What is happiness? We live for it, right?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » What is happiness? We live for it, right? » What is happiness? We live for it, right?

What is happiness? We live for it, right?
An analysis of what this concept means.

Page: 1 2 3 4

What is happiness? We live for it, right?

TheArchitect
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 13, 2008
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 81

Posted 03/22/08 - 01:59 PM:	#26
No, you simply misunderstood. What I mean is: if there is a drug without repercussion, free, and granting immortality (aka perpetually sustained state of euphoria): eternal "happiness" (the way you define it). So you are saying that this is the state of happiness? No I am not a fool. In fact you are if you think it has a point. If you are in a perpetually euphoric immortal state, I am guessing will not even be able to think. In any case you will not be performing any intelligent action: you might as well not exist. I think your intelligence will deteriorate in this state until you are a subhuman (not sentient) entity. That part wasn't my misunderstanding; it was your lack of ability to explain it that way. Why don't you just go take a look at the past couple of replies and see what we were talking about before you decide to post, eh? If you are in a "perpetually sustained state of euphoria" then yes, it is the ultimate form of eternal happiness. What hinders you from acknowleding this idea is the constraints of reality upon your judgement about what can be achieved. Whether you are in a vegetated state or not, if you are truly happy, then you are truly happy. It wouldn't matter to you if you were as dumb as a rock because you would be too ignorant to care in your euphoric state. And you wouldn't be a "not sentient" entity, either. The whole reason why you are experiencing this subjective well-being is because you are sentient. If you cannot get these simple lines of logic in your head, then there is nothing that anyone on this thread can give you. You call me a fool but you are the one who misunderstood the context of my usage of the word 'point.' I never claimed that there was a 'point' in all of this (to me, there is no objective meaning of life whether you are happy or not). I was stating that you didn't understand my 'message(hence, the word 'point')' in the previous reply.

Makarismos
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 453

Posted 03/23/08 - 03:46 AM:	#27
You have to try to think of the questions involved in order to progress:- Would it be better to earn happiness, or to simply exist in a euphoric state? I think you were saying that a necessary element of happiness is to have earned it? This seems perfectly reasonable to me. Many people think the same. Now you seem to think you have an argument as to why this is so - you think that being in a euphoric state would necessitate one also being non-sentient.. I don’t buy in to this. I would rather say that I simply feel that I would have no drive to do anything more if I were in such a state. My life would become un-productive. Do you have any other questions relating to the nature of happiness? So far we have found that we need to earn it, and that it might be meaningless if it were un-gained. What else would you like to know? What else interests you? It is your thread. Edited by Paul on 03/23/08 - 06:38 PM. Reason: removed childish part

Glazed
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 20, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 03/23/08 - 12:45 PM:	#28
Wow, a slight diversion here. Anyway, pretty sure I have it. "Ignorance is bliss". Not as if it's my answer but it seems like the most fitting. I have never managed to meet someone who analyzes everything and still achieves true happiness. You can be intelligent, well balanced and a good person. But you cannot be happy if you look for the downside. "If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will." - Abraham Lincoln I am almost certain this can be extended from just "people" to near anything else. We can of course, find the bad in anything IF we look.

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 168

Posted 03/23/08 - 12:58 PM:	#29
Glazed wrote: Wow, a slight diversion here. Anyway, pretty sure I have it. "Ignorance is bliss". Not as if it's my answer but it seems like the most fitting. I have never managed to meet someone who analyzes everything and still achieves true happiness. You can be intelligent, well balanced and a good person. But you cannot be happy if you look for the downside. "If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will." - Abraham Lincoln I am almost certain this can be extended from just "people" to near anything else. We can of course, find the bad in anything IF we look. I will have to argue that this is incorrect. After all, I can easily ignore anything that makes me feel bad. For example, the suffering of someone else technically has nothing to do with my own. Yet if I do not analyze everything, how am I different from an animal? I realize that not being content is the natural outcome of such analysis, but I will accept blissful arrogance as a casualty to a search for something better.

