What discussions would you like to see?
What type discussions would you like to see in the future? Have something in mind you really want to discuss but you can't figure out how to lay out the OP? You've come to the right place! All you have to do is present your idea for discussion, and hopefully someone else will take up the challenge and create a good discussion.
I'll start, and this will serve as a template of how a type discussion could be requested:
I would like to see a discussion with the title: What is love?
Your turn.
I'll start, and this will serve as a template of how a type discussion could be requested:
I would like to see a discussion with the title: What is love?
Your turn.
Comments (147)
No, sorry. I just figured out that the noises are not in my head. I was reading S's posts.
Seriously though, what would be nice is a topic about making people happy.
How would you make that philosophical? Or is it a lounge type of thread?
I moved some of the comments to the Shoutbox to keep us more on topic here. I can't guarantee the discussion will be taken seriously though. It's one of those that could go either way.
Thank you!
Quoting Baden
It's the lounge, and it's okay if it's not a hundred percent serious. :up:
Would you like to define happiness and then explain how to make people feel like that? But we could also look at the lighter side of it.
Good idea. Any experts on happiness on this forum? Feel free to mention (@) anyone you have in mind. Definitely not @Wallows. :lol:
[Draft 1] Happiness is a the mixture of positive emotions that include liveliness, euphoria, and satisfaction, and is mostly ineffable. It's what people experience at marriage and the birth of their first child. A kid feels happy at the water park. An adult is happy at the sight of her paycheck. What makes one person happy can put one person down, and happiness at expense of another is actually rather sad.
You ask what can we do to make people happy? Surely not something extremely contagious? Yes indeed, and that is smiling. [/Draft 1]
Thoughts? Would you like to add or change anything? Scrap it?
:cry:
Well that sort of puts the dampers on things.
Quoting Purple Pond
Like spanking maybe?
Quoting Purple Pond
Do you really think that walking around smiling at people would make them happy? I know some people that I don't want smiling at me.
I'm sorry Wallows, it was a joke. I didn't mean to offend.
:blush:
Quoting Sir2u
Like critiquing someone's ideas without offering any ideas of their own.
Quoting Sir2u
So you don't think smiling helps? I'm not saying you should smile at everyone, only when it is appropriate.
99% silly, 1% serious?
Quoting Purple Pond
I often see this criticism, but it seems kind of sensible to me to clear the area before construction. Once we know what doesn't work, then we can progress more effectively, and build from a stronger foundation. You guys can provide the structures, and I'll test their hardiness, keeping a record of strengths and weaknesses. Then when I build my structure, I'll apply what I've learnt. [I]My[/I] eventual success will arise as a result of [i]your[/I] work. Keep it up!
But it's funny to smile at people when it's inappropriate, and you should always do what's funny, even if it gets you in trouble.
@Sir2u :grin:
On a related note, I almost got myself beaten up by some guys last night because I thought that it would be funny to push a random button on the fruit machine they were playing as I walked by.
I was hoping for a more balanced approach.
Quoting S
Best of luck to you! Indeed that's what this thread is about, taking other people's ideas and building upon it, and then presenting them as your own. That's kinda what I had in mind when I created my OP.
:grin:
How about a discussion with the title, "What is love?"?
That's an easy one. Happiness is the feeling you get when you trample over other people's ideas.
I guess that's why I don't write that many of them. I'm not much of a fan of filling up an opening post with too much stuff that doesn't need to be said.
Anyway, he wouldn't dare try that shit with me, because he thinks that I'm holding his mother hostage. But what he doesn't know is that I've already killed her and dumped the body.
I'd rather you'd done my father in, but whatever. Buy me a beer and we'll call it quits.
Then who would I have to talk to about how much of a disappointment you are?
Quoting Baden
Good idea. I'll buy me a beer and we'll call it quits.
How to Stretch Your 1 Page Essay to Fill 5 Pages
Happiness: Something like the proper mixture of sensitivity, creativity and strength achieved through habit and self-reflection; a self-sustaining stability of not-wanting rather than the result of procuring something wanted; the satisfaction that comes with focusing outwards on a regular basis while recognizing choice and freedom in each moment in the context of a healthy and active imagination; originality in identity and character in a way that fosters same in others; consistent quality in thought and action.
A promising topic imo.
(Jeez, I sound like an English teacher now!)
@S @Sir2u What do you think?
