• MonfortS26
    256
    One could argue that happiness has evolved into life as a survival mechanism. In a general sense, the things that make us happy revolve around concepts that are central to our survival. Essentially, that pleasure and pain are the only motivators of our species and they have evolved in ways that increase our chances of surviving. This would be a never-ending cycle known as the hedonic treadmill. Right here, the question can be asked, is an actual quality life attainable, or is it delusional that we think it is possible to have a personal net happiness? If the concept of pain and pleasure are intimately linked in the way that this idea suggests, wouldn't the measurement of one be dependant on the measurement of the other? This would make it irrelevant to try and measure because the average would always be equal. Instead of remaining on the hedonic treadmill, wouldn't a transhumanist solution be in order? Wouldn't it make more sense to either genetically or technologically get rid of emotions instead of doing nothing more than pushing the boulder from the Myth of Sisyphus to attain some fleeting sense of happiness that serves no real purpose other than increasing the probability that our genes get passed on?
  • hachit
    237
    Here is my opinion we seek meaning if we must suffer we don't want it to be meaningless.
    If we do seek pleasure we can never find it because human are bad at judging what make us happy
    So we fall in and endless cycle of getting or doing things that don't make us happy in the long run
  • Pseudonym
    1.2k
    Wouldn't it make more sense to either genetically or technologically get rid of emotions instead of doing nothing more than pushing the boulder from the Myth of Sisyphus to attain some fleeting sense of happiness that serves no real purpose other than increasing the probability that our genes get passed on?MonfortS26

    Why would we do such a thing? What possible motivation could we have if happiness is not good enough because it's too fleeting?
  • hachit
    237
    well i thing that all we really need is a reason to live to see tomarow .
    (Yes I know there may be no tomorrow)
  • MonfortS26
    256
    Because with pain and pleasure being the motivator, the default human state would be pain. If you were to do nothing, eventually you would experience some form of pain that would motivate you to do something, whether it is hunger, insecurity. Just as we are chasing pleasure, we're running from pain. The difference is in most cases you need to work for pleasure, but pain will always be waiting for you.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Your hedonic treadmill eloquently describes the majority and their our condition.

    You suggest we abandon the principle of happiness as a motivation. I LIKE it.
  • BC
    13.1k
    Pleasure and pain are motivators, of course, but that is too simple. For one thing, they are inextricably alloyed together. In the rat labs simple pleasure or pain can be arranged, but once they are back in their cages, the rats' experience is more complicated.

    Wouldn't it make more sense to either genetically or technologically get rid of emotions instead of doing nothing more than pushing the boulder from the Myth of Sisyphus to attain some fleeting sense of happiness that serves no real purpose other than increasing the probability that our genes get passed on?MonfortS26

    No, it would not make more sense to rid ourselves of emotions.

    Sisyphus ended up with his futile endless labor as a punishment by the Gods.

    You have already grasped that Sisyphus is the absurd hero." says Albert Camus. "He is, as much through his passions as through his torture. His scorn of the gods, his hatred of death, and his passion for life won him that unspeakable penalty in which the whole being is exerted toward accomplishing nothing.

    Most of us aren't passionate enough to piss off the gods, and besides, his punishment took place in the dark underworld [afterlife] not here, above ground. It is the passions, the emotions, that save us from being like sisyphus in this world.

    Where would his torture be, indeed, if at every step the hope of succeeding upheld him?
    Camus asks. He adds:

    The workman of today works everyday in his life at the same tasks, and his fate is no less absurd. But it is tragic only at the rare moments when it becomes conscious. Sisyphus, proletarian of the gods, powerless and rebellious, knows the whole extent of his wretched condition: it is what he thinks of during his descent. The lucidity that was to constitute his torture at the same time crowns his victory. There is no fate that can not be surmounted by scorn.

    The surest path to the long hill and the big round rock is the stupefying loss of passion--the emotions. What mortal, above-ground proletarians should do about their work life is a good question, which bears on whether we will have a chance at happiness (one of those emotions you want to get rid of) or mere survival.
  • schopenhauer1
    9.9k

    The attainment of a goal or desire, Schopenhauer continues, results in satisfaction, whereas the frustration of such attainment results in suffering. Since existence is marked by want or deficiency, and since satisfaction of this want is unsustainable, existence is characterized by suffering. This conclusion holds for all of nature, including inanimate natures, insofar as they are at essence will. However, suffering is more conspicuous in the life of human beings because of their intellectual capacities. Rather than serving as a relief from suffering, the intellect of human beings brings home their suffering with greater clarity and consciousness. Even with the use of reason, human beings can in no way alter the degree of misery we experience; indeed, reason only magnifies the degree to which we suffer. Thus all the ordinary pursuits of mankind are not only fruitless but also illusory insofar as they are oriented toward satisfying an insatiable, blind will. — Schopenhauer article from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  • BC
    13.1k
    As always uplifting and encouraging news from Herr Schopenhauer.

