Happiness

Agustino

@darthbarracuda has recently posted the following video. It motivated me to start a new thread to discuss something about happiness that I have been noticing recently. Below is my reply to darthbarracuda:

I watched it, and I have a few comments if you don't mind. It presupposes that one's aim in life is to achieve happiness at all costs. The problem in real human lives is that people aren't willing to pay any price for happiness. I used to think and believe just like you and the video awhile ago, but through interaction with real situations and trying to help people find their ways in life, I came to the conclusion I mentioned above. People want to be happy living a certain kind of life, they don't simply want to be happy. Let's take the example of someone from literature. Take Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights.

He wants to live a life where he is romantically involved with Catherine, and no one else. He wants to be happy in such a life (one where he is romantically involved with Catherine). He consciously doesn't want to be happy in any other kind of life. So for him, happiness is only relevant in the context of the kind of life he wants to live. Sure, perhaps it would be easier for him to be happy living another kind of life; but notice - he goes to his own destruction willingly just to attempt living the kind of life he wants, rather than be happy in any other life.

The point with this is that there seems to be a certain something which is more important than mere happiness. And that is living a certain kind of life that one identifies with, and that fulfills the most fundamental desires one has. In fact, once one identifies what this kind of life is, the suffering they have to endure to live that kind of life rarely stops them from attempting to live it. As such, one would rather be miserable (like Heathcliff) attempting to live the kind of life that they want, rather than be fulfilled living a life they do not want to live.

What is presented as the "Art of Happiness" is hence pretty much useless. It is like in a political campaign where you are an advisor, and you determine that in the current situation, an electrifying, powerful, confident, and moving speech would be best, but the candidate you advise simply cannot do it: he is a shy man, he lacks charisma, his voice is monotone, and he cannot show enthusiasm through it. So identifying what leads to happiness pure and simple is of no help; it is like advising someone interested in a particular woman that if he allows her to publicly humiliate him in some way, he will be able to get to bed with her - it's useless IF the person in question is not willing to pay this price to sleep with her, the same way your political advice is useless if the candidate cannot execute it.

Thus there can be no universal "art of happiness". People want to live certain kinds of lives before they want to be happy. People are not willing to pay just about any price for happiness. People can only be happy if they can afford happiness - otherwise they are condemned to misery, but they can at least bear their misery with dignity, showing courage and acceptance of their lot in life.

_db

↪Agustino

People want to be fulfilled. They want to have something they can look back on and say "huzzah!" about. I don't see how self-actualization is in any way incompatible with the basic tenets of compassion of understanding in Buddhism like the video I posted talked about.

Furthermore, it is perfectly conceivable that someone like Heathcliff is ignorant of his condition. A simple analogy will show this: a dictator may want, above anything else, to be in power and authority. But is this goal realistic and how much is he going to suffer (alongside other people) in his quest for a goal? Is this dictator ignorant of his capabilities and the repercussions it will have for him and the rest of the world?

Your criticism is basically what Nietzsche criticized Buddhism, and Schopenhauer for that matter, of: being nihilistic. He criticized them for rejecting the world and living passively. Which is a bad interpretation of either philosophy.

People want to be happy living a certain kind of life, they don't simply want to be happy. — Agustino

It is my sincere belief that this misguided desire to live a certain way is one of the fundamental reasons why the world is the way it is (that is, broken and unfortunate).

I don't have a problem with other people pursuing goals. I have goals too. If these goals cause them to suffer unnecessarily but they find meaning behind this suffering and would rather be accomplishing these goals then living passively, that's fine. I do that and so does everyone else. But as soon as these goals begin to harm other people is when it is not okay.

Agustino

A simple analogy will show this: a dictator may want, above anything else, to be in power and authority. But is this goal realistic and how much is he going to suffer (alongside other people) in his quest for a goal? Is this dictator ignorant of his capabilities and the repercussions it will have for him and the rest of the world? — darthbarracuda

To my mind, this example merely proves my point. A dictator would rather die than cease to be a dictator; which means that (s)he isn't willing to be happy unless they can be happy in the kind of life they want to live (which in this case is ruling over other people). Is the goal realistic (I suppose you mean by this achievable)? Maybe. Even if it isn't, (s)he isn't interested in pursuing any other goal. So what options does (s)he have? (S)he may be perfectly conscious that (s)he is not capable to fulfil his/her goal, and yet still pursue it, because the pursuit of his/her desire is the only thing of value (s)he has.