That's my two cents spent for now. Maybe @unenlightened will have something to add?
May clouds of tobacco smoke sing that idea to its rest.
Actually this does not make me unhappy. I enjoy when people critique my way of thinking in a constructive or even passive way. It is a good way to test ideas. What does make me unhappy is criticism that is abusive or down putting.
But going back to my question, why does spanking make some people happy and others sad? How is it possible that the same pain can have opposite effects on people?
Quoting Purple Pond
Funny thing about that, yesterday I saw a sign "In this house we don't smile because we are happy, we are happy because we smile". Maybe there is something in that after all. You would certainly have to be careful when and where you smiled though.
Heads I answer mean, tails I answer politely. Tails, tut tut. You should learn not to put your hands in place they are not wanted.
I don't understand your bafflement. There are plenty of examples where one action hurts a person while it benefits the other. A cruel person is happy to make an unfortunate person shriek with pain when spanking them.
OK, now how does being spanked fit into that? I actually know someone that loved his wife because every payday she beat the shit out of him and took all the money. I asked him a while ago about her and he told me that they had separated. The place he worked at started paying through the bank and she did not need to beat him to get the money.
Why are there so many different types of happiness? Just saying that there are different types of people does not actually explain it.
When you are happy being spanked and your partner is happy spanking you it is not the same as one hurting another.
I am not, I am obsessed with happiness and I would like to understand why or how being hurt can make people happy.
If being sadistic or masochistic makes them happy but revolts others, how can there be a proper definition of happiness? Is there even such a thing as happiness or is it just the absence of things that bother us.
Quoting Purple Pond
If you ask this question, then there is something to discuss. It is part of human existence, is happiness necessary for a fruitful life? Are there ethical sides to being happy?
If someone else thinks it is worth doing, let them go ahead. Now the ideas have started coming maybe S would care to have a go at it. :smile:
Is it ethical for people to produce mind numbing TV programs to entertain the masses just so that they can earn large amounts of money?
Now that made me happy. Reading something beautifully expressed and creatively philosophical that made me think, nod a little in the right way, and is clearly from a position of life experience. No references to a particular philosopher, book or encyclopedia but a distillation of many. Probably.
Not only a promising topic but...an article, or a book, in waiting :wink:
However, it would have to include major philosophical, if not psychological, neurological professional thinkers and writers on the subject. No ?
Is it best to focus on only one or two aspects ? Hence the need for a focused title and OP.
How would you start? What were the influences which moved you to your destination ?
Perhaps that would be the discussion. To unpack your definition...
The title ?
'Baden's Happiness in a Sentence'.
We can probably leave me out of the title I think. But your comment is much appreciated. :smile:
Quoting Amity
If it were a non-fiction book and intended to be comprehensive, yes. Fiction, not necessarily. Both could be equally effective imo. Sort of depends how much you want to show or tell.
Quoting Amity
If I were to write the OP, I would probably set it up as an exploration of what happiness is in a very general sense first then focus in on specific examples or experience as they become relevant in the progress of the discussion. But I wouldn't want to make it about my biography. :monkey:
So would a title like 'Happiness in a Sentence' be a good one or would it point to a 'Love is...' hallmark card series of comments. Actually, I do like quotes as starters. Would you be happy to be quoted in any OP ?
Quoting Baden
Aw, what a spoilsport :cry:
The discussion needn't be about your or anyone's biography - although I would love to read everyone's story someday ! We can show but not tell :cool:
However, if your definition was used to start an exploration in a very general sense, then hopefully that would inspire specific examples. Either from posters' life experience or particular philosophy/ philosophers.
What do you think ?
Sure.
Quoting Amity
All for it. :up:
What constitutes a 'good discussion'. It's quite easy to start one. The difficulty lies in creating a quality product. The starter of a thread usually takes responsibility, no ? To fully engage...
What do others think ?
We can discuss that. I suggest posting a draft of your OP here, and then we can comment on it. We already had two attempts at it. Hopefully we can create at least one quality discussion out of this.
Quoting Amity
There's only so much a discussion creator can do. The rest is up to the participants.
Yes. It reminds me of meetings about meetings. However, I think this discussion has been fruitful.
So far, so good :smile:
I agree that there is only so much a discussion creator can do. Also that the quality of a forum and its threads are down to the contributors.
