Happiness
@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.
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.
Comments (44)
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.
Quoting 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.
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.
Quoting 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.
Then it is the case that the person should re-evaluate their picture on life and temper some of these desires.
Why?
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.
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
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.
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)?
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.
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.
Quoting 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.
You say this:
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.
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.
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).
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.
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:
You're not going to be happy. But there's no 'more important' thing either. Stop being a child.
And why should we believe this claim about the Dalai Lama?
Quoting 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.
Because the Dalai Lama is an astrologist / snake oil selling theocrat.
Quoting darthbarracuda
No one is happy. Obviously you're not, unless you're just not paying attention to yourself.
Quoting darthbarracuda
It's not, it was made up by toothpaste commercials
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.)
Quoting The Great Whatever
That may be, but as astrological snake oil salesmen selling theocracy go, he's not that bad.
Quoting The Great Whatever
You're both nuts.
The flight to neverland was cancelled because of all the snow. :P
Quoting Bitter Crank
Most likely.
What is your definition of happy?
Seems to me that if you pay too much attention to yourself, you end up unfulfilled and grouchy.
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.
Quoting The Great Whatever
Quoting 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.
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.
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.
I don't need heroin to keep living, so I don't know what you're going on about in terms of that.
Perhaps if we were wild animals without access to a supermarket, our lives would quite literally revolve around eating.
But we are not animals in that sense (we are animals though).
I see no problem with having to eat food and drink water. Why are you making this such a big deal? Because life isn't what you expected it to be?
Let me put this short and sweet: the universe doesn't give a flying fuck what you or anyone else expects.
As soon as you come to terms with what reality is like and forget your existential narcissism (we shouldn't have to eat, wah!), you can move on and learn to enjoy life a bit. Learn to trim your sails instead of complaining about the wind.
Your life literally does revolve around eating, though. In order to have your needs met, you must spend the largest portion of your life doing things you would rather not do, and in turn damaging your body and mind. If your physical needs were automatically met, you could just do whatever you wanted.
Biologically speaking, your life does revolve around eating. That's what life is: the transfer of energy in a very compact and efficient manner. It actually is quite remarkable how well life does this, even if it is often at the cost of suffering.
But I would stress that you can "transcend", so to speak, the basic revolving around food. Perhaps food is one of our weaknesses or our anchors, but it is certainly not usually the number one thing people are worried about in a first world country.
We could easily just say that people go through the trials of work and marriage just to be able to afford the bed they sleep on.
Also, work does not have to be a chore. You can change that.
I think I agree with much of what you have said. We are meat tubes, simple as that. We try to make all these cultural artifacts to try to cover up this truth (this is one of the reasons I do not like fashion very much - at least ridiculous fashion).
But the truth of us being meat tubes has no logical connection to how we evaluate our lives. Perhaps I rather like being a meat tube.
Furthermore, we've found some ingenious ways of making food taste good and aesthetically appealing.
It seems like you are struggling to come to terms with the fact that life is completely meaningless and filled with suffering. The inherent meaninglessness of life does not have any logical connection to how much we enjoy our lives. And if it seems to be the case anyway, then there are a plethora of existential literature on this, from the Stoics to Sartre. It's the suffering that matters and is problematic. I believe it was Frankl that said that humans despair at suffering because they find no meaning behind it; if there is no meaning behind suffering, then suicide may as well be the best option. (Frankl was a Holocaust survivor).
It literally, factually is. And not only those who are starving!
Quoting darthbarracuda
Sleep is another physical need.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Life can't both be meaningless and filled with suffering: suffering is a kind of meaning, a bad one, which is why it matters.
Meh. Help the starving, it will make you feel good, or at least more than complaining will.
Quoting The Great Whatever
And a wonderful one at that.
Quoting The Great Whatever
You misunderstand me. When we see no reason for suffering, when we see no way of rationalizing this suffering (btw rationalizing suffering is normal, healthy and productive), that is when we open ourselves up to suicidal nihilism. If I were to give you a cockroach to eat, and as you munched you found it absolutely disgusting and you could not find anything redeemable about it, you would spit it out just as you would kill yourself if you thought the amount of irredeemable suffering was greater than what you could handle.
The best way to end starvation is not to reproduce. You approve of the suffering of starvation because you accept that the world should continue as it is.
"But I want to help starving people! I don't like that people are starving!" <- This is a lie, because you approve of reproduction, the consequence of which, more starving, is inevitable.
Quoting darthbarracuda
You can't rationalize suffering because rationalization is itself a response to suffering.
When did I say this? (hint, I never did) I'm an anti-natalist because of the existence of things like suffering, although I don't dwell on the fact of birth. It's merely unnecessary.
Also, complaining won't do anything at all whereas helping people will at least keep the suffering lower than it has to be.
Quoting The Great Whatever
What the hell does this mean?! If you can't rationalize suffering than you must not be able to derive any meaning from it.
That depends on what you mean by 'helping people.' Most things that you might think would help them actually won't, and those that do (like giving them food) arise due to structural problems that 'giving a man a fish' will not solve in any substantial way (they will starve tomorrow instead of today). And the structural problems all, of course, end in birth.
Quoting darthbarracuda
If you don't approve of life because it's not good enough to live, then you need to reconcile this with your views on your own life, which are inconsistent.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Meaning is not 'derived.' We do not 'make our own meaning,' that's liberal bullshit.
This is a very large sweeping claim. How do you know this?
Quoting The Great Whatever
This is why you teach a man to fish. Or even better teach him to be a vegetarian. You get them back on their feet so they can live life again.
Quoting The Great Whatever
There's nothing inconsistent in saying that life has the potential of being quite bad, especially since the world revolves around the egos of the least trustworthy.
However, I enjoy my life for the most part and understand that by living I am making a conscious choice, a risk, that may not end well. But I accept this and am willing to take the chance, because I think most things that are "suffering" can be lessened to a degree that is not as bad as it would seem (of course there are exceptions, nothing is perfect).
But I will not force this choice on someone who cannot choose, especially when the consequences affect them more than me. Additionally, having a child is overrated (in my opinion) and is just one more attachment. If I really wanted a kid, I would adopt one.
So, actually, I would argue that it is you that must reconcile your position of vehement anti-birth with your conscious decision to endorse your own birth by continuing to live. It's one thing to not have a child because you fear that they may potentially experience something truly horrific (my position); it's quite another to resist having a child because you think there is absolutely no worth in living and at the same time continue to live. If you are to take the latter route, then you logically must feel suicidal to avoid being disingenuous.
Quoting The Great Whatever
lol. Nietzsche was one of the biggest critics of liberalism, and yet advocated for finding meaning in suffering.
Because life's problems are structural, and individual gestures don't remedy them.
Quoting darthbarracuda
If you were actually interested in 'teaching how to fish,' then by this you would mean stopping reproduction altogether, since the source of starvation is reproduction.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Life does not revolve around anyone's ego. Again, the problems are structural: they are not caused by the whims of 'bad guys,' nor will their replacement with 'good guys' and 'happy thoughts' cure them.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Continuing to live isn't endorsing your own birth. I had no control over being born, and it would have been better if I hadn't been.
What does this esotericism mean?
Quoting The Great Whatever
No, I would teach a man to fish.
Quoting The Great Whatever
Prove it.
Quoting The Great Whatever
So why are you not suicidal again?
Aldous Huxley — 'Happiness is not achieved by the conscious pursuit of happiness; it is generally the by-product of other activities.'
Somehow your video reminds me of this:
I'll get back to you later. I have tickets to the Dr. Who Special tonight + an extra special bits and pieces not aired on TV.
http://cdn3.blinkboxmedia.com/i/tvseries/000/002/489/pbhyxzeb/v=316/w=215;h=306;rm=Crop;q=85/image.jpg
I'm very happy and get to play dress up. YIPPIE!!!
Meow!
GREG
Why does x choose to live a certain way? Simply, x wants to be happy; living a particular kind of life makes x happy. So, contrary to your POV, happiness is the goal of all human endeavor.