pyska
You misunderstand. You don’t have to know disease to have health. However, the term “health” implies by its definition the existence of “non-health”, or “disease”. It’s a contrast. If that were not the case, if disease didn’t exist anywhere, then you wouldn’t even know what “healthy” meant, because that would imply the existence of non health which wouldn’t exist.
So if you want to be healthy, you must accept that some unhealthiness exists somewhere, otherwise you wouldn’t know if you were healthy or not. The same way for light to exist, darkness must exist as well. You wouldn’t know what a melody was without the spaces between the notes.
I’m not saying wishing to be happy is bad, btw. However, do realize you wouldn’t know what happiness was if that was all you ever experienced. So being unhappy is not all bad. It will pass. The same way happiness will eventually come and pass. Don’t let these roadbumps and fluctuations of emotions stand in the way of your goals, is what I’m saying.
Edit: You are using the false dilemma wrongly. Here’s an example of a false dilemma: “Well, we need to be happy. So, do you want consumerism? Or communism? There’s no third option.” We can still find ways to be happy in a bad system, whether or not we engage in politics.
Original reply: That’s what I’m saying. How would you know the concept of “health” if being unhealthy wasn’t a thing? Same thing with happiness.
You can’t have happiness without having sadness. In the same way, you couldn’t have things get better if things couldn’t get worse. They are two parts of the same coin. So enjoy the moment. Do not let some roadbumps throw you off the road. ;)
Man, I hate question headlines. They entice you to click a link while promising an answer that may not come. You do get ads, though.
Wish we lived in a society were titles were like:
- Is global warming a hoax? No.
- Are you eating microplastics? Probably.
- Did the president have unspoken relationships with a donkey? No proof, but you are free to speculate.
Edit: Nothing against OP. I’m just venting about this little thing.
This is just my 2 cents, but I’d go for the CPU. Reason being you can upgrade RAM later with more sticks. However, it all depends on your use case, as this is the old memory-cpu tradeoff dilemma.
Want speed? Go for CPU. Want to have many tabs open, or guarantee a program does not crash due to low memory even if it doesn’t run at full steam? Go for memory.
Many virtual machines open? Definitely memory. Gaming? CPU… most of the times.
They aren’t real “rights”, but they are real. You just defined them.
I don’t mean to be hard headed. I feel like I agree with you since the beginning on the idea of it. I’m just stuck on the “isn’t real” part of it.
Because I can very easily say “rights” aren’t real as well. It’s just pixels on a screen. :)
No, it’s in there. The “rights” are part of a number of societal rules which depend on the “dance” (of life). In this case, the fighting for said rights and communicating that they exist are part of the “dance”.
The rest of it I was describing life, because consequences matter where I live at least. And since it seemed “natural rights” were bound only by the consequences you are willing to take, then they are the same as life itself, which I thought was pretty funny.
I mean, life is as life is. Would you stop talking on the street if society decides that is a crime, or if that means you’ll be discriminated against? Some people might, but you can’t expect everyone to do it.
It’s all a big dance and societal rules fluctuate depending on who’s dancing. You just gotta dare live life (preferably in a good way).