Makarismos
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 453

Posted 03/23/08 - 01:50 PM:	#30
Lex wrote: I believe that 3 polite responses are more than enough to something that has nothing to do with the discussed topic, so this is the last one. I would appreciate if you would contribute something to the discussion. If you have any comments about my debate style, intelligence, etc., please start a new thread or pm me and I will decide how to respond. Sigh. Really, you haven�t been listening have you. I contributed already, and I made suggestions of where we could progress too:- me wrote: I think you were saying that a necessary element of happiness is to have earned it? This seems perfectly reasonable to me. Many people think the same. Now you seem to think you have an argument as to why this is so - you think that being in a euphoric state would necessitate one also being non-sentient.. I don�t buy in to this. I would rather say that I simply feel that I would have no drive to do anything more if I were in such a state. My life would become un-productive. Do you have any other questions relating to the nature of happiness? So far we have found that we need to earn it, and that it might be meaningless if it were un-gained. What else would you like to know? What else interests you? It is your thread. Perhaps you would like to outline your argument as to why being blissfully happy would equal you necessarily being in a vegetative state? That would be quite an interesting argument; I�d like to hear it. Happiness is a state of mind; It is also notoriously hard to quantify: how is it possible to say that I am happier than you? Especially when you count that one man may be happiest when he is complaining (I know several people like this). It is agreed, to an extent, that money doesn�t buy you happiness � would you agree? In your original post I found this passage interesting:- Lex wrote: What I did is simply filtered out that which CANNOT possibly be defined as happiness. We know that a lone individual cannot be happy, moreover he will die and the only outcome of his life will be his having sustained himself throughout its duration: not a "worthy" nor satisfying goal. We must therefore have other humans to interact with for happiness to be possible. However, we must value the interests of every other person over our own and ACT in order to preserve the rights and lives of those we live in, regardless of relationship to them. You go on to say that this is impossible? Surely difficult, but I do not see it as an impossible task to value the interests of my fellow man, even though I admit that modern life puts pressures on you in this regard. It does interest me, and I remain sceptical, to your assertion that happiness is mankind�s ultimate objective. Social interaction is perhaps a better candidate for �humanities ultimate objective� than happiness. Happiness is fleeting, unquantifiable. Social interaction is the basis of all language, poetry, music, culture. Without social interaction, we would barely be human; I would assert that our recognisably human attributes are gained solely through our participation within society (as you indeed seem to agree with). Happiness, even if it were an aim, is perhaps one best not aimed for. In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, self actualization is the goal, as in Buddhism enlightenment. In either system, the highest part (self actualization or enlightenment) is best not aimed at, and I think this may be so for happiness. If happiness were something akin to these things, then perhaps your self proclaimed emotionlessness would not be an issue: it is not so much an emotion as a state of mind, a state of disattachment. Cheers

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 168

Posted 03/23/08 - 02:36 PM:	#31
It is mankind's ultimate objective because LIVING is simply too insignificant and boring to me. Perhaps not to rabbits or cows, but I am human and knowledge that I have existed, done this and that and will at some point die is unsatisfactory. I want to know how I can be satisfied despite the fact that I will die. Perhaps that is impossible: maybe immortality is a necessary part of happiness. Then we face the problem of limited space: people would have to stop reproducing at some point. Yes I say it is impossible. You say that it is difficult but possible. Illustrate to me a scenario in which you think YOU could be happy (example: get rich, travel around the world, etc.) and tell me exactly why each component makes you happy. An argument was made that physical pleasure is the highest form of happiness. It has also been noted that the human brain could be stimulated into the highest form of euphoria artificially = if the first statement is true, you do not need to LIVE to be happy, you simply have to exist. You do not have to interact with other people, perform actions or have thoughts. Hence, vegetable. "Happiness is fleeting, unquantifiable": well I want to quantify it. I can't help my state of mind, no matter what I do: the best I can do is still attempt to realize myself in some way. However, if I knew exactly what this goal worth working towards was, it would be easier perhaps to choose the correct path of action.

Makarismos
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 453

Posted 03/23/08 - 05:29 PM:	#32
Lex wrote: It is mankind's ultimate objective because LIVING is simply too insignificant and boring to me. Perhaps not to rabbits or cows, but I am human and knowledge that I have existed, done this and that and will at some point die is unsatisfactory. I want to know how I can be satisfied despite the fact that I will die. Perhaps that is impossible: maybe immortality is a necessary part of happiness. Then we face the problem of limited space: people would have to stop reproducing at some point. Perhaps, and yet people live who are happy: none of them are immortal. No-one is immortal. If it were true that happiness required immortality, then happiness would indeed be impossible. As life is fleeting, it seems that becoming attached to life would cause sadness and suffering. Suffering can thus be avoided by avoiding a personal attachment to the self, by avoiding a desire for immortality. We all must die, and he who accepts this will doubtless live the happier life, than he who constantly seeks to do the impossible, and live forever. lex wrote: Yes I say it is impossible. You say that it is difficult but possible. Illustrate to me a scenario in which you think YOU could be happy (example: get rich, travel around the world, etc.) and tell me exactly why each component makes you happy. I don�t believe that the physical things in your life make you happy. For example, there are many rich and unhappy people. If money makes you happy, then happiness should be based upon your pay cheque more than anything else. Conversely there exist many poor happy people. Happiness is independent of wealth. Perhaps though, people in your life make you happy? I doubt that this involves numbers; many associates does not necessarily make a person happy, or unhappy for that matter. We agree that people are important, but I do wonder, can a solitary human be happy? I believe that it might be possible for a solitary individual to be happy, but I believe the optimal condition would most likely be a small group: Enough people for each to know everyone, and to share a group bond. The reason for this is that this size of community works most efficiently of all human groups, with all individuals working as one. The association with other humans, the finding of your place amongst them, and the feeling of social standing and respect you earn would give great happiness. lex wrote: An argument was made that physical pleasure is the highest form of happiness. It has also been noted that the human brain could be stimulated into the highest form of euphoria artificially = if the first statement is true, you do not need to LIVE to be happy, you simply have to exist. You do not have to interact with other people, perform actions or have thoughts. Hence, vegetable. Yes I see. I think that�s the best argument I have heard to reject the first premise, because it seems to me that human happiness cannot be had in this way. If a human were nothing but a brain in a vat, not talking to any other human, not doing anything which was humanlike, they would in important respects not be human. I believe we agree on this point from what you were saying. So we have two questions: If physical pleasure is not the highest form of happiness, then is mental pleasure? Is it correct to rate pleasures against each other, classing one as higher than others? And are pleasures the same as happiness? The brain has different receptors the stimulation of which causes pleasure. The dopamine receptors cause pleasure, but it is a pleasure which leaves us wanting more. When craving a drug, often it is these receptors we stimulate, however they do not satisfy. I would say that a pleasure tends to leave you wanting more, and does not generally leave you satisfied. Satisfaction is closer to what I would call happiness. Lex wrote: "Happiness is fleeting, unquantifiable": well I want to quantify it. I can't help my state of mind, no matter what I do: the best I can do is still attempt to realize myself in some way. However, if I knew exactly what this goal worth working towards was, it would be easier perhaps to choose the correct path of action. Well seems to me that happiness can be obtained by avoiding desires for unobtainable things. It cannot be reached by pleasures, as these merely leave us wanting more pleasures. It may well be obtainable by avoiding the attempt to find satisfaction through pleasures. Cheers

