What proportion of people are happy?

[Donnadogsoth]

I have a friend and one day our conversation turned to the prospect of happiness in this life. He said that he didn't think anyone was truly happy, and he cited Hollywood celebrities as people exemplifying fake happiness. I think this might be a bit misleading, for movie stars are artificially selected to be good liars and thus it should be no surprise if their poses of opulent bliss are extremely inflated.

I think otherwise to my friend. I think happiness is possible in life, and by happiness I don't mean grim duty or the mere absence of pain and anguish. I mean something like:

Birth of your child
Tender moments with your child
Tender moments with your spouse
Tender moments with your friend
Joy in accomplishment
Infatuation
Wedding day
Marital warmth
Joy of discovery
Joy of helping a stranger
Joy of apprehending beauty
Losing oneself in a good book
Losing oneself in a musical performance

How many of these experiences does one need to have, or need to have within a given interval, to be said to be happy? There's no standard, because everyone “tunes in” to these experiences differently. Someone might win a war and feel nothing. Another might learn a ditty on the piano and be thrilled. So, part of happiness is being tuned into the happy things one meets in life. If a person tunes in sufficiently to these things, so that they never experience moments of despair, because their happiness is riding roughshod over the unhappy things in their life, then that person must be happy, if anyone is.

Given that standard: one's joys riding roughshod over one's pains and sadnesses, no matter one's fortune, over an indefinitely long period of time, such that the person can maintain this joy indefinitely and will never succumb to any defining unhappiness, and never despairs, even of they aren't always as happy as humanly possible—what proportion of the population is happy like this?

[S@tanicoaldo]

Happiness is a way of travel, not a destination, we are never truly happy we just have happy moments in our life.

[Razade]

I have a friend

Well brag why don't you.


and one day our conversation turned to the prospect of happiness in this life.

Ah yes. As humans do.


He said that he didn't think anyone was truly happy, and he cited Hollywood celebrities as people exemplifying fake happiness. I think this might be a bit misleading, for movie stars are artificially selected to be good liars and thus it should be no surprise if their poses of opulent bliss are extremely inflated.

Certainly misleading but not for your conspiracy theory grade idea. It's misleading because "happiness" isn't a thing that happens all the time and saying someone is being "fake happy" to cover up never being happy is...absurd.


I think otherwise to my friend. I think happiness is possible in life, and by happiness I don't mean grim duty or the mere absence of pain and anguish. I mean something like:

I certainly think it's possible but again, Happiness isn't something you have and never get rid of. It's fleeting by the nature of emotions. I'd certainly think that the absence of pain and anguish would make me a happier person though.

But this is, startlingly, a time you give examples so let's look at them.


Birth of your child

Would certainly make someone happy if they wanted said kid but I doubt this is a universal thing that would make people happy. I wouldn't be happy if I was having a kid as I don't want children.


Tender moments with your child

See above.


Tender moments with your spouse
Tender moments with your friend

Tender moments with yourself?


Joy in accomplishment

Getting close to that Grim Duty thing above. But people generally feel better when they've achieved something sure.


Infatuation

I suppose if it's reciprocated. If it's not, I doubt it would make you very happy. I'd think the very opposite. Unrequited love is...brutal.


Wedding day
Marital warmth

Are you getting married soon? Because a lot of your examples center around it.



Joy of discovery
Joy of helping a stranger
Joy of apprehending beauty
Losing oneself in a good book
Losing oneself in a musical performance

If people enjoy these sorts of things sure.



How many of these experiences does one need to have, or need to have within a given interval, to be said to be happy?

Happiness isn't like gaining a level in a video game. It's weird because you literally answer yourself.



There's no standard, because everyone “tunes in” to these experiences differently. Someone might win a war and feel nothing. Another might learn a ditty on the piano and be thrilled. So, part of happiness is being tuned into the happy things one meets in life. If a person tunes in sufficiently to these things, so that they never experience moments of despair, because their happiness is riding roughshod over the unhappy things in their life, then that person must be happy, if anyone is.

MUST they? Despair isn't the opposite of happiness. Indifference is. You can do all of these things and not be happy. Boredom is a thing. Depression is a thing. Diminishing returns is a thing.



Given that standard: one's joys riding roughshod over one's pains and sadnesses, no matter one's fortune, over an indefinitely long period of time, such that the person can maintain this joy indefinitely and will never succumb to any defining unhappiness, and never despairs, even of they aren't always as happy as humanly possible—what proportion of the population is happy like this?

Unquantifiable because your measurement of happiness isn't the same as everyone else's. Not to mention you'd have to poll a significant amount of people, assume they're not lying or overselling themselves and their experiences and...yeah.

The answer to your question is that your metric is shoddy and biased.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Can I just say that from what I observe after they are past the little cute phase kids are more a source of annoyance and unhappiness then joy. :/

We sure can minimize suffering by getting detached with material things or strong emotions. That's what the stoics used to say or something.

[2D8HP]

Well brag why don't you.....


Reading that made me happy (momentarily).

:amused:

Thanks Razade!

[Razade]

Reading that made me happy (momentarily).

:amused:

Thanks Razade!

Sarcasm and depricating humor is as valid a form of happiness as any other. And it makes other people unhappy. Wonder how that would sync up with Donna's typical philosophy?

[Flickerdart]

The World Happiness Report (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report) assigns each country a happiness score from 1 to 10. We can assume that citizens in each country are thus, on average, that happy. We can place those numbers against the population of each country to get the amount of happy people in each country. The happiness report people didn't go to every country, but they went to most (about 500 million people are unaccounted for).

Of the countries they did visit, the total population is 7.375 billion of which 3.864 billion are happy, about 52.4%. That number is probably lower if you account for the missing half-billion, since they are largely from poor, dangerous nations.

So let's call it even and say roughly half of the people in the world are happy. Math!

[Aliquid]

Nobody is always happy... So, what would qualify for someone to be "truly happy".

Is your friend suggesting that people aren't even momentarily happy... at any point in their life? That's a depressing world view.

To be honest, being "happy" isn't something I really strive for in life. My goal is to be "content"

[Donnadogsoth]

Nobody is always happy... So, what would qualify for someone to be "truly happy".

Is your friend suggesting that people aren't even momentarily happy... at any point in their life? That's a depressing world view.

To be honest, being "happy" isn't something I really strive for in life. My goal is to be "content"

He would say that no one is happy enough to warrant the term; in this life there are just momentary thrills, but everything ultimately is a cheat.

You don't find aiming for mediocre brain states to be depressing in its own way?

[Aliquid]

He would say that no one is happy enough to warrant the term; in this life there are just momentary thrills, but everything ultimately is a cheat.

You don't find aiming for mediocre brain states to be depressing in its own way?"Content" isn't mediocre. In my opinion it is better than happy. Happy is fleeting and too energetic for my liking (at least if it is sustained, brief events are good)... Content on the other hand is calm peaceful and longer lasting.

[Donnadogsoth]

"Content" isn't mediocre. In my opinion it is better than happy. Happy is fleeting and too energetic for my liking (at least if it is sustained, brief events are good)... Content on the other hand is calm peaceful and longer lasting.

What proportion of people do you think are content?

[Aliquid]

What proportion of people do you think are content?Depends entirely where you are. If you live somewhere with warfare or violence as a constant backdrop... it is hard to be content when you are afraid for you life (or the lives of your loved ones). If you live surrounded by poverty and/or unemployment, it can be hard to be content when you are busy worrying about food and shelter.

I think Flickerdart's link is a pretty good representation of that.

[veti]

He would say that no one is happy enough to warrant the term; in this life there are just momentary thrills, but everything ultimately is a cheat.

That's as dumb a point as I've ever seen, if you're representing it at all fairly. If we're going to talk about "ultimately", then "ultimately" we're all dead, and anything we felt in life is irrelevant anyway. As Pratchett points out once or twice, the whole of life is basically just postponing the inevitable.

At any given time, probability says, a significant proportion of everyone is happy, even if "only" transiently.

I've been pretty happy since I got married, and more so since we had kids. Sure, in that time I've also been unhappy. Frustrated, angry, bored, terrified, disgusted, sad, you name it. All emotions are fleeting, like life itself. But - just by comparing the last ten years of my life to the previous 20, I would say I've been, on balance, happy for that time.

[Florian]

Being "happy" or feeling "joy" are always just fleeting feelings of the moment. It´s more important to be content with life or even lead something that could be counted as a fulfilling life. This in turn makes it easier the feel happiness or joyfulness when it comes up, because frankly, stressed-out or depressed people tend to not find those things in the "small things" when they happen.

[danzibr]

I would call myself overall happy, but I certainly have my unhappy moments.

[Suttle]

https://cdn.iwastesomuchtime.com/61201617511170233.jpg

1-Pick one
2-Follow it.
3- ???
4- Be happy.

I belive you would be fine in a mix of Platonism, stoicism, theism and confucianism, but only you can find your own philosophy.

[Glorthindel]

"Content" isn't mediocre. In my opinion it is better than happy. Happy is fleeting and too energetic for my liking (at least if it is sustained, brief events are good)... Content on the other hand is calm peaceful and longer lasting.

I was going to write a long spiel about the difference between happiness and being content, but this hits it much more succintly than I can.

[2D8HP]

The World Happiness Report (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report).....


1) Norway
2) Denmark
3) Iceland
4) Switzerland
5) Finland
6) Thr Netherlands
7) Canada
8) New Zealand
9) Australia
10) Sweden


Aha!

I know of exactly one Dane on this Forum (Denmark is #2 on the list), and he's always putting "smilies" in his posts!

Any Norwegians (Norway is #1) at the Playground?

The only non-cold nations in the top ten are

The Netherlands (#6),

New Zealand (#8),

and

Australia (#9),

but mostly it's small nations that are closer to the North Pole, so obviously those are where Santa Claus is going first!

Conclusion: Christmas presents are the major source of happiness.

Also yodelling (Switzerland is #4).

Bicycling? (Copenhagen in Denmark, and Amsterdam in the Netherlands are famous for lots of bikes).

Sheep (New Zealand).

And Mad Max movies (Australia).

So to be truly happy, have a ticket to see "Fury Road", bicycle to the theatre, sit with a lamb, and yodel during the screening on Christmas day.

-Your welcome.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Maybe coldness is also a factor?

Or lack of religion?

[2D8HP]

http://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/scandanaviaandtheworld/images/0/0f/Norway.png/revision/latest?cb=20110823042530

Norway!

:annoyed:

Being all happy, just grinds my gears it does!

[S@tanicoaldo]

Isn't Bhutan the happiest place on earth? :smallconfused:

I'm sure I heard this time after time.

[2D8HP]

Isn't Bhutan the happiest place on earth? :smallconfused:

I'm sure I heard this time after time.


Bhutan invented the Gross National Happiness (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_National_Happiness) concept as a goal, but they don't rate the happiest, that would be the most contented kingdom the world has ever known, called 'Happy Valley' (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eMoNFMJJgW4) ruled over by a wise old king called Otto. And all his subjects flourished and are happy, and there are no discontents or grumblers, because wise King Otto had had them all put to death along with the trade union leaders many years before. And all the good happy folk of Happy Valley sing and dance all day long. And anyone who is for any reason miserable or unhappy or who has any difficult personal problems is prosecuted under the 'Happiness Act'.

[Donnadogsoth]

That's as dumb a point as I've ever seen, if you're representing it at all fairly. If we're going to talk about "ultimately", then "ultimately" we're all dead, and anything we felt in life is irrelevant anyway. As Pratchett points out once or twice, the whole of life is basically just postponing the inevitable.

At any given time, probability says, a significant proportion of everyone is happy, even if "only" transiently.

I've been pretty happy since I got married, and more so since we had kids. Sure, in that time I've also been unhappy. Frustrated, angry, bored, terrified, disgusted, sad, you name it. All emotions are fleeting, like life itself. But - just by comparing the last ten years of my life to the previous 20, I would say I've been, on balance, happy for that time.

It might make it clearer to consider whether a given life is worth doing over again, not to correct or improve it, nor to simply live the exact life over again (which would be logically impossible--how do I know I'm not reliving it right now?), but rather to live a life of equal happiness over again. Would it be worth doing so? Or would it be better to pass on to whatever one thinks one will pass on to?

[Vinyadan]

Enter the Misery Filter. http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/12/24/how-bad-are-things/

[S@tanicoaldo]

It might make it clearer to consider whether a given life is worth doing over again, not to correct or improve it, nor to simply live the exact life over again (which would be logically impossible--how do I know I'm not reliving it right now?), but rather to live a life of equal happiness over again. Would it be worth doing so? Or would it be better to pass on to whatever one thinks one will pass on to?

Since existence is the only way we know to exist I'm sure it's impossible to compare since we have no other reference on how to live and exist.

[2D8HP]

It might make it clearer to consider whether a given life is worth...


Your trying to figure out if a life is "worth" living?


Get a motorcycle.

Ride to where others riders congregate, such as "Alice's Restaurant" in San Mateo county, and "The Wall" in the hills above Berkeley.

Learn the other riders names.

When you don't see them anymore ask what happened to them.


You could also try:


Hearing gunfire and seeing the muzzle flash on city streets.

Have loaded firearms pointed at you.


I think those will give you some idea of how much you value a life.

[Donnadogsoth]

Your trying to figure out if a life is "worth" living?


Get a motorcycle.

Ride to where others riders congregate, such as "Alice's Restaurant" in San Mateo county, and "The Wall" in the hills above Berkeley.

Learn the other riders names.

When you don't see them anymore ask what happened to them.


You could also try:


Hearing gunfire and seeing the muzzle flash on city streets.

Have loaded firearms pointed at you.


I think those will give you some idea of how much you value a life.

I'm presuming you speak from experience. If so, what are your conclusions?

[Donnadogsoth]

Since existence is the only way we know to exist I'm sure it's impossible to compare since we have no other reference on how to live and exist.

You have an imagination don't you? Your life isn't a single undifferentiated line of sameness, is it? So, it should be possible to consider a bad period of one's life and expand it to fill one's entire life, and then ask whether that would make life not worth living or not.

[S@tanicoaldo]

You have an imagination don't you? Your life isn't a single undifferentiated line of sameness, is it? So, it should be possible to consider a bad period of one's life and expand it to fill one's entire life, and then ask whether that would make life not worth living or not.

Sometimes it sure feels like :/

Anyway, I was referring to afterlife stuff.

But what makes a life worth or not worth living is hardly the events but the internal structures, that's why we have people with terrible existences, with drugs, sadness, war and hunger that are positive and looking forward to a better life and people who are rich and have everything and are suicidal.

That's why I have great problems with the idea of heaven, a perfect existence sounds so dull and boring, we need to conflict to feel alive.

[2D8HP]

I'm presuming you speak from experience. If so, what are your conclusions?


That deaths are to be feared and mourned not welcomed.


....it should be possible to consider a bad period of one's life and expand it to fill one's entire life, and then ask whether that would make life not worth living or not.


I encourage you to share your feelings at the

Personal Woes and Advice (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?531923-Personal-Woes-and-Advice-5)
thread,

and to read the

What Do You Do For Fun? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516464-What-Do-You-Do-For-Fun)

and the

What do you enjoy? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?530953-What-do-you-enjoy)
threads.

[Donnadogsoth]

That deaths are to be feared and mourned not welcomed.

Points to ponder.



I encourage you to share your feelings at the

Personal Woes and Advice (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?531923-Personal-Woes-and-Advice-5)
thread,

and to read the

What Do You Do For Fun? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516464-What-Do-You-Do-For-Fun)

and the

What do you enjoy? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?530953-What-do-you-enjoy)
threads.

Thanks for the invitation.

[Donnadogsoth]

Sometimes it sure feels like :/

Anyway, I was referring to _________ stuff.

But what makes a life worth or not worth living is hardly the events but the internal structures, that's why we have people with terrible existences, with drugs, sadness, war and hunger that are positive and looking forward to a better life and people who are rich and have everything and are suicidal.

That's why I have great problems with the idea of ______, a perfect existence sounds so dull and boring, we need to conflict to feel alive.

True, an individual's emotional responses to events determine their sense of life's value. Robin Williams had it all and that didn't save him.

I share your sentiments about ______, a friend remarked that it sounded like it would be a "boring garden party". But, who knows, the universe may surprise us. Bleeding is a surprising phenomenon if one isn't yet familiar with getting cut, bitten, or pricked.

[Scarlet Knight]

As has been pointed out, many great minds have pondered the question of happiness.

So I looked for a simple, objective marker and chose divorce rates. According to the APA: "... about 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce."

That would point to more people being happy than not rather than the ratio being equal. Why? Because of serial spouses. One famous rich man married a woman, had a family, then left her for his mistress. He married the mistress, had a child, then dumped her for a newer model. He married wife number 3, only to have an affair shortly after wife #3 gave birth. So that tells me for the rate to be 50%, there has to be 3 offsetting happy marriages to match his 3 failed ones.

[AMFV]

Here's the thing about a lot of those "Happiness Surveys", in some cultures it's considered to be less acceptable openly discuss your unhappiness so those cultures obviously are going to score as happier, but they may not be any happier. And surveys are always a little iffy to begin with.

