Relationships- Are They Really a Source for Meaningful Life and Optimism?

schopenhauer1

This topic is a break off from a discussion in the technology thread involving @Bitter Crank. (I thought it worthy of its own topic)

Just like "good work", "good relationships" are not a guarantee in life.. Oddly enough, while relationships, and specifically good intimate relationships are on the top of people's lists of examples of what makes life meaningful, it is among the the least guaranteed and most fickle of phenomena we encounter. Circumstances make some people more "satisfied" in the quantity and quality of their relationships just like some people are more "satisfied" in their work life. It might even be the case that even as hard as it might be in finding (at the least) an adequate job, adequate jobs may be more readily available in "modern" society than adequate relationships.

Of course, this unequal distribution of true friendships and intimate relations are not even taking into account that other people, though creating opportunities for happiness, might equalize the situation out by, in turn, being a source of immense frustration, disappointment, and any number of painful experiences.

Also, there is a tendency for novelty and boredom- people get tired of other people which causes them to look for more novel people to spend time with, and in a weird way mimicking our addiction to mindnumbing technologies. There is always a new high with some other new gadget or person. Just like mindnumbing technologies, our reliance on the trivialities of short term encounters are valued more than cultivating long term but less novel social bonds.

So to put these ideas together.. humans are screwed in two ways in regards to what seems high on many people's list of what gives meaning to life:

1) Good relationships, a candidate for one of life's most meaningful phenomena are not guaranteed for all, and unlike commodities like "bread and circus" could not even be something provided to the masses like in some weird hypothetical totalitarian regime. You cannot force relationships, just force proximity to others. Relationships, and especially cultivating strong ones, are organic and highly subject to context. They are their own ecosystems which cannot be created out of fiat. Therefore, this candidate for an intrinsic "good" of life, even if it should be cherished is highly circumstantial and is unequally distributed such that some people may have it in abundance and others experience varying degrees of its deprivation.

2) Good intimate relationships are hard to cultivate, when they do persist they lead often to frustration, annoyance with the other person, boredom, etc., and are easily lost.

How can something that is unequally distributed and has the potential to be a source of even more suffering in the short or long run be a reason for embracing life or providing new life to other individuals (i.e. reason for procreation), or being in any way a reason for having a positive outlook in regards to the lot of the human experience?

Terrapin Station

In my opinion a lot of what makes the difference is one's attitude towards things like work and relationships. You can't have some narrow preconception of what those things should be like, and then effectively trash what you've got just because it doesn't closely resemble your preconception. You have to appreciate what you've got for what it is. That goes for everything else, too.

Of course you also have to work at achieving those things in the first place--employment/a career, friendships, romantic relationships, etc. You can't expect them to just fall into your lap.

And sometimes those things will be a problem to an extent where you have to abandon them, but you have to get right back up and develop more of them, without shifting to a bad attitude about that stuff. Again, this requires some effort on your part.

schopenhauer1

Of course you also have to work at achieving those things in the first place--employment/a career, friendships, romantic relationships, etc. You can't expect them to just fall into your lap. — Terrapin Station

And so why is the struggle to achieve career, friendships, romantic relationships.. worth the struggle?

Again, this requires some effort on your part. — Terrapin Station

Why does simply trying to say "work harder" become a remediation of the problems I brought up? You are simply restating truisms as if this diminishes the two points I brought up in the OP:

1) Good relationships, a candidate for one of life's most meaningful phenomena are not guaranteed for all, and unlike commodities like "bread and circus" could not even be something provided to the masses like in some weird hypothetical totalitarian regime. You cannot force relationships, just force proximity to others. Relationships, and especially cultivating strong ones, are organic and highly subject to context. They are their own ecosystems which cannot be created out of fiat. Therefore, this candidate for an intrinsic "good" of life, even if it should be cherished is highly circumstantial and is unequally distributed such that some people may have it in abundance and others experience varying degrees of its deprivation.

2) Good intimate relationships are hard to cultivate, when they do persist they lead often to frustration, annoyance with the other person, boredom, etc., and are easily lost.