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 168

Posted 03/23/08 - 05:49 PM:	#33
Makarismos wrote: Perhaps, and yet people live who are happy: none of them are immortal. No-one is immortal. If it were true that happiness required immortality, then happiness would indeed be impossible. As life is fleeting, it seems that becoming attached to life would cause sadness and suffering. Suffering can thus be avoided by avoiding a personal attachment to the self, by avoiding a desire for immortality. We all must die, and he who accepts this will doubtless live the happier life, than he who constantly seeks to do the impossible, and live forever. Are they happy? Get me one witness who claims to be happy and let him describe how he is happy exactly. That is what I want: the composition of happiness. I do not think they are happy: merely satisfied, in a primitive way. I refuse to accept the "we all must die" argument as a universal truth: either there is an afterlife or immortality must be achieved, disappearing is not a part of being happy. Makarismos wrote: I don�t believe that the physical things in your life make you happy. For example, there are many rich and unhappy people. If money makes you happy, then happiness should be based upon your pay cheque more than anything else. Conversely there exist many poor happy people. Happiness is independent of wealth. Perhaps though, people in your life make you happy? I doubt that this involves numbers; many associates does not necessarily make a person happy, or unhappy for that matter. We agree that people are important, but I do wonder, can a solitary human be happy? I believe that it might be possible for a solitary individual to be happy, but I believe the optimal condition would most likely be a small group: Enough people for each to know everyone, and to share a group bond. The reason for this is that this size of community works most efficiently of all human groups, with all individuals working as one. The association with other humans, the finding of your place amongst them, and the feeling of social standing and respect you earn would give great happiness. I understand that interaction is the thing that should make you happy: perfectly clear on that. However, I do not know how. Why should interacting with not-so-intelligent people around me about shallow topics (how is the weather, did you see the last football game, etc.) is going to make me happy. Makarismos wrote: Yes I see. I think that�s the best argument I have heard to reject the first premise, because it seems to me that human happiness cannot be had in this way. If a human were nothing but a brain in a vat, not talking to any other human, not doing anything which was humanlike, they would in important respects not be human. I believe we agree on this point from what you were saying. So we have two questions: If physical pleasure is not the highest form of happiness, then is mental pleasure? Is it correct to rate pleasures against each other, classing one as higher than others? And are pleasures the same as happiness? The brain has different receptors the stimulation of which causes pleasure. The dopamine receptors cause pleasure, but it is a pleasure which leaves us wanting more. When craving a drug, often it is these receptors we stimulate, however they do not satisfy. I would say that a pleasure tends to leave you wanting more, and does not generally leave you satisfied. Satisfaction is closer to what I would call happiness. Well seems to me that happiness can be obtained by avoiding desires for unobtainable things. It cannot be reached by pleasures, as these merely leave us wanting more pleasures. It may well be obtainable by avoiding the attempt to find satisfaction through pleasures. Nevertheless I do not see a single testimony from anyone claiming to have attained happiness from satisfaction. What is satisfaction? I think lack of suffering is a rather good definition. When you are physically and mentally appeased and untroubled, you tend to be satisfied: at least in theory. If you are a dog, that is most certainly the case. However, humans tend to act differently. If you can, please describe what this satisfaction you are talking about is. Being fed? Being "loved" (define love)?

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11511

Posted 03/23/08 - 06:56 PM:	#34
It's simply irrational to claim that nobody is happy, since we could not have the word "happy" without a referant. The word picks out an emotional state, and it would be impossible to pick out an emotional state with which no one was familiar, so the meaning of the word is necessarily an experience with which the community of speakers is familiar. Even if there was once a mythical age in which people were happy (to appease the nutcase reactionary conservatives who think things used to be better when people enjoyed cholera and worked 12 hour days), no child can learn the word for an emotion which the child has never observed or experienced, so the word today necessarily means something that exists today. The position Lex is taking is self-contradictory, simply irrational, so we shouldn't waste our time persuing it as though it were a rational suggestion which might possibly be true. All we're seeing is the projection of an ego: because he isn't happy right now, he tries to project this personal bubble outward to cover the world regardless of it being a fundamentally irrational project. Edited by Paul on 03/23/08 - 07:05 PM
_____________________ "If a statement is made, it is to be confronted with the totality of existing statements. If it agrees with them, it is joined to them; if it does not agree, it is called 'untrue' and rejected; or the existing complex of statements of science is modified so that the new statement can be incorporated." - Otto Neurath

Glazed
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 20, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 03/23/08 - 07:20 PM:	#35
I wouldn't go that far. But I do agree there is no answer to this that will satisfy him. And yes. We all know what happiness is. But we don't have it in the long term, not truly. But yea, even if he was to experience happiness I am inclined to believe that Lex would view being happy as a blindfold on reality, thus making himself displeased with happiness. Even if you find it, it is worthless unless you want it.

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 168

Posted 03/23/08 - 09:06 PM:	#36
Paul wrote: It's simply irrational to claim that nobody is happy, since we could not have the word "happy" without a referant. The word picks out an emotional state, and it would be impossible to pick out an emotional state with which no one was familiar, so the meaning of the word is necessarily an experience with which the community of speakers is familiar. Even if there was once a mythical age in which people were happy (to appease the nutcase reactionary conservatives who think things used to be better when people enjoyed cholera and worked 12 hour days), no child can learn the word for an emotion which the child has never observed or experienced, so the word today necessarily means something that exists today. The position Lex is taking is self-contradictory, simply irrational, so we shouldn't waste our time persuing it as though it were a rational suggestion which might possibly be true. All we're seeing is the projection of an ego: because he isn't happy right now, he tries to project this personal bubble outward to cover the world regardless of it being a fundamentally irrational project. Dear Paul I assure you that I have thought out my position quite well, and took great pains to express it as clearly as I possibly could in order to avoid confusion. I am genuinely interested in the topic. As a proponent of thorough analysis, I try not to take anything at face value but instead examine it from a logical perspective. As far as I know, I have never come into contact with the experience that could be described by the word "happiness", whether or not you call that egoistic is up to you. Without the said reference, I can only use analysis to attempt to understand what is meant by happiness: if others do indeed experience it, I ask them to describe the matter content of this experience. My position has never been counter-logical, and don't think you can find a single piece of evidence to prove that point. Neither is my goal to cover the world in a "personal bubble", as I have no content to impose on it anyway: rather, I am searching for an answer. That is what I want to know, and, with all due respect, not your opinion about my ego. If you feel that my inquiry is inappropriate for your forum, I will simply bow out, as you are an administrator and I can do nothing about your personal feelings towards me. However, I don't really see how you yourself are being logical in accusing me of being egoistic. Neither will I tolerate any more references to my mental state. Since I started posting here, approximately four people attacked my position by insulting me rather than arguing, and frankly I am tired of defending myself. I also want nothing to do with a forum where I will be ordered around by the administrator for a position which I am politely arguing. Next time, if you wish to converse, exclude all references to my ego. If you simply wish to ban be from discussion, that is fine. I hope that this will be either my last post of a personal nature in this forum, or my last post period. Truly yours, Lex

Makarismos
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 453

Posted 03/24/08 - 03:00 AM:	#37
I think Paul is justified in his reasoning, but it leaves some room for manoeuvre. The argument could go along these lines:- We have a word which refers to a supposed mental state: "happiness". It must either be the case that a mental state exists which corresponds to this word, or that no such mental state exists. If no such mental state exists, then the word happiness is meaningless. If such a mental state exists, then the word is not meaningless. If we assume that we only have words for mental state which exist, then Paul is logically correct. The question at stake is do words always correspond to mental states? Specifically, does a mental state corresponding to this word truly exist? As I have experienced happiness, I would say it does. However, a person who has not experienced happiness has no direct proof that such a state exists. They must either rely on the testimony of others that it does, or else reject the idea totally. This rejection would constitute a form of scepticism I believe. There would, unfortunately, be no way of convincing such a sceptic of the existance of happiness. Cheers. Edited by Makarismos on 03/24/08 - 07:50 AM

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 157

Posted 03/24/08 - 05:59 AM:	#38
Lex I feel compelled to post my take on the argument, as I am intrigued as to how you justify your logic, and only hope you will read it. I believe happiness to be a state of mind one must choose to experience when one is capable of predominately logic based thinking, especially when one naturally over thinks as you claim to do. Happiness is a completely selfish state, like arrogance or pride. It's effects may have further consequences but its immediate effects are solely for the individual experiencing them. It is no coincidence that ignorance is bliss, as is doesn't require logical thought. In many cases it is the abandonment of logical thought, as the brain in the state of bliss sitting in a jar testifies. It doesn't require the abandonment of logical thinking but it doesn't require it either. I was once on a jogging machine, and hadn't tied my laces properly, I tripped and was thrown about three feet back. A friend of mine was there, and began to laugh. I too began to laugh, and in a brief moment between the pain, the humiliation and shock, as well as gratitude that I was in one piece, I was happy. Why? I imagine because I was humbled, because I was reminded of my own weakness and flaws, and yet paradoxically convinced that it meant nothing to my greatness, as I got back up and continued jogging. I had no logical reason to really be upset, even though what happened should have made me so, and that made me happy. Also knowing my fiend had been amused, made me happy. The paradox of it, as well as the randomness of the event, made me happy. It was a combination of positive feelings that were not over thought, more exaggerated in their simplicity. What I would say though, is that even though my friend laughed, the other man jogging beside me didn't. He could have as he saw the two of us laughing and he could see us laughing, but he simply didn't find it funny. He had no reason to be happy that I fell over, the twist in the air that reached down and grabbed the bellows of laughter from my belly did nothing for him, because happiness is completely subjective, I have no argument why he should have laughed, or felt happy. Now whether or not I have been conditioned to feel happy, through my experiences with other people is irrelevant if the feeling is genuine. My brain does not chemically react because I am experiencing something, I think people expect me to be happy about. And so happiness is achieved. I wonder have you ever laughed? Did you not feel happy? Because that's all it is, you take how you felt then and make something of it. Happiness requires gratitude for what you have, if you feel it insufficient then you cannot be happy. So in regard to your own happiness, I would argue you expect too much, and so have barred yourself from the feeling. It is one thing to hope and aim for the future, and even be disappointed with what is, but it should not affect happiness anymore than it would a desire to eat food you like. Unless of course you believe you cannot do both. Happiness is selfish, if you cannot be happy simply because you want to be, you misunderstand happiness. It actually takes quite an enlightened mind to be happy in circumstances that are against it, without letting it get in the way of changing those negative influences, as seen in the story of opposing soldiers during WWII (I think it was), playing football against each other on the battlefield, while still at war. I think you also mean happiness as a state of being, when someone proclaims "I am happy" as though they mean in regard to their life and not an instant, but that is simply the same thing with a focus on ones life. They are not continuously happy they simply remember what makes them laugh (amongst other things) and don't over think the rest. I can't tell you what should make you happy, only that to be happy you must choose.
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 168

Posted 03/24/08 - 11:19 AM:	#39
I feel that my question is a bit Socratic in nature: I can definitely see that a majority of people already has predefined notions of happiness: even if they do not know exactly what it is, they can sort of "feel it in the air" around them. So I did the most extreme thing: I simply said that I have no experience with it (true) and therefore cannot relate. Therefore I am interested in determining exactly what it is completely objectively, not through platitudes such as "being content". Techeth: Your definition of happiness is rather subjective. I would describe it simply as lack of depression or negative feelings. I don't see how laughter is an example of happiness: you do not need any intelligence to enjoy this concept. It only expresses a rather animal reaction to certain phenomena, and sometimes it is rather appalling. For example, recently in a french course a speaker was making a mock news report and the class was laughing in a good-natured way at the presentation (since it was intended to be humorous). What surprised me is that the subject was the war in Iraq: he was at the moment saying the number of civilian and military casualties. I imagined being a soldier killed in Iraq, and some freak that calls him/herself human having a nice joke about it somewhere overseas. I will never accept that as justified. Happiness is not selfish. Selfishness implies ignoring another's suffering in order to reduce your own, and it works both ways. In other words, you would not be posting this type of comment if you were dying of hunger somewhere in one of the poorer countries or being tortured. Selfishness will invariably lead to suffering of some so that others can be happy, and it might well be you.

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 157

Posted 03/24/08 - 12:39 PM:	#40
Lex what are you talking about? 1. your example of the class laughing just proves my point, logical thinking has nothing to do with being happy. In that moment those who were able to be selfish enough to laugh at the joke, believing it would have no effect on the outcome of the war or the lives of those it, were able to laugh. To say that they shouldn't have laughed doesn't mean they didn't derive some happiness when they did. Laughter is not happiness but a common action when happy or becoming happy, you can be happy without laughter. 2. You might describe it as "a lack of depression or negative feeling" but you would be wrong. 3. Okay a rather animalistic reaction, but what do you think you are? Sit down and smell the coffee, there is what you want to be and what you are, if you wish to find happiness accept what you are, if not then dwell on what you can be. 4. Selfishness does not only imply ignoring another�s suffering to reduce yours, but in this case is does yes so I won't argue with you. I would only be arguing this point if I was in the situation you described and I wanted to be right, I confess in that situation that may not be my priority.
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 168

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 03/24/08 - 12:57 PM:	#41
Techeth wrote: Lex what are you talking about? 1. your example of the class laughing just proves my point, logical thinking has nothing to do with being happy. In that moment those who were able to be selfish enough to laugh at the joke, believing it would have no effect on the outcome of the war or the lives of those it, were able to laugh. To say that they shouldn't have laughed doesn't mean they didn't derive some happiness when they did. Laughter is not happiness but a common action when happy or becoming happy, you can be happy without laughter. 2. You might describe it as "a lack of depression or negative feeling" but you would be wrong. 3. Okay a rather animalistic reaction, but what do you think you are? Sit down and smell the coffee, there is what you want to be and what you are, if you wish to find happiness accept what you are, if not then dwell on what you can be. 4. Selfishness does not only imply ignoring another�s suffering to reduce yours, but in this case is does yes so I won't argue with you. I would only be arguing this point if I was in the situation you described and I wanted to be right, I confess in that situation that may not be my priority. Fundamental difference. Consensus impossible. However, my system of thought is logic-based to the furthest extent I can manage. If you can ignore another's suffering in order to attain happiness (as you define it) you naturally forsake any notion that any other person should concern themselves with your wellbeing. In other words, you agree that nobody has any kind of responsibility towards you: they might as well go and cut your throat if it makes them happy. By this same definition, firemen, soldiers, policemen and rescue workers who risk their lives to save someone else are fundamentally fools who ignore happiness which is within reach, and the less fortunate who are unhappy due to injury, poverty, repression, etc. were simply dealt a bad card by fate and enough said. This leads to chaos. I believe the Categorical Imperative is a very good tool for a truly just world order.

Makarismos
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 453

Posted 03/24/08 - 03:05 PM:	#42
Techeth wrote: ...4. Selfishness does not only imply ignoring another�s suffering to reduce yours, but in this case is does yes so I won't argue with you. ... Techeth, I feel your definition of selfishness may preclude altruism.. Let me explain. If we agree that an altruistic act is entirely unselfish, and that an unselfish act is entirely other-regarding, then altruism becomes meaningless. We might look to anyone doing a good deed, and all of their good deeds would ultimately be classed as selfish. If they did the deed because of reward in this life, then obviously our definition of altruism precludes them. Reward counts good feeling through actions, desire to help, satisfying conscious, satisfying the desire to fulfil duty. What I am saying, is that if all possible acts are selfish, then the term selfish becomes meaningless (as well as the idea of altruism). Is it possible, under your own terms, to give an example of an unselfish act? Hope this makes sense, it�s been a long day

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 157

Posted 03/25/08 - 04:10 AM:	#43
Makarismos wrote: Techeth, I feel your definition of selfishness may preclude altruism.. Let me explain. If we agree that an altruistic act is entirely unselfish, and that an unselfish act is entirely other-regarding, then altruism becomes meaningless. We might look to anyone doing a good deed, and all of their good deeds would ultimately be classed as selfish. If they did the deed because of reward in this life, then obviously our definition of altruism precludes them. Reward counts good feeling through actions, desire to help, satisfying conscious, satisfying the desire to fulfil duty. What I am saying, is that if all possible acts are selfish, then the term selfish becomes meaningless (as well as the idea of altruism). Is it possible, under your own terms, to give an example of an unselfish act? Hope this makes sense, it�s been a long day I would class any act that seeks to place the benefit of another over your own an unselfish act. It would only be selfish if you considered feeling good about yourself, superior to whatever you gave up, if you think you�re the one better off at the end. If you mean by your definition of Altruism that the person committing the selfless act must do so without any reason to, even if it's because they want to or think it's the right thing to do, those being rewards through feelings, then I would be interested to know what you consider to be a truly Altruistic act. I think I understand where your coming from and it is interesting, but in regard to happiness, my point is it is self-serving the point of doing anything to make yourself happy, is to serve yourself, the distinction is in that you can gain happiness from helping others.
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 157

Posted 03/25/08 - 04:36 AM:	#44
Lex wrote: Fundamental difference. Consensus impossible. However, my system of thought is logic-based to the furthest extent I can manage. If you can ignore another's suffering in order to attain happiness (as you define it) you naturally forsake any notion that any other person should concern themselves with your wellbeing. Only that they should be perpetually concerned with my well being, that it should be all consuming, and their pesonal circustances, feelings and emotions, are not distinct from mine, or have the right to be viewed independantly. Lex wrote: In other words, you agree that nobody has any kind of responsibility towards you: they might as well go and cut your throat if it makes them happy. By this same definition, firemen, soldiers, policemen and rescue workers who risk their lives to save someone else are fundamentally fools who ignore happiness which is within reach, Nope, I am arguing what happiness is, not your right to achieve your happiness at any cost. Did I say that? I don't remember saying that? A fireman, soldier, or policeman can be happy serving the community, my cousin is a fireman, and he loves it wouldn't change it for the world. Lex wrote: and the less fortunate who are unhappy due to injury, poverty, repression, etc. were simply dealt a bad card by fate and enough said. . They're not exactly the lucky ones But just so I am clear, they can be happy in any of those situations, they don't have to be sad, or at least always sad. Crazy isn't it
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon

jeffcu990
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 03/25/08 - 05:09 AM:	#45
Conclusion: happiness is impossible in our current society, which is simply a selfish but terminally futile cycle of purposeless life and death. Happiness is at least hypothetically possible if humans somehow learn the INTRINSIC values of CARING for others, though defining it any further is beyond my modest analytical ability at this point. What do you think? Unlike Lex, I have experienced an overwhelming amount of emotions. However, I have arrived at the same place: boredom. The many responses to Lex have remained unconvincing. What am I missing? Does happiness require contentment? If so, those who are intelligent enough to see the vapidity will never be happy, at least not in the world's current state. Who claims to be happy? Do any of you? Why, specifically, are you happy? If you say it is just a feeling, then I guess I cannot experience it without your perspective. However, countless people lack basic necessities simply because of conditions they cannot control. Thus, it would be utterly arrogant and hypocritical to be content or live in real happiness--especially because you attained your state of happiness from conditions out of your control (such as where you were born and when). So can happiness be given to you? It is arrogant to claim that you have earned your happiness. Is there anything real about happiness? If you were immortal would you be happy, even if others were still mortal? If there were no pain would anyone be truly happy? People seem to ignore the importance of pain to gaining insight, and the importance of imperfection to understanding perfection. But many people also ignore their existence altogether. No one--not science, not religion--has been able to answer any of the basic questions, such as why there exists existence, what we should be doing, or what we are. How could anyone be happy without knowing what part of the self (if it exists) is feeling the happiness? The difficulty of finding a meaningful point to existence in today's world is only made more frustrating by all those who seem to think that happiness obviously exists and is what we should all strive for. But no one has been able to explain what it is--unless it really is not the greatest good. It is clearly not earned, at least not completely, and it requires a degree of contentedness impossible for intelligent people to achieve in today's world. Perhaps I can be sure of this, then: if anyone living in our current vapid society claims to be happy, then my goal is not the "happiness" they claim to have. Edited by jeffcu990 on 03/25/08 - 09:17 AM

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 157

Posted 03/25/08 - 07:03 AM:	#46
jeffcu990 wrote: Does happiness require contentment? If so, those who are intelligent enough to see the vapidity will never be happy, at least not with the world's current state. Either you misunderstand what I am saying or have made an error in your typing. The sentence should end with "at least not in the world's current state" if not we are having two separate conversations. jeffcu990 wrote: Who claims to be happy? Do any of you? Why, specifically, are you happy? If you say it is just a feeling, then I guess I cannot experience it without your perspective. However, countless people lack basic necessities simply because of conditions they cannot control. Thus, it would be utterly arrogant and hypocritical to be content or live in real happiness--especially because you attained your state of happiness from conditions out of your control (such as where you were born and when). So can happiness be given to you? It is arrogant to claim that you have earned your happiness. I know you don't believe in happiness so this is hard to argue but the point is people in depravity can be happy, and yes you have every right to be happy because you are better off than someone else, and guess what that is a little selfish. jeffcu990 wrote: Is there anything real about happiness? If you were immortal would you be happy, even if others were still mortal? If there were no pain would anyone be truly happy? People seem to ignore the importance of pain to gaining insight, and the importance of imperfection to understanding perfection. But many people also ignore their existence altogether. Maybe but with respect we are not here to discuss the people you have met in your life, what has any of this got to do with us? jeffcu990 wrote: No one--not science, not religion--has been able to answer any of the basic questions, such as why there exists existence, what we should be doing, or what we are. How could anyone be happy without knowing what part of the self (if it exists) is feeling the happiness? How is what we are talking about, good! Either by not caring, or assuming. People don't do some kind of deep, introspective investigation into the meaning of life every time they think they are about to smile or notice a bounce in their step as they go to work. They just smile. Happiness is a feeling felt like any other feeling, why? I don't know. If you don't believe in happiness, then even if you were happy you would not believe it, so it is irrelevant. Whether you think people should feel happy or not is up to you. Really I understand and applaud your concern for the world and your and Lex's empathy with it, really a very humbling trait. Yes a lot more could be done to make the world a better place if we were less concerned with ourselves, or there was some unified belief in what happiness is, that was not achieved at the expense of others. The right to be happy is not an agreement on what happiness is, more the right to find out. You are free to think what you like about people that are different. I hope you both find happiness because I believe you have the right to find what makes you happy, whether you have the right to fulfil what you believe that happiness to be is something else.
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 168

