Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Arthur N asked in Arts & HumanitiesPhilosophy · 1 decade ago

"I wept because I had no shoes, until I saw a man who had no feet."?

What is the value of this phrase?

I would seem to be saying that there is always someone worse off than you and therefore that you should get over it. That one should exercise self control - that having no shoes is not the worst thing that could happen. But while the value a healthy amount of self-control is not in question here the construction of the phrase seems to negate any beneficial effect it may have.

A man with no shoes must walk everywhere without protection for his feet. This means through all sorts of terrain and weather. It could be the middle of winter with freezing rain and cold sucking mud that could hide anything or the middle of summer with burning sand and baked hard razor sharp dirt. His feet may become infected from the injuries he sustains which could lead months to years of pain and suffering right through to septicemia, amputation and even possibly death.

A man who has no feet is not in need of shoes to protect them. While it is true that he cannot walk to the places that the man who has no shoes can, he also does not have the same danger that the man without shoes does. A man without feet but with shoes is gaining nothing by having them, a man with feet but without shoes is in danger of losing what he does have.

Also, can it not be argued that both men suffer equally? The one without feet must beg for lack of work, the one without shoes does work but must work with sore injured feet and also must live with the danger of losing what he does have.

So what in the end is the value of this phrase?

10 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Of course all suffering is subjective. But I would say although the man without shoes can potentially lose his feet, it is not guaranteed that he will. There is a chance that he can earn enough money to afford them, be granted charity and someone who just hands him a pair, or make his own pair. The man without shoes has no reason to pity himself. Zen master Ch'eng-t'ien said, "Poverty at home is not yet poverty; poverty on the road saddens people to death."

    At least the man without shoes can direct himself down the path he chooses to follow.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Your argument has value for short duration.

    A man with foot but without shoe can walk interior with his foot in side the house freely and can do his work without extra support.When he go out for his need ,first he will suffer and during times his foots will get immunized for the climate and the environment and he will do his walk out side freely.

    A man without foot has no beneficiary of the foot and he will need support where ever he go,inside or outside he becomes burden to himself,So he feel very sad than the man with foot.

    So ,for long duration of life the phrase has the value.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It means that sometimes to make one's self feel better, it's a good strategy to think about your own personal situation from the perspective of somebody in much worse shape.

    A broke man with a house is still living like a King compared to the guy living behind the dumpster of a K-Mart.

  • 1 decade ago

    You're overthinking it. You had it right before you went off on a tangent. The point is that if you think you have problems, there is always someone else who is worse off and you should consider yourself lucky not to be in that situation. It's a metaphor, not meant to be taken so literally.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Not if your feet hurt from all the wounds they get from walking bare brother.

    So in fact the man with no legs might be better than you,

    So it's just a matter of perspective,

    Also the man with no feet might have something to be thankful for when he sees you just as well.

  • 1 decade ago

    You kind of explained it yourself, by saying that there is probably someone worse off than you so you shouldn't cry about it. Although I don't think it's due to a lack of self control.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Learn to accept and appreciate what we have because in life, we think we lack "something" but there are others, somewhere in this vast universe who we are not aware of, who really don't have "anything at all" but still have the courage to live and strive harder in life just to survive..

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Always lamented the loss of too much, and have too little. When the peace of mind after, to discover what you really need.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    yes all ways look on the bright side of life, there all ways some one worse off than you.

  • 1 decade ago

    Woah i was not expecting that...lol

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.