Thanks so much for this pod, and one year I would love to attend the Aspen Ideas Festival :) The first quote from Federer, which struck me, was the most notable. After all, he said this in 2019; yet, in the early years of his rivalry with Nadal, when he lost in Australia in the final, he broke down in tears. Nadal had broken his dominance, and Federer at the time couldn't see a way around the problem.
Does this not suggest that Federer was able to achieve this philosophy precisely because he was so successful? To me, it highlights for some people a deep connection between intrinsic and extrinsic desires, which was not fully explored. For some people, and increasingly in our culture, the need to strive is itself intrinsic due to the material demands placed upon us. For sure, in other places such as Liberia, this is not the case, but the cultural and social relationship between success and identity strikes me as highly contextualised.
I'm currently in a place where there is a good chance I'll have to change career paths, and my partner has been trying to encourage me not to get too downhearted by it. She's tried reminding me that I can still do it in my leisure and that will grant the same form of purpose that I currently have. However, I am more sceptical. I know that, in reality, work tends to consume your energy, time, and effort; therefore, ultimately, my passion will slowly be eroded and eventually disappear.
I agree that we don't fully know what happiness is, or rather, we can understand it for ourselves, but it is so personal and contextual that we can never entirely pin it down for long periods. We are not meant to either- the longing and searching for things likely brings us towards the point of happiness, which then disappears again. Berlin is correct when he rejects a singular idea of happiness and the good in the end.
Interesting themes, all scratching around the happiness question, (only to be dissolved by defining happiness at the end!)
Whatever the good life is, it's not found strictly within us, we are social creatures that define ourselves and are ourselves defined by others. AND we create meaning from the world around us and our interactions with it.
I wonder how Agnes views the mentally handicapped. If knowledge is the means of finding "it," then is it only accessible to a few?
That's a big litmus test for me on what is worth believing, can it possibly apply to every human being? Can every human being approach said belief? If the answer is no, then I'm out.
David Brooks gave a masterclass in humility and humor with what I assume were much younger thinkers, very enjoyable!
Thanks so much for this pod, and one year I would love to attend the Aspen Ideas Festival :) The first quote from Federer, which struck me, was the most notable. After all, he said this in 2019; yet, in the early years of his rivalry with Nadal, when he lost in Australia in the final, he broke down in tears. Nadal had broken his dominance, and Federer at the time couldn't see a way around the problem.
Does this not suggest that Federer was able to achieve this philosophy precisely because he was so successful? To me, it highlights for some people a deep connection between intrinsic and extrinsic desires, which was not fully explored. For some people, and increasingly in our culture, the need to strive is itself intrinsic due to the material demands placed upon us. For sure, in other places such as Liberia, this is not the case, but the cultural and social relationship between success and identity strikes me as highly contextualised.
I'm currently in a place where there is a good chance I'll have to change career paths, and my partner has been trying to encourage me not to get too downhearted by it. She's tried reminding me that I can still do it in my leisure and that will grant the same form of purpose that I currently have. However, I am more sceptical. I know that, in reality, work tends to consume your energy, time, and effort; therefore, ultimately, my passion will slowly be eroded and eventually disappear.
I agree that we don't fully know what happiness is, or rather, we can understand it for ourselves, but it is so personal and contextual that we can never entirely pin it down for long periods. We are not meant to either- the longing and searching for things likely brings us towards the point of happiness, which then disappears again. Berlin is correct when he rejects a singular idea of happiness and the good in the end.
The sound was good this time Sam, thank you!
Interesting themes, all scratching around the happiness question, (only to be dissolved by defining happiness at the end!)
Whatever the good life is, it's not found strictly within us, we are social creatures that define ourselves and are ourselves defined by others. AND we create meaning from the world around us and our interactions with it.
I wonder how Agnes views the mentally handicapped. If knowledge is the means of finding "it," then is it only accessible to a few?
That's a big litmus test for me on what is worth believing, can it possibly apply to every human being? Can every human being approach said belief? If the answer is no, then I'm out.
David Brooks gave a masterclass in humility and humor with what I assume were much younger thinkers, very enjoyable!