This philosopher brings to the table a quite omnipresent conundrum one has not yet seen eminently written about, till now. He unpacks, in depth, how not achieving one's goals can possibly be as satiating, as ultimately achieving them. Allow me to further explain this point: Recall a time when you were craving a piece of chocolate cake only to be disappointed once that hunger is quenched. Think of a time you were patiently waiting for that field trip to come only to find it anticlimactic when embarked upon. We more often than not enjoy deifying our goals to have something worthy of getting up for. If there is no potent motivation and reward at the end of it, we cease to find the will to give.
I for one will have to concur with this philospher as I do believe there is a certain appeal in the journey that lacks in the destination. When one sets goals, and plans accordingly, there is this insatiable rush that pervades through the body in pursuit of tackling, one by one, the given landmarks. Alas, the more landmarks achieved, the greater the expectations are for the pot and the end of the rainbow. Unfortunately, more often than not we find that what we get isn't what we were essentially looking for. Which is why not achieving the goal could actually be as satiating as achieving the goal.
Comments