“A hungry man is an angry man”
“Well satisfied man is a more mindful and harmonious man.”
Re: which sentence do you agree with and why?
yuck! ...niether...they are so reflective of a patriarchal society!!
A good soceity is one that is balanced! where both men and women rule! its like ying and yang, day and night! you need a balance! if you have days that last twice as long and nights twice as short then ...well what a mess that would be!
no i like balance, where both men and women rule!!!
i think a hungry PERSON is usually an angry PERSON! heck i know when i am hungry i am more likely to snap too! and i am a WOman! ;)
and well anyone more satisfied is harmonious! i can tell you...women tooo unsatisfied about life and amitions or whatever are entitled to be stressed and unharmonious!!!
Re: which sentence do you agree with and why?
"A hungry man is an angry man"
"Well satisfied man is a more mindful and harmonious man."
Peace to you Sister
Before this question can be answered ... may you clarify the following?:
- Does the meaning of 'well satisfied' take the meaning of a person who has just eaten his fill?
Also, the two sentences are not opposing one another, what I mean is that both can be true at the same time, without cancelling the validity of the others' claim.
So it can well be, that both sentences are wrong, or both are right, so by forcing the issue of decision with regards to agreement.
I think this is an unkind request. Please comment.
Re: which sentence do you agree with and why?
hmm, great question for clarification.
here is what i have to say:
every man may have one or all of these limitations - familial, personal, social, emotional, psychological and physical. yet when you talk of having eaten to one's fill - what i mean is, how much of an egoistic a man can be?
if you think of it, on the one hand, he is unable to say that a person is unable to say that he hates and on the other hand he is unable to clearly prove that he loved.
his fill is actually not satiated either way.
so the reason why i presented this contrast in the two statements is because i know that they are referring to a certain type of people, males, who when not satisfied remain unfed of course and hungry as a consequence for more because there is none to begin with,
but when they are satiated fully, nearly, almost, and they apparently do get what they want (unless they themselves are so unsure of their own wanting) , and as a consequence, they are still not satisfied and thus, not harmonious.
what do you do with them?
leave them alone to suffer?
not care about them, since they did not care?
or hopefully begin a quest of finding out what got to them? why they act as neither hungry nor satiated - that must be double painful for them. no?
can you please share your comments or perspectives on this?
Re: which sentence do you agree with and why?
hmm, great question for clarification. here is what i have to say: every man may have one or all of these limitations - familial, personal, social, emotional, psychological and physical. yet when you talk of having eaten to one's fill - what i mean is, how much of an egoistic a man can be? if you think of it, on the one hand, he is unable to say that a person is unable to say that he hates and on the other hand he is unable to clearly prove that he loved. his fill is actually not satiated either way. so the reason why i presented this contrast in the two statements is because i know that they are referring to a certain type of people, males, who when not satisfied remain unfed of course and hungry as a consequence for more because there is none to begin with, but when they are satiated fully, nearly, almost, and they apparently do get what they want (unless they themselves are so unsure of their own wanting) , and as a consequence, they are still not satisfied and thus, not harmonious. what do you do with them? leave them alone to suffer? not care about them, since they did not care? or hopefully begin a quest of finding out what got to them? why they act as neither hungry nor satiated - that must be double painful for them. no? can you please share your comments or perspectives on this?
Peace Sister Dushwari
Aaha - Now I understand ...
Well the answer is clear ... both of these approaches try to satisfy the 'material' nature of man. The material is ellusive. The more we get the more we seem to need.
You see ... there is one thing that breaks the logistics of the second statement by hammering on the first. This thing is prescribed by Islam. It is called the Fast!
When we fast we may have a tendency to get angry, but anger invalidates the fast. We are encouraged to indulge in extra worship during the fast, which should make us more mindful and harmonious.
The bottom line is 'Jihad' we need to battle within ourselves to 'domesticate' the yahoo within the male. We do this by subjecting ourselves to the conditions that bring out our worst then we consciously make the effort to tame that animal. And compound this with worship.
So in the case of a person in the state of a fast the first statement should not be true. If the satisfaction comes from the 'spiritual' domain then the second statement can be true, but if taken 'materially' I think the advice is .... never 'well satisfy' your men .... keep them on the chase. (as long as it is within Islamic limits that is!)
Re: which sentence do you agree with and why?
i cannot agree with you more, here :)
you are right - more is less to some insatiable creatures.
Peace Sister Dushwari
Aaha - Now I understand ...
Well the answer is clear ... both of these approaches try to satisfy the 'material' nature of man. The material is ellusive. The more we get the more we seem to need.
You see ... there is one thing that breaks the logistics of the second statement by hammering on the first. This thing is prescribed by Islam. It is called the Fast!
When we fast we may have a tendency to get angry, but anger invalidates the fast. We are encouraged to indulge in extra worship during the fast, which should make us more mindful and harmonious.
The bottom line is 'Jihad' we need to battle within ourselves to 'domesticate' the yahoo within the male. We do this by subjecting ourselves to the conditions that bring out our worst then we consciously make the effort to tame that animal. And compound this with worship.
So in the case of a person in the state of a fast the first statement should not be true. If the satisfaction comes from the 'spiritual' domain then the second statement can be true, but if taken 'materially' I think the advice is .... never 'well satisfy' your men .... keep them on the chase. (as long as it is within Islamic limits that is!)
Re: which sentence do you agree with and why?
"A hungry man is an angry man"
"Well satisfied man is a more mindful and harmonious man."
its not fair to treat these two on exclusive basis.
I disagree to both of them, hunger not necessarily makes you angry... not wealth can make you harmoniuos. Infact in some cases its the WEALTH which makes a man ANGRY... angry for the loss of simple joys in life.. loss of emotions.. etc etc
Re: which sentence do you agree with and why?
^ exactly true.
personal well being does not come from anger or over-satiation.
simplicity in life is the best thing people can ever have & they need to recognize the real value of this simplicity.