Posted 03/25/08 - 01:55 PM:	#47
Techeth wrote: Only that they should be perpetually concerned with my well being, that it should be all consuming, and their pesonal circustances, feelings and emotions, are not distinct from mine, or have the right to be viewed independantly. Nope, I am arguing what happiness is, not your right to achieve your happiness at any cost. Did I say that? I don't remember saying that? A fireman, soldier, or policeman can be happy serving the community, my cousin is a fireman, and he loves it wouldn't change it for the world. They're not exactly the lucky ones But just so I am clear, they can be happy in any of those situations, they don't have to be sad, or at least always sad. Crazy isn't it About the definition of selfishness: it all depends on your main reasons for performing the action. Even if are better off if you do it but you perform it not for that reason, it does not have to be selfish. Does sound crazy because I honestly think you are going out on a (Loooooooooooong) limb here when you are telling me that a person in these circumstances can always be happy. Perhaps they can indeed kill depression, but when you do nothing but work to survive it is a bit unreasonable to demand satisfaction. I am saying that happiness is not something fleeting that can be destroyed by any random fluctuation in circumstances. Thus it must be dependent on the societal order as well as your own mind. If people were completely unconcerned with one another, certainly it is feasible that everyone could possibly be satisfied, but then any unhappiness of one person need not provoke any action from the rest of the group. I think that perhaps happiness may be related (perhaps is a key word, don't quote me) be a shared feeling of "altruism", for example knowing that no matter what happens your fellow humans will attempt to do something to relieve your suffering. Your easy-going definition simply does not work, it implies a lack of involvement with reality: it does not concern me, it does not affect me.

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 168

Posted 03/25/08 - 01:57 PM:	#48
jeffcu990 wrote: Unlike Lex, I have experienced an overwhelming amount of emotions. However, I have arrived at the same place: boredom. The many responses to Lex have remained unconvincing. What am I missing? Does happiness require contentment? If so, those who are intelligent enough to see the vapidity will never be happy, at least not in the world's current state. Who claims to be happy? Do any of you? Why, specifically, are you happy? If you say it is just a feeling, then I guess I cannot experience it without your perspective. However, countless people lack basic necessities simply because of conditions they cannot control. Thus, it would be utterly arrogant and hypocritical to be content or live in real happiness--especially because you attained your state of happiness from conditions out of your control (such as where you were born and when). So can happiness be given to you? It is arrogant to claim that you have earned your happiness. Is there anything real about happiness? If you were immortal would you be happy, even if others were still mortal? If there were no pain would anyone be truly happy? People seem to ignore the importance of pain to gaining insight, and the importance of imperfection to understanding perfection. But many people also ignore their existence altogether. No one--not science, not religion--has been able to answer any of the basic questions, such as why there exists existence, what we should be doing, or what we are. How could anyone be happy without knowing what part of the self (if it exists) is feeling the happiness? The difficulty of finding a meaningful point to existence in today's world is only made more frustrating by all those who seem to think that happiness obviously exists and is what we should all strive for. But no one has been able to explain what it is--unless it really is not the greatest good. It is clearly not earned, at least not completely, and it requires a degree of contentedness impossible for intelligent people to achieve in today's world. Perhaps I can be sure of this, then: if anyone living in our current vapid society claims to be happy, then my goal is not the "happiness" they claim to have. A pleasure to meet you.

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 157

Posted 03/25/08 - 02:52 PM:	#49
Lex wrote: Does sound crazy because I honestly think you are going out on a (Loooooooooooong) limb here when you are telling me that a person in these circumstances can always be happy. Perhaps they can indeed kill depression, but when you do nothing but work to survive it is a bit unreasonable to demand satisfaction. I never said they can always be happy I said the exact opposite. Are you reading this backwards or what? I think you are confusing your view of happiness with mine. I don't consider happiness to be a constant. Lex wrote: I am saying that happiness is not something fleeting that can be destroyed by any random fluctuation in circumstances. Thus it must be dependent on the societal order as well as your own mind. If people were completely unconcerned with one another, certainly it is feasible that everyone could possibly be satisfied, but then any unhappiness of one person need not provoke any action from the rest of the group. I think that perhaps happiness may be related (perhaps is a key word, don't quote me) be a shared feeling of "altruism", for example knowing that no matter what happens your fellow humans will attempt to do something to relieve your suffering. Your easy-going definition simply does not work, it implies a lack of involvement with reality: it does not concern me, it does not affect me. I will try and make this as simple as I can, for a person to be happy in the world today they have to be able to detach themselves from the negatives in the world that are unbearable. That's it. To achieve the happiness you are talking about what you have said is probably true, and is basically what seems to be the goal of society, although there would no doubt be people for whom that would not be enough. What makes a person happy is subjective.
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 168

Posted 03/25/08 - 04:30 PM:	#50
Techeth wrote: I never said they can always be happy I said the exact opposite. Are you reading this backwards or what? I think you are confusing your view of happiness with mine. I don't consider happiness to be a constant. I will try and make this as simple as I can, for a person to be happy in the world today they have to be able to detach themselves from the negatives in the world that are unbearable. That's it. To achieve the happiness you are talking about what you have said is probably true, and is basically what seems to be the goal of society, although there would no doubt be people for whom that would not be enough. What makes a person happy is subjective. "They're not exactly the lucky ones But just so I am clear, they can be happy in any of those situations, they don't have to be sad, or at least always sad. Crazy isn't it?" I'm sorry but isn't your definition of happiness a detachment from the negatives (lack of sadness), so if they are not sad they are happy? Not reading backwards. I don't think detaching yourself from anything is happiness: there is no proof whatsoever that this is the case. The only thing it might lead to is contentment through ignorance: that I agree with.

Page: 1 2 3 4

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.