To tackle this question, one must first define what it is to lead a “good life”. In a more self centered or ethnocentric approach supported by John Locke's philosophy, the answer to the question is yes. Under Locke's beliefs, it is in the human nature to be selfish. He adds that the self has a tendency to be concerned with himself, his own benefits, and what his own life entails. In that sense, we, teens of the upper class of the most developed city of Brazil, already do “live a good life”. Our immediate desires and wishes are fulfilled and our basic survival is completely guaranteed. We are able to profit from the comforts of the modern world and constantly improve the way we live because we have the financial means for it. Yet, it is the nature of the mind to always desire for more. Thus, there is always the thought that something extra could be improved or gained. As mentioned by Plato, it is only in the ideal world that the true form of justice can be found meaning that there will always some level of corruption among humans. Under that frame of mind, we might as well live a good life with the world as it is because there will always be corruption. That leads to another important factor to consider, the meaning of corruption. The notion of corruption for an American living in a capitalist society, for example, is altogether different than that of a Tibetan monk, whose life is devoted to the development of his spirituality instead of material acquisitions. For the American, corruption implies robbery, forgery, or some form of violence against society. On the other hand, perhaps for the Tibetan monk, corruption is just a small part of the path to enlightenment that a person is walking towards. At the same time, for the American to feel he is leading a good life, he might need to have a comfortable home in a safe neighborhood and a stable job while for the Tibetan monk, a good life means one in which the world is becoming a more compassionate place for everyone. Under this observation, the American is a lot more prone to finding "a good life" than the monk. Yet, the feelings derived from such lives are completely different. While the American is satisfying his material desires which only temporarily satiate the mind, the monk is leading a life that provides him with a greater sense of peace, serenity, fulfillment, and compassion that are much more everlasting but harder to be achieved as well. Hence, in a more world-centric perspective, it is impossible to lead a good life at any time before everyone is also having one. At this more global level of concern for others, individuals are concerned for the wellbeing of all human beings. The perceptions of life change where the ideas of happiness and comfort are reshaped. Under such mindframe, one would seek self development, simplicity, moderation, and even spiritual enlightenment instead of a new car or a job promotion with a better pay. According to Socrates' philosophy, it is through self development and acquisition of knowledge not material goods that a person can become truly good and virtuous. This achievement brings fulfillment to the self in a much deeper level than the satisfaction one feels at the self centered and ethnocentric levels as mentioned above. As more and more people develop to desire to seek such path, the world gradually becomes a better place for all of us. Thus, that is when we, all of humanity, become truly able to lead a good life in the full sense of the word.
By looking at perception as a way of knowing, you achieved one definition of "good life," do you think that changing that lens would change your answer? For example, what if you considered language as the way of knowing in this specific case, could that change everything, even within your example of Monks and Americans?
ReplyDeleteOne claim I'd like to challenge is the very clear, generalised role you set for Monks and Americans. I understand how you gathered information to achieve those generalisations, yet they are exactly that: generalisations.
Overall, I thought your point is very interesting. It really highlights the difference perception makes in everything; what we think is good or bad, or how we view ourselves and ours lives. The example you use of our social status in the beginning made me think a lot, that was a great point. How many people that come from very similar backgrounds that fulfil all their needs and more are happy? How many are unhappy? Why are they unhappy? Is such process one approached with reason?