How can something that is unequally distributed and has the potential to be a source of even more suffering in the short or long run be a reason for embracing life or providing new life to other individuals (i.e. reason for procreation), or being in any way a reason for having a positive outlook in regards to the lot of the human experience?

Psuedo-pragmatic posturing aside, these are still problems with a cherished notion of what makes the human experience meaningful.

Though one can provide the the usual stock answers of "just work harder!" and "the tragedy brings with it the meaning as the flip side of the joy.." these somehow seem to fall short as ad hoc justifications and ways of saying "nothing to see here".

Terrapin Station

And so why is the struggle to achieve career, friendships, romantic relationships.. worth the struggle? — schopenhauer1

First, it doesn't have to be a struggle. Looking at it that way is already entering with an attitude that probably won't be beneficial.

You won't necessarily feel that they are worth the "struggle" once you have them and compare that to your other options. But most people who have them, and especially those who do accept them for what they are rather than assessing them on some narrow, preconceived notion of what they should be, do feel that way about them compared to their other options. Of course, if you don't have those things in your life and you're perfectly content with that, then there's no need to worry about them so that you're even wondering about whether, and in what contexts, they might offer something to you.

Why does simply trying to say "work harder" become a remediation of the problems I brought up? — schopenhauer1

I'm just emphasizing that careers,, relationships etc. are something that one needs to put some effort into. That's not to say that you're thinking otherwise, but just in case anyone is thinking otherwise.

Also, if what I'm saying is just "repeating truisms" then there can hardly be grounds for disagreeing with me. We should all hope to say things that are true, and truth isn't correlated with novelty.

Understanding posts often requires some effort, too, by the way. A large part of my point is that good relationships aren't about the details of the relationship. They're about how you look at them, your attitude towards them, and whether you're making any effort towards them or your attitude towards them.

schopenhauer1

First, it doesn't have to be a struggle. Looking at it that way is already entering with an attitude that probably won't be beneficial. — Terrapin Station

This is from how you were describing it.. I was just mirroring that. As you stated:

Of course you also have to work at achieving those things in the first place--employment/a career, friendships, romantic relationships, etc. You can't expect them to just fall into your lap. — Terrapin Station

That seems more a struggle.. of course my point was for some people it is less a struggle than for others.. easier.. unequally distributed, circumstantial.

You won't necessarily feel that they are worth the "struggle" once you have them and compare that to your other options. But most people who have them, and especially those who do accept them for what they are rather than assessing them on some narrow, preconceived notion of what they should be, do feel that way about them compared to their other options. Of course, if you don't have those things in your life and you're perfectly content with that, then there's no need to worry about them so that you're even wondering about whether, and in what contexts, they might offer something to you. — Terrapin Station

Your hypotheticals here don't seem to conform with reality. You are minimizing the harm that I brought up that comes with the relationship phenomena. The person who does not care can exist in small batches, but most people are pretty damn social animals.. Again, downplaying this to make some point that there is no point seems like a good way to pretend the problems don't exist. I can say the same about a number of events that are actually harmful.. It doesn't make them less harmful because I claim it isn't so.

Also, if what I'm saying is just "repeating truisms" then there can hardly be grounds for disagreeing with me. We should all hope to say things that are true, and truth isn't correlated with novelty. — Terrapin Station

No, truisms but in the way that "working harder can lead to getting things" says anything.. That doesn't say much for the harm that exists in the "hard work" in getting, obtaining, and falling out of various relationships. It is to downplay and dismiss a bigger problem.

Understanding posts often requires some effort, too, by the way. A large part of my point is that good relationships aren't about the details of the relationship. They're about how you look at them, your attitude towards them, and whether you're making any effort towards them or your attitude towards them. — Terrapin Station

Again, whether this is true or not, does not take away the pain involved in this "meaningful" phenomenon. It is on the top of many lists of meaningful things (along with learning, achievement, etc.), but can be quite problematic. Ad hoc justifications of tragi-comedy.. seem like lesser versions of Nietzschean eternal return.. the sufferer who accepts all suffering..The meaning in the suffering of relationships, etc. One can use this type of hallow excuse for any number of phenomena of suffering..Change your attitude so you can deal man.. But the harm exists in the first place.

