Originally posted by howardgeeJohn Locke's philosophy of utilitarianism, which I beleive in, preaches that an act that creates the most total happiness spread over any number of people is the most moral. Of course this is much easier to follow when the target of the happiness is yourself.
Your definition misses out an important element: pain!
For interesting philosophical debates on happiness, research John Locke and his theory of Utilitarianism.
This is the doctrine that morally good actions are ones that lead to the maximum "amount" of happiness.
But that is morality, which I believe is unrelated to happiness except in a most direct sense. Someone who knew they just did something moral, may feel happiness because they did the right thing. But there is no spiritual tie. To reinforce this point let me give you an example:
Consider a man who can't comprehend that anyone but himself has feelings and knows nothing about morality. If he does someting wrong like steals or kills. He of course feels no guilt from his actions, but does he feel less happy because he was immoral? I say no. What would make him happy or unhappy besides for the chemicals in his brain? So he would be just as happy not knowing he was being immoral, as performing self-sacrices to be moral.... Ignorance is bliss (by the way everyone should see Matrix 1 if you haven't).
PS: If you believe in anything not made of matter, that can influence the matter world, such as god and souls, disregard this and anything else philosophical I write in the future. You have a right to your own opinion and mine just won't make sense.
Originally posted by ark13I know that this recent comment of yours did not seem to be directed in response to my earlier comments, but I will comment on them anyway. I hope you don't mind.
John Locke's philosophy of utilitarianism, which I beleive in, preaches that an act that creates the most total happiness spread over any number of people is the most moral. Of course this is much easier to follow when the target of the happiness is yourself.
But that is morality, which I believe is unrelated to happiness except in a most direct sense. S ...[text shortened]... al I write in the future. You have a right to your own opinion and mine just won't make sense.
I would like to point out that my definition of happiness has absolutely no basis in morality; I sai simply that if you are doing what you think is the right thing to do you are happy. If you are a moralistic person, you of course would be happy when following the strictures of you high moral law. If you are a priest of the inquisition, you could find happiness in torturing sinners. If you are a warrior, you might find happiness in running someone through with a barbed spear of some kind. It is a very personal experience.
And who says that God and the soul are not made of matter?
... --- ...
Originally posted by ark13Intriging but moot. I just said that to be annoying. God and the soul of course cannot belong to the observable universe, because if they did they would not be doing their jobs properly, so they do not qualify as matter in that way. But then again, if they do exist outside of human imagination (or because of human imagination, who knows?) they would have to be made of something. I mean, if they are forces that alter matter in the universe, they must be matter of some sort themselves.
I definetely don't mind. I was just trying to act smarter than I am by talking on a niche I happened to know something about. 😀
But how could god or souls be matter based? That's quite intriging.
I think it all depends on how far you are willing to stretch the definition and qualifications of matter.
... --- ...
Originally posted by thesonofsaulWere getting off topic but this is more interesting anyway. 🙂 Yeah, I agree with you, if they were able to alter matter inthe unviverse then they must be matter unless you beleive in souls or god. Back in the circle. I could believe in a non-matter soul if that soul couldn't effect matter. But then what can it do? Then if it can't do anything, it's not real, so there can't be non-matter souls or god that can't effect things. I think it's just a matter of physics to say that non-matter things can't effect matter, tlhough some people may dissagree. So that means by surely faulty deduction, that god either doesn't exist or is made of matter. Pretty much what you just said just with unnecessary complication. (By the way I'm considering brain functions matter so ideas can't be put in peoples' heads either.)
God and the soul of course cannot belong to the observable universe, because if they did they would not be doing their jobs properly, so they do not qualify as matter in that way. But then again, if they do exist outside of human imagination (or because of human imagination, who knows?) they would have to be made of something. I mean, if they are fo ...[text shortened]... n how far you are willing to stretch the definition and qualifications of matter.
... --- ...
This also gets into my favorite topic, causal determinism. (You can shut me up anytime.) The future is predetermined because nothing random happens in the universe so everything will always produce the exact same result, given identical influences. This means that the future will always happen the same way(not an ideal way of phasing it). If someone could know everything about everyting in the entire universe and have the capacity to compute this information, then one could predict the future. But that violates the law of astrophysics(another favorite topic) that, I can't remember the name of, and says that learning the position of electrons changes their location. So, not only would the above be infinitely inpractical, and impossible with even with any forseeable technology in the next couple of thousand years, but also physically impossible. I'll shut up now.😴
Originally posted by ark13Here I don't know if we have anything to discuss, for at heart I am also a determinist. However, at the same time that I believe that it is logically sound, I also believe that it is an unpractical and almost self-destructive way for humanity to think.
Were getting off topic but this is more interesting anyway. 🙂 Yeah, I agree with you, if they were able to alter matter inthe unviverse then they must be matter unless you beleive in souls or god. Back in the circle. I could believe in a non-matter soul if that soul couldn't effect matter. But then what can it do? Then if it can't do anything, it's no ...[text shortened]... ology in the next couple of thousand years, but also physically impossible. I'll shut up now.😴
Consider it this way. The future si determined by the past, correct? Now, part of the past is the so-called "thoughts" and decisions made by us poor unsuspecting humans. These decisions were made because we humans in general believe that we have control of our own will. If determinism took hold, people would (perhaps) stop putting the necessary stress of importance on their thoughts and decisions, thinking that they have no control anyway. Bye-bye humanity.