It is my sincere belief that this misguided desire to live a certain way is one of the fundamental reasons why the world is the way it is (that is, broken and unfortunate). — darthbarracuda

Possibly. But that isn't to mean that people don't have it. And why do they have it? Because living a certain way is more important than happiness for them.

_db

Even if it isn't, (s)he isn't interested in pursuing any other goal. So what options does (s)he have? (S)he may be perfectly conscious that (s)he is not capable to fulfil his/her goal, and yet still pursue it, because the pursuit of his/her desire is the only thing of value (s)he has. — Agustino

Then it is the case that the person should re-evaluate their picture on life and temper some of these desires.

Agustino

Then it is the case that the person should re-evaluate their picture on life and temper some of these desires. — darthbarracuda

Why?

TheWillowOfDarkness

↪Agustino

A person's self-interest is not always what is good. Sometimes the world (and the person in question) would be better if a person didn't pursue what they were interested in.

Agustino

↪TheWillowOfDarkness

I agree. Read the other thread with Landru (about happiness) where I state exactly this, contra Landru.

However the dictator may agree that it were better that (s)he didn't exist. And yet, despite identifying that (s)he is immoral in pursuing that interest, (s)he may pursue it for the reasons I have given above. In other words, presupposing that one will do what one should (the good) is wrong. Someone may actively know that what they do is bad and yet still do it. "I do not do the good I know that I should do, but the evil I should not do" paraphrased after St. Paul

_db

↪Agustino

Because a person who is content with what they have and does not desire certain things is far better off and happier than a person who is stuck in rat race of desire.

Agustino

Because a person who is content with what they have and does not desire certain things is far better off and happier than a person who is stuck in rat race of desire. — darthbarracuda

Bingo! There we have it. For you, being happy is the most important thing. However, for many people, simply being happy isn't. They want to live a certain kind of life, and this desire is prior to the desire of being happy. The desire of being happy comes only after. So while for you the desire of being happy is primal, for them, it is a different desire that is primal. What is to be done with such people, who, from my experience, form the majority (notice they may state that the thing they want most is to be happy, but if you probe a little deeper, you'll realise that actually they only want to be happy in a certain way)?

TheWillowOfDarkness

↪Agustino

I know. That's why I mentioned it. You are contradicting yourself. You have no moral integrity here. You wax lyrical about giving-up one's interest for the moral good, but are unwilling to commit to it when it actually comes to living. Provided the dictator can do what they want (i.e. no-one is preventing them), you proclaim how it's perfectly fine, despite everyone knowing that the pursuit of this self-interest is morally terrible.

You aren't willing to accept that that action being morally terrible is reason enough not to take it. Your moral analysis is not the courageous victory of truth over human naivety. It the mindless worship of power. You only stand against self-interest when it threatens the power you think ought to govern society. Any evil your preferred governor commits you're perfectly fine with.

Agustino

You wax lyrical about giving-up one's interest for the moral good, but are unwilling to commit to it when it actually comes to living. Provided the dictator can do what they want (i.e. no-one is presenting them), you proclaim how it's perfectly fine, despite everyone knowing the pursuit of this self-interest is morally terrible. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well I agree that the dictator in question SHOULD give up their self-interest in this case. But they may not. And if they don't, it's a decision of their will. They know it's wrong, and yet still do it. They are lovers of evil.

Your moral analysis is not the courageous victory of truth over human naivety. It the mindless worship of power. You only stand against self-interest when it threatens the power you hold ought to govern society. Any evil your preferred govern commits you a perfectly fine with. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Why do you say so? I have already admitted that the dictator in question ought to give up his self-interest, but he may not do so. The fact that he doesn't do so - though he knows full well that he is doing evil - only shows a choice that they have made; namely that they are lovers of evil rather than lovers of good.

