Originally posted by eagles54Anticipating the end to happiness would equally lead to suffering. Are you defining happiness as identical to pleasure except permanent?
As to the notion of pleasure equating to happiness, isn't it reasonable to equate pleasure with suffering because of its impermanent nature? No pleasure lasts for long and anticipating its end is suffering in itself.
Originally posted by ark13My wise old uncle taught me that "Happiness is whatever blows your bloomers up over your head."
I just wanted to ask the philosophical question, what is happiness, and see what different people think. I love to debate philosophy but unfortunately no one I know does.
Anyway, I think happiness is simply the sum of one's moments of pleasure. I don't think there is long term happiness except for the memories of the moments. I don't think there is any ...[text shortened]... of course, being a determinist, I look at things very bluntly. Could someone set me straight?😛
I don't know what it is. I don't think it is too mysterious though. One tends to have it or not. I am not the best person to ask. I am kind of manic depressive. I have my ups and I have my downs.
Originally posted by ark13This confusion is exactly why determinism can never stick with humanity, no matter how much sense it makes logically. We are hardwired as individuals; we could never accept that we are merely part of a cause and effect chain of events that we really have no control over.
I 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 wil ...[text shortened]... n-matter soul that can effect matter means that determinism is invalid as we disscussed earlier.
Of course our decisions influence the outcome. I never disagreed with that. All I am saying is that those decisions are often full of determination and drive because we believe that the decisions originate solely from within ourselves. If we suddenly realized, en masse, that our thought prosesses, while still being connected to our individual selves are actually completely controlled by past influences, it will dull the edge of the blade and kill the momentum of individuality. To repeat my previous analogy, it would be like a building pulling out it's own foundation. It just isn't going to happen.
We must pretend--wait, not must, we do pretend--that all thought is completely individual because that is for the betterment of humanity. No human wants to be a honey bee or an ant with complete realization of how external influences direct all that we do and all that we think. This is why advertising people go batty: they are in a position to see this, and while their mind can accept this about others quite easily, it can't accept this about itself because--and here's the kicker--the human mind needs to operate as if it were free of outside influences, even though it most certainly is not.
My point in a nutshell: You can think about determinism all you want, but the human mind can never apply the theory to itself. My entire rant, this one and the ones preceeding it, have been clumsy attempts to explain that whether or not our decisions about our future are ruled by our past and genetic make-up (which, in a way, is also our past) is completely moot because the human mind will never accept it or even consider it past a completely academic point of view. The old adage says "know thyself." Whoever came up with that one probably didn't realize how hard, perhaps impossible, a task that really is.
... --- ...
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI don't feel that pleasure has anything to do with happiness, whether that pleasure be permanent or not.
In your other post, the only difference between the two that you suggest is duration...I'm trying to pin down what you mean by happiness - contentment as well, now that you're using that word. To me, they are all forms of pleasure, but you seem to disagree.
I think that so-called happiness comes from self respect and respect for others, from cultivating a good heart and seeing the good in others, in rejoicing in good works done selflessly.
Originally posted by eagles54You are talking about where happiness comes from; but what is it?
I don't feel that pleasure has anything to do with happiness, whether that pleasure be permanent or not.
I think that so-called happiness comes from self respect and respect for others, from cultivating a good heart and seeing the good in others, in rejoicing in good works done selflessly.
Originally posted by eagles54I have to disagree with this assessment. It is possible to have contentment without true happiness. For example, say a man has a good job where he rarely gets yelled at, earns enough money for a nice house and two dependable cars, has 2.3 kids who never get into trouble and get good grades, a wife that while somewhat dumpy cooks a mean chicken lasagna. A man could be quite content in this situation, but he isn't necessarily happy. It could be that happiness is out of this man's reach, for if he runs off and starts the life he has always dreamed of (nature boy in Alaska for instance) he would hurt his family. This is certainly not the right thing and therefore interrupts happiness. However, if he stays in his bubble of contentment he is hurting himself by not following his "dreams" of adventure. Also not the right thing, therefore cutting off happiness. He would have to find a balance and feel that it is actually the right thing to do. Then and only then would he find happiness.
In a word, contentment.
I'm not knocking contentment. It is truly a great thing that someone can aspire to without fault. It just isn't happiness.
... --- ...
Originally posted by eagles54The way I see it, contentment is the balance of emotions. There are no dramatic happiness or sadness swings. Also contentment is a position on the scale of happiness. It's not really happy, or really sad just sort of in the middle. But contentment's exact location on the scale depends on the person. If someone is very happy simply being neutral, then contentment is very high up on the happiness slider. And vice versa.
In a word, contentment.
Originally posted by thesonofsaulI think that's a fair assessment. And I think it's probably the right answer too.
I have to disagree with this assessment. It is possible to have contentment without true happiness. For example, say a man has a good job where he rarely gets yelled at, earns enough money for a nice house and two dependable cars, has 2.3 kids who never get into trouble and get good grades, a wife that while somewhat dumpy cooks a mean chicken lasagna ...[text shortened]... reat thing that someone can aspire to without fault. It just isn't happiness.
... --- ...