5 ms·

> Happily married men are happy husbands - Unhappily married men are great philosophers. I'm not sure I understand what this means, can someone clarify for me?

fijiaarone 4y ago
You’ll have to get married and grow old to understand.
- tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa 4y ago
  [flagged]
rerdavies 4y ago
Philosophy is for unhappy people.
- tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa 4y ago
  [flagged]
alexvoda 4y ago
I have detailed that and linked an even more comprehensive explanation in this sibling (cousin?) comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34380697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34380697
- tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa 4y ago
  [flagged]
alexvoda 4y ago
My point was that the saying itself is wrong and a bad meme (the ethics of it were secondary to my argument) and I linked to where it originated to show that it wasn't even a thing in the first place. Explaining the meaning of a bad meme is not interesting but if you are still asking what it is supposed to mean then here goes: The first half is obvious because it is a tautology. It states that "An X is an X." The second half implies that unhappiness pushes one to become a philosopher because they start thinking about how they became unhappy. Why? Who knows. Most unhappy people do not become philosophers, but some might. Also, not all philosophers are unhappy. Also, gender and being married or not have nothing to do with becoming a philosopher. You are correct that it's confusing why the implication should go without saying. It's because it doesn't. It's a simplified rewording and further generalization of a misattributed misquote meme that is itself a generalization and mischaracterization of a dialogue line of a philosopher describing his own situation and his own choices. As for why happiness is less productive then unhappiness, there is this gem of an explainer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWkq7btSQvs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWkq7btSQvs
- tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa 4y ago
  > implies that unhappiness pushes one to become a philosopher because they start thinking about how they became unhappy. I see, thank you for the explanation. That's definitely not how I view philosophy or the motivations of those who think deeply about such things, hence my confusion.

fijiaarone 4y ago

You’ll have to get married and grow old to understand.

tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa 4y ago
[flagged]

rerdavies 4y ago

Philosophy is for unhappy people.

tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa 4y ago
[flagged]

alexvoda 4y ago

I have detailed that and linked an even more comprehensive explanation in this sibling (cousin?) comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34380697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34380697

tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa 4y ago
[flagged]

alexvoda 4y ago

My point was that the saying itself is wrong and a bad meme (the ethics of it were secondary to my argument) and I linked to where it originated to show that it wasn't even a thing in the first place. Explaining the meaning of a bad meme is not interesting but if you are still asking what it is supposed to mean then here goes: The first half is obvious because it is a tautology. It states that "An X is an X." The second half implies that unhappiness pushes one to become a philosopher because they start thinking about how they became unhappy. Why? Who knows. Most unhappy people do not become philosophers, but some might. Also, not all philosophers are unhappy. Also, gender and being married or not have nothing to do with becoming a philosopher. You are correct that it's confusing why the implication should go without saying. It's because it doesn't. It's a simplified rewording and further generalization of a misattributed misquote meme that is itself a generalization and mischaracterization of a dialogue line of a philosopher describing his own situation and his own choices. As for why happiness is less productive then unhappiness, there is this gem of an explainer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWkq7btSQvs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWkq7btSQvs

tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa 4y ago
> implies that unhappiness pushes one to become a philosopher because they start thinking about how they became unhappy. I see, thank you for the explanation. That's definitely not how I view philosophy or the motivations of those who think deeply about such things, hence my confusion.