So no - I am not fine with his evil, and will do what I can to stop it.

_db

↪Agustino

I don't think the person who has major unfulfilled desires is happy. I consider happiness to be contentedness and a lack of general suffering. A dictator who wants more power instead of "only being happy" is not happy to begin with. They aren't content with their current situation. Whereas a person who legitimately has no desire for these kinds of things is far better off than the person who is still under the influence of desire.

TheWillowOfDarkness

↪Agustino

But you don't, Agustino. You think you do, but you have no commitment to actually opposing the self-interest in the realm of values, culture and understanding.

You say this:

However the dictator may agree that it were better that (s)he didn't exist. And yet, despite identifying that (s)he is immoral in pursuing that interest, (s)he may pursue it for the reasons I have given above. — Agustino

Here you assert the "reasons" given justify the action. You say that the dictator may pursue (rather than you know, demanding the ought not because it is immoral) these interests because well, you know, they want to do them; it's what matters to them. So said anyone who was interested in committed immoral acts. Anyone may pursue immoral acts. Someone being interested in doing so is not a reason for them to happen.

Agustino

Someone being interested in doing so is not a reason for them to happen. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I meant reasons not as moral justifications for them, but merely motives that can explain what they do even if they know it is wrong.

TheWillowOfDarkness

↪Agustino

I know you did... but that's not how they function. This is the same sort of "natural fallacy" you are making in the other thread. You treat an expression of a state of the world (in this case the self-interest of those committing moral acts) as if it's the logically necessary outcome of the world, as if the world only makes sense because the dictator is acting in their self-interest.

It closes off the ability for people to understand the world can exist in any other way and make sense (or in the wider sense, to understand the world makes sense in ways other than the "natural tendency" ). In your example we even have the dictator themselves doing this: they say their self-interest is immoral, they claim to understand that it is, but then, in the same instance, they assert the act in their self-interest because it's "just how they are." It's the normative masquerading as the descriptive. It's a justification misread a statement about what someone is doing. The reason here is actually an excuse for the dictator to containing doing what they want (and what they consider moral).

Janus

To my mind, this example merely proves my point. A dictator would rather die than cease to be a dictator; which means that (s)he isn't willing to be happy unless they can be happy in the kind of life they want to live (which in this case is ruling over other people). — Agustino

This is a way of phrasing the account of the situation that distorts the actuality. It is not the case that the dictator who would rather die than live as a non-dictator 'is not willing to be happy any other way' it is the case that they would not be happy any other way, or at least that they believe they would not be happy any other way.

Reformed Nihilist

A dictator would rather die than cease to be a dictator; which means that (s)he isn't willing to be happy unless they can be happy in the kind of life they want to live (which in this case is ruling over other people). — Agustino

To further clarify on what I believe is John's point, is it not possible, and even likely, that the dictator truly believes that remaining a dictator will lead them to happiness, and they just happen to be mistaken? People are mistaken about thing all the time, and are particularly poor at conceiving of the things which will make them happy.

The other big problem I have about the whole discussion is how poorly defined the notion of happiness is. Martin Seligman, the founder of positive psychology, which basically studies and happiness scientifically, breaks happiness down into types (pleasure, engagement and meaning). Here's his Ted Talk:

http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_seligman_on_the_state_of_psychology#

The Great Whatever

The Dalai Lama. Beware of jokers, con men, and bastards.

You're not going to be happy. But there's no 'more important' thing either. Stop being a child.

_db

The Dalai Lama. Beware of jokers, con men, and bastards. — The Great Whatever

And why should we believe this claim about the Dalai Lama?

You're not going to be happy. But there's no 'more important' thing either. Stop being a child. — The Great Whatever

LOL you might not be happy. And many of us have more important things to do than demean other people by calling them a child.

A better question would be why, evolutionary speaking, happiness is even a thing at all.