However, I worry that if I started one about Happiness, I would not be able to follow the forum guidelines, particularly the first two:
Don't start a new discussion unless you are:
a) Genuinely interested in the topic you've begun and are willing to engage those who engage you.
b) Able to write a thoughtful OP of reasonable length that illustrates this interest, and toprovide arguments for any position you intend to advocate.
In a) I might be willing but it can quickly become overwhelming if there is a lot of interest and input.
b) In an exploratory thread, I would not be advocating a philosophical position as such. There would be no 'arguments' to support any non-existing position.
a) Genuinely interested in the topic you've begun and are willing to engage those who engage you.
b) Able to write a thoughtful OP of reasonable length that illustrates this interest, and to provide arguments for any position you intend to advocate.
Quoting Amity Just engage in one or two people for a few posts. There's no obligation to engage indefinitely with everyone.
Quoting Amity
@Baden can correct me if I'm wrong, but you only have to provide support if you have a position you are advocating. Like you say, you are not advocating any position, it's an exploratory thread, so no need for arguments. You can also frame your OP in the form of a question. Example: What is happiness?
Even if the arguments are not your own, you should still describe at least some of the ideas surrounding the topic in some detail. We normally delete short OPs based on questions alone as it suggests the OP writer hasn't thought much about the issue and will hardly be able to contribute much less lead the conversation.
Quoting Purple Pond
You probably shouldn't let us in on that... :eyes:
Oh, crap. I promise to but more effort into my OP's from now on, and stick to the guidelines.
:fear:
Indeed. That is why I would prefer someone else to start the thread. I like the idea of starting with your quote but I think that someone with greater knowledge and experience should lead it.
Baden, I know you are too busy. However, would you have anyone else in mind ? Earlier you mentioned unenlightened...
Hah ! That'll learn ya :snicker:
Nah, where would be the joy and happiness in learning if all we did was right ?
:wink:
Cheers, PP. Appreciate that. :up:
Quoting Amity
I hesitate to mention anyone tbh, but would rather they put their own head above the parapet. Still think it's a good idea though and that there are plenty of posters around who could make valuable contributions, including un.
Quoting Amity
Maybe you can be a little less lazy and do research? No pressure. Perhaps a good starting point would be to learn what other philosophers have said about happiness. Then you might have more confidence to create your own discussion.
Quoting Purple Pond
Yes. You are right. I am lazy.
So, sue me :roll:
Aw, don't give up on your good idea so soon. After all:
Quoting Purple Pond
You wanted someone else to run with your idea; take up the challenge and create a good discussion ?
What is it Elvis sang ?
[i]Don't procrastinate, don't articulate
Girl, it's getting late, gettin' upset waitin' around
A little less conversation, a little more action, please
All this aggravation ain't satisfactioning me…[/i]
Just do it.
Or not.
No pressure...
:love:
Who's said I've given up? I never give up. :cool:
Quoting Amity
Yeah, except that they can't do it, too busy, or are uninterested.
Quoting Amity
Apparently not everyone who listens to Elvis does what he says. *cough*
Quoting Amity
Maybe you practice what you preach? Or more accurately, what Elvis preaches. :razz:
Funny. That was my message to you.
Look back at your earlier suggestions to me, and then take them on board for your own topic/thread.
Or not.
Peace out.
So it wasn't a case of you being too lazy to do it for yourself, or to do the research...as per your accusatory reaction to me when I stated my preference.
Never mind.
I never intended to preach anything to you. I only gave suggestions.
Quoting AmityLook, I'm sorry about calling you lazy. I shouldn't have. It looks like now you're resenting me. Oh, well.
See now you're flirting with me :kiss:
There ya go with your ass umptions again.
Good night.
:yawn:
My apologize, once again. A female here on this forum is like finding a needle in a haystack. Dear lady, please accept these :flower:
Good night.
That is one point of view, but I am not mixing them up. It is more of a cause and effect thing. Isn't pleasure a source of happiness?
Pleasure;
A fundamental feeling that is hard to define but that people desire to experience
Something or someone that provides a source of happiness
I don't remember who, but someone once said something along the lines of happiness being a larger part of pleasure and a smaller part of pain. Or something like that. It was so long ago that I did any serious reading.
Meh. I think I already know what happiness is, so I don't need other people telling me what they think it is. I don't even need to put it into words, least of all fancy-shmancy words.
