Contentment vs. Self-Improvement: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Social Sciences » Contentment vs. Self-Improvement » Contentment vs. Self-Improvement

Contentment vs. Self-Improvement
Are they mutually exclusive?

Page: 1 2

Contentment vs. Self-Improvement

BrazilianRocker
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 04, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 5

Posted 09/04/08 - 02:16 PM: Subject: Contentment vs. Self-Improvement	#1
Hey Guys, Im new here and I've been pondering these questions for a while to no avail, so I figured I would throw them out there for you guys in the hope of gaining some good insight. My questions are these: Operating on the terminology (and possibly assumption) that happiness is a measure of contentment, where contentment is defined as the distance of an individual's optimum reality (their "perfect world")to their percieved reality(what they think is real), and that individuals have optimum realities beyond (in a comparative sense)their percieved reality, is it better to reduce one's optimum reality to increase contentment (and therefore happiness), or to increase one's percieved reality to achieve the same effect? Can both perfect contentment and the desire to self-improve be present in an individual at once? Personally I think that is paradoxical and logically impossible, simply because if the individual desires self-improvement, that is, desires more than he or she has, then they are by definition, not perfectly content. Applying this to the real world creates some difficult situations: Consider a man who is morbidly obese and whose optimum reality is to be lean and muscular. He has two options to reach contentment (barring the idea of exclusion from the optimum reality). He can either alter his idea of perfection to be one of morbid obesity, or he can exercise and diet to raise his percieved reality closer to his optimum image. A perhaps more visual arguement would be that of the starving African vs. the iPod. (For the purposes of this scenario the individual in question will be one whose optimum reality includes the complete eradication of world hunger, and the posession of an iPod) Should the individual reduce his idea of perfection to be content with children dying of starvation and the absence of the iPod, or should he try to extend his percieved reality to feed the child and buy the iPod? When each is considered alone it would seem that each example merits a different appropriate response (i.e. feed the child and be content without the iPod) but can we really assume a double standard like that? And if so, how do you distinguish between "starving Africans" and "iPods"? Any thoughts, comments or criticisms are welcome and encouraged. It seems to me like this topic would tie interestingly well into religious doctrine, and especially buddhist doctrine, so if anyone has anything to share concerning that aspect of it please feel free to include it. I look forward to many more posts and discussions with you guys, Pat Edited by BrazilianRocker on 09/04/08 - 02:22 PM

wu
kid from the blackhole

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 28, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 20

Posted 09/04/08 - 03:05 PM:	#2
BrazilianRocker wrote: Hey Guys, Can both perfect contentment and the desire to self-improve be present in an individual at once? Personally I think that is paradoxical and logically impossible, simply because if the individual desires self-improvement, that is, desires more than he or she has, then they are by definition, not perfectly content. I agree that perfect contentment and the desire to change ones perceived reality are contradictory. there is no point in changing a world that you percive to be perfect. BrazilianRocker wrote: is it better to reduce one's optimum reality to increase contentment (and therefore happiness), or to increase one's percieved reality to achieve the same effect. Perhaps it is this idea of an optimum reality that has got everyone feeling so non-content. We can imagine all these different ways of existence that we think are better, and so by comparision our current existence seems wanting. The grass is always greener on the other side. So instead of just accepting our current situation, we are running around, working jobs, and buying cars trying to put ourselves in a better one, the basis of capitalism. Maybe true contentment comes when we learn to appriciate the present and stop worrying about the future.
The world, a sea between my mind and yours, and words, brave vessles sent out for distant shores.

at
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 16, 2008
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 91

Posted 09/04/08 - 05:25 PM:	#3
Hi, That’s a pretty common view of 'happiness' these days: a product of the state of our identity. Which is why I think 'happiness' is going out of fashion. The example you presented is pretty 'glass half empty' -if you think your happiness definition is valid, then its equally valid that your contentment is related to how much better your current reaility is to that reality you have come from (glass half full). We just don't ever really think that way. But perhaps equally valid, is that happiness is not the product of an identity, circumstances, reality and where it sits relative to what you want. Is it valid to talk about being happy relative to being sad or angry or frustrated? If happy is an emotional state then can we control it like we can these others? If we can control it, then its not dependent (at least not entirely) on circumstances. So it becomes not, I can be happy being morbidly obese, but just I can be happy. Also, when you are perfectly happy, you can still enjoy manipulating your environment, that’s what existing involves. In fact it becomes even more fun because you're not desperately trying to squeeze happiness from it.. (standard buddhist response)

cadpat_knight
Templar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 21, 2008
Location: all over Canada
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 17

Posted 09/07/08 - 03:28 PM:	#4
I'm pretty content to live in a state of constant self-improvement. Consider the body builder: He's at 170 pounds, mostly muscle with a bit of fat, his goal is to be 240 pounds of pure muscle. He enjoys lifting weights and loves learning about nutrition and biology as it pertains to body-building. Even though he is still quite short of his goal he's happy because he enjoys what he's doing to get there. Happiness isn't neccesarily about your current reality meeting up with your optimum reality, its about enjoying the process that gets you TO your optimum reality. One of the reasons why happiness seems to be going out of style is because people aren't enjoying what they do to get where they want to be. Everyone wants to be 240 pounds of lean muscle but if they don't enjoy lifting weights they aren't going to be happy.
Never pass a fault

BrazilianRocker
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 04, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 5

Posted 09/07/08 - 06:13 PM:	#5
"Happiness isn't neccesarily about your current reality meeting up with your optimum reality, its about enjoying the process that gets you TO your optimum reality. One of the reasons why happiness seems to be going out of style is because people aren't enjoying what they do to get where they want to be. Everyone wants to be 240 pounds of lean muscle but if they don't enjoy lifting weights they aren't going to be happy." You make an interesting point, and as a bodybuilder myself I find it very easy to relate, but here I think you aren't making the distinction of emotion versus conceptual happiness. For the purpose of clarity I'll call the two "pleasure" and "happiness". You may experience pleasure from the act of lifting weights, pleasure from the pump after the workout, and pleasure from the increase in happiness as your body approaches your optimum image of 240 pounds of pure muscle, but you are still not content with your reality and therefore not "perfectly happy", just going from burst of pleasure to burst of pleasure to no end. In fact if you do bodybuild you know that no matter how close to perfection you are, you will always have imperfections, or as a clearer example, you will never reach a benchpress max or squat max that you would not surpass for 20 more pounds if you could do so effortlessly without increased risk or damage. So no matter how close you get, you will never be perfect and therefore never be perfectly content, so long as your optimum reality is one of a defined perfection, (i.e. 240 pounds of pure muscle perfectly sculpted into the shape of 1974 Schwarzenegger)then you will be discontent with where you are. Which is why the arguement for the redefining of your optimum reality to whatever your current reality is holds so much weight, and why I asked the question in the first place.

cadpat_knight
Templar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 21, 2008
Location: all over Canada
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 17

Posted 09/07/08 - 06:27 PM:	#6
Or you can be content with chasing an unreachable goal and accept that the journey is more important than the destination. Your optimum reality could very well be one in which you are constantly striving to do better and better. If you have a reachable goal, or you reach a goal and don't set another one, then you stop working, then you get bored and aren't happy anymore. There's a reason even retired people with all the trappings of material success (house, loving grandkids, good standing in the community, car, etc.) volunteer and have hobbies.
Never pass a fault

BrazilianRocker
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 04, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 5

Posted 09/07/08 - 06:43 PM:	#7
at wrote: But perhaps equally valid, is that happiness is not the product of an identity, circumstances, reality and where it sits relative to what you want. Is it valid to talk about being happy relative to being sad or angry or frustrated? If happy is an emotional state then can we control it like we can these others? If we can control it, then its not dependent (at least not entirely) on circumstances. So it becomes not, I can be happy being morbidly obese, but just I can be happy. Also, when you are perfectly happy, you can still enjoy manipulating your environment, that’s what existing involves. In fact it becomes even more fun because you're not desperately trying to squeeze happiness from it.. at, Concerning the first paragraph, I don't think it is valid to talk about happiness as a controllable emotion like sadness or anger because I think happiness has two facets, that is, for the sake of clarity, pleasure and happiness (as explained in my last post), pleasure being the emotional response to positive stimuli, and happiness being a logical measure of contentment that does not concern emotion (though it may cause it). So to be happy regardless of circumstance, as you mentioned with the line "So it becomes not, I can be happy being morbidly obese, but just I can be happy." can only arise from removing the circumstance from the optimum reality, or "I am happy regardless of my physical state" The problem with this is that if the individual removes the circumstance from his optimum reality then he loses all motivation to improve the circumstance, or in this case, assuming all else is in order, the man will be blissfully happy till his death at 35 of heart failure. Now I am no judge of whether or not this would be a life well spent, as the qualifications of what makes up a "good life" can be a debate and a half on their own, but this is where my question arises. Concerning the second paragraph, if you are in a state of perfect happiness, that is, perfectly content with all aspects and circumstances in your life, then logically it seems you would not feel any motivation to manipulate your environment for enjoyment, as you can further your state of well-being no further than it already is. Perhaps you could explain that reasoning. That paragraph also brought me to the interesting thought of the relationship between pleasure and happiness. Can you be perfectly content but still seek pleasure? How does pleasure relate to an optimum reality? Can pleasure exist over time, or is it only a feature of the present? Thanks to all you guys for your input. Anything you share is greatly appreciated Pat

