A fairly old Adage

[Nicomedes]

"There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it."

Oscar Wilde

I'd like to interpret its meaning.
I'm not interested so much in what the sayer meant by it, as what it means to me...or to you, and I don't really believe in inherent meaning, or inherent anything for that matter.

It's self evident why not getting what one wants is a tragedy, but why would getting what one wants be one?
I don't think we can ever absolutely get what we want, but we can relatively get what we want/an approximation of it.
This is because in one sense, existence is infinitely more complex than our ideas about it.
As much as we know something, there's potentially infinitely more to it than what we know...and as much as we know ourselves, and what we want, there's potentially infinitely more to ourselves, and what we want, than we know.
Furthermore, existence is always changing, what's good can transform into bad, and what's good in one situation can be bad in another.
So existence is tricky then, we may get a hold of something we thought we wanted, but not sufficiently comprehend it and its many entailments.
It could be that all the bad about it and its implications that we didn't see, may outweigh the good that we saw.

Now, let us delve a little deeper.
There's a lot of sayings like this isn't there?, there's only two kinds of this in life, or that, two kinds of people and so on.
Why divide life into two kinds of anything at all, why not divide it into many, or leave it undivided (an aside: do we, leave, things undivided, for that matter, or do we unite them, why should unity, or division be the default state of things?)?
I suppose sometimes it can be useful to divide things into two in various ways, but not necessary, for our comprehension, and, because sometimes things can be more two like than three or four like.
We do this with little things and with big things, like apples, we might say there are only two kinds of apples, red ones and green ones, or only two kinds of substances, matter and mind.
What the sayer is offering us is a simple, binary way of understanding tragedy.
How far we take it is up to us, do we glance at it, ponder it briefly for a moment or two, or do we gaze into it?

We might call the first sort of tragedy, not getting what one wants, obvious or overt tragedy, because it obviously sucks not getting ones way, and the second covert tragedy.

Another thing, what would it mean, to always get what one wants, what would the implications be?
Every time we act, we act with ends in mind...goals, motives, objectives, and being life forms, it could be said that we do indeed act, of our own accord and volition (some of us more than others), and not merely react, passively, the way more inanimate, inert and primal things do.
If one were totally fulfilled, then there would be no need to act, as all vital action entails dissatisfaction with the way things are, is an effort to change them, more in alignment with ones will, and would that not be a kind of tragedy, to absolutely get what one wants, to have ones animation eternally suspended?
Are we not at least in part, if not wholly defined by what we do, aren't all things, by their cumulative affects and effects?
Anyway...

If first form of tragedy is overt and the other covert, could it be that we spend most of our lives, trying to avoid the first form, while neglecting the second form?
Imagine a man's life filled to the brim with the first form of tragedy, deprived of all the things most consider desirable.
A bitter, meager life of poverty, spent alone, without the aid or company of friends or family.
Now imagine a life overflowing with all the things most regard as desirable, a life of nonstop cake, drinks, parties, fame and fortune, song and dance.
Tragic, isn't it?

What's worse, a life of poverty, or riches?
A life of starvation, or morbid obesity?
Of sobriety, or drunkenness.
Of Isolation, solitude, or expectations and pressures, greed and envy?
I suppose if you're going to go, may as well go out with a bang, rather than a whimper, it's been said.
Who's better off in the end, the poor, nameless hobo who dies by the side of the road, or your Marylin Monroes, Elvis's or Michael Jacksons?
To desire all, and to have nothing, or to have everything your heart desires?

If there are two tragedies, not getting it, and getting it, what is triumph, and how many sorts of triumph are there?
Might triumph, real success be having half of what you want?
Saying yes to some things, sometimes, and no to others, othertimes?
50/50, give or take?
Most of the voices out there are telling us, all day long, how to get more out of life, but where are the voices, telling us how to get by with less, how to makedo without?
Some of the consequences of having more are acknowledged, but it seems like modern man is always trying to find a way around these, or out of these, rather than accept them, and deal with them, or say no to himself, and repress his desires, or divert them, channel them elsewhere...well, at least when it comes to many things, I'd say.

You might even say that not only individuals, but societies, and even species decay, and die for two reasons, one is deprivation, scarcity, and the other is abundance, morbid obesity, overpopulation and so on, which is not only the scourge of man, but is something that routinely occurs in 'nature', or in nature that hasn't been thoroughly anthropomorphized.
Scarcity is the norm, and abundance is a rarity, which is why animals have a tendency to overshoot, rather than under.
This is probably especially true of man, both his nature and the way he's been nurturing himself, particularly as of late.
I think there came a time in our species recent history, when the second sort of tragedy, of getting exactly what you want, and more than you bargained for, became our chief problem, and no longer merely the problem of the upper classes.
I think that you, can have too much of any good thing, perhaps even of knowledge, or more especially information, and that what's pleasant isn't always or even fundamentally good, that sometimes our passions must serve our reason and not the other way.
I think if individuals, and indeed our entire species as a whole wants to survive this century, it has to relearn the virtues of abstinence and asceticism, of living well within our means, of acknowledging our many, many limitations, that more material, more pleasure, more crowds, even more science and technology, can be an evil, or our tragic demise will surely follow.

Our discovery of modern Science, technology and western 'civility' was like nature handing a kid a loaded gun, and as we mature, if we are to mature, we better learn if and when to use it, sooner than later.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.






Be careful what you wish for 'cause you just might get it all
You just might get it all...

--Chris Daughtry --
~~~ Home ~~~








.

[Dalek Prime]

I find myself wanting to give up things, and live simply, almost monastic. As I have often said, if everything I have went up in flames, what's left is what is important. Myself. That's what I came here with, and that's what I leave with. Before, nothing. And after, nothing.

[RedDelta]

In response to:"There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it."
By Oscar Wilde...

I agree that we will never truly get what we want. Only an approximation.
Getting exactly what we want would be in line with predicting future outcomes when so many variables decide our destinies.
Yes, "existence is infinitely more complex than our ideas about it."
This is so because the infinite complexity can only be comprehended to a small percentage. Even a percentage of a percentage.
A twelve year old once said to me that "The mind has the capacity for infinite knowledge." Yet this capacity is never met.
Humans are fallible creatures. We forget things. We neglect things. Especially our own education. Some of us choose not to pursue education after "school". As adults.

Existence is always changing because of expansion and inflation. Among other things. I believe in the universal laws that work together to affect our collective and individual worlds. The laws of attraction, vibration, cause and effect, polarity, transmutation of energy etc.

Anyway...

"there's only two kinds of this in life, or that, two kinds of people and so on."
I believe this has to do with polarity. How one thing has to oppose the other to be comparative.
Also, there are only two ends of a spectrum with various degrees of each measurement along that sliding scale.
Someone has asked me: "Why does anything have to be black or white?" There are no absolutes.

What it means to me is this:

Never getting what you want is a tragedy because of the endless suffering.
Never knowing pleasure, joy, happiness, success... We can want what we need, but we don't always need what we want.
There are implications to not getting our needs met and implications to those implications.

"If one were totally fulfilled, then there would be no need to act." It would depend on the reasons for acting.
Some people do things without expecting to gain anything for themselves. On the behalf of others.
Actions aren't always about the end goals. Actions support our thoughts, feelings, words.
We act based on what we think about something, how we feel about it, and do the things we say we will do.
Like keeping a promise or walking the talk. According to the law of action.

Whereas always getting what you want is a tragedy because you never learn to appreciate what you already have or what you get.
Living without appreciation for your quality of life or appreciation of/for anything is tragic.
Appreciation is a primal key to true happiness. Happiness isn't getting what you want. It's about appreciation.

The law of compensation speaks to the 50/50 give or take. Some call it the law of reciprocation.
If we are taught to live within our means, we can do it easily.
If we are taught that we "must have such and such" it becomes a reality based on false beliefs. Induced by ignorance.

What is realistic to one person may be completely unrealistic to someone else. Since we all have individualized realities.
Acknowledgement, acceptance, repression, divergence are all things that are affected by what seems realistic v.s what seems unrealistic to anyone.

Did ancient Rome fall because they had nothing? Or did their society implode because of abundance? Like filling a balloon with water... How much water can it hold before it breaks?

Getting exactly what you want is an issue. Not just because of the lack of appreciation, but yes, you can end up with more than you bargained for. Like the other implications.

For example: Technology. Sure technology is great. Useful. Wonderful. But when does it become detrimental?
When people spend too much of their time using it? Too much time on the computer? Too much time on social media? Too much time looking at their cellphones? To the point that they live in a virtual reality? If we took the time to look at the people around us, we'd see examples of addiction to technology. People refusing to interact with each other unless it's through texts online or on their phones. Not paying attention to where they are going (walking into traffic) because they'd rather stare at a screen than look at their surroundings. Friendships being lost because people would rather make time for 'facebook' and not see their friends face to face.
Isolation is a sickness. More often than not, isolation is self-imposed.

Yes, you most definitely can have too much of a good thing. Too much of anything can be detrimental rather than instrumental.

Individuals do indeed need to relearn/rethink virtues/values. Abstinence has more to do with moderation and balance (temperance) than it has to do with lack. People tend to see society in two parts. "Have and Have Not". People tend to focus on stigmas and implications. Judgements. What is wrong with having less? Does it mean certain people won't accept us? So what?! If my acceptance is solely based on what I have, I'd rather not be accepted. I'm more than fine with being rejected for not having what the elites think I "should" have.

Yes, people ought to live well within their means. Yes, they ought to acknowledging their limitations. They ought to see society like that aforementioned water balloon. Too much water will make it burst and all that water must go somewhere. Even water can be dangerous. Even animals know that. Cats fear and hate it because they know how dangerous it can be.

[Harbal]

I wanted marmalade on my toast this morning but I didn't have any. Although it was disappointing I wouldn't say it was a tragedy.

[A_Seagull]

I wanted marmalade on my toast this morning but I didn't have any. Although it was disappointing I wouldn't say it was a tragedy.

Well congratulations! From that one might infer that you are an exceptionally well-balanced and mentally healthy individual.