This is a popular sentiment that I quite disagree with. It's certainly rarer to find perspective ingrained in a person not through experience but through innate wisdom, but ... never say never. Remember the example of Marcus Aurelius, who was literally the most powerful person on the face of the planet, and also, separately, perhaps the wisest. I've never used it, but I would guess that r/relationships will skew toward the entitled, for various reasons. In any case, to disprove an absolute I only have to name one example :) -- so I'll shut up now.A person to whom everything is freely given can never understand the value of those things.
I appreciate it. I also enjoy disproving absolutes. However, it's impossible to say where or how Marcus Aurelius gained his insight - while he most certainly had an easier life than the average Roman he did at least suffer health problems, it seems like. He had 13 progeny and only 5 survived, although that may be standard for the time. Also: It seems likely to me that Marcus sought out what 'hardship' that he could, seeing an inherent value in it, as opposed to having it thrust upon 'im. To be fair that distinction wasn't drawn during this discussion and there's certainly a different flavor to such experience, in that you can opt to stop 'handships' you willingly undertake at any point in time. You have the luxury of being in control, I guess. He seemed to feel that there was value in earned experience and therefore sought it - so, perceiving that such experience had value was not sufficient for him. It wasn't enough for him to intellectually be aware of an ascetic lifestyle, he chose to follow and live it. I think the personality that sees value in denying oneself things, or "the easy way out," or so on, leads to the same personality that would try to rule justly and with wisdom.Marcus took up the dress and habits of the philosopher: he studied while wearing a rough Greek cloak, and would sleep on the ground until his mother convinced him to sleep on a bed.
Further: Doesn't this make my point for me? He was freely given comfort, but rejected it for purely endogenous reasons.It seems likely to me that Marcus sought out what 'hardship' that he could, seeing an inherent value in it, as opposed to having it thrust upon 'im. To be fair that distinction wasn't drawn during this discussion and there's certainly a different flavor to such experience, in that you can opt to stop 'handships' you willingly undertake at any point in time. You have the luxury of being in control, I guess.
I was drawing the conclusion that by rejecting what he was given and what was easily come to him, he was demonstrating that he felt there was some inherent value in hardship and the rejection of standard luxuries. So basically I feel like he may have chosen to do without things in order to better appreciate the value of what he had. If that was part of his motivation, then (I concluded) his asceticism was a method to allow him to appreciate the value of what he did without (as well as what he allowed himself to keep). I feel like someone who chooses to make his or her life more difficult does so because they see a value in hardship. To me it seems apparent that additional insight and appreciation for 'comforts' and 'easy things' are two benefits, two values, derived from choosing to appreciate hardship. I feel like we might be coming at this as cart and horse here, or chicken and egg - whether he was wise because he was ascetic, or whether he was wise and so became ascetic. By choosing to make life harder on himself he was able to learn more truly the value of some of what he experienced, instead of taking it for granted. It seems a clear conclusion, to me, that someone might reject some of their inherited advantages and luxuries because they wanted to more truly understand the value of them. Maybe what you are saying is that he rejected these luxuries because he had them and found them to be of no value. However, only a person who has always been afforded such luxuries would do such a thing. To a slave it is easy to see the value of being an emperor's son. Sure, the emperor's son might appreciate the 'valuable lessons' of hard work and slavery, but he says that from the seat of someone who has never truly experienced it and, no matter how ascetic, cannot/will not. I don't think these things are equal evils/in value. Who do you feel worse for: the ugly girl who is upset she is ugly and never gets dates, or the pretty girl who is upset because being pretty is a hassle and everyone hits on her? Sure, if Marcus was the pretty girl he would cut his hair and dress real ugly and maybe scar his face if he's going to be really extreme about it, but at the end of the day he's still the pretty girl. That's his advantage: he can go home, take off his sackcloth and ashes, and return to being a prince any time he wants. Even if he never chooses to, the option is a comfort and a luxury that a truly impoverished person understands the value of because they don't have it. I'm not sure I'm proving points here anymore, but I'm trying.
This is one of those comments that I didn't think much about but now I see it's kind of popular for some reason. Guess it was short and simple -- those seem to be the most important parameters lately. Anywho, if you are going to quibble about Aurelius, then I will change the question and posit that no one has ever had anything given to them entirely freely. There's an old popular reddit post where the child of a billionaire (or some such) details all the terrible things that entails, and then someone who is very poor comes along and adds their perspective. Both made good points and everything was quite polite. It was pleasing. To me, the former seemed like Brave New World and the latter 1984. Both bad. So maybe there's more to it than just "having" everything. Hidden costs. Mostly I just wanted to take a turn setting up an absolute -- it seemed only fair. But there's truth in it as well. As for Aurelius, it's hard to imagine anyone coming closer to having everything freely given than a Roman emperor, born an aristocrat. Yet the Meditations speak for themselves. They contain some anachronisms, but for the most part Aurelius has a firmer understanding about the (lack of) value of many things than any philosopher since. He suffered, to be sure, so it's fair to say that he understood the value (or lack) of happiness, for example, because of his life. But he never wanted materially, and he never failed to garner respect wherever he went -- but he takes the true measure of honor and greed without hesitation.