I know you don't need to do it, but you could at least put it into plain, ordinary, simple words so that the rest of us might have an idea what you think.
And he never answers them either.
Not that I give a rat's ass about it anyway.
Yeah. The easiest way to answer those kind of questions is to consult a dictionary or an encyclopaedia. My meaning rarely conflicts or differs drastically with what can be found there.
Of course you know why that is, don't you ?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/how-does-a-word-get-into-the-dictionary
Dictionaries or encyclopedias are useful as a first point for clarification. Often you find more meanings than you first thought. A definition which mirrors your intended meaning in a discussion is a great way to lessen any misunderstandings.
What is wonderful about our thinking and language is that it can change. It is not static.
New words like 'meme' or - Daniel Dennett's 'deepity'.
And sometimes that is what philosophy is too good at. With some making up their own words for same meaning. It can be a bit of a pain in the neck...
I think you protest too much. I think you admire Baden's definition of Happiness in a sentence.
I think you would love the chance to get right in there and rip it up.
But I could be wrong :wink:
:flower: return to sender
The ratio of females to males is irrelevant.
On a forum, what matters is how you think and write. What ideas or problems are worth taking your time over. Stuff like that. Not making wrong assumptions is a good start.
Yes, I suspect @S cried tears of recognition upon exposure to my prose as the sentiments resonated with that beautiful inner child his ogre of an ego keeps imprisoned.
Sing, little child, sing! And one day the ogre will sing with you and set you free... :sparkle:
...and they all lived happily ever after :smile:
Or not :sad:
Depending on the song they are singing.
If it's Ken Dodd's version of Happiness...
[i]Happiness, happiness, the greatest gift that I possess
I thank the Lord that I've been blessed
With more than my share of happiness[/i]
Debatable.
Moi? Maybe. Or maybe it's just that [i]everyone else[/I] doesn't protest [i]enough[/I]. :grin:
Quoting Amity
I do love ripping things up. It's what makes me tick. It's part of my daily routine. Wake up, brush teeth, rip things up, breakfast, rip things up, cup of coffee, read the news, rip things up...
Given Baden's earlier mention of unenlightenment, I searched through his Discussion history until I hit on one I could relate to:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/605/an-analysis-of-emotion/p1
I like the way it started with reference to a previous discussion, providing context:
[b]It's emotional responses to crime that generate harmful actions that make us all worse off.
— andrewk
Emotional responses are the problem? Um.. no. It takes a hardening of the heart to be able to chop somebody's head off. The vileness actually starts with a lack of natural emotion.— Mongrel
Context.[/b]
The word 'Context' in blue * linked to:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/587/are-there-hidden-psychological-causes-of-political-correctness#Item_192
And then the OP continued with unenlightened's take:
The dispute above is speedily resolved with a simple proviso: "It depends what emotion."
Followed by a list...1 to 6.
I really admire the way this was done. And I am sure that there are others who have started and led quality discussions. In their own way but still within the guidelines.
Quite inspirational. Really. The level of knowledge, experience and engagement with firm but light touch.
Not sure about the ending...
-------------
* how is that done ? The easy word link. Cos I usually go all round the houses. Tiresome for all concerned.
Purple Pond:
[i]Happiness is a the mixture of positive emotions that include liveliness, euphoria, and satisfaction, and is mostly ineffable. It's what people experience at marriage and the birth of their first child. A kid feels happy at the water park. An adult is happy at the sight of her paycheck. What makes one person happy can put one person down, and happiness at expense of another is actually rather sad.
You ask what can we do to make people happy? Surely not something extremely contagious?[/i]
Baden:
Happiness: Something like the proper mixture of sensitivity, creativity and strength achieved through habit and self-reflection; a self-sustaining stability of not-wanting rather than the result of procuring something wanted; the satisfaction that comes with focusing outwards on a regular basis while recognizing choice and freedom in each moment in the context of a healthy and active imagination; originality in identity and character in a way that fosters same in others; consistent quality in thought and action.
S:
[i]That's an easy one. Happiness is the feeling you get when you trample over other people's ideas.
Meh. I think I already know what happiness is, so I don't need other people telling me what they think it is. I don't even need to put it into words, least of all fancy-shmancy words.[/i]
----------
Some thing along these lines ?
What do you think ?
Edit to add unenlightened's contribution :
It's a cigar, I think, or a Shakespeare play.
