Everyone experiences loneliness. In fact, alienation is becoming a defining feature of modernity.
But this post is about a different kind of loneliness. Non-philosophical people at least make friends easily. They may feel lonely from time to time, and in essence; but it’s not hard for them to find company. Here I am not talking about the loneliness of essence alone, but physical loneliness. In context of this post, a person feeling lonely in company of a dozen friends is not lonely. A person who can’t get company at all is lonely. This type of loneliness is mostly reserved, it seems, for the philosophically developed people.
Why is that so?
Have a look at the table below –
99% of the people are non-philosophical. Remaining 1% is philosophically advanced people. So naturally, it’s going to be hard for them to find company. (The percentage figures are my guess, but realistic enough to make a valid point.)
The question arises: Is, then, being philosophically advanced better? If by belonging in the 99% of the population, company is secured, why invite loneliness by holding onto philosophically advanced position?
Being philosophically advanced means understanding life better than the non-philosophical people. When life is understood better, it’s logical that the quality of such life is likely to be higher. However, it is also true, that most philosophically advanced people are lonely and even depressed, and they don’t seem to be enjoying life. That is because real enjoyment of life comes only through engaging with other people. And engaging with people requires “connection”. A philosophically advanced person finds it hard to make that connection with non-philosophical people who surround him/her.
An essential condition for making a connection seems to be that the parties should not share vast differences at the fundamental level. No two people have exactly the same thoughts. But almost all non-philosophical people share the same orientation. At the fundamental level, they don’t have differences. Their differences of views are at a shallow level, which doesn’t matter as much. These people don’t even have that much depth. So with all their shallow-level differences, they still don’t see any the members of the same camp as “weird”; while if they come across a philosophically developed person their reaction would be like, “He’s so weird!” That means they share difference at a very deep level, following which it becomes impossible for them non-philosophical people to understand this philosophically advanced person. So, while non-philosophical people can make connections easily with other non-philosophical people, it’s not so between a non-philosophical person and a philosophically advanced person.
Now let’s see if being philosophically advanced is better. As I said above, being philosophically advanced means understanding life better. When one understands life better, one would be able to navigate through life with more ease. So, it is definitely preferable to have more understanding of life than less. Besides, understanding life is our nature. When something goes wrong and we are suffering, don’t we wish we understood why we are feeling what we are feeling? Philosophically advanced people know answers to a lot of such questions which perplex non-philosophical people.
I would say being philosophically advanced is anytime better. Not only that, one should also always seek to be on a higher rung of philosophical development. I am not saying this because I am myself in that 1%. In fact, a lot of the times I have thought about living the life of the non-philosophical people, because of loneliness and lack of avenues for enjoyment following my philosophical development. But whenever I have tried that, I have realized that theirs is a worse position despite their relatively happier appearances.
I realized that my lack of enjoyment is not owing to philosophical advancement per se, but because of not having company of others to produce enjoyment with. I have a couple of philosophically advanced friends (fortunately), and when we meet, we enjoy. And that enjoyment is much finer than non-philosophical people can even conceive. Thus I finally decisively concluded that being philosophically advanced is the way to go.
Now there are various stages in that too. As shown in the table above, all those stages of being philosophically advanced collectively comprise only about 1% of population. That means at each of the stages the number of people at that particular stage is a fraction of 1%. Meaning, not all of that 1% philosophically advanced people can make connection with one another!
However, people together at the stage 2 can have a higher quality life than people at stage 1. Likewise, people together at the stage 3 can make a higher quality life than people at the lower stages, and so on. A person at stage 5, however, can not connect with a person at lower or higher stages than him. So, once one leaves the stage 1, that is, becomes philosophical, it is going to be increasingly difficult for one to find company. But when the right company is found, the quality of life increases in direct proportion to one’s philosophical understanding of life. (Clarification)
Hence, by going the way of philosophical advancement I think one allows the possibility of making an exceptionally great life. It’s the noblest of human pursuits.
To speak for myself, I would rather take the direction of philosophical advancement where I might find some comfort than go the way of mindless living where I know there is none.
--
Follow discussion on Google+
But this post is about a different kind of loneliness. Non-philosophical people at least make friends easily. They may feel lonely from time to time, and in essence; but it’s not hard for them to find company. Here I am not talking about the loneliness of essence alone, but physical loneliness. In context of this post, a person feeling lonely in company of a dozen friends is not lonely. A person who can’t get company at all is lonely. This type of loneliness is mostly reserved, it seems, for the philosophically developed people.