Terrapin Station

Maybe you'd describe anything that you have to put any effort into, where it doesn't just fall into your lap as a "struggle," but I wouldn't.

schopenhauer1

Maybe you'd describe anything that you have to put any effort into, where it doesn't just fall into you all as a "struggle," but I wouldn't. — Terrapin Station

Maybe you downplay any harm as just attitude and hard work.. Which is to dismiss the negative aspects in the name of whistling dixie.

Terrapin Station

What does that have to do with whether a characterization counts as a "struggle"?

schopenhauer1

What does that have to do with whether a characterization counts as a "struggle"? — Terrapin Station

It depends.. I qualified it with this: of course my point was for some people it is less a struggle than for others.. easier.. unequally distributed, circumstantial.

So for some it is much harder work than others..

But this picayune back and forth is now making your statements troll-like.. Either say something substantial about it besides hard work and attitude makes this not a real harm, or move on..

Terrapin Station

I prefer conversational interaction, and I'm not interested in visiting the argument clinic.

You said that what I described was a struggle, right?

schopenhauer1

You said that what I described was a struggle, right? — Terrapin Station

You are leading me down the troll-den.. Yep.. struggle.. hard work, difficult task.. And I said it is harder work for some than others.

Terrapin Station

Right. So I said that what I described isn't something I count as a struggle. I'm not saying that struggles are not possible, but in my view, I didn't describe a struggle. I just described putting some effort into something rather than having it fall into one's lap. I don't consider that sufficient for "struggle."

(Re "trolling," I define that as someone (a) saying things that they don't believe, where (b) they're not doing so for comedic purposes, and (c) the motivation is primarily to get other people upset/worked up. I suppose you define it differently though.)

schopenhauer1

(Re "trolling," I define that as someone (a) saying things that they don't believe, where (b) they're not doing so for comedic purposes, and (c) the motivation is primarily to get other people upset/worked up. I suppose you define it differently though.) — Terrapin Station

I'm not sure you went into this argument with good faith. You said:

You can't have some narrow preconception of what those things should be like — Terrapin Station

and then effectively trash what you've got just because it doesn't closely resemble your preconception. — Terrapin Station

without shifting to a bad attitude about that stuff. Again, this requires some effort on your part. — Terrapin Station

Already you framed the debate in very personal and provocative terms.. which really wasn't what I was looking for. If you want to play pseduo-pragmatic "Your philosophy is nothing but personal failings and thus no argument.. now here's some therapy now cram it up your ass you damn fool" then do it on another thread.

Terrapin Station

I shouldn't have responded so quickly.

The issues here are personal--we're talking about relationships, how we interpret them, our expectations about them, etc.

I'm simply stressing for anyone reading--this is a public forum in the sense that anyone can come along and read it, that the success of relationships has to do with our attitudes towards them; it has to do with appreciating them for what they are, going with the flow of them, etc. One is going to increase one's problems with relationships if one has narrow preconceptions about what they should be like. You can have good relationships and that doesn't have to be difficult. The key is the way you look at the relationship, the way you look at relationships in general.

It's not that different than the key to happiness in general. It's not at all about the stuff you have, the statuses you have--anything like that. It's about one's attitude, one's disposition, towards whatever one's situation is. People see the key as being "if only I had this and that, if only this part of my life was just like so," etc. That's not the key. The key is one's attitude towards what one has, what one's life is like right now.

So it's the same thing if we think "This relationship isn't good unless the other person does this, and doesn't do that." We're going to have a lot of problems right off the bat in that case. The adjustment should instead be to our attitudes, our preconceptions.

