I think that for the average person, it is easier to have great hope in the midst of danger and chaos, than it is to have great hope in the midst of security.
The former can only believe that things can only get better, while the latter drown themselves in distractions and frivolity.
2007-09-28 15:07:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by Tuna-San 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Maybe the only way to get security is to go through the danger and the chaos. There's no way, really, to escape danger and chaos. Even if someone lives there life so scared of the outside world that they live in constant fear of everything and lock themselves up in a room. What's to say that in this "secure" surrounding someone wont breaks in and rob that person and maybe burn that persons house down. Then taking a risk seems better than trying to live in a "secure" surrounding... Right?
2007-09-28 18:13:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by *Veronica* 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
This won't seem like an answer, but it really is.
Your question, to really have a serious philosophical inquiry, needs much more definition.
First of all, we need to know exactly how to define danger and chaos. Someone from a rural area might define danger and chaos as what they imagine goes on in the inner cities. Someone from the inner cities might define danger and chaos as spending the night unprotected in a dense forest.
Also, we need to know how to define security. Our definition of financial security, comfortable house, plenty of and our choice of whatever food we want, and more outfits and shoes than we can shake a stick at, would be very different from the vision of security that a person living in Haiti's poorest district and struggling for food and water for their children would be.
Also, we need to investigate better. Better for who? You, me? The OCD patient terrified of germs? The danger-a-holics? Those who spend time and think before they act?
Could you define those terms by adding details to your question?
2007-09-28 18:16:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by peacedevi 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Girl, I'm going to look hypocritical here! You know I like my adrenaline pumping activities. Yet I would be dishonest to say it is better than security. I live in a world that can be, to tell you the truth, boring! So I step outside the comfort of my safe surroundings to grab a thrill now and again. But! I do have quite allot of $ in insurance if this addiction should prove fatal. My need for my families security is stronger than my love for a thrill. To tell you the truth I think they would profit more financially if I slammed head first at mach 3 into a wild scheme than if I just did my day to day paycheck thing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suicidal, I just like my thrills!
2007-09-29 10:01:16
·
answer #4
·
answered by delux_version 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
No.
Danger and chaos breed fear and paranoia.
Security only limits your freedom a bit.
Then again, those with out, have less to lose, and therefore; maximum security.
The adage better safe than sorry is just a recognition that sorrow from loss is seemingly inevitable, so why not avoid the loss?
I prefer security to danger but that is just my preference.
2007-09-28 21:34:49
·
answer #5
·
answered by LORD Z 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
It makes life more interesting and more worth living.
2007-09-29 00:09:55
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Only if your from Inglewood.
2007-09-28 18:00:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by laura seeks the Kwisatz Haderach 4
·
0⤊
0⤋