Originally posted by ark13Contentment sounds like it's an emotionless state to you. I'd say it's a state in which one feels a low level of happiness. Happiness is a form of pleasure.
The 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.
I don't see how someone could be very happy, yet not really happy. How does that work?
Originally posted by thesonofsaulBy your own definition, this man is not content. He is restless and looking for outside circumstances to provide a perceived 'happiness.'
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.
... --- ...
Originally posted by AThousandYoungContentment does not rely upon a state that is unreliable and fleeting. Contentment is about understanding the nature of mental and physical phenomena in the relative and absolute spheres, and not being fooled by their manifestations.
And contentment is differentiated from pleasure how?
Originally posted by eagles54I guess that depends on how you personally define "contented." It could mean the satisfaction of all one's desires, true, but that is nigh on impossible. It can also mean the conscious limitation of one's desires, which is the more commonly used definition in my opinion. For example, take my chess rating here on RHP. Not the best rating in the world, but I am quite "content" with it. Do I want a higher rating? Of course I do! I do study chess and chess related material in attempt to improve my ability. But I am still okay with my rating as it is. This is what I hear when confronted with the word "contentment." Of course, my chess rating has nothing to do with my happiness, for it has nothing to do with what I feel is doing the right thing. If it did, I would have problems.
By your own definition, this man is not content. He is restless and looking for outside circumstances to provide a perceived 'happiness.'
... --- ...
happiness is being financial secure, having a good woman, being able to please her and yourself, and knowing what you are curious about. besides that, you'll love the wind against your skin as you sit by the fire at night at your cottage, everyone laughing and having a good time. Soaking up the heat of the fire, the wind at your back, the stars in the sky, given your RSPs and life insurance and financial security. this is happiness. peace of mind.
Originally posted by eagles54Are you suggesting that pleasure always relies upon a state that is unreliable and fleeting?
Contentment does not rely upon a state that is unreliable and fleeting. Contentment is about understanding the nature of mental and physical phenomena in the relative and absolute spheres, and not being fooled by their manifestations.
I don't understand your second sentence. It seems to imply that to be content, one must have extraordinary knowledge and intelligence and a complete understanding of science. You also include phrases like "relative and absolute spheres", "manifestations of physical and mental phenomena" and "the nature of mental and physical phenomena" which I don't understand.
Originally posted by DualSpaceYou're describing circumstances, and not the happiness itself. You can't be a straight woman or gay man and be happy? You can't be happy unless you have a cottage and a fire?
happiness is being financial secure, having a good woman, being able to please her and yourself, and knowing what you are curious about. besides that, you'll love the wind against your skin as you sit by the fire at night at your cottage, everyone laughing and having a good time. Soaking up the heat of the fire, the wind at your back, the stars in the sky, given your RSPs and life insurance and financial security. this is happiness. peace of mind.
You gave examples of what would make you and possibly most other people happy, but not what the experience of happiness itself is.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes, I was saying that contentment is a lack of happiness or sadness, but to some people that can be all they want. Which makes them happy, which may remove them from their content state which, may in turn make them unhappy enough to return to contentment. I guess it doesn't really make sense because it's all a circle, but isn't that how life is, swings back and forth? After all, emotions have the word motion in them.
Contentment sounds like it's an emotionless state to you. I'd say it's a state in which one feels a low level of happiness. Happiness is a form of pleasure.
I don't see how someone could be very happy, yet not really happy. How does that work?
I guess what I was doing a poor job of pointing out is that although contentment is a balance of emotions, different people are gratified different amounts from being in this state.
Alright fine you cornered me. Happiness is the feeling of a serious BUZZ after a 26er of Gin. But it can't be sustained and drinking all the time isn't feasible, so you attain financial security as a back-up plan to make sure you will always have enough Gin to ensure the BUZZ of happiness whenever you get to the cottage.
I'm getting warmer, I'm sure of it! 😛
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhen many persons experience pleasure, there is the realization that it is of finite duration. Suffering ensues from that realization.
Are you suggesting that pleasure always relies upon a state that is unreliable and fleeting?
I don't understand your second sentence. It seems to imply that to be content, one must have extraordinary knowledge and intelligence and a complete understanding of science. You also include phrases like "relative and absolute spheres", "manifestatio ...[text shortened]... ental phenomena" and "the nature of mental and physical phenomena" which I don't understand.
My second sentence, to put it briefly, means that when one knows one's own mind, one may be content. Since all experience is known through the ground of the mind, a person only needs to understand their mind, not all sorts of scientific knowledge.
As far as 'relative' and 'absolute' goes, there are appearances and then there is the ultimate nature of those appearances.
Originally posted by eagles54What of people that don't realize this finite duration?
When many persons experience pleasure, there is the realization that it is of finite duration. Suffering ensues from that realization.
My second sentence, to put it briefly, means that when one knows one's own mind, one may be content. Since all experience is known through the ground of the mind, a person only needs to understand their mind, not all sor ...[text shortened]... solute' goes, there are appearances and then there is the ultimate nature of those appearances.
"ultimate nature"? That's just as unclear. What does that mean?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt doesn't matter whether they perceive the duration or not, the end result is that the suffering of changing circumstances will be known to them.
What of people that don't realize this finite duration?
"ultimate nature"? That's just as unclear. What does that mean?
The ultimate nature of mental and physical phenomena is different, yet not separate from, their relative nature. Relative nature is appearances, such as the appearance of a tree. One hundred persons will probably agree that what they are looking at is a tree. Relatively speaking, it is a tree. A tree appears to us through an infinitely complex confluence of causes and conditions. It's ultimate nature is without a solid, unchanging essence whereby you might say, "Ha! There is the unchanging tree essence! Eureka!" It will never happen.
I'm sorry at my lack of clarity. It is not intentional.
1 edit
Originally posted by eagles54It sounds as though you believe happiness cannot end, or it's not happiness. This is not a good definition of happiness.
It doesn't matter whether they perceive the duration or not, the end result is that the suffering of changing circumstances will be known to them.
The ultimate nature of mental and physical phenomena is different, yet not separate from ...[text shortened]... appen.
I'm sorry at my lack of clarity. It is not intentional.
Relative nature is appearances, such as the appearance of a tree.
That's clear enough.
The ultimate nature of mental and physical phenomena is different, yet not separate from, their relative nature...It's ultimate nature is without a solid, unchanging essence whereby you might say, "Ha! There is the unchanging tree essence! Eureka!"
Your concept of "ultimate nature" is still very unclear. You sound like you're trying to be really profound. However, I don't think you're really saying anything as far as I can tell when you talk about "ultimate nature". You're describing "ultimate nature" by what it is different from and what it lacks, not what it is.
Are you trying to describe the Platonic Forms concept? This is a concept that there is another world, a magical place, maybe Heaven, where the perfect example of every noun exists. Everything on Earth is an imperfect shadow of the Platonic Forms.