The route to Happiness.

[kyser_soze]

No.

But what's that got to do with anything i said?

You said 'don't obey'. Well, killing someone is disobeying a pretty standard stricture of most societies outside of warfare or socially acceptable killing (e.g. euthanasia or execution). It's also pretty non-conformist as well.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I gave Happiness a capital 'H' there, did you see? I've been reading too many self-help books.

Listen, right, we've had a to-do tonight regarding the whole 'meaning of life' thang - and I was wondering how many people would agree with me, in a bid to bolster my lowly ego and make me feel better.

So, here are the two choices: Wookey (in the Red Corner) believes that true Happiness (capitalised) comes from within, that is to say that external riches, and externalised satisfaction, is not the route to Happiness. Rather, finding joy in small things is the way to realise the self. Instead of desensitising ourselves to beauty with ever more elaborate and expensive baubles, we should find beauty, resolution, peace and Happiness in the tiny indications of life, such as a rainstorm, a laugh, or a perfect sunflower. When we can realise our own individual, infinitesimal minuteness, the speck of dust we represent on the mantlepiece of time, then finding joy in the minute (in both prununciations), and living each second without the encumbrance of bank accounts and mortgages and careers and ambitions is the way to find an honest relationship with this bizarre, random, joyous but short-lived thing we call 'life'.

In the Blue Corner, we have Mr Stibs, who (if I can paraphrase his bruising rhetoric) believes that it is a Darwinian truth that acquisition of property, riches, success and 'belongings' are the true route to Happiness, because these will most likely result in the ultimate goal of the desemination of ones genes. Mmm.

The instigator for this debate was Gok Wan's 'How to Look Gook Naked' - so never let it be said that cheap telly can't be thought provoking....

When watching the (admirable) Mr Wan tell his ladies that 'You don't need plastic surgery to be happy and content with yourselves, you just need a hair-do, make-over, new wardrobe and ego-massaging Gay best Friend, and you'll be fine....' when I (in the Red Corner you'll remember) said that it would be much more impressive if Mr Wan could get the ladies sitting their in their worst knickers, hair bedraggled, smelling of yesterday's socks, and still feel great about themselves.

A hair-do, new wardrobe and make-over is again relying on outside elements to provide Happiness (outside opinions, the image we portray) which is not, and can never be, a permanant and lasting solution....we all age.

Mr Stibs, meanwhile, says that looking good, and attracting a mate, is the Darwinian imperitive. We are bound to feel better when we are more attractive, and we are more attractive the better we look, and the more things we own...

I can't get through to him the way in which we need to supercede the ego to find Happiness, and reduce the demands we make on our lives to more manageable (and enjoyable) proportions. He insists that ego and social positioning and riches are Darwinian measures of 'success' - whereas I see 'success' as coming from a completely different place - the ability to need nothing.

So, in this contrived boxing match of philosophies sparked by an episode of a weekday evening lifestyle show, what say you?

Who is on the right route to Happiness - Red, Blue, or are we both marooned?

IMO if you're talking about personal "happiness" then the formula is bound to be as variable as people are, from red to blue, and encompassing the rainbow between the two.
I do personally find the blue argument to be constructed around the "surface" of life (fulfillment of personal imperatives, self-gratification, consumption), rather than around the foundations of it (balance and "inner harmony" [hippy dippy, I know!), self-respect, rootedness), but I know as many people who find "happiness" (to varying degrees) via the blue corner as do via the red corner.
Perhaps the difference between your views is a function of differing formative experiences?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Work hard and obey the law rather than pursue an egocentric quest for satisfaction.

There's nothing wrong with work (hard or otherwise), but blind obedience to the law is the path of the fool. In a democracy it's your place, in fact your duty, to question.

 

[weltweit]

I think Happiness is elusive for those that seek it directly.

Some, a few people, have become achievement orientated (or goal orientated) and for them happiness comes when they achieve a goal, they do not permit themselves to be happy until they have achieved the goal and there are always more goals so the moment of bliss is short lived as another goal is there on the horison for them to work towards.

I am not sure these people are converts to the consumer culture, personally some of my happiest years were when I was living in conditions I would today describe as squalid.

Anyhow for goal oriented people life seems like a complex project with numerous steps to walk through before arriving at the goal at which point they can feel happy.