I give up on women. :cry:
Check your underlying assumptions and please don't generalise in my company. It brings me out in a rash; just like cut flowers :mask:
What do you think?
I foresee a few problems. We still haven't decided on who's doing the OP. How are we going to include the different views of happiness presented here without copying and pasting different writing styles into the OP. And lastly, what arguments are we going to include in our thesis on happiness?
Some good thoughts regarding structure. Intro, main body, conclusion. But it sounds a bit like we are producing an essay for academic purposes. Perhaps that is what is required, but it's not what I was thinking of as an exploratory discussion. I need to think more about this. There would be no foregone conclusion. That might come at the end of the process.
I think the strength of an exploratory discussion which starts off with the few personal statements or definitions is that there is an immediate, closer, possibly more meaningful engagement. The weakness might be that it gets too personal with knee-jerk, careless responses.
We can perhaps try to unpack each view and discover how they match the main thoughts or influences in philosophy. Or even the psychological approach to 'Happiness' ? Wherever it leads...but perhaps not too far or we might end up in a field of barley.
I am enjoying this conversation - it is constructive and collaborative. Perhaps that is how the OP can be created. By the few not the one.
The outstanding problem for me would be who starts the thread.
Because that is usually the person who leads and maintains the conversation. I've already voiced my reservations about taking that role.
However, we could get creative with that too...
It could be one name but help might be offered by someone more experienced. Either during the discussion or via PM.
How does that sound?
To my ears it sounds like a severe case of overthinking. One thing I am good at it. Unfortunately it can lead to paralysis of action. Yeah, I should put Elvis on.... :cool: :starstruck:
I realise that I haven't offered up a definition of Happiness. Possibly because as a concept it is confusing and complex; difficult to pin down. A definition leaves out the sense of what happiness is.
Above, I responded to Baden's definition by saying it made me happy. This kind of happiness is temporary. It's a gladdening of the heart, as opposed to a constipation of the bowels.
However, there is a deeper, permanent kind of Happiness within. A kind of mental knowledge based on experience which might be termed Acceptance. It does not matter if I am happy or unhappy; pain free or suffering.
It is what it is. I think someone once said...
I can't distil my thoughts into one beautiful sentence but I am happy someone else can.
When did I first hear and use the word 'Happy' ? Or introduced to the concept as opposed to feeling it ?
What comes to mind is singing 'Happy Birthday'. But was I happy. I can't remember. It would probably be dependent on stuff and getting stuffed. Gifts, cake and candles; taking a deep breath and blowing them all out in one puff to make a secret wish...what for ? Happiness ? Nah. Too nebulous...
American culture, as well as many other cultures, seems to favor materialistic pursuits over more meaningful goals. Developing a sustainable way of life and society would be a meaningful goal, for instance, however this pursuit isn't profit driven and may not lead to material wealth. On the other hand, it would certainly be grand, to travel the world without a care, as though one walked on thin air.
Wait. How dare you? My pronouns are ze/zir.
Quadolotrib. In other words, I agree with that last paragraph.
Primodacro :sparkle:
Ah, like Labour's slogan, but nowhere as catchy.
Quoting Amity
Damn it. I'll have to up my game.
Quoting Amity
:100:
I would not like to get called out (again) for assuming something I cannot prove, so I figured that if you don't fit into one or more of those three I could always just call you "anything else present".
Quoting S
Is that the equivalent of I/me, him/her or just some more bullshit?
That is closer to my original idea about what makes people happy than trying to find better ways to explain what exactly happiness is. We know already, thanks to "S", the definition of happiness so lets look at the good and bad of making people happy.
Example:
Is it correct(moral) to give a 16 year old a shotgun for his/her birthday if it makes her/him happy?
Either way, you will still need to define what you mean by being or doing 'happy' or 'Happiness'.
I like the specific focus of your suggested discussion. Specifics, like that, could arise or spin off from unpacking the general definition of Baden:
Happiness: Something like the proper mixture of sensitivity, creativity and strength achieved through habit and self-reflection; a self-sustaining stability of not-wanting rather than the result of procuring something wanted; the satisfaction that comes with focusing outwards on a regular basis while recognizing choice and freedom in each moment in the context of a healthy and active imagination; originality in identity and character in a way that fosters same in others; consistent quality in thought and action.
The definitions were only to be there as a starter.
What do you think ?