Barry Etheridge

How can something that is unequally distributed and has the potential to be a source of even more suffering in the short or long run be a reason for embracing life or providing new life to other individuals (i.e. reason for procreation), or being in any way a reason for having a positive outlook in regards to the lot of the human experience? — schopenhauer1

So if there are ten apple trees in your orchard and three of them have sour or rotting apples for whatever reason, you don't harvest the other seven? If we do nothing that has the potential to hurt us or where success is not guaranteed we do nothing at all. All good is unevenly distributed. That's the very nature of the Universe. You can elect to have nothing to do with it and die of starvation (cutting your nose off to spite your face) or embrace whatever good there is to be found in it and live.

schopenhauer1

So if there are ten apple trees in your orchard and three of them have sour or rotting apples for whatever reason, you don't harvest the other seven? If we do nothing that has the potential to hurt us or where success is not guaranteed we do nothing at all. All good is unevenly distributed. That's the very nature of the Universe. You can elect to have nothing to do with it and die of starvation (cutting your nose off to spite your face) or embrace whatever good there is to be found in it and live. — Barry Etheridge

Yes, so with all the flaws and harms of relationships, is it a good reason to expose new people to life? I say this because, it is often used as a way to justify why it is a good idea to continue more people.. relationships, advancing science, technology, knowledge, art, music, achievement, honing abilities in this or that talent..etc.

Terrapin Station

You're looking for anti-natalist support or something like that? <puzzled>

(If that was the ulterior motive, I can understand your response to my comments better)

schopenhauer1

You're looking for anti-natalist support or something like that? <puzzled> — Terrapin Station

↪Barry Etheridge

So things are unevenly distributed.. some people will be successful in relationships (regardless of hard work or not), some will not.. Some will be exposed to good relationships, some will not.. Relationships that are gained are often lost, and lead to more strife.. these are the inherent harms of relationships.. their uneven distribution, and the possibility of harm that comes from gaining them anyways.. If relationships are such a large part of what makes a meaningful life..exposing a new person to a phenomena that is so vital yet so unevenly distributed might be cruel at best..

Just like having a child which will knowingly struggle with adequate job satisfaction.. having a child that will knowingly struggle with relationship satisfaction (or varying degrees of success depending on circumstances and individuals) seems to need more justification. The lengths we go for therapy alone.. seems to indicate that we are far from ideal.. reframing the debate that its YOUR fault. not the universe.. how is that an airtight argument against someone coming along and accusing you of turning the tables to try to make the idea go away by putting the onus on the person who was exposed to the harm's shoulders?

Terrapin Station

Oy vey, so it is anti-natalist stuff. I thought you were geniuinely interested in rewarding relationships.

At any rate, it's obviously a matter of how someone is looking at things, how they're assessing them, etc.--that's all that harm, suffering, and so on are in the first place.

And for most folks, there's a degree of malleability in how they look at things. They don't HAVE to look at things in a negative way. They can have positive attitudes, they can enjoy things for what they are, etc.

schopenhauer1

At any rate, it's obviously a matter of how someone is looking at things, how they're assessing them, etc.--that's all that harm, suffering, and so on are in the first place. — Terrapin Station

There's also people's biochemistry, and the underlying needs and wants that all people have that are never satisfied..

And for most folks, there's a degree of malleability in how they look at things. They don't HAVE to look at things in a negative way. They can have positive attitudes, they can enjoy things for what they are, etc. — Terrapin Station

This is a bit pollyanna.. Many people end up in the throes of this or that and do not even look at the bigger picture.. Rarely are people provoked to answer questions of their overall well-being, and when they are.. it is skewed as people generally want to look like they enjoy their life, despite whatever they actually thought in this or that moment of pain or suffering..

Not looking like a "debbie downer" is a good way to save face.

Terrapin Station

As I just explained above (a couple posts back), wants and needs (needs hinge on wants in my view) have nothing to do with happiness.

If you're that miserable, get counseling. Except for extreme situations, you can be helped and you don't have to be so miserable.

schopenhauer1

If you're that miserable, get counseling. Except for extreme situations, you can be helped and you don't have to be so miserable. — Terrapin Station

Again, it's this kind of rhetoric that makes me not want to respond, because you personalize it.

Terrapin Station

How can it possibly not be personalized though? We're necessarily talking about individuals and how they feel about things.

wuliheron

Attention Walmart shoppers, special on personal relationships on isle seven!

Believe it or not, there has been a new phenomenon of people shopping at Walmart for one night stands. The sad truth is that, while money can't buy happiness, it certainly helps to avoid misery and, while relationships can't guarantee happiness, when they work they can extend your lifespan. One study concluded that those who nurture contentment over ambition tend to fare better in the long run in spite of Hollywood promoting such ideals as fighting the good fight and that love should be all about finding that perfect match.

_db

Following Nietzsche, Sartre, and a plethora of other thinkers, the meaningful life is the one devoted to the aesthetics.

How everyone else who can't paint to save their lives are supposed to live is beyond me.

BC

This topic is a break off from a discussion in the technology thread involving Bitter Crank. (I thought it worthy of its own topic)

Just like "good work", "good relationships" are not guarantee in life.. Oddly enough, while relationships, and specifically good intimate relationships are on the top of people's lists of examples of what makes life meaningful, it is among the the least guaranteed and most fickle of phenomena we encounter. — schopenhauer1

It is true that good work, good relationships, good housing, good food, or a good death are not guaranteed in this life, and it is also true that nothing lasts. The Appalachian Mountains were once as rugged as the Rockies. Not any more.

If not guaranteed absolutely, relationships are practically a certainty, though, and most of them are good. Every child must be parented and socialized in a community, and that entails a host of nurturing relationships. One has caring teachers, playmates, buddies, friends, and lovers. True, they do not all last and many are not meant to last.

In the related thread I mentioned the four different kinds of love -- agape, eros, filio, and storge.§ Eros is not 'elected' we are struck by it. But we decide in favor of universal love (agape), and can extend filio (brotherly love) to a wider circle. Extending our love to others engenders relationships. Is there disappointment, rejection, betrayal, suffering? Sometimes.

Like metal and glass, we are strengthened by tempering. Suffering is the medium in which we are tempered -- made strong. No, suffering need not be catastrophic, devastating, or severe, but without suffering we are weak and easily broken.

You do not make distinctions among sufferings. Life is suffering, suffering is a bad thing, and it is no kindness to bring children into this world.

§Storge—empathy bond. Storge (storgē, Greek: στοργή) is liking someone through the fondness of familiarity, family members or people who relate in familiar ways that have otherwise found themselves bonded by chance. An example is the natural love and affection of a parent for their child.

BC

How everyone else who can't paint to save their lives are supposed to live is beyond me. — darthbarracuda

They become critics.

Buxtebuddha

↪Bitter Crank

s. The Appalachian Mountains were once as rugged as the Rockies. — Bitter Crank

Still are rugged.

most of them are good. — Bitter Crank

For you they might have been.

andrewk

How can something that is unequally distributed and has the potential to be a source of even more suffering in the short or long run be a reason for
(1) embracing life or
(2) providing new life to other individuals (i.e. reason for procreation)
[numerals added by andrewk] — schopenhauer1

I think you undermine your case by stapling those two issues together.

Given that an individual is here, alive and conscious, there is every reason to make the best of it, regardless of how much one may have thought it would have been better never to have been conceived. And IIRC there is no end of empirical evidence that maintaining plentiful strong relationships is conducive to happiness.

The issue of procreating however is far more complex and multi-faceted. It is possible to be the world's cheeriest person, with the best imaginable circle of friends, and still believe it is better not to procreate. And it is possible to be the world's most miserable, pessimistic curmudgeon and yet either want to procreate or believe one has a moral duty to do so.

_db

↪Bitter Crank

>:O

schopenhauer1

↪Bitter Crank

It's just I have a theme here lately.. the big REASONS of modern society are unsatisfying for meaning... Science, technology, the group, relationships, etc. etc. What sounds meaningful when seen from afar is really just bumpy and more chaotic up close. When people are asked to sum up meaning, the analog of life becomes a digital response (0 or 1).. Relationships, technological advancements, learning.. etc.. The analog of the everyday and actually living through life reveals that it's really a lot of energy used up in various strategies of cultural upkeep (cultural survival and maintenance through job, consumption, maintaining premises and property, etc.) and boredom. All of these motivations cause many problems in their own right... and the spin offs continue into other spin offs.

Relationships- Are They Really a Source for Meaningful Life and Optimism?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions