Quick Thought 1: When happiness is y dependent on an x, can it not ever exist as a middleway, which, at most, can only satisfy the parties involved, but rather as an absolute, genuine fulfillment that is not liable to instigate any regret or ill feeling later on? Having mentioned that this happiness in question follows a y = f(x) relation, I suppose this query is pointless because the only way to go about achieving this is to have either one of the forces contributing to the tension let go of his end of the string. But then, my sole premise was the constant tugging between the two concerned players, so if they both willfully lose their grip, wouldn’t that be the same as a compromise?
Quick Thought 2: I find that a person with raw wisdom cannot fully transcend to the level of a philosopher unless one of his feet is propped on the pit of the fallacy of composition. The intent of these thinkers has always been to pen all-encompassing generalizations on entities whose idea of permanence is but theoretical and ideal. If canines differ largely from their personalities, yet are still dogs, how is it that they’re trying to cramp us in a single statement? I am put off by the conception that as long some satisfy the anatomical qualifications of a man, they automatically merit to be collectively called as a humanity together with the rest. Part of being a human is our implicit rationality, and if by its usage, some mean the dastardly act of hoarding money through illegal means or settling to bloodshed and other corrupted machinations, then let us allow them to win over the title of humanity while the lot of us relinquish it for a label with a much agreeable nature.
Quick Thought 3: To further drive home my point in number 2, I am disposed to say that they are doing us a great disservice because we all know for a fact that leaders don’t forever remain righteous, not all the governed necessitate guidance from their leaders because sometimes it’s the other way around, and this or that form of government is not always apt for societies with varying histories. Philosophers should have recognized that the same mental aptitude that breathed life to their treatises is what precisely makes all of us not simplistic.