( Sorry I've lost the reference/source - there are probably better ones elsewhere )
Aristotle
[b]At his Lyceum in Athens, Aristotle developed a model for the maximisation of happiness that could be implemented by individuals and whole societies, and is still relevant today. It became known as ‘peripatetic philosophy’ because Aristotle conducted philosophical debates while strolling in company with his interlocutors.
The fundamental tenet of peripatetic philosophy is this: the goal of life is to maximise happiness by living virtuously, fulfilling your own potential as a human, and engaging with others – family, friends and fellow citizens – in mutually beneficial activities.[/b]
But did Aristotle ever give a definition of Eudaemonia ?
I never did ask why you thought Happiness a promising topic.
I am beginning to think otherwise.
After all, isn't it enough that we have an idea of what it means ?
What would motivate an enquiry ?
It's all been said before. Where would we find the originality seemingly required by the guidelines ?
Having second thoughts.
Well, the originality required is just that you don't repeat a topic that's already active. And there are none active on this topic. In fact, I have yet to see a particularly impressive OP on happiness.
(Except maybe this https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1568/discarding-the-ego-as-a-way-to-happiness from two years ago, which was promising but only led to a short discussion).
This may be because we think what it is is all too obvious, see @S, or it may be that the concept has been hijacked and degraded by the bulldozer of (post)modern culture to the extent that it has become indistinguishable to us from pleasure, see @Sir2u. Or both. Or I may be deluded.
Not creating a similar ongoing discussion would seem to be common sense. Who would do that ?
How many times has it happened that it couldn't be adequately dealt with - without any need for the phrase 'original topic' in the guideline. If need be, why not say exactly what you said above:
So rather than:
d) Starting an original topic, i.e. a similar discussion is not already active.
You have the clearer:
d) Don't repeat a topic that's already active.
What would you consider to be 'a particularly impressive OP on Happiness ?
You see, the problem I have with this is:
If I had acted naturally in a more spontaneous manner rather than going through a lot of angst about structure and quality of OP, then I might have learned something a lot quicker and felt more motivated.
It would have been a real exploration, an adventure for an enquiring spirit.
Strolling in company, being peripatetic or chewing the fat - engaging with others - what could be more natural as a way to fulfil potential, process wellbeingness. Perhaps not impressive but who am I trying to please or make happy anyway ? The creation of a quality discussion is an ideal but not always practical.
Sometimes you just got to take a first step...and see where the walk/talk leads.
I feel like you're arguing more with yourself than me here. I'm not trying to prevent anyone starting this discussion. But every discussion is subject to moderation and discussions that show more effort are more likely to make the cut. Originality will help with that, but to be fair most philosophical topics have been covered here somewhere, so the scope for that may be limited.
Fancy-shmancy. :wink:
Shwok-toc :razz:
Could you please give us a workable definition of "shmancy", I cannot find it anywhere. And I know that you really like to provide people with the definition of words that are not in common use. Where can I find that dictionary you use?
While Baden's definition is sort of fitting for some discussion, it is rather first person. It is about how one becomes happy, not how one makes others happy.
Now that we have ideas on what happiness is we can start brainstorming on how to make others happy:
Sell them a product; Help someone in need; Complementing them; Offering your friendship: Hosting a party: These are just some examples of making people happy, for what it's worth.
You can't make people happy.
It is unhappiness that motivates philosophers.
You must Know Thyself before prescribing happiness for others.
A definition of happiness is not necessary to know what it is.
Happiness is not good for you.
Happiness, like Beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Happiness is a habit and can be learned.
Happiness can't buy you Love.
At this rate, we won't need to start a formal discussion in that other place !
It is fitting as one of several to start the discussion. It can be argued that we need to know how one becomes happy before you can make others happy, even if that is possible.
Something Baden wrote earlier about why there hasn't been a recent, quality discussion about happiness:
Quoting Baden
A section of Baden's Definition, bringing in others, values and character of consistent quality.
Quoting Amity
Really ? :roll:
Who is this 'us' ? You mean yourself as in acting a bit of a schmuck.
Shmancy works just fine in context.
From :https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shm-reduplication
-----------
Shm-reduplication is a form of reduplication in which the original word or its first syllable (the base) is repeated with the copy (the reduplicant) beginning with shm- (sometimes schm-), pronounced /?m/. The construction is generally used to indicate irony, sarcasm, derision, skepticism, or lack of interest with respect to comments about the discussed object:
He's just a baby!"Baby-shmaby".[1] He's already 5 years old!
The speaker is being skeptical. They do not think their kid is a baby or babyish.
What a sale!"Sale, schmale".[2] I'm waiting for a larger discount.
The speaker is showing lack of interest. They do not care about the sale.
[b]The original word can be a noun, but also an adjective:
"Whenever we go to a fancy-schmancy restaurant, we feel like James Bond."
In this case, it is being used to intensify the meaning of "fancy", implying that it's really fancy. [3] In general, the new combination is used as an interjection. In the case of adjectives, the reduplicated combination can belong to the same syntactical category as the original.[/b]
------------
Indeed. So I've put forward a few initial thoughts on a thesis or statement ( see earlier post ).
What are your thoughts so far ?
If we are discussing theories of Happiness then what is it that they are supposed to do. What is your practical interest in the matter ? Is it related to virtue; leading a better life, as in Aristotle. Or what ? Is it about dealing with personal psychological unhappiness or depression ? If so, we need to visit psychology and perhaps more...seems to be larger than philosophy alone. What causes unhappiness ? Why do we feel we need to make people happy ? Why do we say 'Happy New Year' ? And what do we think when we say it ?
Other than simply an attempt at creating an interesting and quality (whatever that is ? ) discussion, we need to ask ourselves : Why are we doing this ?
I keep it in my shrine.
:up:
There are roughly two philosophical literatures on “happiness,” each corresponding to a different sense of the term. One uses ‘happiness’ as a value term, roughly synonymous with well-being or flourishing. The other body of work uses the word as a purely descriptive psychological term, akin to ‘depression’ or ‘tranquility’. An important project in the philosophy of happiness is simply getting clear on what various writers are talking about: what are the important meanings of the term and how do they connect?
----------
I was thinking about Baden's earlier post, which mentioned views at different ends of the spectrum:
'we think what it is is all too obvious, see S, or it may be that the concept has been hijacked and degraded by the bulldozer of (post)modern culture to the extent that it has become indistinguishable to us from pleasure, see @Sir2u. Or both. Or I may be deluded.'
----------
So, we could perhaps describe these views, along with the ? middle view of Baden. Examine arguments which support them and come to a conclusion as what is more convincing or helpful ?
Can philosophy alone provide answers or to be comprehensive, do we need to include other fields ?
Hi again. Just wondering about the different theories along the 'What is Happiness' spectrum.
I am not sure whether the views above are at opposite ends. And yours is the middle way?
I really don't know about the (post) modern culture - is there a specific philosopher I can read about ?
If the views are time dependent, is it worthwhile then to compare the traditional with the modern, or post- modern ( whatever that means ).
Any advice appreciated, thanks.
I can't lay claim to the middle way...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Way
Quoting Amity
There are many and they might not make sense without context. Best probably to get a general overview and then follow up on the philosophers mentioned.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/#2
Also, there's an accessible series of vids of Rick Roderick lectures on YouTube: e.g.
And what is that Middle Path... It is the Noble Eightfold path, and nothing else, namely: right understanding, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration.[3]
And why ever not ? Your definition would seem right enough. You might have got there via another track but still...
I think I would characterise it as right good quality :wink:
As well as being moderate...
The postmodern way as per Stanford seems too dense, or it could very well be me.
I was looking more for the specific angle on Happiness as per your previous thoughts on Sir2u.
Probably best going to the horse's mouth...
Rick Roderick. Never heard of him. But seems to have produced a fair amount of lectures in his time.
Videos and transcripts.
http://rickroderick.org/100-guide-philosophy-and-human-values-1990/
I like the Outline provided for Lecture 1 on Socrates and the Life of Inquiry.
Also, lecture 2: Epicureans, Stoics, Skeptics
Conflicting ideals of excellence in Roman Society.
Ah, those conflicting ideals - 'twas ever thus...
Hello again.
I wonder if you agree with Baden and his thought re your position on Happiness:
'the concept has been hijacked and degraded by the bulldozer of (post)modern culture to the extent that it has become indistinguishable to us from pleasure, see @Sir2u.'
If you had to give a definition or clarification on your theory of Happiness what might it be ?
Hi - read your post with interest. Thanks.
Do you have your own philosophy of Happiness?
If you had to give a definition of Happiness, what would you say ?