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 131
Total Posts: 4213

Posted 09/09/08 - 03:30 AM:	#8
BrazilianRocker wrote: Operating on the terminology (and possibly assumption) that happiness is a measure of contentment, where contentment is defined as the distance of an individual's optimum reality (their "perfect world")to their percieved reality(what they think is real), and that individuals have optimum realities beyond (in a comparative sense)their percieved reality, is it better to reduce one's optimum reality to increase contentment (and therefore happiness), or to increase one's percieved reality to achieve the same effect? What you've said is, I think, correct; but all you've really said is that if people are content with less then they will be more content than if they desire more. For example if someone thinks to themselves "actually, I don't really care whether or not I have a new BMW" then they will be "more" content. Having said that, I'm not too fond of talking of a measure of contentment. How do you measure happiness exactly? Can both perfect contentment and the desire to self-improve be present in an individual at once? Personally I think that is paradoxical and logically impossible, simply because if the individual desires self-improvement, that is, desires more than he or she has, then they are by definition, not perfectly content. Interesting question, but I would say obviously not. The clarification needed here though is that people aren't actually "wholist". That is to say, people do not usually judge their lives in terms of complete contentment or complete self-improvement. For instance, someone might be thrilled that they have a loving partner and child, yet also feel that they need to (taking your example) lose a great deal of weight. No one is perfect, but at the same time no one is wholly a perfectionist.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 131
Total Posts: 4213

Posted 09/09/08 - 03:39 AM:	#9
BrazilianRocker wrote: Concerning the second paragraph, if you are in a state of perfect happiness, that is, perfectly content with all aspects and circumstances in your life, then logically it seems you would not feel any motivation to manipulate your environment for enjoyment, as you can further your state of well-being no further than it already is. Consider someone who enjoys gardening; weeding is a constant necessity. That paragraph also brought me to the interesting thought of the relationship between pleasure and happiness. Can you be perfectly content but still seek pleasure? How does pleasure relate to an optimum reality? Can pleasure exist over time, or is it only a feature of the present? I've often heard it said that grandchildren are a great delight to grandparents. In some ways the pleasure of a grandparent seeing their children's children is momentary, perhaps it lasts for little more than an hour. But consider the time before the arrival of the grandchildren, the expectation et cetera. All of this lasts for much longer and may be in-itself a source of happiness. That is to say: knowing that one has a source of delight in one's life is itself a source of delight. I suspect that is why people in love are happier generally, and not just when they are with their lover.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 2026

Posted 09/09/08 - 04:24 AM:	#10
Isn't it easier to be content with the fact that some things in life are difficult to attain but that that is no reason not to try and revel in the delight of achieving (difficult) goals? Do you not then bring into harmony self-improvement and contentment? In fact, is a dreamer not happier than a realist? The dreamer has hope for something better. The type of contentment you seem to suggest is apathy. If we take the world in complete synchrony between expectation and reality then the world loses its meaning, because such meaning is relative to our wants, needs and wishes. A sunny day is no longer more beautiful than a rainy day, people are no longer worse of than they should be. E.g. starving children have what they deserve because what reality serves us ought to be accepted in perfect contentment. Happiness (which by necessity is then not the same as contentment) itself therefore would lose meaning. No, I think the type of contentment you speak of does not lead to any form of happiness at all.
- How are you doing? - I'm doing good. - No, Superman is doing Good, you're doing well. You need to brush up on your grammar.

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.