I found a good use for my TV aerial: as a trellis…
#wisteria

Envy is also a question of attitude. Whenever we come across someone who is better or more successful than we are, we can react with indifference, joy, admiration, envy, or emulation.
Envy is the pain that we feel because others have good things, whereas emulation is the pain that we feel because we ourselves do not have them.
This is a subtle but critical difference. By reacting with envy, we prevent ourselves from learning from those who know or understand more than we do, and thereby condemn ourselves to stagnation. But by reacting with emulation, we can ask to be taught, and, through learning, improve our lot. Unlike envy, which is sterile at best and self-defeating at worst, emulation enables us to grow and, in growing, to acquire the advantages that would otherwise have incited our envy.
Why can some people rise to emulation, while most seem limited to envy? In the Rhetoric, Aristotle says that emulation is felt most of all by those who believe themselves to deserve certain good things that they do not yet have, and most keenly by those with an honourable or noble disposition. In other words, whether we react with envy or emulation is a function of our self-esteem.
Men die in despair, while spirits die in ecstasy. —Balzac
Happiness has been deemed so important as to feature as an unalienable human right in the United States Declaration of Independence. It is, however, a fuzzy concept that means different things to different people. On one level, it can be amalgamated with a range of positive or pleasant emotions such as acceptance, contentment, gratitude, gratification, pride, excitement, amusement, and joy. On another level, it can be thought of in terms of human flourishing or the good life. I have discussed happiness at some length in my book The Art of Failure, and I do not intend to revisit the topic here. Instead, I propose to concentrate on euphoria and, in particular, on ecstasy.
Euphoria derives from the Greek eu- (“good”) and pherein (“to bear”), and literally means “to bear well.” The term has come to refer to any form of intense elation or positive feeling, especially that with an abstract or expansive quality. Such intense elation is uncommon in the normal course of human experience but can be sparked by certain substances and experiences, for example, beauty, art, music, love, orgasm, exercise, and triumph. It can also stem from a number of psychiatric and neurological disorders, in particular bipolar affective disorder and cyclothymia.
The pinnacle of euphoria is ecstasy, which literally means “to be or stand outside oneself.” Ecstasy is a trance-like state in which consciousness of an object, or objects, is so heightened that the subject dissolves or merges into the object. Einstein called this the “mystic emotion,” and spoke of it as “the finest emotion of which we are capable,” “the germ of all art and all true science,” and “the core of the true religious sentiment.”
Like it or not, man is by nature a religious animal, and most, if not all, cultures have interpreted ecstasy in terms of divine possession or revelation, or union with the divine. Many traditions seek to induce religious ecstasy or “enlightenment” by one or several methods, often meditation, intoxication, or ritual dancing. Yet, it is also possible for atheists and agnostics to experience ecstasy “by accident” and to interpret it in other terms, thereby experiencing the deepest religion without getting caught in the trivia and trappings of any one particular religion.
Ecstasy is difficult to describe, in part because its expression is culture-bound. Unless it is induced, it is more likely to supervene in a period of inactivity, particularly a non-routine period of inactivity, or in a novel, unfamiliar, or unusual setting or set of circumstances. The person enters into a trans-like state that typically lasts from minutes to hours, although subjective perception of time and space may be highly distorted. He or she feels a great sense of calm and quiescence and may become tearful and unresponsive up to the point of unconsciousness. The experience is typically described as delightful beyond expression and the first episode as life changing.
One of my friends explained it thus: “It felt like the fulfillment of my life, but, more than that, the fulfillment of all life, of life itself. It put everything into perspective and gave it all unity, purpose, and nobility. It’s completely changed me. Still today, everything that I do—and, perhaps more importantly, do not do—is grounded in that vision, grounded in that reality… It’s as if it’s opened up a channel in my mind. I feel more alert and alive, and often experience small aftershocks of the original experience. These aftershocks can be triggered by the smallest things: the song of a bird, the sun playing into a room, the fleeting expression on the face of a friend, or anything that is slightly heightened or unordinary and in some sense a reminder of the eternal and infinite.”
The friend in question also confided that he had torn up his CV (resume) after realizing that nothing that a CV could get him could be worth having. Ecstasy can lead to one or several such epiphanies. An epiphany, or “eureka moment,” can be defined as the experience of a sudden and striking realization, especially one that is both profound and against the grain (although the term is also used to refer to the manifestation of a divine or supernatural being, and, more specifically, to the revelation of the incarnation of the infant Christ to the Gentiles in the form of the Three Kings). In Sanskrit, “epiphany” is rendered as bodhodaya, which derives from bodha (“wisdom”) and udaya (“rising”), and literally means “a rising of wisdom.”