Do you see the various theories as being opposed, or just different...
You can't make people happy. Why?
It is unhappiness that motivates philosophers.See philosophical pessimism (Schopenhauer).
You must Know Thyself before prescribing happiness for others. Why?
A definition of happiness is not necessary to know what it is.What do you mean?
Happiness is not good for you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U88jj6PSD7w
Happiness, like Beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, happiness is subjective.
Happiness is a habit and can be learned. If you can unlearn fears, can you learn happiness?
Happiness can't buy you Love.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srwxJUXPHvE
The bold is what I think.
Thanks for response.
Which of the above, if any, do you think would make a good thesis for a discussion ?
Have you thought of one yourself which you are passionate about ? And could defend...
Fair enough. It was only a brainstorming exercise. A real thesis would be better formulated.
Probably why I prefer not to make one, or take a position, until an exploratory discussion has taken place.
Oh dear. You do not understand sarcasm at all do you. And irony also seems to be missing for your understanding abilities.
First of all it is customary around here to provide ones usage, definition, of words that are not necessarily standard. I have not found Shmancy in any of the philosophy books I have read so I asked for it to be explained. As you yourself said basic definitions are necessary to start a discussion. I don't go to Wikipedia for definitions either.
Second, calling someone a schmuck is not an example of Shm-reduplication, it is an insult.
schmuck - (Yiddish) a stupid, foolish or annoying person
Which would probably be more applicable to a person that uses "fancy schmancy" in what is supposed to be a serious discussion.
Quoting Amity
The context is him making fun of the words you use, so I guess you should know whether it works fine or not. :smirk:
The outhouse?
I don't really have a theory of happiness, just some personal thoughts about it.
They say that you cannot buy happiness, but your wife is probably unhappy when you forget to buy her a present.
Is unhappiness not buying stuff?
They say that happiness grows over time, why are there so many divorces then? Does marriage make people unhappy?
Bars have Happy Hours, is getting drunk going to make you happy.
Restaurants have Happy Meals so kids can get fat and die an early death from heart problems. Does giving your kids that shit make Mom and Dad happy? Of course it does if it makes the kiddies happy and keeps them quiet for ten minutes.
Who the hell knows what happiness is, except of course for "S" and he is keeping his dictionary in the shit house so no one can see it.
Is happiness something that we can expect to be only temporal or should we expect it to be long lasting?
How do you measure happiness, by quality, by length of time, by degrees?
Which part would that be? :brow:
We know what it is. Meaning is use. We know what a game is. It's a similar thing going on here. So it can't be that. If you think that you don't know what happiness is, that's probably because you're being a typical philosophy schmuck, excessively questioning what he or she already knows. I guess I'm atypical.
I am a professor in shmanciology. If you would like to learn more about it, I invite you to attend one of my upcoming lectures on the shmubject. There will of course be a shmall fee: shmomewhere in the ballpark of between £10,000 and £15,000.
Quoting Sir2u
Exhibit A:
Quoting Sir2u
Exhibit B:
Quoting Purple Pond
I rest my case.
:scream: :groan: :joke: :gasp: :cry: :roll:
case-shmace :wink:
Dear Prof
Please take pity on a poor shtudent and give freely of your wisdom-shmisdom.
In the case of shmace would it be improved by the inclusion of a 'c', as in the case of schmuck, which as we all know is not an example of shm- reduplication as explained in good ole wiki.
Also, I am sipping a tone of Sean Connery here. But I am not sure that he would qualify...
I look forward to your reply
Yours sincerely-shmincerely :nerd:
PS Apple in post :heart:
Cheers to all for :100: :party:
Is that what they say when they are going to the pub where you live?
Maybe I could help with proofreading here.
I am a professor in shm-logy. The correct name of the subject.
If you would like to learn more about it, I invite you to attend one of my upcoming lectures on the subject shmubject.
There will of course be a small shmall fee:
somewhere shmomewhere in the ballpark of between £10,000 and £15,000.[/quote]
Remember that the use of shm is to duplicate a word already used in a way that does not use the exact same word. Fancy talking if you want a simple name. And you are allowed to use words that begin with a letter that is not S.
Quoting S
Err, and just what was your case?: It must have slipped my mind.
Sussed out :gasp:
It is my way of saying I am breaking off from this discussion and yes, that might involve a drink or two.
Cheers !