The narrator observes a couple in a restuarant:
'... they are happy to be together, happy to be seen together.' (Jean-Paul Sartre, Nausea)
I wonder how much of the latter contributes to their happiness. Would they be less happy if they couldn't afford to be seen together? Or maybe it doesn't make much difference? Or perhaps the former happiness is independant of the latter happiness... even if you don't have the latter one, it doesn't mean that the former should lose any of its value or charm.
'... they are happy to be together, happy to be seen together.' (Jean-Paul Sartre, Nausea)
I wonder how much of the latter contributes to their happiness. Would they be less happy if they couldn't afford to be seen together? Or maybe it doesn't make much difference? Or perhaps the former happiness is independant of the latter happiness... even if you don't have the latter one, it doesn't mean that the former should lose any of its value or charm.
2 comments:
The later part contributes or adds happiness to the former but as far as I think It will not it will lessen the glee associated with the first part.
It wouldnt make a difference to me at all :-D
Post a Comment