The Great Whatever

And why should we believe this claim about the Dalai Lama? — darthbarracuda

Because the Dalai Lama is an astrologist / snake oil selling theocrat.

LOL you might not be happy. — darthbarracuda

No one is happy. Obviously you're not, unless you're just not paying attention to yourself.

A better question would be why, evolutionary speaking, happiness is even a thing at all. — darthbarracuda

It's not, it was made up by toothpaste commercials

BC

↪The Great Whatever

↪darthbarracuda

Darth, I thought you were going to give it a rest for your mental health. No? (For my sake, I'm relieved you haven't taken your mental health break yet.)

Because the Dalai Lama is an astrologist / snake oil selling theocrat. — The Great Whatever

That may be, but as astrological snake oil salesmen selling theocracy go, he's not that bad.

A better question would be why, evolutionary speaking, happiness is even a thing at all.
— darthbarracuda

It's not, it was made up by toothpaste commercials — The Great Whatever

You're both nuts.

_db

Darth, I thought you were going to give it a rest for your mental health. No? (For my sake, I'm relieved you haven't taken your mental health break yet.) — Bitter Crank

The flight to neverland was cancelled because of all the snow. :P

You're both nuts. — Bitter Crank

Most likely.

_db

No one is happy. Obviously you're not, unless you're just not paying attention to yourself. — The Great Whatever

What is your definition of happy?

Seems to me that if you pay too much attention to yourself, you end up unfulfilled and grouchy.

The Great Whatever

↪darthbarracuda

??? You end up unfulfilled and grouchy no matter what you do. All this New Age stuff that jokers like the Dalai Lama are feeding you are deluding you into thinking how you feel is a 'choice.' Wake up, man!

BC

↪The Great Whatever

What force is working on you at this point???

_db

↪The Great Whatever

It's a choice so long as one isn't suffering from a psychological problem.

The Great Whatever

↪darthbarracuda

Everyone is suffering from a psychological problem: it's called being alive. You are literally moving toward excruciating pain / starvation at every second, and must take steps to avoid this. How is that not a psychological problem? It's far worse than any mundane 'addiction.'

_db

Everyone is suffering from a psychological problem: it's called being alive. You are literally moving toward excruciating pain / starvation at every second, and must take steps to avoid this. How is that not a psychological problem? It's far worse than any mundane 'addiction.' — The Great Whatever

What is the excruciating pain that you speak of? And given that you have internet access, I would assume you have the means to obtain sufficient nutrients.

How is that not a psychological problem? It's far worse than any mundane 'addiction.' — The Great Whatever

Everyone is suffering from a psychological problem: it's called being alive. — The Great Whatever

Ah, yes, so all of us are somehow hoodwinked into continuing to live despite the obvious conclusion that life is this miserable pain in the ass, and that you are doing everyone the highest of favors by repetitively reminding them just how terrible their existences are.

I have to wonder what your motivations are. What are you achieving here? What is your ideal goal? Because the only result I can imagine you desiring is that everyone decides to give it all up and kill themselves.

People are happy. People do appreciate their lives. But you are doing them any service (in fact quite possibly a disservice) by attempting to convince them otherwise.

_db

↪Agustino

Agustino, I want to add something on to what I said previously about happiness. Like I said before, I still believe happiness to be synonymous with contentedness, but additionally I would like to add that happiness is a process, not an end-state.

For many (most?) people, having goals is necessary to be happy. I would not be happy (forever) if I sat on a rock on a mountain all day long. I would grow restless and bored. I need stimulation. So pursuing goals would make me content.

_db

↪The Great Whatever

So I think the real question here that we ought to discuss is whether or not the state of the world is bad enough to warrant suicide.

The Great Whatever

What is the excruciating pain that you speak of? And given that you have internet access, I would assume you have the means to obtain sufficient nutrients. — darthbarracuda

Hunger/starvation. And it doesn't matter whether you have sufficient nutrients, any more than it matters that you have sufficient heroin. Without it you collapse into horrible pain and death, and your life has o revolve around preventing that. We call that a cognitive disorder, an addiction. A very, very bad one.

Happiness

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions