^ Dude, Thomas Aquinas championed Aristotle and spread his ideas everywhere in Christendom. What happened was materialism, which all decadent civilizations fall prey to.
Aristotle lived before the age of discovery. Sure there are wars by that time but it wasn't that full blown because civillizations are yet to meet one another. When almost all of them knew one another, they saw each other as strangers, and thus, enemies. We weren't very open-minded then. Stronger civilizations were looking for a way to become more powerful, and thus they feed off weaker civilizations. War ensued. Greeks like Aristotle were the paragons of their time, but note that they are speaking from a Greek's viewpoint. There are a lot of philosophies out there. If you read Rumi and learn Sufi's philosophy you'll find that they see life in a different way. You can just imagine how those clashing ideas confused our society. But the best part is, as we got to know one another we learned more perspectives. We are able to extend these learnings to higher questions about life. If Aristotle spent his life learning what constitutes a good life, Enlightenment philosophers examined freedom and addressed the issues of state, religion, and so on. Modern philosophers delved into questions of the nature of our existence. And that is just Western philosophy. These ideas came from the ancient times because they were the questions that we asked during that time. In the modern era we are addressing different, and much harder issues now.
Virtues have real rewards....."As for the spiritual perfections they are man’s birthright and belong to him alone of all creation." ~ ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks
Thank you so much for making this video! I was having such a hard time understanding the text and everyone else who has uploaded hasn't done a good just of explaining! this was a life saver!!!!!
Thanks for the video! Nicomachean Ethics change my Life. People don't really know the meaning of "Knowledge is Power". and the Good Life. The good life can only come as the result of virtues. Goodness, Courage etc.
Problem, however: How to get legislators who embody phronesis (05:17). If they don't know what they're doing, the laws will have the OPPOSITE effect. Thus, an argument for the minimal state, imho.
Science is not the top intellectual virtue (Theoretical Wisdom is) ... it's philosophizing, not doing science, that's the best life for Aristotle. Also, the notion of obligation is wholly missing in Aristotle, so it's odd to tag it on at the end of the video as if he would endorse the idea of an obligation of government to equal treatment of people in a society (which he obviously rejected, as he thought there were natural slaves).
No, because even the most vicious of man have the need to be socially recognized and legitimately loved, even if this fact is buried under diverse layers of psychological denial. The only thing closer to this a vicious man can attain comes from other fellow vicious man, who can share some kind of interest with him, but cannot satisfy his virtuous self needs. He can even corrupt a good lot of people, but without a minimal amount of virtuosity their lives will fall into primitive madness. Take gangsters for instance. A gangster is a vicious parasite who lives solely because the work of the virtuous people around him. He's obsessed with luxury and lives in a hedonistic way because he ignores or omits the virtues of productive work and self-fulfillment. He cannot provide to himself the things he wants, so he takes them trough violence from those who can. Eventually one of two things will happen to him: either he screws up in some way that get him punished by society or some other person, or succeeds destroying the source of his unearned distractions.
The point of the video isn't about the meaning of life, but about living a good life and that by being virtuous in character can help achieve that good life and in a way gives meaning to person's life.
The only theory of ethics I like more than Aristotle is Kant's. But still contributive nonetheless. Relative pursuit of virtue is difficult, much less being able to determine virtue in others since we receive our interpretation of deficiency and excess epistemologically ( or through sensation/feeling). Which is hard to determine where human beings fall on the parameters of the golden mean at any given time. But still a good reference for a moral way of living.
On that last comment about the issues raised in social justice and helping the less fortunate, I couldn't help think about the issue of gun control. When theory a virtuous man would make the decision that benefits all of society and preserves human life. Which is the fundamental goal of the state. But in the case that legislators can not be virtuous, this would pose a threat on society by enacting unnecessary harm. I've also wondered a case where if it would be virtuous to takes ones life out of preservation of another. Not to seem dogmatic, but maybe the answers are meant to be pondered on for eternity to keep a balance of peace that neither sides of an argument can understand. But then again...
Great video- it's a great discussion point, too. It brings up the question if any human can truly go from being continent to virtuous. Even if we try to be the best people we can, we will always have those snaking desires to fulfill our pleasures, despite our better reasoning. Aristotle argues that one cannot be truly satisfied if these desires continue, but is it truly possible to stop them? If they are born of habit, then possibly through years of self-training. But if they are a trait manifested in every human, then can we truly call someone exercising a part of their rational brain unvirtuos? Tons of things to talk about here, love to see what you fellow Wi-Phiers think about human nature and virtue.
+Mimzy Spire Why not fulfill whatever pleasures you desire that are within your means and do not cause suffering to others? And any desires that cause sufficient suffering to others may as well be destructive to one's self as suffering begets suffering in a community, and all communities are connected these days. So I guess practice ignoring such destructive desires until it's conditioned into your mind to be ignored automatically. Takes effort and time though. That way you can marginally improve the meaning and satisfaction of your life. I don't think any human being can be perfectly well and good, but that means everyone can work on living more well and doing more good.
Do you mind listing your sources? I am writing an essay on Aristotle's view on happiness as the highest ethical good. Would help me out alot! Excellent video, by the way! Loved it.
This is a justification for a nanny state... We must set a distinction between the job of society and the job of the state, society may teach people how to live but not the state, the state must simply serve society and protect the rights of the people within it.
I have a question. I'm doing a presentation at my school about aristotle in a week. Why did Aristotle get blamed for Alexander the great's death? He was just his teacher right?
Excelent summary. There are some phrases that are not well translated to Spanish. If you want, I can help with that, it would be a pleasure. Thank you.
That last comment about social justice is something I do not think Aristotle would have agreed at all given that he believed if a human cannot function as a proper human, they are, therefore, not human and cannot be properly happy, and consequently, not virtuous.
Sokrates predated Aristotle with these thoughts. Aristotle shines his light from a different angle, but nevertheless Sokrates was the first to outline the best way to live ones life. See Politeia Platonos (Platos Republic).
Interesting thought exercise, trying to reconcile eudaimonia with owning slaves. Fun fact, Aristotle (and Plato) argued for and were in favor of slave ownership.
+Philisophosensation Well, in ancient Greece the home was very well constucted and people could not imagine it being otherwise. So slaves and women could by no means be seen as citizens. That was their reality and you have to take it into consideration. If you read Protagoras or the republic you'll see that corporal punishment, a concept which today's western world is highly unacceptable, was not only seen as normal but also as necessary. So, it is clear that when examining a persons view who have to consider the society that they lived in. Note, however, that in Plato's Kalipolis there were no slaves.
So following that thought through to its logical conclusion then, one should always place fear of consequence before before right action. Spoken like a true patriot. Good thing these guys didn't preach ethics... Here's a little weekend research project for you. Maybe look into logical contradictions. Then come back with an actual argument and we can have an informed debate.
I never said that they accepted slavery because they feared the consequences. i said that they didn't view slavery as something unethical or abnormal like we do today.
Nadia Z- I wasn't actually attacking your position. I thought that would be obvious by my reply as it doesn't relate to your position. Sorry for the confusion. Though I see your point of view, I disagree that it validates what the people of that time did. At this point we cross the line into opinion unfortunately. Thanks for taking the time to reply as an intellect.
+Philisophosensation By your rational, you would make every human being born before slavery was abolished a monster. However, it's clear in today's world slavery still exists. How would you end it? Persuasion or military means? I imagine, that you, just like Aristotle, lack the power to really make a difference. Does that make you monster too? For your information, I'm in favour of slavery. I'm Scottish Australian and we have been slaves/indebted servants for hundreds of years. It helped us to better ourselves until we were more rational human beings. Some humans are still Neanderthals. Is it not right and just to force them to become more rational? Or is it right and just to allow them to continue with the destruction of their countries and society?
Interesting. To what extent is character a product of social/cultural interelations between a subject and those they interract with. Aristotle clearly picks up on this in the importance of the state. Does capitalism as an ideology create a social environment that promotes poor character in some people? Does capitalism promote Eudominaea. Hos much of our character a product of he interraction between genes and our environment through upbringing. Human reason is the line that defines 'right' from 'wrong'. A person always knows this.
+sam carey Capitalism creates an environment where the self-labeled altruistic poor deal with the decisions of those who control the most/more resources. I don't believe this is the reason the poor and lower-middle class have such poor character. Capitalism creates an environment where the very best rise to the top while the those who aren't the best either remain behind with excuses or keep climbing. It's the ones that give up and make excuses that have poor character. I believe the character of those who fail in a capitalist society would likely not be much different with a social/environmental paradigm shift. I am of the opinion they would likely not excel in any society. That which is deemed right and wrong has changed throughout history. It is very far from automatically defined by our individual reasoning.
+sam carey Capitalism, Socialism, Communism....Those are all just different ways of allocating resources among individuals in a collective, nation, household, ect.... and only impact the means and capabilities of the individual, but do not dictate the choices of the individual in action or inaction. Just as genetics is only an influence on choice as is environment. The individual can decide to give up their free will to be controlled by any of these influences, or can retain their free will and only listen to such influences like survival instincts, social pressure, personal desires as advisers in the decision making process. And ultimately action or inaction is taken without a certainty of results. No one can be completely sure of the outcome of their actions because of countless variables outside of an individual's control. So action or inaction should be considered on the basis of the choice itself rather than the possible result. Seeking pleasure could result in social condemnation, seeking wealth could result unsatisfying paranoia, seeking anything could result in some form of suffering. Personally, I've only come up with continuously showing kindness (both to others and myself) as an action that seems to provide the most benefit with the least negative outcomes.
![PHILOSOPHY - The Good Life: Kant [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/F6UQLiHB0k0/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - The Good Life: Kant [HD]](/img/tr.png)
![PHILOSOPHY - History: Aristotle on the Purpose of Life [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sQk6t-9mQjE/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - The Good Life: Nietzsche [HD]](/img/1.gif)
The fact that these ideas came from ancient times baffles me. What the hell happened in the in-between years
+Joseph Mikolash War... Pretty much it.
+Joseph Mikolash technology and whrong style of education !!!
Christianity
^ Dude, Thomas Aquinas championed Aristotle and spread his ideas everywhere in Christendom. What happened was materialism, which all decadent civilizations fall prey to.
Aristotle lived before the age of discovery. Sure there are wars by that time but it wasn't that full blown because civillizations are yet to meet one another. When almost all of them knew one another, they saw each other as strangers, and thus, enemies. We weren't very open-minded then. Stronger civilizations were looking for a way to become more powerful, and thus they feed off weaker civilizations. War ensued.
Greeks like Aristotle were the paragons of their time, but note that they are speaking from a Greek's viewpoint. There are a lot of philosophies out there. If you read Rumi and learn Sufi's philosophy you'll find that they see life in a different way. You can just imagine how those clashing ideas confused our society.
But the best part is, as we got to know one another we learned more perspectives. We are able to extend these learnings to higher questions about life. If Aristotle spent his life learning what constitutes a good life, Enlightenment philosophers examined freedom and addressed the issues of state, religion, and so on. Modern philosophers delved into questions of the nature of our existence. And that is just Western philosophy.
These ideas came from the ancient times because they were the questions that we asked during that time. In the modern era we are addressing different, and much harder issues now.
thank you for putting his ideas together in such a brilliant way
Virtues have real rewards....."As for the spiritual perfections they are man’s birthright and belong to him alone of all creation." ~ ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks
Thank you so much for making this video! I was having such a hard time understanding the text and everyone else who has uploaded hasn't done a good just of explaining! this was a life saver!!!!!
Omg thank you for this video I have been having so much trouble understanding Aristotle's The Good Life until now!
Thanks for the video! Nicomachean Ethics change my Life. People don't really know the meaning of "Knowledge is Power". and the Good Life. The good life can only come as the result of virtues. Goodness, Courage etc.
Thank you for making this! It helped me understand what Aristotle was saying about the good life!
+Queen Proserpina Good is only what people label it. Most of thier ideas were brought from the east where the original philosophers were.
And suddenly I like philosophy
And suddenly you like virtue ethics*
João Dowsley Exactly
This was a very succint way of explaining his theory, thank you.
Matthew the word succint alway's remind me of Seinfeld😂
@@hmm2928 k
That's just like your opinion...Aristotle
A relativist.
+Alexander Rittenhouse thats the dude
His Dudeness, Duder or if you prefer...El Duderinio !
Plato: Your senses can deceive you, there is world beyond that is better...
Aristotle: Ok Boomer!
Haha
2019 anyone?
PS here because of philosophy test tomorrow. Wish me luck
how was it?XD
good luck :)
THIS IS AMAZING! thank you so much for this!!
Great video! very well spoken and the illustrations are appreciated as they help further develop an understanding of the topic
how can you dislike something set in stone by one of the most respected individuals of all time over 2 thousand years ago. ik its only 15 but come on
This is really good and way too underrated! Liked and subbed.
This is absolutely fascinating!
+peroz1000 follow the school of life channel
+poposisa Thanks, I already do that.
+poposisa This video is actually better than the one they did on Aristotle.
I dont like the mic tho.
+poposisa Me neither!
I side with Aristotle with the mean but with the stoics that virtue is sufficient of happiness
It is really helpful and easy to understand. Thank you so much
Makes Aristotle's theories accessible by using plain language, clarity of thought, and progression of ideas.
Thank you! I'm using this for my class! It is very clear, entertaining, insightful, and accurate ... and inspiring!
crazy to think the answer is out there and has been for thousands of years but we choose to ignore it and have this type of state
Problem, however: How to get legislators who embody phronesis (05:17). If they don't know what they're doing, the laws will have the OPPOSITE effect. Thus, an argument for the minimal state, imho.
I'm here for some practical wisdom.
Thanks for explaining in easy-to-understand terms, and also - great handwriting and drawing :)
great video, but something seems weird about that hand writing and drawing stuff... is that a program or something?
Science is not the top intellectual virtue (Theoretical Wisdom is) ... it's philosophizing, not doing science, that's the best life for Aristotle.
Also, the notion of obligation is wholly missing in Aristotle, so it's odd to tag it on at the end of the video as if he would endorse the idea of an obligation of government to equal treatment of people in a society (which he obviously rejected, as he thought there were natural slaves).
critically discuss aristotle notion of eudaimonia as the goal or end goal of human life?
such a great video! Thank you sir!
thank you for the good video, salutations from Mexico.
Great video. A blast from the pass from my college days.
Thank you so much for this! It helped my review for my final exam.
Great explanation of where and why all states are getting it wrong.
this dude is such a good drawer
It's a still frame of his hand and a pen with a program that runs that frame over a computer generated drawing.
if the vicious man enjoyed acting badly and was inclined to act badly wouldn't he be considered fulfilled?
No, because even the most vicious of man have the need to be socially recognized and legitimately loved, even if this fact is buried under diverse layers of psychological denial. The only thing closer to this a vicious man can attain comes from other fellow vicious man, who can share some kind of interest with him, but cannot satisfy his virtuous self needs. He can even corrupt a good lot of people, but without a minimal amount of virtuosity their lives will fall into primitive madness. Take gangsters for instance. A gangster is a vicious parasite who lives solely because the work of the virtuous people around him. He's obsessed with luxury and lives in a hedonistic way because he ignores or omits the virtues of productive work and self-fulfillment. He cannot provide to himself the things he wants, so he takes them trough violence from those who can. Eventually one of two things will happen to him: either he screws up in some way that get him punished by society or some other person, or succeeds destroying the source of his unearned distractions.
what a great video! very well explained.
Please answer me ...
its just a survey
" how would you relate the video clip in you daily life experience ?
What if the meaning of life is something we're not meant to understand? What does that say about our existence?
The point of the video isn't about the meaning of life, but about living a good life and that by being virtuous in character can help achieve that good life and in a way gives meaning to person's life.
The only theory of ethics I like more than Aristotle is Kant's.
But still contributive nonetheless. Relative pursuit of virtue is difficult, much less being able to determine virtue in others since we receive our interpretation of deficiency and excess epistemologically ( or through sensation/feeling). Which is hard to determine where human beings fall on the parameters of the golden mean at any given time.
But still a good reference for a moral way of living.
On that last comment about the issues raised in social justice and helping the less fortunate, I couldn't help think about the issue of gun control. When theory a virtuous man would make the decision that benefits all of society and preserves human life. Which is the fundamental goal of the state. But in the case that legislators can not be virtuous, this would pose a threat on society by enacting unnecessary harm.
I've also wondered a case where if it would be virtuous to takes ones life out of preservation of another.
Not to seem dogmatic, but maybe the answers are meant to be pondered on for eternity to keep a balance of peace that neither sides of an argument can understand. But then again...
-.- My good life - aim for the impossible
Great video- it's a great discussion point, too. It brings up the question if any human can truly go from being continent to virtuous. Even if we try to be the best people we can, we will always have those snaking desires to fulfill our pleasures, despite our better reasoning. Aristotle argues that one cannot be truly satisfied if these desires continue, but is it truly possible to stop them? If they are born of habit, then possibly through years of self-training. But if they are a trait manifested in every human, then can we truly call someone exercising a part of their rational brain unvirtuos? Tons of things to talk about here, love to see what you fellow Wi-Phiers think about human nature and virtue.
+Mimzy Spire Why not fulfill whatever pleasures you desire that are within your means and do not cause suffering to others? And any desires that cause sufficient suffering to others may as well be destructive to one's self as suffering begets suffering in a community, and all communities are connected these days. So I guess practice ignoring such destructive desires until it's conditioned into your mind to be ignored automatically. Takes effort and time though. That way you can marginally improve the meaning and satisfaction of your life. I don't think any human being can be perfectly well and good, but that means everyone can work on living more well and doing more good.
Cool footage.. Great content on your channel!! Subbed!
nice piece
The final question at the end of the video is what I want to know. An have an answer, insight, or link to furthering video? thanks
Thank yu for this... I will be bringing my own students here...
It's better defined as "human flourishing."
Thank you
What software is this?
What are the three concept of happy lives according to aristotle?
Do you mind listing your sources? I am writing an essay on Aristotle's view on happiness as the highest ethical good. Would help me out alot!
Excellent video, by the way! Loved it.
+Joacim Christiansen Read some of Aristotle's books?
awesome videos love them so much .
Very nice. Thank you.
wonderful video.
Ok then... How do we help those who are less fortunate when those who are less fortunate do no see themselves as such?
5mins video covered my 2 hours history class LMAO well explained!
Nice! You should also do a video on Epicurus.
Well said and thank you
I can draw a little, I have a convertible laptop with pen input, with which software can I do an animation like this?
Are virtues of thought necessary or sufficient for moral virtue?
very well done thanks
Thank you very much for the video.
Habits form inevitably but whether they are virtuous or not depends on phronesis
what font did u use at the start, by Nicomachean ethics
This is a justification for a nanny state... We must set a distinction between the job of society and the job of the state, society may teach people how to live but not the state, the state must simply serve society and protect the rights of the people within it.
This was really helpful. I had reread my philosophy reading about 10 times but was still confused, this helped clear thins up.
I have a question. I'm doing a presentation at my school about aristotle in a week. Why did Aristotle get blamed for Alexander the great's death? He was just his teacher right?
+Geomoist Dasher He didn't
Excelent summary. There are some phrases that are not well translated to Spanish. If you want, I can help with that, it would be a pleasure. Thank you.
Türkçe altyazı ekler misiniz?
THANK YOU!!!
2:09:Hey, that's Calvin's dad!Long time no see!
Well done.
Eu-dai-monia *
You day moan ia
I have a feeling that's not how the Greeks would have been inclined to pronounce it.
Its pronounced EPHDEMONIA
Irrelevant
What book does he talk about all this
Highest good is knowledge according to Aristotle
That last comment about social justice is something I do not think Aristotle would have agreed at all given that he believed if a human cannot function as a proper human, they are, therefore, not human and cannot be properly happy, and consequently, not virtuous.
Who will teach you noble things in life
Please can someone tell me what program he's using to make this video??
It's made with VideoScribe.
ТTThis moооovie is now avаilable to wаtcch herеееe => twitter.com/18ce0c0e51f05f1f7/status/795841385446285312 РHILOSOРHY Тhe Good Life AAАristоtle HD
Some of us already learning this stuff for the sake of school and degree. I guess he wasn’t talking to those folks either.
I see why politicians remove his wisdom from society. Wow.
What does Aristotle say about the good life?
Sokrates predated Aristotle with these thoughts. Aristotle shines his light from a different angle, but nevertheless Sokrates was the first to outline the best way to live ones life. See Politeia Platonos (Platos Republic).
+Durim Miziraj this is correct
god damn I love Aristotle
GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Glorifying God is the greatest good to one's self and society at-large.
wassup, duderino?
You jaded the view of first principles by representing it in the E=mc2 ... that was unethical
so is Aristotle’s view of Rhetoric?
He is really amazing to think things in that way Considering the time he was living in.
Knowledge.
That's the slavery....good life exist when we are free from slavery...and human are being controlled ...and their intelligent being used ..
good shit! the 27 thumbs down, born without conscious...
That thing at the end about SOCIAL JUSTICE has nothing to do with Aristotle .
good
ethics discounts that fact that there are multiple events in the reality world that have nothing to do with ethics and everything to with physics.
THE CAT WAS RIVHARD DAWKINS LOL
1:46 Does that thing say "Richard Pawkins?" 😆
Interesting thought exercise, trying to reconcile eudaimonia with owning slaves. Fun fact, Aristotle (and Plato) argued for and were in favor of slave ownership.
+Philisophosensation Well, in ancient Greece the home was very well constucted and people could not imagine it being otherwise. So slaves and women could by no means be seen as citizens. That was their reality and you have to take it into consideration. If you read Protagoras or the republic you'll see that corporal punishment, a concept which today's western world is highly unacceptable, was not only seen as normal but also as necessary. So, it is clear that when examining a persons view who have to consider the society that they lived in. Note, however, that in Plato's Kalipolis there were no slaves.
So following that thought through to its logical conclusion then, one should always place fear of consequence before before right action. Spoken like a true patriot. Good thing these guys didn't preach ethics...
Here's a little weekend research project for you. Maybe look into logical contradictions. Then come back with an actual argument and we can have an informed debate.
I never said that they accepted slavery because they feared the consequences. i said that they didn't view slavery as something unethical or abnormal like we do today.
Nadia Z- I wasn't actually attacking your position. I thought that would be obvious by my reply as it doesn't relate to your position. Sorry for the confusion. Though I see your point of view, I disagree that it validates what the people of that time did. At this point we cross the line into opinion unfortunately. Thanks for taking the time to reply as an intellect.
+Philisophosensation By your rational, you would make every human being born before slavery was abolished a monster. However, it's clear in today's world slavery still exists. How would you end it? Persuasion or military means? I imagine, that you, just like Aristotle, lack the power to really make a difference. Does that make you monster too?
For your information, I'm in favour of slavery. I'm Scottish Australian and we have been slaves/indebted servants for hundreds of years. It helped us to better ourselves until we were more rational human beings. Some humans are still Neanderthals. Is it not right and just to force them to become more rational? Or is it right and just to allow them to continue with the destruction of their countries and society?
Interesting. To what extent is character a product of social/cultural interelations between a subject and those they interract with. Aristotle clearly picks up on this in the importance of the state. Does capitalism as an ideology create a social environment that promotes poor character in some people? Does capitalism promote Eudominaea. Hos much of our character a product of he interraction between genes and our environment through upbringing. Human reason is the line that defines 'right' from 'wrong'. A person always knows this.
+sam carey Capitalism creates an environment where the self-labeled altruistic poor deal with the decisions of those who control the most/more resources. I don't believe this is the reason the poor and lower-middle class have such poor character. Capitalism creates an environment where the very best rise to the top while the those who aren't the best either remain behind with excuses or keep climbing. It's the ones that give up and make excuses that have poor character. I believe the character of those who fail in a capitalist society would likely not be much different with a social/environmental paradigm shift. I am of the opinion they would likely not excel in any society.
That which is deemed right and wrong has changed throughout history. It is very far from automatically defined by our individual reasoning.
+sam carey Capitalism, Socialism, Communism....Those are all just different ways of allocating resources among individuals in a collective, nation, household, ect.... and only impact the means and capabilities of the individual, but do not dictate the choices of the individual in action or inaction. Just as genetics is only an influence on choice as is environment. The individual can decide to give up their free will to be controlled by any of these influences, or can retain their free will and only listen to such influences like survival instincts, social pressure, personal desires as advisers in the decision making process.
And ultimately action or inaction is taken without a certainty of results. No one can be completely sure of the outcome of their actions because of countless variables outside of an individual's control. So action or inaction should be considered on the basis of the choice itself rather than the possible result. Seeking pleasure could result in social condemnation, seeking wealth could result unsatisfying paranoia, seeking anything could result in some form of suffering.
Personally, I've only come up with continuously showing kindness (both to others and myself) as an action that seems to provide the most benefit with the least negative outcomes.
I’m here for class
Help I'm being held hostage by my religion teacher
For my assignment lol