Why is that so?
Have a look at the table below –
99% of the people are non-philosophical. Remaining 1% is philosophically advanced people. So naturally, it’s going to be hard for them to find company. (The percentage figures are my guess, but realistic enough to make a valid point.)
The question arises: Is, then, being philosophically advanced better? If by belonging in the 99% of the population, company is secured, why invite loneliness by holding onto philosophically advanced position?
Being philosophically advanced means understanding life better than the non-philosophical people. When life is understood better, it’s logical that the quality of such life is likely to be higher. However, it is also true, that most philosophically advanced people are lonely and even depressed, and they don’t seem to be enjoying life. That is because real enjoyment of life comes only through engaging with other people. And engaging with people requires “connection”. A philosophically advanced person finds it hard to make that connection with non-philosophical people who surround him/her.
An essential condition for making a connection seems to be that the parties should not share vast differences at the fundamental level. No two people have exactly the same thoughts. But almost all non-philosophical people share the same orientation. At the fundamental level, they don’t have differences. Their differences of views are at a shallow level, which doesn’t matter as much. These people don’t even have that much depth. So with all their shallow-level differences, they still don’t see any the members of the same camp as “weird”; while if they come across a philosophically developed person their reaction would be like, “He’s so weird!” That means they share difference at a very deep level, following which it becomes impossible for them non-philosophical people to understand this philosophically advanced person. So, while non-philosophical people can make connections easily with other non-philosophical people, it’s not so between a non-philosophical person and a philosophically advanced person.
Now let’s see if being philosophically advanced is better. As I said above, being philosophically advanced means understanding life better. When one understands life better, one would be able to navigate through life with more ease. So, it is definitely preferable to have more understanding of life than less. Besides, understanding life is our nature. When something goes wrong and we are suffering, don’t we wish we understood why we are feeling what we are feeling? Philosophically advanced people know answers to a lot of such questions which perplex non-philosophical people.
I would say being philosophically advanced is anytime better. Not only that, one should also always seek to be on a higher rung of philosophical development. I am not saying this because I am myself in that 1%. In fact, a lot of the times I have thought about living the life of the non-philosophical people, because of loneliness and lack of avenues for enjoyment following my philosophical development. But whenever I have tried that, I have realized that theirs is a worse position despite their relatively happier appearances.
I realized that my lack of enjoyment is not owing to philosophical advancement per se, but because of not having company of others to produce enjoyment with. I have a couple of philosophically advanced friends (fortunately), and when we meet, we enjoy. And that enjoyment is much finer than non-philosophical people can even conceive. Thus I finally decisively concluded that being philosophically advanced is the way to go.
Now there are various stages in that too. As shown in the table above, all those stages of being philosophically advanced collectively comprise only about 1% of population. That means at each of the stages the number of people at that particular stage is a fraction of 1%. Meaning, not all of that 1% philosophically advanced people can make connection with one another!
However, people together at the stage 2 can have a higher quality life than people at stage 1. Likewise, people together at the stage 3 can make a higher quality life than people at the lower stages, and so on. A person at stage 5, however, can not connect with a person at lower or higher stages than him. So, once one leaves the stage 1, that is, becomes philosophical, it is going to be increasingly difficult for one to find company. But when the right company is found, the quality of life increases in direct proportion to one’s philosophical understanding of life. (Clarification)
Hence, by going the way of philosophical advancement I think one allows the possibility of making an exceptionally great life. It’s the noblest of human pursuits.
To speak for myself, I would rather take the direction of philosophical advancement where I might find some comfort than go the way of mindless living where I know there is none.
--
Follow discussion on Google+
I wish to thank you for posting this online. I had always ask myself why I'm different. I learned in an early age that I have a philosophical mind. It makes me feel happy to be a young girl to have this ability, but sad in knowing I can't be a normal girl. I'm 20 years old now and still do not have friends. I try to understand why, but it makes me sad to think about it. I was fortunate to meet a girl that thinks like me, but I moved away. I understand the concepts of making a friend, but keeping that friend seems hard for me.(I hope you understand what I mean, because alot of people do not understand me.) Thank You!! :)
ReplyDelete