Personally, I'm happy now, but it took a long time. So I would say that everybody has a chance to experience happiness.

[Aliquid]

Here's the thing about a lot of those "Happiness Surveys", in some cultures it's considered to be less acceptable openly discuss your unhappiness so those cultures obviously are going to score as happier, but they may not be any happier. And surveys are always a little iffy to begin with.

Personally, I'm happy now, but it took a long time. So I would say that everybody has a chance to experience happiness.The "World Happiness Report" isn't a survey where they ask people in various countries "are you happy"... they actually just guess if people are happy or not, based on other data. They use stats on things like "healthy life expectancy", and look at people's survey opinions on "trust in government", or if people feel that they have "social support in terms of someone to count on in times of need"

Not saying that this invalidates your premise. "Life expectancy" is hard data, but different cultures will still answer the opinion questions differently based on social expectations.

[AMFV]

The "World Happiness Report" isn't a survey where they ask people in various countries "are you happy"... they actually just guess if people are happy or not, based on other data. They use stats on things like "healthy life expectancy", and look at people's survey opinions on "trust in government", or if people feel that they have "social support in terms of someone to count on in times of need"

Not saying that this invalidates your premise. "Life expectancy" is hard data, but different cultures will still answer the opinion questions differently based on social expectations.

It's also worth noting that life expectancy doesn't necessarily translate to happiness. There are decisions I could make that would make me likely to live longer that would make me less happy.

[danzibr]

1) Norway
2) Denmark
3) Iceland
4) Switzerland
5) Finland
6) Thr Netherlands
7) Canada
8) New Zealand
9) Australia
10) Sweden



Maybe coldness is also a factor?

Beat me to it!

[hq27]

i think objective absolute happiness is the same as absolute good or evil it dose not actually exist it's a simplification for us to gain an easier conceptualization of the topic however to be absolutely swept up in an incredibly intense appreciation for a moment in your life where things and good beautiful amazing or even just simple or quite is very real and I think that's enough to make it all worth it and id bet almost 100% of people experience these moments from time to time.

[Lord Joeltion]

A real Ubermensch scoffs about people who call themselves happy.

...What? :smallconfused:


Ok, look, the issue with the idea of "what makes you happy" is that is no concept at all. It's something you find by yourself and at the same time, the very discovery of "it" transforms yourself and thus compels you to redefine the term once again. Basically, the pursuit of happiness functions more like a loop or a Escher's staircase than a road. Happiness is not a trip. It's not the goal. It's not even the road. It's the very need of motion. Once you feel no need of motion (evolution, change) you aren't happy any more but content about yourself (which I consider the opposite of happiness). Or at least, that's what I think "being happy" is all about.

That's why I reject any notion of people "being happy" as an achievement. If it's an achievement, it's not happiness. You never achieve happiness. If happiness worked like that, then "happy people" would commit suicide next day, otherwise they risk losing their object of happiness, for nothing lasts forever. Happiness would become a "game over" (an achievement is basically finishing a task, or a "game") and I can't accept a definition of happiness working that way.

For me, people who are truly happy are busy, worried, concerned and working towards the next day, trip or whatever. Not because they must or because they are pushed into it; but because they "happily" chose to. That is happiness for me. Being hungry. Wanting more. Desiring more. Working to be better. And that is sadly non measurable, nor understandable for external observers. So... yeah, that's my rant against those country rankings :smallbiggrin:

[Anonymouswizard]

That's as dumb a point as I've ever seen, if you're representing it at all fairly. If we're going to talk about "ultimately", then "ultimately" we're all dead, and anything we felt in life is irrelevant anyway. As Pratchett points out once or twice, the whole of life is basically just postponing the inevitable.

This. The world is going to end one day, most likely for your before the planet (we seem to be really behind on that immortality front). Even if humanity spreads among the stars, one day heat death will have finished and there will be no energy that life can exploit in the universe, and nobody will be able to experience anything anymore. In the face of that, people being happy is pointless.

But at the same time being depressed or sad or aroused or whatever is also pointless. So if we're talking about 'ultimately', talking about any emotion is pointless, unless our basic understanding on the universe is wrong, so who the heck cares about how anybody feels?

Toning my pessimism down, measuring happiness is a bit silly. We'll all feel different amounts of happiness at different times. The last month has been horrific for my happiness since my first relationship ended poorly. I've still been happy, but rarely as happy as I used to be, due to a mixture of still not being over my ex and wanting to know if my ex is okay (because I know she won't have been feeling good after we said goodbye).

[Scarlet Knight]

Ok, look, the issue with the idea of "what makes you happy" is that is no concept at all. It's something you find by yourself and at the same time, the very discovery of "it" transforms yourself and thus compels you to redefine the term once again. Basically, the pursuit of happiness functions more like a loop or a Escher's staircase than a road. Happiness is not a trip. It's not the goal. It's not even the road. It's the very need of motion. Once you feel no need of motion (evolution, change) you aren't happy any more but content about yourself (which I consider the opposite of happiness). Or at least, that's what I think "being happy" is all about.

That's why I reject any notion of people "being happy" as an achievement. If it's an achievement, it's not happiness. You never achieve happiness. If happiness worked like that, then "happy people" would commit suicide next day, otherwise they risk losing their object of happiness, for nothing lasts forever. Happiness would become a "game over" (an achievement is basically finishing a task, or a "game") and I can't accept a definition of happiness working that way.

For me, people who are truly happy are busy, worried, concerned and working towards the next day, trip or whatever. Not because they must or because they are pushed into it; but because they "happily" chose to. That is happiness for me. Being hungry. Wanting more. Desiring more. Working to be better. And that is sadly non measurable, nor understandable for external observers. So... yeah, that's my rant against those country rankings

Huh, that's funny that you say that. In my experience, people who always want/desire more are never happy. Do not underestimate the joys of contentment.

Yet I appreciate the idea of motion, where we feel happy as things get better, no matter where in the happiness scale we start. It would help to explain how the poor can be happy with little while the rich may be discontented with their lot.

[Bohandas]

People on hard drugs are happy. At least until they come down. Then they get real sad.

[Donnadogsoth]

There is also the question of how happy is too happy. Someone going round with a perpetual large smile on their face might be viewed as insane or _________ or mentally retarded. What proportion of the population appears to be extremely happy all the time?

[2D8HP]

.....What proportion of the population appears to be extremely happy all the time?


After EXTENSIVE statistical analysis, I believe the conclusion is none, give or take some.

It's a big world and there may be someone who appears "extremely happy all the time", but I don't know of them.

[inexorabletruth]

Extremely happy all the time?

I don't know if the world is that simple. I don't think puppies are extremely happy all the time, and they're the happiest things I know of.

From a holistic perspective, I can say I'm extremely happy about some things in my life. I'm extremely happy about the person I married, and I have been for the last 10 years we've been together. I'm extremely happy about our son we have together.

But the very definition of extreme makes it impossible to be extremely happy about everything all the time. We're talking about spikes in happiness here, so the question doesn't make sense.

[Zen]

Is it so bad to be happy all the time? It doesn't sound so wrong to me.

If everyone did it life would be a lot more pleasant.

[Florian]

Is it so bad to be happy all the time? It doesn't sound so wrong to me.

If everyone did it life would be a lot more pleasant.

You don't know humans well enough. Every constant will lead to ennui and mitigate the gain. That's simply how our brain is currently wired.

[Recherché]

I don't want to be blissed out in every possible situation. I want to grieve when bad things happen and celebrate when good things come. I want to be content and at peace with my world in general, but maintain the fire to rail against it when the world is unjust and needs to be changed. I'd appreciate not having to deal with some of my mental health issues but I knowledge that I would not be the person I am today without them. I want to continue learning and grow from my experiences both good and bad. Sometimes this will hurt me and make me unhappy, but it means that I might become a better, braver, smarter more compassionate person. I want to drink deeply of life both the sweet and the bitter.

[inexorabletruth]

Is it so bad to be happy all the time? It doesn't sound so wrong to me.

If everyone did it life would be a lot more pleasant.

Ah, but there's a problem with that. You see, there are many different ways to define happiness. And those definitions of happiness aren't perfectly symbiotic. In some cases, the happiness of some can directly or indirectly cause the suffering of others, whether by accident or intent.

Also, our brains are wired to identify feelings by its antonym. Pleasure by pain, love by hate, excitement by boredom. Like what Florian said. If everyone was happy all the time, we wouldn't recognize the happiness for what it was.

Your theory can work with some other concepts, though, like: kindness, compassion, charity, health, freedom, safety, tolerance. (Depending on your definition of pleasant, of course.)

But these aren't feelings.

[Zen]

You don't know humans well enough. Every constant will lead to ennui and mitigate the gain. That's simply how our brain is currently wired.

Does it? Isn't that just what people assume it's going to happen?

I mean ennui isn't happy so that's already a contradiction of the premise.


I don't want to be blissed out in every possible situation. I want to grieve when bad things happen and celebrate when good things come. I want to be content and at peace with my world in general, but maintain the fire to rail against it when the world is unjust and needs to be changed. I'd appreciate not having to deal with some of my mental health issues but I knowledge that I would not be the person I am today without them. I want to continue learning and grow from my experiences both good and bad. Sometimes this will hurt me and make me unhappy, but it means that I might become a better, braver, smarter more compassionate person. I want to drink deeply of life both the sweet and the bitter.

But happy is not the same as bliss is it? I can't see how those things you stated can't be done in a state of perpetual happiness and I don't think grief is really that healthy.


Ah, but there's a problem with that. You see, there are many different ways to define happiness. And those definitions of happiness aren't perfectly symbiotic. In some cases, the happiness of some can directly or indirectly cause the suffering of others, whether by accident or intent.

Also, our brains are wired to identify feelings by its antonym. Pleasure by pain, love by hate, excitement by boredom. Like what Florian said. If everyone was happy all the time, we wouldn't recognize the happiness for what it was.

Your theory can work with some other concepts, though, like: kindness, compassion, charity, health, freedom, safety, tolerance. (Depending on your definition of pleasant, of course.)

But these aren't feelings.

Can't people just put an effort to find happiness in every little thing? The color of the sky, the smell of coffee, the sound of their own voice, the color of the flowers all these things are good yet overlooked.

Wouldn't someone abiding by the ideas of kindness, compassion, charity, health, freedom, safety, tolerance be happy?

[Donnadogsoth]

I don't want to be blissed out in every possible situation. I want to grieve when bad things happen and celebrate when good things come. I want to be content and at peace with my world in general, but maintain the fire to rail against it when the world is unjust and needs to be changed. I'd appreciate not having to deal with some of my mental health issues but I knowledge that I would not be the person I am today without them. I want to continue learning and grow from my experiences both good and bad. Sometimes this will hurt me and make me unhappy, but it means that I might become a better, braver, smarter more compassionate person. I want to drink deeply of life both the sweet and the bitter.

You seem to make some sense, but, I don't believe you when you say you want to "drink deeply of . . . the bitter". Nobody wants to drink deeply of the bitter or else it wouldn't be the bitter. Nobody who is halfway sane and compassionate to themselves and others wants to take a year long family vacation in a death camp just so they can tick the 'the bitter" box off on their bucket list.

The idea of having composure and a minor but consistent positive emotion throughout all the slings and arrows of life seems feasible and not subject to inexorable ennui. One can, and should, experience happiness and sadness at appropriate times, but without a species of positive emotion to bring one through without despair what is one sustained by? So, there must be a sustenance for the soul, as it were, without which men suicide one way or another.

[inexorabletruth]

Can't people just put an effort to find happiness in every little thing? The color of the sky, the smell of coffee, the sound of their own voice, the color of the flowers all these things are good yet overlooked.

Wouldn't someone abiding by the ideas of kindness, compassion, charity, health, freedom, safety, tolerance be happy?

Well... can you?

What you may be trying to describe is a holistic sense of joy. And yes, under the right circumstances, that can be attained. But finding happiness in every little thing can be a much bigger challenge. After all, not everything is a matter of perspective. Some things are empirically bad, or unpleasant, and happiness would not be a naturally expressed emotion during those times. Plus, there are so many things that can bring happiness besides the little things. And these things are more finite, which can cause strife. This strife, upon which all modern societies are built, inherently cause discontentment. Some finite resources that you probably enjoy on a daily basis to help you be happy are: money, technology, medicine, clothing, shelter, and food. Not everyone has all these things, because they are finite. And the lack of them causes strife and suffering, because those that can have them will struggle to get them. And once they have them, they will struggle to keep them. And once they have struggled to keep them, they will struggle to get more, while those that don't have these things will continue struggling to acquire them in the first place, and the cycle begins anew.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Does it? Isn't that just what people assume it's going to happen?

I mean ennui isn't happy so that's already a contradiction of the premise.

But happy is not the same as bliss is it? I can't see how those things you stated can't be done in a state of perpetual happiness and I don't think grief is really that healthy.

Can't people just put an effort to find happiness in every little thing? The color of the sky, the smell of coffee, the sound of their own voice, the color of the flowers all these things are good yet overlooked.

Wouldn't someone abiding by the ideas of kindness, compassion, charity, health, freedom, safety, tolerance be happy?

Isn’t that the whole premise of “Pollyanna”?
"Pollyanna, a novel by Eleanor Porter, is the first of a series of thirteen novels known as "The Glad Books", about an orphaned girl living with her aunt in the early 20th century. Young Pollyanna goes by a philosophy called "The Glad Game" where she finds something to be glad about in every situation. Combined with her sunny personality, her presence helps to reform her dismal town and, most effectively, her miserable aunt."

And that in the league of extraordinary gentleman she’s raped by the invisible man and says:
"Although I've been mishandled by a demon, I'm determined to remain optimistic, no matter what!"

I mean it can be a bit naive to have such world view or it can be just what our bitter society needs right now, who knows?

[Florian]

Does it? Isn't that just what people assume it's going to happen?

I mean ennui isn't happy so that's already a contradiction of the premise.

Can't people just put an effort to find happiness in every little thing? The color of the sky, the smell of coffee, the sound of their own voice, the color of the flowers all these things are good yet overlooked.

Wouldn't someone abiding by the ideas of kindness, compassion, charity, health, freedom, safety, tolerance be happy?

Funny that you ask that while using that forum name.

No, it´s no assumption, it´s what really happens. Every emotion dulls with the time, quicker when you overdose it. That's the crux of living in a society that uses consumption as a replacement source for happiness. Ennui is the name of the game. Compare the sheer joy of your first ice cream, fist time being tipsy, first good sex with the joy you feel 20 years later. On the bright side, pain stops, scars fade and hurts don't hurts so much any more.

You should know the concepts of Mushin and Shoshin, why overcoming self and ego, along with the "beginners mind" would be key to reach such a mental state and also why Gaman, drawing strength from suffering, are all things that we folk in western societies have basically no chance to reach.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Compare the sheer joy of your first ice cream, fist time being tipsy, first good sex with the joy you feel 20 years later.

Can I just call BS on that? My first experinces with ice cream and sex were terrible compared to the last few times because I wasn't mature enough to know what and how I wanted.

Now I know and the expeirence is a lot more enjoyable.

Your theory sounds good on paper, but that's not how real life works.

[Scarlet Knight]

Can I just call BS on that? My first experinces with ice cream and sex were terrible compared to the last few times because I wasn't mature enough to know what and how I wanted.

Now I know and the expeirence is a lot more enjoyable.

Your theory sounds good on paper, but that's not how real life works.

I believe Florian assumed you had those first experiences at different times; if you had them together, then no wonder it's better now. :smallwink:

[Vinyadan]

"Cup or cone?" :smallbiggrin:

[S@tanicoaldo]

I believe Florian assumed you had those first experiences at different times; if you had them together, then no wonder it's better now. :smallwink:

Ohhhhh that's what Florian meant? It makes so much more sense now. :smallamused:

[Lord Joeltion]

Can't people just put an effort to find happiness in every little thing? The color of the sky, the smell of coffee, the sound of their own voice, the color of the flowers all these things are good yet overlooked.

Wouldn't someone abiding by the ideas of kindness, compassion, charity, health, freedom, safety, tolerance be happy?

That's not happiness. That's optimism. And while similar, I don't think they work here as synonyms. There a many forms of being happy, and not everyone is hardwired to be happy by sheer force of optimism. I know, because I don't.


You seem to make some sense, but, I don't believe you when you say you want to "drink deeply of . . . the bitter". Nobody wants to drink deeply of the bitter or else it wouldn't be the bitter.

Oh my dear friend. My tongue can recall at least three different kinds of chocolate, various coffee cups and more beers I can remember that disprove your statement. They were all bitter, no doubt. They were still glorious experiences :smallbiggrin:


Nobody who is halfway sane and compassionate to themselves and others wants to take a year long family vacation in a death camp just so they can tick the 'the bitter" box off on their bucket list.

The idea of having composure and a minor but consistent positive emotion throughout all the slings and arrows of life seems feasible and not subject to inexorable ennui. One can, and should, experience happiness and sadness at appropriate times, but without a species of positive emotion to bring one through without despair what is one sustained by? So, there must be a sustenance for the soul, as it were, without which men suicide one way or another.

That's the problem. You're assuming being "sane" has a standard. Being "compassionate to yourself" isn't equal to keeping your soul safe in crystal box. Some people can find delight in a certain amount of pain. It just takes a little philosophical perspective and a lot of thick skin. Many a poet have found inspiration in the despair of unrequited love. Many people have learned to be proud of having conquered pain and strife because those experiences made them a better person.

Of course nobody can be happy while actively looking to be hurt and experience the worst of life; that's just obvious. But it doesn't mean that happiness is simply avoiding to feel pain or actively looking to avoid bad experiences at all costs. In fact, many people live unhappy sad lives because they simply can't cope with the fact that a lot of life involves feeling pain. Pessimists, cynics and other "non-naive" people (as in people who might enjoy the experience of overcoming the bitterness of life) aren't unable to be happy. That is simply not true.

Recherché's position seems to me way more saner and a lot more pragmatic form of pursuing happiness than trying to always look at the bright side of things and ignoring the other parts. Because not everything in life has a bright side, at all.

[Aliquid]

Many people have learned to be proud of having conquered pain and strife because those experiences made them a better person.Some people do it deliberately. Athletes push themselves through pain and suffering to be better.

When I go for a major day hike to the top of a mountain... there are times after the half way point that I say to myself "this sucks"... some times I want to turn around and go back, but I push through it until I reach the top, and it is worth it. So there are a couple hours of the process where I am not having fun, and I am "suffering" to a degree, but the sense of accomplishment when I get to the top is worth it.

[Donnadogsoth]

Oh my dear friend. My tongue can recall at least three different kinds of chocolate, various coffee cups and more beers I can remember that disprove your statement. They were all bitter, no doubt. They were still glorious experiences :smallbiggrin:

That's a silly thing to say.


That's the problem. You're assuming being "sane" has a standard. Being "compassionate to yourself" isn't equal to keeping your soul safe in crystal box. Some people can find delight in a certain amount of pain. It just takes a little philosophical perspective and a lot of thick skin. Many a poet have found inspiration in the despair of unrequited love. Many people have learned to be proud of having conquered pain and strife because those experiences made them a better person.

Of course nobody can be happy while actively looking to be hurt and experience the worst of life; that's just obvious. But it doesn't mean that happiness is simply avoiding to feel pain or actively looking to avoid bad experiences at all costs. In fact, many people live unhappy sad lives because they simply can't cope with the fact that a lot of life involves feeling pain. Pessimists, cynics and other "non-naive" people (as in people who might enjoy the experience of overcoming the bitterness of life) aren't unable to be happy. That is simply not true.

Recherché's position seems to me way more saner and a lot more pragmatic form of pursuing happiness than trying to always look at the bright side of things and ignoring the other parts. Because not everything in life has a bright side, at all.

That's not entirely nonsensical, but, I've got a ticket to sell you (for the low price of your life's savings and property) to the most compelling parts of the Gulag Archipelago, where masters at their craft will give you the wonderful opportunity to proudly conquer pain and strife. Think of the poems you can write!

[Recherché]

My grandmother probably isn't going to survive this entire year. She's 96 and not doing so well. Are you going to try and tell me that grieving and being unhappy with this situation is a bad thing? I believe that to not grieve here would be inhuman. Grief can be taken to extremes and take over a life but that doesn't mean that grief is always bad. Sometimes you need to work through the pain and that means letting yourself feel.

Meanwhile also don't try and tell me that I would be better off not caring at all for my grandmother. Because that's what it would take for me to go through this without it hurting. And then I would never have had the good moments either. This pain was all but inevitable with loving someone who's 96 years old, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth it. Oft times the sweet and the bitter are closely intertwined. The question of where you draw the line on whether the risk or indeed certainty of pain is worth the good is an incredibly personal one. I choose to accept a certain amount of bitterness in my life because I feel that the good outweighs it, but that isn't a choice that you get to make for me.

[Lord Joeltion]

That's a silly thing to say.

Pfff, that's what I keep telling to my tongue, but she won't stop reminding me of the good stuff from yore!


That's not entirely nonsensical, but, I've got a ticket to sell you (for the low price of your life's savings and property) to the most compelling parts of the Gulag Archipelago, where masters at their craft will give you the wonderful opportunity to proudly conquer pain and strife. Think of the poems you can write!

I'm not a poet, so I decline. Also, it's not a ticket, it's a strawman.

[S@tanicoaldo]

My grandmother probably isn't going to survive this entire year. She's 96 and not doing so well. Are you going to try and tell me that grieving and being unhappy with this situation is a bad thing? I believe that to not grieve here would be inhuman. Grief can be taken to extremes and take over a life but that doesn't mean that grief is always bad. Sometimes you need to work through the pain and that means letting yourself feel.

Meanwhile also don't try and tell me that I would be better off not caring at all for my grandmother. Because that's what it would take for me to go through this without it hurting. And then I would never have had the good moments either. This pain was all but inevitable with loving someone who's 96 years old, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth it. Oft times the sweet and the bitter are closely intertwined. The question of where you draw the line on whether the risk or indeed certainty of pain is worth the good is an incredibly personal one. I choose to accept a certain amount of bitterness in my life because I feel that the good outweighs it, but that isn't a choice that you get to make for me.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVJyf5yKxuo

This is the best I can say about this in this forum.

[Donnadogsoth]

My grandmother probably isn't going to survive this entire year. She's 96 and not doing so well. Are you going to try and tell me that grieving and being unhappy with this situation is a bad thing? I believe that to not grieve here would be inhuman. Grief can be taken to extremes and take over a life but that doesn't mean that grief is always bad. Sometimes you need to work through the pain and that means letting yourself feel.

Meanwhile also don't try and tell me that I would be better off not caring at all for my grandmother. Because that's what it would take for me to go through this without it hurting. And then I would never have had the good moments either. This pain was all but inevitable with loving someone who's 96 years old, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth it. Oft times the sweet and the bitter are closely intertwined. The question of where you draw the line on whether the risk or indeed certainty of pain is worth the good is an incredibly personal one. I choose to accept a certain amount of bitterness in my life because I feel that the good outweighs it, but that isn't a choice that you get to make for me.

What you're talking about is not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that someone choosing to experience the bitterest of the bitter in life is simply uninformed or insane. "Taking the good with the bad" in regards to love and other domains is understandable, and psychically healthy, as it indicates that one is joyful and sad about things that one should be joyous and sad. In that sense we can't expect life to be the proverbial rose garden all the time. But to say that the bitterest of the bitter is something to seek out, is a good, as if it's a cup of coffee or a piece of chocolate for goodness' sake, is not correct, it's insane, and no one here, not you or anyone else here, would, if presented with a limited time offer of experiencing the bitterest of the bitter, take that offer. If it were truly a good, then one should seize the chance immediately, one should go out of one's way to find it, but, I can guarantee they won't, because people love their lives, and love other people, and don't want their lives torn apart for the sake of "becoming better people" or some tosh like that, much less because of the effects on the people who love them when they see their beloved relative, spouse, parent, or friend be torn apart.

[dps]

I think happiness is possible in life, and by happiness I don't mean grim duty or the mere absence of pain and anguish.

Most of the time, I'll settle for the mere absence of pain and anguish, plus a good computer game to play, or a good book to read.

Not big on grim duty, though.

[2D8HP]

Most of the time, I'll settle for the mere absence of pain and anguish, plus a good computer game to play, or a good book to read.

Not big on grim duty, though.


I'm not into computer games, but otherwise that sounds like a nice prescription.

[Crow]

As many people as choose to be happy, are happy.

[2D8HP]

As many people as choose to be happy, are happy.

And I choose to respind to that statement with an image of a http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/372/881/07e.gif
And as I watch my father descend into madness and death from a tumor, or remember the death of my first born son, I'll be sure to remember to "Choose to be happy". Oh wait....

....reality is totally a thing that supersedes "positive thinking".

Don't you dare brightside me

[Crow]

And I choose to respind to that statement with an image of a http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/372/881/07e.gif
And as I watch my father descend into madness and death from a tumor, or remember the death of my first born son, I'll be sure to remember to "Choose to be happy". Oh wait....

....reality is totally a thing that supersedes "positive thinking".

Don't you dare brightside me

It is what it is. There is always something sh*tty going on, or happening to us, or whatever.

It is easy to think that our pain is something special and profound, but it isn't; and happiness isn't the absence of pain anyways.

You don't have to like what is happening to you, but it is entirely up to you how you deal with it. You don't have to be in a bubbly, good mood to be happy. I, and the other happy people I know who are happy, have to deal with sh*tty things every day; but you try to focus on the good, and be grateful for the good, even if it is something small; and only fret about the things you can actually control.

I'm not trying to minimize anyone's pain and suffering; but do you think you're the only person to experience those things you listed? As you so deftly pointed out, those things are reality. Accept it and focus on the good in your life, which just so happens to also be a part of that reality, and be grateful for it, Mr. Whitetext.

[Liquor Box]

I don't know what proportion of people are happy, but I do think that people's happiness is influenced more by their disposition than their circumstances though. I think that some people look at what they don't have and are unhappy, but others look at what they do have and are happy. I also think a lot of people who are unhappy attribute far too much of their happiness to things that happen to them, rather than their own outlook.

[NovenFromTheSun]

It is what it is. There is always something sh*tty going on, or happening to us, or whatever.

It is easy to think that our pain is something special and profound, but it isn't;

And neither is happiness. What makes it so important that it's someone's duty to maintain happiness at all times?


I'm not trying to minimize anyone's pain and suffering; but do you think you're the only person to experience those things you listed?

I'm sure he doesn't, and it's not relevant anyway. It seems like the fact that it is common is more the reason to accept occasional misery as a part of life than to deny it.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

What proportion of people are happy?

If we use a 7/10 or better as happy, about 65% of people in Western Europe and North America (http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/03/HR17.pdf). For sub-Saharan Africa that's less than 20% and for the world maybe 30%, so there definitely is a circumstances component in there somewhere.

(Social sciences: for complete and well researched answers that never feel quite satisfactory.)

[Jormengand]

You don't have to like what is happening to you, but it is entirely up to you how you deal with it. You don't have to be in a bubbly, good mood to be happy. I, and the other happy people I know who are happy, have to deal with sh*tty things every day; but you try to focus on the good, and be grateful for the good, even if it is something small; and only fret about the things you can actually control.

Weirdly, not everyone can do that. It's why "Think positive!" never actually works for people who are depressed. If I could have willed it all away, I would have by now. If you can just choose what emotions to feel, grats on putting all those points in Autohypnosis. The rest of us will live with our unhappiness.

[2D8HP]

.



...outlook.


And I find such victim blamery deeply offensive.

Circumstances exist, not just attitudes.

[Zurvan]

This may be a good moment to take a look at two existential ideas, radical freedom and the absurdity of life.

According to Camus, life is absurd with have little to no control over it, the situations presented to us are going to happen no matter what and the only thing we can do is accept that fact and embrace it.

Radical freedom is the idea elaborated by Sartre that in the end we have total freedom of our choices. Think of a very sad and terrible thing to happen.

Sometimes that thing happens to a person, let's call him A, and a almost identical thing happen to another one, let's call her B, the form and the way A and B are going to deal with this situation may vary.

A may become sad and depressed while B may not, in the end we can't control what life give to us, since existence is absurd, but we can control how we react to that.

Let's say C is in the army and his superior gives him a gun a order him to shoot a seemingly innocent bystander, C may racionalize his actions by saying it's an order of his superior, he had to do it, there was no other way, he needed his job, he can't let his family down, but in the end the only person responsible for the trigger being pulled or not is C and no one else.

And that's what RADICAL freedom is all about kids.

http://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/candyland1.jpghttp://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/candyland2.jpg

[Liquor Box]

And I find such victim blamery deeply offensive.

Circumstances exist, not just attitudes.

I didn't mean to offend.

Circumstances do exist and do matter, I just think they are generally a smaller part of the equation than personal outlook. If tragedy strikes and a person is sad for a time, then that was probably largely caused by the circumstances, if a person is sad long-term although they may attribute it to a range of circumstances, I think it is probably more to do with outlook or pre-disposition.

[Crow]

And I find such victim blamery deeply offensive.


Why are you offended? Why does it bother you what some stranger is saying on the internet?

Because you allow it to. If your opinion is different than mine, you are free to dismiss it. The world is not going to end if you just think to yourself "Well this guy is an ***hole. F*ck him." ; And I'm not going to be bothered in the least if that is what you think.

Your offense at anything I say is worth absolutely nothing, and will only serve to bother *you*; but you have the power to change that, whenever you want.

And stop using spoilers (your spoiler tag in the last post was broken, by the way) and whitetext. If you have something to say, just say it. You clearly want to, or else you wouldn't be going through the hassle of typing it.

[Jormengand]

Why are you offended? Why does it bother you what some stranger is saying on the internet?

Because you allow it to. If your opinion is different than mine, you are free to dismiss it. The world is not going to end if you just think to yourself "Well this guy is an ***hole. F*ck him." ; And I'm not going to be bothered in the least if that is what you think.

Your offense at anything I say is worth absolutely nothing, and will only serve to bother *you*; but you have the power to change that, whenever you want.

People do not have absolute control over their emotions in the real world.

[Florian]

People do not have absolute control over their emotions in the real world.

So? Seems to be rather rare that "people" know the limits of their control and just accept that.

[Jormengand]

So?

So it's unreasonable to blame people for "Choosing" to react in a certain way.

[Donnadogsoth]

This may be a good moment to take a look at two existential ideas, radical freedom and the absurdity of life.

According to Camus, life is absurd with have little to no control over it, the situations presented to us are going to happen no matter what and the only thing we can do is accept that fact and embrace it.

Radical freedom is the idea elaborated by Sartre that in the end we have total freedom of our choices. Think of a very sad and terrible thing to happen.

Sometimes that thing happens to a person, let's call him A, and a almost identical thing happen to another one, let's call her B, the form and the way A and B are going to deal with this situation may vary.

A may become sad and depressed while B may not, in the end we can't control what life give to us, since existence is absurd, but we can control how we react to that.

Let's say C is in the army and his superior gives him a gun a order him to shoot a seemingly innocent bystander, C may racionalize his actions by saying it's an order of his superior, he had to do it, there was no other way, he needed his job, he can't let his family down, but in the end the only person responsible for the trigger being pulled or not is C and no one else.

And that's what RADICAL freedom is all about kids.

http://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/candyland1.jpghttp://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/candyland2.jpg

That cartoon is minorly amazing. But it gets worse: Candyland as I recall it, though I may have (embarrassingly) misread them, has no clear rules for ending, so the pieces just bounce, trying futilely to escape their deterministic prison.

The problem with radical freedom is that it doesn't account for the principle of sufficient reason, whereby we need reasons for doing what we do. Imagine a psychopathic murderer. He is perfectly aware of both that what he did was morally wrong and that he was radically free in so acting. But he lacked a reason to not kill, and therefore accusing him of radical freedom holds no weight. Radical freedom can only legitimately elicit the response of "so what?" as it changes nothing, not even to pin responsibility on a murderer.

[Recherché]

... Right, so I choose to have recurring issues with depression and then somehow the right meds make me choose to have depressive episodes a third as often. Apparently in your world I could just wish it all away instead and not deal with any of the side effects instead though. Hmmm why don't I do that then?

/sarcasm

[Amazon]

That cartoon is minorly amazing. But it gets worse: Candyland as I recall it, though I may have (embarrassingly) misread them, has no clear rules for ending, so the pieces just bounce, trying futilely to escape their deterministic prison.

The problem with radical freedom is that it doesn't account for the principle of sufficient reason, whereby we need reasons for doing what we do. Imagine a psychopathic murderer. He is perfectly aware of both that what he did was morally wrong and that he was radically free in so acting. But he lacked a reason to not kill, and therefore accusing him of radical freedom holds no weight. Radical freedom can only legitimately elicit the response of "so what?" as it changes nothing, not even to pin responsibility on a murderer.

I swear to the Goddess half of the time I don't even understand what you are saying; Am I the only one?

Anyway that's not how radical freedom works, radical freedom demands people to be free but also take full responsibility of their actions. There are rules and rituals created and validated by society that must be followed and respect, freedom doesn’t mean you are allowed to do anything, freedom means that the only person really responsible for your actions is you.

If you use your radical freedom to kill someone you are responsible for that and must suffer the consequences of such choice.

[2D8HP]

... . Apparently in your world I could just wish it all away instead and not deal with any of the side effects instead though


You can?

That sounds awesome, you could make big bank if you could teach that trick...


... Hmmm why don't I do that then?

/sarcasm


Oh right, sarcasm.


I swear to the Goddess half of the time I don't even understand what you are saying; Am I the only one?....


You're far from alone.

As to why I post if something offends me, it's so that others who feel and think the same way may know that they're not alone.

As to there being an "attitude change" that people may make for more happiness, I'm extremely doubtful of that, if that were the case I'd think Americans would be as happy as Canadians, I mean we do talk to each other.

Most "positive thinking" bromides and "motivational" claptrap seems to me to be snake oil, and I note that much of it is sold to people in "marketing" and "management", so shills shilling to shills (yes I have a very blue collar perspective, what matters is matter, including brain chemistry, not ephemeral "attitudes" that may be changed).

I think DonnaD labelled me a something or other materialist, which I'll cop to.

[Aliquid]

So? Seems to be rather rare that "people" know the limits of their control and just accept that.So... if someone is constantly anxious and can barely leave the house without having a panic attack... they should just accept that they have no control over it? If someone is clinically depressed and can't hold down a job because of their lack of motivation... they should just accept that they have no control over it?

There are things we can control and things we can't control. People who don't have any brain chemistry or neurological challenges are often far too smug. "I don't get depressed all the time, so you should be fine too, if you just tried"...

Some people who are depressed can
(A) get over it with positive thoughts and support from good friends and family, and
(B) Other people can only get better with medication.

One problem is when group (A) arrogantly tells group (B) that they can just get better with positive thoughts. Another problem is when drug pushing doctors try to dope up group (A) when they don't actually need it.

[2D8HP]

.....One problem is when group (A) arrogantly tells group (B) that they can just get better with positive thoughts. Another problem is when drug pushing doctors try to dope up group (A) when they don't actually need it.


A lot of healing and coming to terms with things just takes time, and when people do eventually get better it's ascribed to therapy or drugs, when it's actually just time, but not all the time.

What does seem to help the most is being in Scandinavia.

Pining for the fjords.

[Vinyadan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJUhlRoBL8M

[Florian]

So... if someone is constantly anxious and can barely leave the house without having a panic attack... they should just accept that they have no control over it? If someone is clinically depressed and can't hold down a job because of their lack of motivation... they should just accept that they have no control over it?

There are things we can control and things we can't control. People who don't have any brain chemistry or neurological challenges are often far too smug. "I don't get depressed all the time, so you should be fine too, if you just tried"...

Some people who are depressed can
(A) get over it with positive thoughts and support from good friends and family, and
(B) Other people can only get better with medication.

One problem is when group (A) arrogantly tells group (B) that they can just get better with positive thoughts. Another problem is when drug pushing doctors try to dope up group (A) when they don't actually need it.

You know the thing with Panodras Box and the last thing coming out of it being hope?

Life is a string of pain, hurt, suffering, agony, everyone we love will die, then we fall down and die, too.
All of this is pretty much inevitable, it´s just the way it is.

Problem is some cultures that are in total denial of that. Things like a "can do!" mentality tend to give people the impression that their hurts are unique and also that being hurt at all makes them a failure.
Both are wrong and pretty stupid notions, if you'd ask me.

I´d take a bet on the countries ranking high on the happiness report having developed cultures that seek to minimize outside influenced stress, depression and anxiety, coupled with being more empathic to actually share the pain and lighten the burden.

So it´s a good thing to accept being hurt or the possibility of being hurt, and it´s also a good thing for others to simply accept a hurt for what it is.

[Aliquid]

You know the thing with Panodras Box and the last thing coming out of it being hope?

Life is a string of pain, hurt, suffering, agony, everyone we love will die, then we fall down and die, too.
All of this is pretty much inevitable, it´s just the way it is.

Problem is some cultures that are in total denial of that. Things like a "can do!" mentality tend to give people the impression that their hurts are unique and also that being hurt at all makes them a failure.
Both are wrong and pretty stupid notions, if you'd ask me.

I´d take a bet on the countries ranking high on the happiness report having developed cultures that seek to minimize outside influenced stress, depression and anxiety, coupled with being more empathic to actually share the pain and lighten the burden.

So it´s a good thing to accept being hurt or the possibility of being hurt, and it´s also a good thing for others to simply accept a hurt for what it is.This is still making the false assumption that people are only depressed because of external circumstances.

Sure, if someone close to you dies, you should grieve. If your girlfriend dumps you and you get fired from your job, you should be depressed. This is normal, and a healthy response.

BUT some people are depressed when there are no external reasons. Some people are depressed because their brain isn't working properly. Their brain chemistry is messed up, or hormones are flowing that shouldn't be... etc. Their brain is lying to them and telling them to be depressed when there is actually no reason to be depressed. No amount of will power will make your brain suddenly start processing chemicals properly. Just like a blind person can't will themselves to see, or wait for things to 'get better' this person can't will themselves to be happy, or wait for things to get better.

You can't "accept a hurt for what it is", when there is no reason for the hurt other than a brain mis-firing.

[Donnadogsoth]

I swear to the Goddess half of the time I don't even understand what you are saying; Am I the only one?

Anyway that's not how radical freedom works, radical freedom demands people to be free but also take full responsibility of their actions. There are rules and rituals created and validated by society that must be followed and respect, freedom doesn’t mean you are allowed to do anything, freedom means that the only person really responsible for your actions is you.

If you use your radical freedom to kill someone you are responsible for that and must suffer the consequences of such choice.

Must you? What if our friendly neighbourhood psychopathic murderer is smart enough to get away with it?

The theory of radical freedom is a form of reductionism. All human decisions are reduced to the present instant, as if humans aren't motivated by things outside the instant and those motivations act as potent material causes (Aristotle) which weigh heavily in the mind. In the end, in some sense, the efficient cause of the mind, the freely willed cause, can make decisions, sometimes, when they're not being jerked by overwhelming floods of emotion, or physical reflexes (trained or otherwise), or simply a lack of a reason to care about being "good". Deny a person all reason to care about being good and they won't be good, no matter how much freedom you give them, no matter how long you run the experiment of their lives. So in that sense they are free only to be unfree in their freedom to act as they wish and in no other way.

[Amazon]

Must you?
Must you what?



What if our friendly neighbourhood psychopathic murderer is smart enough to get away with it?
What about it? What does that has to do with anything?



The theory of radical freedom is a form of reductionism. All human decisions are reduced to the present instant, as if humans aren't motivated by things outside the instant and those motivations act as potent material causes (Aristotle) which weigh heavily in the mind. In the end, in some sense, the efficient cause of the mind, the freely willed cause, can make decisions, sometimes, when they're not being jerked by overwhelming floods of emotion, or physical reflexes (trained or otherwise), or simply a lack of a reason to care about being "good". Deny a person all reason to care about being good and they won't be good, no matter how much freedom you give them, no matter how long you run the experiment of their lives. So in that sense they are free only to be unfree in their freedom to act as they wish and in no other way.

Well, what if there is no universal good?

Anyway, it's not about being good it's about being the only one respibsible for your actions dispite how absurd life is.

[Florian]

This is still making the false assumption that people are only depressed because of external circumstances.

You can't "accept a hurt for what it is", when there is no reason for the hurt other than a brain mis-firing.

Maybe you should reread my post?

I find it interesting that you bold "no reason" there, shows what cultures child you are.

[Aliquid]

Maybe you should reread my post?

I find it interesting that you bold "no reason" there, shows what cultures child you are.maybe you should reread mine.

I find it interesting that you either refuse to believe that someone could be constantly depressed due to a brain chemistry imbalance, or maybe you accept that, but you think they should just accept their lot in life and be constantly depressed.

Most people experience depression as a result of depressing things happening. Some people (a minority) experience depression because their brain is lying to them. Your utter lack of compassion for the second group is disturbing.

[S@tanicoaldo]

I find it interesting that you either refuse to believe that someone could be constantly depressed due to a brain chemistry imbalance, or maybe you accept that, but you think they should just accept their lot in life(...)

I'm sorry I'm not very experienced with depression, but I do have a father going thought severe dementia and a mother with what seems to have schizoaffective disorder so I have to ask...

Isn't accepting that you have a problem a good thing? I know it was the hardest part of the treatment for my mother and after she was able to admit to herself she had a mental problem and that there was no shame in that she was able to start to get better.

So, I'm sorry but I don't really get you point. :smallconfused:

[AMFV]

As far as the "change your thinking" thing. It's worth noting that it's the basis for most cognitive therapy. The main thing is that "change your thinking" is super challenging and not very easy.

[Aliquid]

I'm sorry I'm not very experienced with depression, but I do have a father going thought severe dementia and a mother with what seems to have schizoaffective disorder so I have to ask...

Isn't accepting that you have a problem a good thing? I know it was the hardest part of the treatment for my mother and after she was able to admit to herself she had a mental problem and that there was no shame in that she was able to start to get better.

So, I'm sorry but I don't really get you point. :smallconfused:Fair enough point. Yes, accepting you have a problem is the healthy thing to do. And in fact, I am saying the same thing (in a round about way). If you are clinically depressed (i.e. a mental illness), it is good to accept that, and not pretend that you just have "regular depression because of life events". It is also very important for your friends and family to accept the fact that you have a mental illness and support you accordingly.