One of the cardinal features of ecstasy is the dissolution of boundaries, with the individual ego merging into all being. More than at any other time in human history, our society emphasizes the sovereign independence and supremacy of the ego, and the ultimate loneliness and responsibility of each and every individual. From a young age, we are taught to uphold and control the ego, so much so that we have lost the art of letting go. Indeed, we no longer even recognize the possibility of letting go, leading to a poverty or monotony of conscious experience. Today, if anyone cannot or will not remain in tight control of his or her ego, the consequences can be utterly devastating. Yet, letting go can free us from our modern narrowness and neediness, returning us to a primordial Eden. Little children have a quiescent or merged ego, which is why they are brimming with joy and wonder. Ecstasy can make us once again into a little child.
‘Patience’ (forbearing) derives from the Latin patientia, ‘patience, endurance, submission’, and, ultimately—like ‘passivity’ and ‘passion’—from patere, ‘to suffer’. It can be defined as the quality of endurance and equanimity in the face of adversity, from simple delay or provocation to grand-scale misfortune or calamity.
The Old Testament Book of Proverbs tells us that, ‘he that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city’ (16:32, KJV), and also that, ‘by long forbearing is a prince persuaded, and a soft tongue breaketh the bone’ (25:15). According to Ecclesiastes, ‘better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof: and the patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit. Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry: for anger resteth in the bosom of fools.’ In Buddhism, patience is named as one of the ‘perfections’ (paramitas), and, as in other religious traditions, extends to not returning harm. Thus, Paul’s First Epistle to the Thessalonians exhorts, ‘be patient toward all men. See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men’ (5:14-15).
Although patience is often spoken of as a virtue, it can also be construed as a complex of virtues such as self-control, humility, tolerance, generosity, and mercy. Patience also belies several other virtues, not least ambition, hope, faith, and love. If patience is a virtue, it is because it tends to be beneficial—and also very difficult. There are several types of patience, including patience in the face of irritation, patience in the face of boredom, patience in the face of vindication, patience in the face of misfortune, and, most difficult of all, patience in the face of suffering.
The opposite of patience is, of course, impatience, but also hastiness, impetuosity, and perhaps even cowardice, suggesting that patience may have a lot in common with courage. Impatience is the inability or disinclination to endure perceived imperfection. It amounts to a rejection of the present moment born out of an evaluation that it is marred and ought to be supplanted by a more ideal future. More than that, impatience can amount to a rejection of human finitude. Patience recognizes that life is a struggle for each and every one of us. Impatience on the other hand takes offence at things that are not intended to offend, betraying a certain disregard, even contempt, for others, and, by extension, the order of nature.
Impatience implies impotence, which in turn implies frustration, which is sterile and self-defeating in that it serves no purpose other than to make us miserable and turn others against us, rendering us even more impotent and frustrated. Indeed, ‘frustration’ derives from the Latin frustra, ‘in vain, in error’, and is related to fraus, ‘injury, harm’. More subtly, but also more perversely, impatience leads to procrastination, since to put off a difficult or boring task is also to put off the irritation and frustration to which it is bound to give rise.
Today more than ever, patience is a lost virtue. Our individualistic society values ambition and action (or at least activity) above all else, but unlike, say, glamorous courage, patience seems to involve a withdrawal and withholding of the self. Neither is technology helping. In a recent study of millions of internet users, researchers found that, within just 10 seconds, about half of users had abandoned videos that did not start playing. Moreover, users with a faster connection were quicker to click out, suggesting that the pace of technological progress is rapidly eroding our patience. Indeed, much of today’s economy is geared at making things faster and reducing waiting times to next to nothing. In my books The Art of Failure and Hide and Seek, I argue that our increasing impatience has much to do with the manic defence, the essence of which is to prevent feelings of helplessness and despair from entering the conscious mind by occupying it with opposite feelings of euphoria, purposeful activity, and omnipotent control.
Even in the most propitious of times, the so-called ‘egocentric predicament’ makes patience difficult to exercise. Simply put, because I have privileged access to my own thoughts and feelings, I magnify them out of all proportion. If I am impatient in the queue, it is ultimately because I am under the impression that my time is more valuable, and my purpose more worthwhile, than that of the mugs standing in front of me. Thinking that I could do a much better job of manning the till, I give dagger eyes to the cashier, failing to appreciate that she is coming at it from a different place and angle, and with different skills and abilities. An added source of impatience is with my impatience itself, as I vacillate between persisting in the queue and taking abortive action such as asking for another till to be opened, giving up on my shopping, or filing for divorce.