    Not only does life suck, life is inherently sucktive, with sucktivity being an active agent, not only in human affairs (where it reaches it's highest most sucktive form) but in inanimate creatures as well. It all sucks.

    Sick, sack, sock, suck. You should live in Minnesota where the weather especially sucks. We have some of the suckiest weather on earth (though not as bad as the deep south, where the weather sucks in the opposite direction, and everything mildews and molds as well).
  • schopenhauer1
    9.9k

    :grin: I mistakenly pasted that twice.. maybe I was really trying to emphasize it :lol:
  • BC
    13.1k
    I added more.
  • schopenhauer1
    9.9k
    Not only does life suck, life is inherently sucktive, with sucktivity being an active agent, not only in human affairs (where it reaches it's highest most sucktive form) but in inanimate creatures as well. It all sucks.

    Sick, sack, sock, suck. You should live in Minnesota where the weather especially sucks. We have some of the suckiest weather on earth (though not as bad as the deep south, where the weather sucks in the opposite direction, and everything mildews and molds as well).
    Bitter Crank

    Yes, ever notice it is rare to get EXACTLY the weather you want? Well, maybe California.. but then it will be something else.
  • MonfortS26
    256
    The surest path to the long hill and the big round rock is the stupefying loss of passion--the emotions. What mortal, above-ground proletarians should do about their work life is a good question, which bears on whether we will have a chance at happiness (one of those emotions you want to get rid of) or mere survival.Bitter Crank

    What if your passion is to reduce existential risk? In a world with a finite amount of resources, we can either dedicate them to a longer life or a 'happier' life for society. The answer to that question determines how to approach my passion. A balance could be struck between the two, but that balance runs the risk of killing us all. But does a balance need to be established? If pain is the default, the reason we would actually enjoy pleasure is because it is an escape from pain. Wouldn't this be a more efficient escape from pain than the natural one?
  • MonfortS26
    256
    Thus all the ordinary pursuits of mankind are not only fruitless but also illusory insofar as they are oriented toward satisfying an insatiable, blind will. — Schopenhauer article from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

    I like the passage, and I can agree to an extent that everything is fruitless, but wouldn't my proposal break the concepts that he speaks of. Things would still be pointless, but the pointlessness wouldn't affect us on an emotional level.
  • T Clark
    13k
    One could argue that happiness has evolved into life as a survival mechanism. In a general sense, the things that make us happy revolve around concepts that are central to our survival. Essentially, that pleasure and pain are the only motivators of our species and they have evolved in ways that increase our chances of surviving.MonfortS26

    Happiness has nothing to do with pleasure or pain. Everyone will suffer in their life - sickness, the death of loved ones, pain. Happiness comes from how you handle the pain. Happiness is what Alan Watts calls "sanity, wholeness and integration," as he describes below.

    The real reason why human life can be so utterly exasperating and frustrating is not because there are facts called death, pain, fear, or hunger. The madness of the thing is that when such facts are present, we circle, buzz, writhe, and whirl, trying to get the I out of the experience...Sanity, wholeness and integration lie in the realisation that we are not divided, that man and his present experience are one, and that no separate I or mind can be found .... [Life] is a dance, and when you are dancing, you are not intent on getting somewhere. The meaning and purpose of dancing is the dance.
  • MonfortS26
    256
    The real reason why human life can be so utterly exasperating and frustrating is not because there are facts called death, pain, fear, or hunger. The madness of the thing is that when such facts are present, we circle, buzz, writhe, and whirl, trying to get the I out of the experience...Sanity, wholeness and integration lie in the realisation that we are not divided, that man and his present experience are one, and that no separate I or mind can be found .... [Life] is a dance, and when you are dancing, you are not intent on getting somewhere. The meaning and purpose of dancing is the dance.T Clark

    I disagree that happiness is not a form of pleasure and I don't think that this specific passage is about happiness. I used to read Alan Watts and it bothered me when I read he was considered more of a spiritual entertainer than a philosopher. But when I look back at it, he wrote very simple ideas that he convoluted with a bunch of poetic nothingness, Honestly I think he helped me get into philosophy because I doubt I would've taken what he said as seriously had it not been difficult to interpret at times, but I have to agree with the spiritual entertainer label. It's still entertaining to read, but the entire passage above can be summed up as, the meaning of life is life itself. I don't really see what that has to do with happiness but perhaps I am mistaken.
  • T Clark
    13k
    It's still entertaining to read, but the entire passage above can be summed up as, the meaning of life is life itself. I don't really see what that has to do with happiness but perhaps I am mistaken.MonfortS26

    I'll paraphrase what Watts said in a way that is more accurate than you did - The problem isn't pain, it's our struggle against pain. Other posters, including you, claim that the balance of pleasure and pain is what determines happiness. What Watts says speaks directly to that. Happiness is not being without pain, it is being without the struggle. What does Watts' status as an entertainer or a philosopher have to do with whether or not that is true?
  • MonfortS26
    256
    What does Watts' status as an entertainer or a philosopher have to do with whether or not that is true?T Clark

    That's fair. My generalized view of what Alan Watts does is take important concepts and present them in a confusing way in order to provoke thought in that area. I'm not discrediting him as important, but I don't think he had the habit of presenting actual truths. To me, it seems he is more of a disinformationist in the same sense that Reggie Watts is.

    But you're right, that has nothing to do with whether or not it is true. Does he propose any evidence to suggest that this is the case though? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see no way for pain to exist without struggle. Wouldn't the rejection of the struggle to ease one's pain just leave them stuck in it. I agree that expecting to rid oneself from pain completely is futile, but removing the struggle completely would just be counterproductive and I see no reason to suggest that would make someone happier than another person who attempts to solve the problem that is causing the pain in the first place.
  • schopenhauer1
    9.9k
    In what way wouldn't it affect us?
  • MonfortS26
    256
    In what way wouldn't it affect us?schopenhauer1

    If we couldn't experience pain, it wouldn't affect us in any way.
  • T Clark
    13k
    But you're right, that has nothing to do with whether or not it is true. Does he propose any evidence to suggest that this is the case though? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see no way for pain to exist without struggle. Wouldn't the rejection of the struggle to ease one's pain just leave them stuck in it. I agree that expecting to rid oneself from pain completely is futile, but removing the struggle completely would just be counterproductive and I see no reason to suggest that would make someone happier than another person who attempts to solve the problem that is causing the pain in the first place.MonfortS26

    Evidence? This is metaphysics, not medicine. It has to do with attitude and values - how you look at things. Buddhism's First Noble Truth (there are 4) - All life is suffering. Second Nobel Truth - Suffering is caused by desire. The desire for pleasure. The desire not to feel pain. Struggle.
  • MonfortS26
    256
    Evidence? This is metaphysics, not medicine. It has to do with attitude and values - how you look at things.T Clark

    Are you implying that the benefits of adopting different attitudes and values are somehow exempt from the concept of evidence or proof?

    Buddhism's First Noble Truth (there are 4) - All life is suffering. Second Nobel Truth - Suffering is caused by desire. The desire for pleasure. The desire not to feel pain. Struggle.T Clark

    Just because something is stated as being truth, does not make it true. All life is suffering? Nonsense, that would imply that happiness doesn't exist and would act as an argument in favor of my original argument anyway. To say that suffering is the default state of human nature is agreeable. Suffering is caused by desire? So when it comes to the desire not to be tortured, the suffering in that area comes from desire itself? Not the person shoving bamboo under your fingernails?
  • CuddlyHedgehog
    379
    Happiness is a self-delusion.
  • MonfortS26
    256
    If happiness were entirely self-delusion, how could it be dependent on forces outside the mind in any way?
  • CuddlyHedgehog
    379
    It isn't. It's all in the mind.
  • matt
    154
    So when it comes to the desire not to be tortured, the suffering in that area comes from desire itself? Not the person shoving bamboo under your fingernails?MonfortS26

    The pain comes from the torture. The suffering comes from the frustrated desire to not be tortured.
  • MonfortS26
    256
    Then where does the correlation between income and happiness come from?
  • MonfortS26
    256
    The pain comes from the torture. The suffering comes from the frustrated desire to not be tortured.matt

    That just seems like an arbitrary boundary between the two definitions in order to make the statement that suffering is the result of desire true while keeping the reality that pain is caused by external forces also true. How are you defining pain vs suffering?
  • CuddlyHedgehog
    379
    Then where does the correlation between income and happiness come from?MonfortS26

    from someone’s backside, would be my best guess.
  • MonfortS26
    256
    What evidence do you have to support your claim that happiness is based on mindset alone?
  • CuddlyHedgehog
    379
    What evidence do you have to support your claim that happiness is based on mindset alone?MonfortS26

    What evidence do you have that it isn’t?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.