Is happiness reduced to pleasure?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Is happiness reduced to pleasure? » Is happiness reduced to pleasure?

Page: 1 2

Is happiness reduced to pleasure?

dutzu88
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 10, 2007

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 4

Posted 03/10/07 - 03:10 PM: Subject: Is happiness reduced to pleasure?	#1
I submitted this little paragraph to my philosophy professor. It is my first philosophy course and yet I don't think I am satisfied with the issues I've debated in my mind. Philosophy is the art of doubting the truthest of truths...this is why I ask you, people on the forums, read this paragraph if you please.. and tell everyone what is happiness for you or what is contradictory on what I wrote... Looking forward to seeing your answers... Toodles! Is happiness unquestionably reduced to pleasure? With an aim towards specifying the philosophical issues implied, we have no choice but to delimit the elucidation of happiness and what is compromised by the signification of â€œpleasureâ€. First of all, one may comprehend â€œhappinessâ€, as a state of ceaseless wellbeing. Thus, the word â€œpleasureâ€ is exposed as oneâ€™s sole right to withdraw satisfaction from the sexual act. Accordingly, one can say that the initial question consists of knowing if the sexual act can make an individual happy. Due to this interrogation, two main assumptions arise: either we affirm that to be happy is a statute which is felt in constancy, without taking into consideration what one does at the present time; or, on the other hand, we affirm that one possesses the freedom to appease a need whenever the libido urges us to give into temptation, thus responding to a fundamental need. However, these assertions arenâ€™t deprived of contradictorily assumptions. Indeed, if one affirms that happiness is morally made up by the sole fact of being happy, without necessarily having recourse to oneâ€™s sexual needs, necessarily that stipulates that any living being would be able to reach a state of personal gratitude and joy. For example, picture that a person is paralysed from the chest down to the toes, including the genitals. Knowing that happiness, is not the result of sexual satisfaction, this being would have no choice but to be happy. Thus, we will suppose that happiness belongs to those whom practise the act of sexual abstinence. From another point of view, if we insist that happiness is none other than the exaltation of oneâ€™s erotic impulses, we must indisputably affirm that happiness belongs only to a categorical part of society that is constantly sexually active. Consequently, a grouping of human beings that live with sexual deficiency syndromes, dogmatic preachers that have abstinence as their main goal and the young category of people not having reached sexual maturity, would thus be condemned to be unhappy for the simple fact that they cannot have access to the act so as to withdraw pleasure from it. Moreover, oneâ€™s choice of what happiness really is, relies on how the subject organizes their questionable priorities in regards of abstinence and that of sexual freedom... are you happy?

Hamandcheese
Ham of state

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Location: Canada

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 128

Posted 03/10/07 - 04:37 PM:	#2
dutzu88 wrote: With an aim towards specifying the philosophical issues implied, we have no choice but to delimit the elucidation of happiness and what is compromised by the signification of â€œpleasureâ€. First of all, one may comprehend â€œhappinessâ€, as a state of ceaseless wellbeing. Thus, the word â€œpleasureâ€ is exposed as oneâ€™s sole right to withdraw satisfaction from the sexual act. Accordingly, one can say that the initial question consists of knowing if the sexual act can make an individual happy. Due to this interrogation, two main assumptions arise: either we affirm that to be happy is a statute which is felt in constancy, without taking into consideration what one does at the present time; or, on the other hand, we affirm that one possesses the freedom to appease a need whenever the libido urges us to give into temptation, thus responding to a fundamental need. However, these assertions arenâ€™t deprived of contradictorily assumptions. Indeed, if one affirms that happiness is morally made up by the sole fact of being happy, without necessarily having recourse to oneâ€™s sexual needs, necessarily that stipulates that any living being would be able to reach a state of personal gratitude and joy. For example, picture that a person is paralysed from the chest down to the toes, including the genitals. Knowing that happiness, is not the result of sexual satisfaction, this being would have no choice but to be happy. Thus, we will suppose that happiness belongs to those whom practise the act of sexual abstinence. From another point of view, if we insist that happiness is none other than the exaltation of oneâ€™s erotic impulses, we must indisputably affirm that happiness belongs only to a categorical part of society that is constantly sexually active. Consequently, a grouping of human beings that live with sexual deficiency syndromes, dogmatic preachers that have abstinence as their main goal and the young category of people not having reached sexual maturity, would thus be condemned to be unhappy for the simple fact that they cannot have access to the act so as to withdraw pleasure from it. Moreover, oneâ€™s choice of what happiness really is, relies on how the subject organizes their questionable priorities in regards of abstinence and that of sexual freedom... are you happy? Is it just me, or is your assertion of sex as the only true source of pleasure a wrong one. Pleasure can be acheived from many sources. Any sort of drug that produces a euphorea is a source of pleasure. You can even acheive pleasure through satisfaction. Finishing a paper, or composing a peice of music. A pleasure can also come from fullfilling a need. That fresh cup of coffee in the morning, or getting exactly what you crave. You're idea of pleasure is far too narrow. One could also say that all pleasures that we find in life are only simulations of the real thing. And that the one true pleasure is one that transends our bodies functionality. Happiness on the other hand is the one pleasure which we are constintly striving for. Knowing that happiness itself is a pleasure then you can also assert that pleasure can come from relaxation and security. A happy marriage is one where both spouses take great pleasure in each others company, both sexually and all other caring momments that every relationship has. From this you can grant that pleasure and happiness are both bi-products of love. Love of course is not the only methode of happiness but it seems to be a vital form of each. With this in mind one can also say that the opposite of pleasure and happiness (pain and sorrow) are directly related to loneliness, and that basic human need of companionship.
theham88@gmail.com

dimka
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 14, 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada

Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 1016

Posted 03/10/07 - 04:50 PM:	#3
I agree with Hamandcheese on every point

Wolfman
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Location: Oakland, CA

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 1138

Posted 03/10/07 - 05:41 PM:	#4
Dutzu88, Even if there is a part of society that is "constantly sexually active", they can not be sexually active at any given moment. Therefore, happiness for them would not be a state of ceaseless well-being. It would be a state of temporary well-being. Even if you define happiness as "contentment", your level of content is subject to change, no matter how slight. Therefore, it would not be constant. Is happiness unquestionably reduced to pleasure? Emotions are generated in the brain, and are the result of unconscious efforts. Happiness is an emotional state. Therefore, happiness is the result of unconscious efforts. Feelings merely serve to interpret raw data in the brain. Feelings, unlike emotions, are a learned and conditioned reponse. Therefore, happiness does not necessarily produce the same feelings in every individual. Pleasure is characterized as a sensation which is positive. Humans are born with innate sensation. However, the way in which individual humans feel pleasure is relative to that individual. Feelings, unlike emotions, can be brought about consciously. In this way, we can differentiate between pleasure and happiness. It then follows that pleasure can be brought about consciously, while happiness is a result of the unconscious. Therefore, I will assert that happiness is not necessarily affected by pleasure. Furthermore, happiness is not necessarily commensurate to pleasure, nor does happiness always equate to pleasure. Edited by Wolfman on 03/10/07 - 05:46 PM
"That which is done out of love is always beyond good and evil" - Nietzsche "Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." - Aristotle "It is better to do one's own duty, however defective it may be, than to follow the duty of another, however well one may perform it. He who does his duty as his own nature reveals it, never sins." - Lao Tzu "Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play." - Kant

select
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 22, 2003
Location: Arizona, United States

Total Topics: 91
Total Posts: 1186

Posted 03/10/07 - 05:45 PM:	#5
I think you might be interested that for Nietzsche, happiness and unhappiness go hand in hand: you can't have one without the other. Happiness is due to exertion and overcoming resistance, in whatever form that might be. For example, when I first repaired a friend's computer I had a state of complete happiness for a while after that. At first was the resistance in that I didn't know if I could repair the computer, if I knew what I was doing. Then, when I successfully repaired the computer, along with a new sense of confidence in my new found competence, I felt pleasure. This is happiness, but it is wrong to think that I was happy because of the feeling of pleasure. Rather, it is the other way around: pleasure accompanies happiness, but sometimes you can experience pleasure without being happy. Trying to extract happiness from pleasure is like having sex with a corpse. This is why Nietzsche recommends living dangerously as then you'll have plenty of opportunities to meet resistance and overcome them. But at the same time, you'll have plenty of opportunities for failure which accompanies unhappiness. In this way, of all the paths that you can follow, there are two that are complementary: that of the Stoics and what Nietzsche recommends. The Stoics recommended a life of self-control without indulging in pleasures: since happiness and unhappiness go hand in hand, you'll experience very little unhappiness this way. And then there is Nietzsche's recommendation to live dangerously. I suppose there is a whole continuum of ways of life that lie in between.
"To create man was a fine and original idea; but to add sheep was a tautology." Mark Twain

Hamandcheese
Ham of state

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Location: Canada

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 128

Posted 03/10/07 - 05:55 PM:	#6
Wolfman wrote: Even if there is a part of society that is "constantly sexually active", they can not be sexually active at any given moment. Therefore, happiness for them would not be a state of ceaseless well-being. It would be a state of temporary well-being. The momment I read that I realized that the happiness that he is discribing is pleasure in its rawest form. Happiness by my interpretation is constant or at least fades gradually until broken. (Family member dies etc.) And even as the inital happiness fades there is always some that remains. Happiness also pertains to different feilds. You can be happy over your job and unhappy over your failing relationship all at the same instant. Pleasure however is overriding and in the momment. It stimulates you brain and leaves quite suddenly. The initial satisfaction about a peice of art work can be stimulating but temporary. If it were constant then the artist would create a master peice and be content with it, and would find no reason in painting another.
theham88@gmail.com

fish rising
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 20, 2007
Location: uk

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 72

Posted 03/10/07 - 06:47 PM:	#7
An unorthodox theif happy to observe that the law does work certainly wouldn't find pleasure in getting caught Pleasure seems to describe the inner expression of happiness. You could seem pleased (not the same) or demonstrate happiness, your pleasure goes unnoticed by those around you who will naturally assume your happy...or not
Future is a feeling you just haven't had enough

dutzu88
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 10, 2007

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 4

Posted 03/10/07 - 09:06 PM: Subject: In response to all....	#8
Thank you all for replying on such sort notice. Obviusly, you all are right, in all your assumptions, because as I've said, happiness describes itself according to it's definer. To respond to *Hamandcheese's,* comment which stipulates that: "Is it just me, or is your assertion of sex as the only true source of pleasure a wrong one." I would like to remind you that whatever your nuances may be in regards to happiness, slowly introduced by one or more examples, I would like to remind you, like most philosophers, or diggers of the thought, like I like to call ourselves, that all of us must necessarily see in reasoning, which is logically, the act of justification and explanation, that reasoning itself is the sole perception of the human being itself. Thus, I must affirm that reason obviously is a factor that guides us in our judgements, our actions which lead our day to day lives towards the future. Saying that, I would kindly like to enounce that a philosophical judgement, remains a philosophical judgement, and for those who think that my perception of happiness is that of sexual pleasure, I would like to remind you that it is a neutral point of view, although it might have seemed a bit axed towards sex. To respond to everyone in part, on the subject of happiness, and just to remind you that, that was a paper for my course, not necessarily my sole thoughts, but an imposed subjects following a rigourous structre. for those that are curious, the way I see happiness, is similar to the way everyone here sees it. Why similar? Because, happiness is a common aspiration, we all want to achieve it and reach it. Therefore we follow the same path, only one of us might take the right lane, on might take an exit, stop at a higway rest top, have a piss and get back on the road. This example mainly is to say, that happiness, is not the same for everyone. I guess for me, its something that we all must define so as to reach it, thus taking once more the example of the road to happiness, we all have a certain destination, and for some, they will take their exit and be happy, and realize that they're not, whereas others will continue pursuing happiness till the end of their time. Once more to reply to Hamandcheese's comment : The momment I read that I realized that the happiness that he is discribing is pleasure in its rawest form. Happiness by my interpretation is constant or at least fades gradually until broken. Like you indicated, I would like to remind you that happiness is something that we all desire to master. Therefore, mastering happiness is something that can or cannot depend on us. You said that parents, and granparent will one day die. Of course, we will all die one day. Thus mastering happiness, would define itself as achieving a certain sort of endurance, a capacity to take on the hardships of life, survive them and maintaing the constancy between happiness and the day to day events that we all must go through. In response to WOLFMAN Happiness is an emotional state. I absolutely agree with you that it is a state of being, yet emotions are emotions, they are passive, results of shock and unexpected events, thus being an intense source of self-troubling, yet temporary. In this case, happiness, for you, is temporary, thus resulting in...? To get back to the way I see happiness, is the way we picture an Ideal world, and ideal way of life, and Ideal way of behaving, driving, walking, an ideal way of letting everything fall into place. Thus, like Kant defines: Hapiness as an Ideal of Imagination. Knowing that society classifies itself into small groups, utopia could be a collective way of seeing happiness. Some may see happiness as believing in a certain religion, whereas others, to be happy, must necessarily do something different every day Nietzsche's way of living life dangerously... and then of course, extracting the thrill and effect that you've survived the thrill. What no one enounce or specified here, is that happiness itself, can be a right, and as Tibetan cultures or non-materialistic beliefs across the world like to meditate, it is all based on delivering a person, itself, from the attachments and needs of materials in general, so as to define one's true definition of happiness. I guess like Spinoza affirms... *There is no greater happiness than to comprehend and think...* THank you all for responding, and please.. be my guests and if there is anything.. or more than one thing that is contradictory in regards to each and everyone that read this and has a different train of thought.. POsT it

Wolfman
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Location: Oakland, CA

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 1138

Posted 03/10/07 - 11:29 PM:	#9
In response to WOLFMAN Happiness is an emotional state. I absolutely agree with you that it is a state of being, yet emotions are emotions, they are passive, results of shock and unexpected events, thus being an intense source of self-troubling, yet temporary. In this case, happiness, for you, is temporary, thus resulting in...? To get back to the way I see happiness, is the way we picture an Ideal world, and ideal way of life, and Ideal way of behaving, driving, walking, an ideal way of letting everything fall into place. Thus, like Kant defines: Hapiness as an Ideal of Imagination. Knowing that society classifies itself into small groups, utopia could be a collective way of seeing happiness. Some may see happiness as believing in a certain religion, whereas others, to be happy, must necessarily do something different every day Nietzsche's way of living life dangerously... and then of course, extracting the thrill and effect that you've survived the thrill. What no one enounce or specified here, is that happiness itself, can be a right, and as Tibetan cultures or non-materialistic beliefs across the world like to meditate, it is all based on delivering a person, itself, from the attachments and needs of materials in general, so as to define one's true definition of happiness. Keep in mind that I am adressing your topic question from a perspective that is somewhat more of the psychological than the abstract philosophical. I was attempting to differentiate happiness and pleasure by definition in order to elucidate my conclusion that happiness is not necessarily affected by pleasure, nor can it be equated or commensurated with pleasure. In regards to my initial statement regarding happiness as a state of temporary well-being, I suppose it is a matter of perspective. Am I correct in saying that you assert happiness as "a state of ceaseless well-being?" If I were to interpret this correctly, you would say that an individual is always happy, just at varying degrees of happiness? The level of happiness being low when an individual is unhappy, and the level of happiness being high when an individual is happy. My interpretation differs slightly. I believe happiness is "a state of temporary well-being" as opposed to your idea of it as ceaseless well-being. I believe an individual is happy when an individual is happy. I believe an individual is no longer happy when the individual is unhappy. In other words, there is a neutral point that separates happiness from unhappiness.
"That which is done out of love is always beyond good and evil" - Nietzsche "Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." - Aristotle "It is better to do one's own duty, however defective it may be, than to follow the duty of another, however well one may perform it. He who does his duty as his own nature reveals it, never sins." - Lao Tzu "Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play." - Kant

dutzu88
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 10, 2007

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 4

Posted 03/10/07 - 11:55 PM: Subject: in response..	#10
In response to Wolfman. You are entitled to your own perspective. And yes, you interpret right. The way that I do see happiness, is by a cease-less state of wellbeing, or in degrees. I myself, for one am happy, I might be going through the worst situations in life, and I will find something to cling on, or to evade from difficult situations, someway to endure harships so that they can pass by a lot more easier. I guess some people will, obviously find this way of living unobvious, weird and unexplainable, yet, what is it that makes a human being happier than a little bit of optimism. There is a saying, usually related to religion, eventhough If I do not practice, it says: *When one door closes, a window opens.* I guess, happiness does, in the end, depend on how optimist or pessimist it's posessor is. I guess optimism and pessimism automatically come and influence the degree of morale that one withholds, which of course, is in direct contact with one's perception of happiness.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.