It is said ,"Philosphers are the ones who live a misreable life only for others to talk about it, after their death". I will not agree with the comment on this however as the term misreable is undefined. We all live in individual worlds where the laws are goverened by our conscience or subconscience. These worlds intersect with each other and we do have common points of aggrement. It is however always relative of how we perceive and understands things in our world. In our world we define the wrong and the right, though the gravity of nearby worlds affect our laws but more or less the force generating from own self overrides the other weak forces of the nearby worlds. So for different individuals an event will have totally different effect. So a person living a life of a miser may be a subject of disgrace but the person may find immense pleasure in saving money. A person may decide to live like genghis khan or mahatma gandhi as per his underlying laws with objects around him having different meaning and values. Killing a person was adding value to genghis khan's life and non violence was adding the same to Mahatma gandhi. The majority of us may found the life and deeds of mahatma better than genghis only because our collective conscience shifts towards the high spiritual potential. We look up to the things we find difficult to do and which adds positive outlook to the objects and the world around it . However every individual tries to maximize thier subconscience output knowingly or unknownigly. So mahatma gandhi was getting same output from his life as genghis khan but being governed by different laws their effect was different on the physical world. Some of the actions a human does in his life may have come from his conscience which overrides the subconscience at times. All our deeds are result of the laws our subconscience makes and our conscience overrides.
So a philospher's misreable life may not have looked misreable to himself but would have simply been the painting of the two artists the conscience and the subconscience on the canvas of this world.
So a philospher's misreable life may not have looked misreable to himself but would have simply been the painting of the two artists the conscience and the subconscience on the canvas of this world.
Comments
gitanjali