People insisting that you can get over all depression by thinking happy thoughts, and having a proper support network.... well those people cause the shame you speak of. They make a person who is suffering from clinical depression feel like they are a failure for not "just getting over it". They make that person feel like it is their fault.

If someone is clinically depressed, there are medications that can help. Telling that person "you don't need medications, you just need to go for a jog along a forest trail and relax"... well that doesn't help. Making a person feel shame for using medications doesn't help.


And I will stress again that the opposite happens too (probably more often). i.e. doctors prescribing antidepressants to someone who doesn't really need them.

[2D8HP]

.....
People insisting that you can get over all depression by......


The example that keeps leaping to my mind (besides the inmates at work, it's well known that imprisonment often results in depression), is of a Playgrounder who has kept posting about how therapy hasn't been helpful, and in reading her posts it is obvious that her stress is caused by her simply having too little money (poverty also is well known to cause depression), and because of that, therapy is likely hurtful for her because of its cost (in time if she is somehow getting treated for free).

Really the whole "People just need to have better attitudes" mindset reminds me of...long diatribe that probably gets too close to advocating a political viewpoint].

[Florian]

I find it interesting that you either refuse to believe that someone could be constantly depressed due to a brain chemistry imbalance, or maybe you accept that, but you think they should just accept their lot in life and be constantly depressed.

To be concrete, I don't hold on to the believe that humans are equal and that there's a set of standard behavior or expected contribution to society, like being able to hold a job, or nonsense like constantly trying to better yourself and such.

That said, I don't expect people with a serious mental or physical condition to perform anywhere near the level that someone without that condition would, they simply can´t and I don't blame them for it.
I´m also a strong proponent of free universal healthcare and see it as a tragedy that we force those with a condition that actually want to participate in society to pay for that, while it´s actually us that should look to include and support any member of our society, beginning with the weakest.

But that also includes being realistic about it, on both sides of the fence. Someone with a clinical depression, form of dementia or whatever, starts at a disadvantage that maybe will never go away. There's no shame in admitting that and it would work well to reduce the stress and added burden that those afflicted feel for wanting to be just normal, accepting that they are normal within their parameters. Instead, high praise should go towards those that manage to overcome their affliction, instead treating that as normal and the others as losers of some kind.

[Lord Joeltion]

I agree with AMFV, the worst of the "positive thinking" kind of people, is that they foolishly assume it's oh-so-easy. And that anyone can do it. No, it's not for everybody, and it takes a lot of introspection and reshaping of the way you experience your world. If it's so hard for people with a certain amount of mental stability, I can't fathom how hard it would be for somebody who is already depressed. It's absurd, and I blame the New Age for it! Ok, not really, but still.


Fair enough point. Yes, accepting you have a problem is the healthy thing to do. And in fact, I am saying the same thing (in a round about way). If you are clinically depressed (i.e. a mental illness), it is good to accept that, and not pretend that you just have "regular depression because of life events". It is also very important for your friends and family to accept the fact that you have a mental illness and support you accordingly.

People insisting that you can get over all depression by thinking happy thoughts, and having a proper support network.... well those people cause the shame you speak of. They make a person who is suffering from clinical depression feel like they are a failure for not "just getting over it". They make that person feel like it is their fault.

If someone is clinically depressed, there are medications that can help. Telling that person "you don't need medications, you just need to go for a jog along a forest trail and relax"... well that doesn't help. Making a person feel shame for using medications doesn't help.


And I will stress again that the opposite happens too (probably more often). i.e. doctors prescribing antidepressants to someone who doesn't really need them.

I see your point and I agree with your point, but I think you still missed one fact: it doesn't have to be one or the other. Pills alone won't do crap if the patient insists on not changing certain behavioural pattern(s). This applies to most mental conditions I know of. I know one people or two who need to constantly live with antidepressants (among other things) and they still need to keep a more healthy life than me*, otherwise they still risk falling again in the loophole that springs their condition back to life (read as: stop the medication, or worse).

And it's not like they actually want to stop taking the meds because they are so rebel, or because of their particular illness (they are not psychotic or delusional). It's because even when medication helps, they still are below average on certain aspects (they get very upset for the most absurd things, like breaking a diet or missing a work's day). So, support always helps. Always. For both groups. I don't know why you took Florian's post so badly. It just says that a supporting society is more helpful than a "You can do it, you can win!" kind of mentality. Which is ultimately true.

I don't think you are in disagreement really, because a more supporting environment always helps. It is always the key (or one of them). Sure, a certain group of people also need pharmaceutical aid. Some of those, will be dependant for the rest of their lives. But they still need to avoid the stress like any other mortal. Meds won't turn anyone into a Uberschmen. Sadly

*I'm not a paragon of health, but I think I'm pretty much average on that aspect.

[Aliquid]

To be concrete, I don't hold on to the believe that humans are equal and that there's a set of standard behavior or expected contribution to society, like being able to hold a job, or nonsense like constantly trying to better yourself and such.

That said, I don't expect people with a serious mental or physical condition to perform anywhere near the level that someone without that condition would, they simply can´t and I don't blame them for it.
I´m also a strong proponent of free universal healthcare and see it as a tragedy that we force those with a condition that actually want to participate in society to pay for that, while it´s actually us that should look to include and support any member of our society, beginning with the weakest.

But that also includes being realistic about it, on both sides of the fence. Someone with a clinical depression, form of dementia or whatever, starts at a disadvantage that maybe will never go away. There's no shame in admitting that and it would work well to reduce the stress and added burden that those afflicted feel for wanting to be just normal, accepting that they are normal within their parameters. Instead, high praise should go towards those that manage to overcome their affliction, instead treating that as normal and the others as losers of some kind.I agree with everything you say. I live somewhere with universal health care, and there is publicly funded support for people with chronic depression (even tax credits). There is no shame in talking openly about any mental health issues... society is far too hush-hush about such things, and that only makes it worse.




I agree with AMFV, the worst of the "positive thinking" kind of people, is that they foolishly assume it's oh-so-easy. And that anyone can do it. No, it's not for everybody, and it takes a lot of introspection and reshaping of the way you experience your world. If it's so hard for people with a certain amount of mental stability, I can't fathom how hard it would be for somebody who is already depressed. It's absurd, and I blame the New Age for it! Ok, not really, but still.



I see your point and I agree with your point, but I think you still missed one fact: it doesn't have to be one or the other. Pills alone won't do crap if the patient insists on not changing certain behavioural pattern(s). This applies to most mental conditions I know of. I know one people or two who need to constantly live with antidepressants (among other things) and they still need to keep a more healthy life than me*, otherwise they still risk falling again in the loophole that springs their condition back to life (read as: stop the medication, or worse).

And it's not like they actually want to stop taking the meds because they are so rebel, or because of their particular illness (they are not psychotic or delusional). It's because even when medication helps, they still are below average on certain aspects (they get very upset for the most absurd things, like breaking a diet or missing a work's day). So, support always helps. Always. For both groups. I don't know why you took Florian's post so badly. It just says that a supporting society is more helpful than a "You can do it, you can win!" kind of mentality. Which is ultimately true.

I don't think you are in disagreement really, because a more supporting environment always helps. It is always the key (or one of them). Sure, a certain group of people also need pharmaceutical aid. Some of those, will be dependant for the rest of their lives. But they still need to avoid the stress like any other mortal. Meds won't turn anyone into a Uberschmen. Sadly
I'm sorry if it sounded like I was suggesting that "drugs alone" can solve the problem. That wasn't my intent. Pharmaceuticals and depression are a messy combination. Getting the right drug and the right dosage is a huge challenge and requires lots of back and forth... a lot of which doesn't happen if the depressed person doesn't have a good friend or family member acting as an advocate on their behalf. Furthermore, yes the depressed person needs lots of other support to be healthy and remain healthy.

My intent was to dispel the myth that everyone can get better without drugs. Florian's post seemed to be saying that (since it was in response to my post). But I quite easily could have jumped to conclusions.

[Florian]

My intent was to dispel the myth that everyone can get better without drugs. Florian's post seemed to be saying that (since it was in response to my post). But I quite easily could have jumped to conclusions.

Apparently. There is a power to positive thinking and a change in attitude, that can generate some energy you'd otherwise not have - or more precisely, didn't think you'd have. Hope is a quite powerful emotion and it can help feeling happy at moments despite your current suffering, which can help move you forwards.

Meds (and intensive therapy) are necessary to stabilize and maybe lift the patient to a certain emotional and cognitive level and keep him/her/they stable at that, but it can´t progress beyond that. Beyond that point, we're talking about "cognitive therapy" and/or a form of developed gnosis. These, again, work well with an marked positive attitude (developing) and can lead to more positive results for the patient.