Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSo your question should be "What makes you happy?" I tend to choose the route that causes the least suffering to others if I can, and am often made happy by the happiness of others. Still not seeing where I said I had no limits or needed to do unpleasant things to others to be happy. Or is that how you get your kicks?
Your words:If that is the purpose then how it is achieved seems irrelevant. Feel free to disagree, I am happy to allow you whatever purpose makes you happy.
2 edits
Originally posted by Kepler[/b] Still not seeing where I said I had no limits...
So your question should be "What makes you happy?" I tend to choose the route that causes the least suffering to others if I can, and am often made happy by the happiness of others. Still not seeing where I said I had no limits or needed to do unpleasant things to others to be happy. Or is that how you get your kicks?
If that is the purpose then how it is achieved seems irrelevant. Feel free to disagree, I am happy to allow you whatever purpose makes you happy.
Still not seeing where I said I .... needed to do unpleasant things to others to be happy.
Never said you did.
Or is that how you get your kicks?
Why would you think that?
So your question should be "What makes you happy?"
How so?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI see, you think that my arguing that how the happiness is achieved is irrelevant means I have no limits. I would say that the obvious limit is that which makes me unhappy. Furthermore, as I said earlier, momentary pleasure does not equate to living a happy life. Any of the actions you mentioned as likely to bring me happiness are actually unlikely to do so since I would likely be be caught and incarcerated thus causing unhappiness, not to mention my dislike of causing unhappiness in others. So there you are, limits in place just not the ones you wanted probably.
Still not seeing where I said I had no limits...If that is the purpose then how it is achieved seems irrelevant. Feel free to disagree, I am happy to allow you whatever purpose makes you happy.
Still not seeing where I said I .... needed to do unpleasant things to others to be happy.
Never said you ...[text shortened]... would you think that?
So your question should be "What makes you happy?"
How so?[/b]
That is why I suggested you should have been asking what makes me happy. Even if nasty behaviour makes me happy, i'd still have limits. Again the obvious limit is that which would make me unhappy.
I asked if that was the way you get your kicks because it occurred to me that you might think I gain happiness from the acts mentioned because you have personal experience of such and thought I might be similar.
Originally posted by KeplerActually, I was looking to discuss this in the abstract. Seems like your position regarding "happiness" makes little sense if one considers the implications of such a system. I guess I'll just have to assume that you aren't prepared to have such a discussion.
I see, you think that my arguing that how the happiness is achieved is irrelevant means I have no limits. I would say that the obvious limit is that which makes me unhappy. Furthermore, as I said earlier, momentary pleasure does not equate to living a happy life. Any of the actions you mentioned as likely to bring me happiness are actually unlikely to do so s ...[text shortened]... the acts mentioned because you have personal experience of such and thought I might be similar.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSo far you have suggested I have no limits and wouldn't stop at serial murder, pedophilia etc. How does that start an abstract discussion of happiness or whatever it is you wish to discuss?
Actually, I was looking to discuss this in the abstract. Seems like your position regarding "happiness" makes little sense if one considers the implications of such a system. I guess I'll just have to assume that you aren't prepared to have such a discussion.
Originally posted by KeplerSeems you've read things into what I've written that are not there. If you're interested in having an abstract discussion, go back and reread our discussion bearing in mind that I'm looking to have an abstract discussion of your paradigm.
So far you have suggested I have no limits and wouldn't stop at serial murder, pedophilia etc. How does that start an abstract discussion of happiness or whatever it is you wish to discuss?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOK, so I guess we start here?
Seems you've read things into what I've written that are not there. If you're interested in having an abstract discussion, go back and reread our discussion bearing in mind that I'm looking to have an abstract discussion of your paradigm.
If our purpose is to live a happy life then how you achieve that happiness is irrelevant.
Your reply was:
What leads you to believe that "our purpose is to live a happy life"?
What leads you to believe that "how you achieve that happiness is irrelevant"?
