must everything be tested can't we just know some things? Can we not infer from times in our life where we did not know love now having known love and to have lost it, it is still better to have known and lost?
Actually I think you could argue that at one point many people have not known love yet sought it out. Once they found that love there were many who lost it and yet they did not choose to live without love but sought it out once again. Therefore...
"Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all."
I never said it wasn't true or even that one couldn't come to understand each perspective from the other.Yet, still there is that whole "never" part. I would hope that none have to actually live with such a "never", but it does preclude the experience (i.e. "testing") of the other state and vis versa.
Here's an interesting thought. People in either of these states may look at the other (at various times) both in longing and in self-condolence..."At least I loved"/"Oh, that I'd never loved at all!" .... "Would that I'd loved just once!"/"At least I've never lost a love"
And because Lord Tennyson deserves so much more contemplation of his masterpiece than my initial off-hand thoughts here is the complete stanza and link to the work in full:
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
http://www.online-literature.com/tennyson/718/
Post a Comment