These long projects however can be divided down into myriad small steps, and when each of the myriad small independent and dependent steps can be viewed as a small achievement it is possible to be goal oriented and happy while you are working towards a new goal.

When taking the small steps of life brings some happiness in itself then I think it is possible to be in sync with modern life but also to have a balance between goals and happiness.

I would side more towards your view of happiness Wookey but that does not mean to say that your much more consuming opponent cannot feel happy in their way of life.

 

[Diamond Dog]

Conformism as happiness?? I vehemently disagree!

My mum keeps telling me that and I hit the roof, every time, without fail!

That's determinism and in it there's no space for freedom, since desire is fettered, strictly rooted in that which merely is.

How come we have come so far? Before us they managed to want/desire something New and now we are forbidden from doing the same thing? I don't think anyone can claim such a thing with a straight face, although some bourgeois "thinkers" do claim exactly that!

Well, they wish we do not wish!

I don't think my point come across very well in my post. I'm advocating a happiness where one is at peace with themselves, with their own inner 'demons' and strivings. This does not necessarily exclude one from being dissatisfied with the world around them, and wanting to change it. Someone can want to change the world and still be at peace with themselves, just as someone who is satisfied with the sociopolitical status quo may not necessarily be 'happy', in my sense.

The anger, pathos and indignation that fuels the desire to transcend and transform the suffering of others is still compatible with the cessation of one's personal anguish and the desire to change who one is. I am drawing a distinction between dissatisfaction with the world around you and an 'inner', more personal dissatisfaction with the Self. Perhaps you will reply that people should not be happy with their Self if that self is selfish or domineering; but I say that s/he is not a happy person.

Perhaps, as Fromm suggested, one needs to know how to be at peace with and love oneself before they can properly love humanity, as loving oneself is to love humanity, as you love the humanity within you. And that, perhaps, is the best mindset from which to engage in sociopolitical change.

 

[Diamond Dog]

To illustrate by example, I know a lot of angry, dissatisfied people that want to change the world and fight its injustices, but from knowing them personally, I can tell it stems more from an inner desire to 'prove themselves', to transcend or make up for something they unconsciously perceive to be lacking within themselves. If these unhappy people take control of sociopolitical change, the result may be better than the previous setup, but it would not be ideal, and perhaps a little dangerous.

I would much prefer change to come about by people who are at peace with themselves, for I believe they have a greater understanding of what will make all humanity happy.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yeah, the point of the Buddha story is that the Middle Way -- between riches and mortification -- is the right path.

Right: enlightenment doesn't require destitution.

 

[gorski]

Am I getting this right, DD?

Why would anyone want to prescribe or proscribe a range of Human emotions - I never understood.... Angry is Human, too. Sometimes very necessary! Other emotions, too!

Why would contentment/"be at peace with oneself" [regardless of who one is?] be an imperative? How much really worthy stuff came out of not feeling contented? Or being angry?

Not having or at least not showing them would be.... dunno - English?

Nothing great ever comes without great passion, said Hegel!

And I passionately want to keep "becoming"!

That means change!

Hmmm...

 

[Diamond Dog]

Why would anyone want to prescribe or proscribe a range of Human emotions - I never understood.... Angry is Human, too. Sometimes very necessary! Other emotions, too!

Why would contentment/"be at peace with oneself" [regardless of who one is?] be an imperative? How much really worthy stuff came out of not feeling contented? Or being angry?

Read my post again:

The anger, pathos and indignation that fuels the desire to transcend and transform the suffering of others is still compatible with the cessation of one's personal anguish and the desire to change who one is.

Nothing great ever comes without great passion, said Hegel!

See above.

And I passionately want to keep "becoming"!

That means change!

Indeed it does, Gorski. You will become-yourself when you are happy with yourself. Then perhaps you will not feel the need to do nothing but attack people's views, or make quasi-racist generalisations.

But perhaps this is not an 'imperative' for you.


Peace

 

[weltweit]

The thing about the posessions route to happiness is that .. well this quote from Winston Churchill sums it up for me:

- We mould our dwellings and then our dwellings mould us -

What happens if you amass vast posessions is that they can start to posess you.