Patience can be looked upon as a decision-making problem: eat up all the grain today or plant it in the ground and wait for it to multiply. Unfortunately, man evolved as a hunter-gatherer, not as a farmer. Our ancestral shortsightedness, manifest in our strong tendency to discount long-term rewards, is borne out by the Stanford marshmallow experiment, a series of studies on delayed gratification led by Walter Mischel in the late 1960s and early 1970s. These studies, conducted on hundreds of mostly four- and five-year-old children, involved a simple choice: either eat this marshmallow now or within the next 15 minutes, or hold back for 15 minutes and be given another one. Having explained this choice to a child, the experimenter left the child alone with the marshmallow, only to return after the 15 minutes had elapsed. Follow-up studies carried out over 40 years found that the minority of children who had been able to hold back for a second marshmallow enjoyed significantly better life outcomes, including higher SAT scores, less substance misuse, and better social skills.
Even so, patience is more than the mere ability to await some future gain. Exercising patience (note the verb ‘to exercise’) is just like dieting or growing a garden: of course waiting is involved, but it is not just about waiting: there also needs to be a plan in place, and that plan needs to be worked at. When it comes to others, patience does not amount to mere toleration, but to a complicit engagement in their struggle and welfare, often at the expense of our own short-term welfare. In that much, patience is a form of compassion, which, instead of alienating people, turns them into friends and allies.
Rather than enfeeble us, patience frees us from frustration and its ills, delivers us to the present moment, and affords us the time and perspective to think, do, and say the right things—which is why, in psychotherapy, both patient and therapist can require several years together. Last but not least, patience enables us to achieve the greatest things. Being patient does not mean never complaining or giving up, but doing so in a considered fashion, never pettily or pointlessly, and never from an angry place. Neither does it mean withholding, just like ageing a case of fine wine for 10 years does not mean withholding from wine during all that time (God forbid). Life is too short to wait, but it is not too short for patience.
It is much easier to be patient if one can understand that patience can and does secure much better outcomes, not just for others but also and above all for ourselves. In 2012, researchers at the University of Rochester decided to replicate the marshmallow experiment. However, before doing so, they split the children into two groups, exposing a first group to unreliable experiences (broken promises) and a second group to reliable experiences (honoured promises). They found that the children exposed to honoured promises waited an average of four times longer than the children exposed to broken promises. In other words, patience is largely a matter of confidence, or trust, or faith.
References:
1. Krishnan and Sitaraman (2012). Video Stream Quality Impacts Viewer Behavior. ACM Internet Measurement Conference, Nov 2012.
2. Mischel et al. (1972). Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 21 (2): 204-218.
3. Kidd et al. (2013). Rational snacking: Young children’s decision-making on the marshmallow task is moderated by beliefs about environmental reliability. Cognition 126 (1): 109-114.

By Dr Neel Burton — Psychiatrist, philosopher, and wine writer; Fellow of Green Templeton College, University of Oxford; author of over twenty books.
Essay substantially revised on 24 July 2026.
In Plato’s Theætetus, written some 2,400 years ago, Socrates presents the sixteen-year-old Theætetus with a series of difficult contradictions. This is the exchange that follows:
Socrates: I believe that you follow me, Theætetus; for I suspect that you have thought of these questions before now.
Theætetus: Yes, Socrates, and I am amazed when I think of them; by the Gods I am! And I want to know what on earth they mean; and there are times when my head quite swims with the contemplation of them.
Socrates: I see, dear Theætetus, that Theodorus had a true insight into your nature when he said that you were a philosopher, for wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder. He was not a bad genealogist who said that Iris [the messenger of heaven] is the child of Thaumas [Wonder].
In the Metaphysics, Aristotle surmises that it must have been wonder that led the first philosophers to philosophy, since puzzled people think of themselves as ignorant and turn to philosophy to escape from their ignorance. St Thomas Aquinas concurred, adding in his commentary on the Metaphysics that, ‘Because philosophy arises from awe, a philosopher is bound in his way to be a lover of myths and poetic fables. Poets and philosophers are alike in being big with wonder.’
If Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas are right in tracing philosophy—and, by extension, science, religion, art, and all else that transcends the mundane—to wonder, then it behoves us to ask: What exactly is wonder?