So, determinism is all well and good in these philosophical discussions, but when it comes to our day-to-day activities, we should embrace the idea that we own our "thoughts" and that they originate from us, even if it is logically unsound.
There was a free will thread a while back. You may want to dig that one up and check it out.
... --- ...
Yeah, we don't have conflicting opinions but it's nice to broaden our own theories by talking to similar others. Even if the debate forum isn't the best place as this isn't really a debate. I've read some of the free will thread but thanks for directing me there anyway. I do have one dissagreement (I know I can't spell) with what you just said. I beleive that even with determinism, people have the free will to make their own decisions and therefore have free will, it's just that they will always make the same decision given the same situation. I think that if people really understood determinism they would feel comfortable believing in it and it would not end human thought. The trouble is getting the public to understand determinism and realize that they are really completely in comtrol of their own decisions. But it's nearly impossible, believe me, I've naively tried. And some people you can't convince because they believe that some things happen randomly, like in quantum mechanics. But my gut just doesn't think that completely random things make any sense. I think quantum mechanic's cause and effect is just too complicated for us to understand at this moment, so it's human nature to say that it is totally random instead of admitting that we don't understand.
I wouldn't really be "free will" then, wouldn't it? I got chewed out in the free will thread for suggesting that as long as we believe that our will is free, then we might as well have free will. Apparently, that would be the "appearence of free will," not actually "free will." I know, it's an argument of semantics and it really annoyed me at the time, but after some time passed I could see the importance of the distinction.
Basically what I am saying is that if the decision being made is already determined, then the forces making the decision do not come from the self but from outside influences that have piled up over time. Decisions are still made, but the will is not "free."
Also, I never said that universal acceptance of determinism would end human thought; I suggested the possibility that thought would no longer seem important, therefore hurting our future as a spieces.
Part of what helps us come to a decision is the belief that we are in control of that decision and that it hasn't been predetermined but a series of events that may be completely alien to the individual. If a people start thinking that their decisions are predestined, then that will take away one of the major building blocks of the decision and have a possibly adverse affect.
But of course, this is all academic. Humanity seems hardwired against the concept of determinism. Even those who accept it logically like you do cannot accept that in theory it would eliminate the idea of free will and individualism, and to throw out individualism from humanity would be like a building pulling the keystone out of itself. Logic cannot defeat sociology.
... --- ...
Originally posted by thesonofsaulIMHO happiness has little to do with DOING, and everything to do with BEING.
I would like to point out that my definition of happiness has absolutely no basis in morality; I sai simply that if you are doing what you think is the right thing to do you are happy. If you are a moralistic person, you of course would be happy when following the strictures of you high moral law. If you are a priest of the inquisition, you could fi ...[text shortened]... nning someone through with a barbed spear of some kind. It is a very personal experience.
Somene else (unfortunately! 😀 ) said: Happiness is not getting what you want, but wanting what you've got!
Or, as the Bible said, "Godliness with contentment is great gain!"
In peace,
CJ
Originally posted by CalJustWheter or not our society is pre determined, we do not know what will happen in the future, so we must live our lives as if our decisions will influence the outcome.
IMHO happiness has little to do with DOING, and everything to do with BEING.
Somene else (unfortunately! 😀 ) said: Happiness is not getting what you want, but wanting what you've got!
Or, as the Bible said, "Godliness with contentment is great gain!"
In peace,
CJ
Happiness is achievd by you beliveing you are making the correct decision at most junctures.
A good start on the road to happiness, is striving and working for what you believe in, backed up with plenty of rest and a healthy diet.
I came to a realisation last year, it was a very important thing for me and since then I have been far, far more happy. It was that what makes me happiest is seeing those I care about happy. Since realising this I have made a concerted effort to enhance the lives of those I care about, my friends, my family and my partner. As such I feel happier than I have ever done in my life, not least because my partner thinks the same way and is simply the most precious thing I have ever met.
You see it really is the giving, not the recieving. I urge you all to try and be nicer to your fellow man and you in turn will recieve niceness 🙂 If I was a christian, I would claim this is a fundamental precept of humanity under god, but as an atheist I will say that the bible has at least the right idea on this, god or no god.
Originally posted by invigorateI really like that definition of happiness, thanks. I liked that you linked our off topic disscussion back to the orginal question. lol. But going back to where we just went away from, I still dissagree, in that our decisions do influence the outcome. You said we must pretend that they do. But just because the future is 'prepared' for the decision you will make, doesn't mean it doesn't effect it. I know it's weird to personify the future but I think it helps in getting my point across. Sure the future knows what decision you will end up making, but if you were someone else it may be a different decision. So my point is, it is ourselves that write the future with our decisions. We make our own decisions, but our brain being nothing more than chemicals and cells and nerves, so is very predictable. But if you still think that the brain cannot make our decisions since they are predetermined, then what are we? If we're not our brain or body, then either we don't exist or we have a non-material soul. And a non-matter soul that can effect matter means that determinism is invalid as we disscussed earlier.
Wheter or not our society is pre determined, we do not know what will happen in the future, so we must live our lives as if our decisions will influence the outcome.
Happiness is achievd by you beliveing you are making the correct decision at most junctures.
A good start on the road to happiness, is striving and working for what you believe in, backed up with plenty of rest and a healthy diet.