Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Philosophical Question tuesday

I'm wondering which is the more authentic experience socially speaking - country living or city living - (am not even going to bring in the whole 2nd life, life online kind of thing into this debate just now - that's a whole nuther tuesday).

But here it is; if you live in a city - you will have the option to join clubs, go to particular places where there will be a collection of people into the same kinds of things as you, alot more so than in the country - so you end up clumping together perhaps with similar/ like minded types. (for example - let's say you're into comic books - you'll go to comic book shops and clubs). At the same time you are surrounded by more people - so you see lots of different types of people all the time, more diversity than you'd see in the country - however you will have no need to actually interract with them, and probably, mostly won't.
If you live in the country, let's say a small village or townland - everyone is bound together by being from the same area - although they may have little else in common in terms of outlook and interests etc. So if you live there, you are forced, if you are to have any social life at all, to find common ground with people who may be quite different to you, therefore you are more stretched, ie forced to explore parts of life that you might not have bothered with if you lived in the city. (ie if you're into comic books, you might be forced to read papers, or books from time to time)
Which one is the richer experience? Of course if you're very outgoing and live in a city - you'll go and delve around into everything anyway... likewise if you're single minded in the country - you might stick to what you know and stay inside your comfort zone. And I know there's lots of other considerations - pace of life/ quality of life etc - but just in terms of getting to know and understand LIFE and PEOPLE in general - which place would be better in your view?

9 comments:

Rachel Fox said...

I'd say everyone should try both and see which suits them better. For me living in a city was great for that period (16-28 or thereabouts) when I wanted to go out all the time (pubs, clubs, etc.). Now I can't be fussed with all that and living somewhere more rural suits me better. It might change back again...who knows what the future holds?

As for what helps you understand life better...a mix of both means you can see more points of view, it gives you more understanding. I read something a while back about how humans really shouldn't live in communities of more than 200 people or something (that's when we start going crazy, struggling to cope etc.). I can see the logic in that in a way but the world has changed so much - some people probably feel the opposite to that now and the idea of living in a small community would make them feel ill!
x

Totalfeckineejit said...

City V country, eh? Well on the one hand you can live in the city and no-one would even know your name, very handy for mugging.On the other hand if you live in a hut made of twigs and cow poo in the middle of nowhere, no one will know you either (or desire to)- and there's no one to mug.
The city is full of culture, it's also full of pretentious assholes.
The country is full of shite and hills and you're forced by rednecked hillbillies to read papers when you want to read comic books. (according to Mrs N anyways)
It's a long while since anyone was killed by a bull in the city(maimed by bullshit maybe)
You could live and die and write in the country and no one would know or give a flying fuch.
So there you have it. Live on the edge.

Poet in Residence said...

TFE is dead right. Live on the edge. Have the best of both worlds.
In the hamlet everyone is generally poking his busybody nose into everyone else's personal business. Hey you, get on your own side of the effin' common.
In the city nobody gives a monkey's toss so long as the bins are emptied and the dogs stop barking at midnight.
On balance, I'd vote for the city, preferably one that's sunny, safe and near the sea or the mountains. Say max pop: 2,000,000. The city is where library with the good books is.

Domestic Oub said...

Country bad.

Niamh B said...

Rachel - I think you're right, for a rounded picture you've to experience the delights and limitations of both.
Heard that too - about the optimum no in a group being 150, so when you get to 200 I guess you have to split, but yeah living in a small community can be a scary idea as well.
TFE - last bull murder I heard of was in a city in fact - some bull run thing in spain - you wouldn't get that out the country - living on the edge is the answer, but bono might have something to say about it.
Thanks Poet in R, good point about librarys, but then we do have blogs and amazon now as well. Sunny, safe, near the sea - sounds great all the same - for a week or two anyway.
Ah Oub - such conciseness, such eloquence, but c'mon - moo cows! there'd be no moo cows if there was no country!!

Uiscebot said...

They're both crap.

I live in the sewers.

Niamh B said...

I'll take that as another vote for city life - since sewers in the country hardly ever have enough space to really live in...

Matt Bolton said...

I say in the city but away from everyone, so that no one can bother you or in the country on your own so that no one can talk to you. The city has pubs but so does the country. I vote city but in a pub.

Niamh B said...

But Matt - there are people in pubs too!!