In answer to the first, I said "If our purpose..." so I don't necessarily believe that is our purpose. It's as good a purpose as any if we must have a purpose beyond ensuring the survival of a portion of our genetic material.
In answer to the second, to me the means for achieving a happy life, seem irrelevant. This is partly because some means would lead to unhappiness thus preventing the achievement of the purpose.
Better?
3 edits
Originally posted by KeplerIn answer to the first, I said "If our purpose..." so I don't necessarily believe that is our purpose. It's as good a purpose as any if we must have a purpose beyond ensuring the survival of a portion of our genetic material.
OK, so I guess we start here?
If our purpose is to live a happy life then how you achieve that happiness is irrelevant.
Your reply was:
What leads you to believe that "our purpose is to live a happy life"?
What leads you to believe that "how you achieve that happiness is irrelevant"?
In answer to the first, I said "If our purpose..." so I don't ans would lead to unhappiness thus preventing the achievement of the purpose.
Better?
Not sure what you're trying to say here. What do you "necessarily believe" is our purpose? Actually let's get away from the word 'purpose' since it has certain connotations that are hard to get away from. So what do you believe should be the ultimate goal?
In answer to the second, to me the means for achieving a happy life, seem irrelevant. This is partly because some means would lead to unhappiness thus preventing the achievement of the purpose.
You seem to be on both sides of the fence here. Either "the means for achieving a happly life" is relevant or it isn't. Which is it? Do you believe that the "happiness" of others is relevant?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAristotle said that happiness is the one thing we seek for itself and not in order to get some other thing. If true, happiness is a sort of absolute.
What leads you to believe that "our purpose is to live a happy life"?
What leads you to believe that "how you achieve that happiness is irrelevant"?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe idea is not that happiness is simply what we all run around trying to get, clearly some are working on career satisfaction, some on family, some on personal salvation, some on good works, some on a mix of these things, but it is the state of being that achievement of our goal produces in us, to the degree those goals are neared or achieved.
It's only true for those who see "happiness" as the ultimate goal.
Aristotle ties happiness to virtue.
http://coachingtohappiness.com/aristotle-virtues-happiness.html
quote
Aristotle believed virtues led to happiness
The happiness that Aristotle spoke of was not necessarily the same that we would think of today. Today our view of happiness tends to be hedonic. We want to feel good immediately and tend not to think too far ahead. So we see a night out or a pleasant activity as a route to happiness.
The ancient Greeks had a very different perspective on happiness. Aristotle spoke about achieving eudaimonia, which is roughly translated into happiness.
Eudaimonia is not an emotional state; it is more about being all that you can, fulfilling your potential. The idea is that by living in a way that reaches your full potential you bloom or flourish and so display the best version of you that you can be.
Aristotle thought that the practice of virtues would equate to happiness, in the sense of being all you could be. By virtues, Aristotle meant the act of achieving balance and moderation.
unquote
It goes on from there.
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357You made the following statement:
The idea is not that happiness is simply what we all run around trying to get, clearly some are working on career satisfaction, some on family, some on personal salvation, some on good works, some on a mix of these things, but it is the state of being that achievement of our goal produces in us, to the degree those goals are neared or achieved.
Aristotle ti ...[text shortened]... ristotle meant the act of achieving balance and moderation.
unquote
It goes on from there.
Aristotle said that happiness is the one thing we seek for itself and not in order to get some other thing.
I responded with the following:
It's only true for those who see "happiness" as the ultimate goal.
You don't seem to have addressed this with your post.
The idea is not that happiness is simply what we all run around trying to get, clearly some are working on career satisfaction, some on family, some on personal salvation, some on good works, some on a mix of these things, but it is the state of being that achievement of our goal produces in us, to the degree those goals are neared or achieved.
You had said, "Aristotle said that happiness is the one thing we seek for itself...". Doesn't seem like one can both "seek" and not "try to get". The truth of the matter is that "happiness" seems to be exactly what the vast majority of people have as their ultimate goal whether they want to admit it or not. Even those who seek "personal salvation" are ultimately seeking "happiness".