Wonder is a complex emotion involving surprise, curiosity, contemplation, and joy. It can be thought of as a heightened state of consciousness and emotion brought about by something unusually beautiful, rare, or unexpected—that is, by a marvel. ‘Marvel’ derives from the Latin mirus [wonder] via mirabilia [‘wonderful things’]. ‘Admire’ shares the same root and originally meant ‘to wonder at’, although, since the sixteenth century, this sense has been steadily eroded—along, some might say, with wonder itself. Aquinas spoke of philosophers and poets in the same breath because both are moved by marvels, with the purpose of poetry being, broadly, to record and, in some sense, recreate marvels, to inspire wonder.
Wonder is most similar to awe. But compared to wonder, awe is more explicitly directed at something that is much greater or stronger than ourselves. As such, it is more closely associated with fear, reverence, or veneration than with joy. Without this element of respect and reverence, all that remains of awe is fear, that is, no longer awe but terror or horror. Awe is also less detached than wonder, which allows for much greater and freer contemplation of its object.
Wonder may be stirred by grand landscapes, natural phenomena, extraordinary achievements, or astonishing facts. It is expressed by a bright-eyed stare, sometimes accompanied by an opening of the mouth and a suspension of the breath. By drawing us out of ourselves, wonder reconnects us with something greater than our everyday. It is the ultimate homecoming, returning us to the world that we came from and were in danger of losing to our narrow selves.
But notice how this kind of wonder is not the same as the more abstract wonder that moved Theætetus to philosophy.
The wonder of the philosopher, also known as Socratic wonder, is not so much wonder in the sense of awe as wonder in the sense of puzzlement or perplexity. Rather than grand vistas and the like, Socratic wonder arises from contradictions in thought and language, and impels us to investigate these contradictions in the hope of resolving them into some higher truth.
Theætetus: Yes, Socrates, and I am amazed when I think of them; by the Gods I am! And I want to know what on earth they mean; and there are times when my head quite swims with the contemplation of them.
Socrates himself came to philosophy—and to his revolutionary method of doing philosophy—after being bewildered by the Delphic oracle, which, despite his professed ignorance, pronounced him the wisest of all men. To get to the bottom of this apparent contradiction, he questioned several supposedly wise men—first the politicians, then the poets, and finally the artisans—and in each case concluded: ‘I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know.’
Wonder in the sense approaching awe is a universal experience found also in little children (picture a child at the circus or zoo) and even in higher-order primates and some other animals. Socratic wonder, by contrast, is much more rarefied, and, as Socrates implies by calling it ‘the feeling of a philosopher’, not given to all and sundry.
In his Advancement of Learning (1605), Francis Bacon called this kind of Socratic wonder ‘broken knowledge’, and there is a sense in which wonder, which may be cognate to the German Wunde [wound], breaches us and draws us out of ourselves. That breach yearns to be filled, not only by philosophy but also by science, religion, and art, giving rise to a third kind of wonder: the wonder of insight and creation.
Like Plato and Aristotle before him, the philosopher AN Whitehead (d. 1947) observed that ‘philosophy begins in wonder’, adding that, ‘at the end, when the philosophic thought has done its best, the wonder remains.’ More than remain, the wonder grows. Scientific breakthroughs such as Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, Newton’s theory of gravitation, Darwin’s theory of evolution, the periodic table of the elements, and Einstein’s theory of relativity are often more wondrous than the mysteries they were intended to solve. Wonder begets culture, which begets yet more wonder, and the end of wonder is wisdom—not the extinction of wonder, but its perfection.
Unfortunately, many people do not open themselves up to wonder for fear that it may distract or derail them. After all, wonder is wounding, and thauma is only one letter removed from ‘trauma’. To wonder is also to wander, to stray from society and its norms and constructs, to stand alone, to be free—which is, of course, deeply subversive, and why even organised religions need to tread a fine line with wonder.
To rationalise the fear of it, wonder is dismissed as a childish emotion that ought to be outgrown rather than invited and cultivated. So much is true, that children brim with wonder, before it is leached out of them by need and neurosis.
Today, many young people who go to university do so not for the sake of marvelling or even learning, but of obtaining a piece of paper by which to advance careers that they have scarcely had the freedom to question—entirely bypassing the wonder and wisdom that might have saved them from needing a career in the first place. For the child is not merely innocent but a natural philosopher, still open to wonder before the world.
Jesus said:
Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
And again:
Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven… whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
If this essay spoke to you, you might look into Heaven and Hell: The Psychology of the Emotions.
You may also enjoy
You must be logged in to post a comment.