I think the confusion is in the definition of "safe" - when I read "safe", I understand it to mean "will not cause major injury, great financial loss or permanent poverty".
Most people considering a safe vs. adventurous route mistakes this kind of safety with "will not cause any emotional distress". In a modern guy's head, straying from "strictly" safe feels as dangerous as straying from "emotionally safe", probably because our modern society doesn't prepare us to deal with any reasonable amount of pain.
A "physically and financially" safe adventure isn't an oxymoron, even in business. But in most cases, adventure entails a certain amount of distress between the successes. For instance, I fly airplanes for fun. I'm pretty sure this hobby will never hurt me, but it sure as hell doesn't always feel like that.
Forget the exclusivity, what we're talking about is the summum bonum: the ultimate goal according to which values and principles are established.
A person whose summum bonum is maximum comfort and security will have a very different life than if they had instead pursued creativity, justice, progress, etc. above all else.
We're not talking about the abolishment of comfort and security, but rather their subjugation to what is greater.
I don't think anyone said that. But for something to be truly an adventure, safety or a sense of safety, will be compromised at certain points along the way.
If you want a recipe for restless sleep, I can give you one. Add one part “what will my wife think” with 3,000 parts Benjamin Franklin; stir in a “beer anytime you damn well please” and top with a chance at financial independence.
That one made me laugh, but I liked this one better:
>When I’m old and dying, I plan to look back on my life and say “wow, that was an adventure,” not “wow, I sure felt safe.”
Interesting how apparently adventurous parts of life and safe parts of life are mutually exclusive.
I think the confusion is in the definition of "safe" - when I read "safe", I understand it to mean "will not cause major injury, great financial loss or permanent poverty".
Most people considering a safe vs. adventurous route mistakes this kind of safety with "will not cause any emotional distress". In a modern guy's head, straying from "strictly" safe feels as dangerous as straying from "emotionally safe", probably because our modern society doesn't prepare us to deal with any reasonable amount of pain.
A "physically and financially" safe adventure isn't an oxymoron, even in business. But in most cases, adventure entails a certain amount of distress between the successes. For instance, I fly airplanes for fun. I'm pretty sure this hobby will never hurt me, but it sure as hell doesn't always feel like that.
Adventure requires exploring the unknown. Thus, you never know whether you will be taking the "safer" path, but that's the fun.
3 replies →
Forget the exclusivity, what we're talking about is the summum bonum: the ultimate goal according to which values and principles are established.
A person whose summum bonum is maximum comfort and security will have a very different life than if they had instead pursued creativity, justice, progress, etc. above all else.
We're not talking about the abolishment of comfort and security, but rather their subjugation to what is greater.
I don't think anyone said that. But for something to be truly an adventure, safety or a sense of safety, will be compromised at certain points along the way.
This is my favorite line:
If you want a recipe for restless sleep, I can give you one. Add one part “what will my wife think” with 3,000 parts Benjamin Franklin; stir in a “beer anytime you damn well please” and top with a chance at financial independence.