How about all happy families realize it’s impossible to be happy all the time and so don’t exhaust themselves and ruin what happiness they have by expecting what they can’t ever obtain? Idealized happiness is every bit as much an impossible goal as is idealized masculinity. Or femininity, for that matter.
The suffering occurs for people don't realize they need to think in different time horizons simultaneously. And you can't be happy in all those timeframes at the same time, but you can be happy in many of them (but not all) at the same time, and also those time horizons switch where one day you may be happy in different ones.
What is Matthew saying you ask? Well let me describe an image from a book (The Clock Of The Long Now)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgpPUbtUYAAHSXA.jpg:orig
Those different circles are different time horizons. The outer circles change more often, while the inner circles change less often. Furthermore the circles interact with each other and change each other.
If you don't realize you are living in different times and spaces simultaneously you will make yourself miserable optimizing towards one circle at the expense of the others and you will just drain yourself in a self destructive fashion.
----
The same book of Aristotle that had that Aristotle quote that Tolstoy improved has the "Golden Mean" idea in Aristotle's Virtue theory of philosophy which tries to escape the nonsense of ideal systems for this nonsense can drive you mad.
Virtue Theory is good not in itself but because it allows you remain in a practical / praxis mindset and this in turn allows you to be both more happy and more virtuous in your daily life.
Some people are naturally inside such practical mindset without even trying.
But hey we all have our own cross to bear.
How about all happy families realize it’s impossible to be happy all the time and so don’t exhaust themselves and ruin what happiness they have by expecting what they can’t ever obtain? Idealized happiness is every bit as much an impossible goal as is idealized masculinity. Or femininity, for that matter.
I mentioned Kierkegaard earlier for a reason, the author of the piece is making the mistake of one of the 3 knights that Kierkegaard talks about. The knight of Infinite Resignation makes himself miserable in a very specific way, trying to achieve his goals (that are ideas and are perfect) but he often gets destroyed in the process. The ideal allows him to improve oneself, but it also simultaneously introduces a very specific form of anxiety in his life. Now all 3 knights have their own different forms of anxiety and there are contradictions in each one of the knights and I do not want to talk about Kierkegaard to much for he can be quite absurd at times
But yeah "Fear and Trembling" indeed
How does one determine the exception and the rule? If you believe in the Just World Fallacy you do not see the contradiction here for you already believed the inertia of the system has already sorted everything into a just and best system. Like this is some form of Vedic Caste system that endured for 3500 years (maybe even older.)
But sometimes people are born in the wrong sort. Maybe some women were not diminished in such a system but other women were. How do we get the right women in the right places so everyone can thrive? The same applies to each individual man how can we get him to the right place for him?
I never said this was easy

