![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Search for Quality
Thursday, 24 January 2008 03:04 pmA recent conversation has had me thinking about two somewhat complementary and somewhat contradictory life philosophies concerning "quality"- by which I (think I) mean, things that are best-fit for your needs and desires.
The first philosophy:
Life is change; happiness is more about accommodation and compromise than railing against things you can't change. As such, quality is not only subjective, it's meant to change according to the environment (so no point pining for a steak at a vegetarian restaurant, say). Try for the best outcome but expect average, and allow for the worst. Quality is elusive- great experiences are rare. Be grateful for high-quality things and be reasonably happy with medium-quality. Learn to avoid low-quality.
The second philosophy:
Life is change; to be happy, stay on top of the change and try to manipulate the environment to be comfortable in it. Quality is subjective, but relatively constant over time. Try for the best outcome; expect the best, allow for the worst, but don't be happy with less than high quality. Learn to avoid low and medium quality; high quality is worth the effort. Life is short enough that you don't want to waste time with less.
---
I can see the merits of each; neither seems a foolish strategy for maximizing happiness.
If the second person is adept at finding high quality, they could easily end up happier overall. But realistically, how much time do they spend being unhappy with the non-ideal environment?
And the first person would say they are happy, and it seems to me that they would be. Except they're not exactly maximizing their choices for their definition of quality, they're making do more often. And it would be a non-optimal match even if they allow it to shift over time. (Especially so- their current life might match up, but looking back might make them unhappy about where they had been!)
Hm. As happiness-seeking creatures, should we all be trying to be #1, #2, both, neither?
The first philosophy:
Life is change; happiness is more about accommodation and compromise than railing against things you can't change. As such, quality is not only subjective, it's meant to change according to the environment (so no point pining for a steak at a vegetarian restaurant, say). Try for the best outcome but expect average, and allow for the worst. Quality is elusive- great experiences are rare. Be grateful for high-quality things and be reasonably happy with medium-quality. Learn to avoid low-quality.
The second philosophy:
Life is change; to be happy, stay on top of the change and try to manipulate the environment to be comfortable in it. Quality is subjective, but relatively constant over time. Try for the best outcome; expect the best, allow for the worst, but don't be happy with less than high quality. Learn to avoid low and medium quality; high quality is worth the effort. Life is short enough that you don't want to waste time with less.
---
I can see the merits of each; neither seems a foolish strategy for maximizing happiness.
If the second person is adept at finding high quality, they could easily end up happier overall. But realistically, how much time do they spend being unhappy with the non-ideal environment?
And the first person would say they are happy, and it seems to me that they would be. Except they're not exactly maximizing their choices for their definition of quality, they're making do more often. And it would be a non-optimal match even if they allow it to shift over time. (Especially so- their current life might match up, but looking back might make them unhappy about where they had been!)
Hm. As happiness-seeking creatures, should we all be trying to be #1, #2, both, neither?