I know an elderly man who lives in a large house with lovelly antique furniture and paintings on the walls. His insurance company requires that he shutter every window every evening and fit a complicated burglar alarm which again he has to have on every night. He is in his mid 80s yet every day he goes through this arduous rigmarole and each night he turns his house into a locked barred bolted shuttered and alarmed prison that he is stuck right in the middle of.

He is literally locked in by his posessions, held prisoner in his own home.

I do plan to avoid that fate.

 

[Wookey]

The thing about the posessions route to happiness is that .. well this quote from Winston Churchill sums it up for me:

- We mould our dwellings and then our dwellings mould us -

What happens if you amass vast posessions is that they can start to posess you.

I know an elderly man who lives in a large house with lovelly antique furniture and paintings on the walls. His insurance company requires that he shutter every window every evening and fit a complicated burglar alarm which again he has to have on every night. He is in his mid 80s yet every day he goes through this arduous rigmarole and each night he turns his house into a locked barred bolted shuttered and alarmed prison that he is stuck right in the middle of.

He is literally locked in by his posessions, held prisoner in his own home.

I do plan to avoid that fate.

What a cracking illustration!

 

[fela fan]

You said 'don't obey'. Well, killing someone is disobeying a pretty standard stricture of most societies outside of warfare or socially acceptable killing (e.g. euthanasia or execution). It's also pretty non-conformist as well.

Well, let me spell it out in longer sentences instead for the hard of understanding:

Don't obey authority if that authority is impinging on your human rights, on your sense of justice, on your right to live a free life in this world while you negotiate your very own dot of time on this planet.

If on the other hand authority has come up with a sensible rule or law, then by all means accept it. Just don't blindly accept or obey the arbiters and self-appointed rulers of our societies.

And finally, not obeying is actually non-action. Killing is action.

Being freed from the need to obey authority just because it is authority brings a great sense of freedom, and this concept is just but one step from the state of happiness.

 

[fela fan]

- The whole notion of ‘the self’ and ‘happiness’ are products of the modern world, they are not ahistoical and have a development we can trace.

- The relentless pursuit of happiness and the expectation to be happy rarely produces this state. The demand we place on ourselves to be happy is stifling. The question is therefore, as Zizek puts it, how do we overcome this injunction to enjoy?

I think you'll have an impossible job proving that happiness is only of the modern world.

Agreed on the second bit. Anybody pursuing happiness, especially in a relentless manner, quite obviously hasn't got it yet or they'd not be looking for it. And in any case, often in life the very things we want actually occur once we stop striving for them. The trying blocks the outcome we desire. And so the harder we try, the harder it is.

Let it all be...

 

[gorski]

Indeed it does, Gorski. You will become-yourself when you are happy with yourself. Then perhaps you will not feel the need to do nothing but attack people's views, or make quasi-racist generalisations.

But perhaps this is not an 'imperative' for you.

Peace

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough:

Firstly, I started with "Am I reading this right?" question!

That is because it seems to me that there is a somewhat dual approach to the question in your post, to my mind.

When you seem to be saying

a) that it's good and necessary to "desire to transcend and transform the suffering of others" [great, good, seconded!]

but that

b) somehow it is necessary/desirable to aspire to do away with "the desire to change who one is" [which I might have a problem with and hence I asked about it first].

So, I asked you to clarify, because I wanted to understand correctly and not jump to conclusions. I even gave account of the basis of my difficulties with your post. Namely, the Hegelian notion of "becoming". That seems a rational approach to one's post and trying to clear up possible misunderstandings.

On the other hand, a lighthearted tease [re. the English bit] seems to be fueling your need to quickly generalise regarding my behaviour! What I do sometimes and in a specific manner does not mean that I do it all the time and in an unqualified manner. Especially if I do not provoke it, but some rather weak, touchy, princely and petulant spirits start with personal shite first, after jumping to conclusions way too quickly... "All of a sudden" they are wondering why am I attacking "others", having conveniently forgotten they started it. Swell...

Then, "quasi-racist" is a charge which is precisely what you seem to be inputting to me: a charge which isn't one. It is but it isn't. It may be but it may well not be. Hmmm...

Imperative that should only be an imperative for me? How about you? Why do you need to do this sort of stuff, i.e. quickly generalise, judge and attack, without asking questions first, rather than try to clear up possible misunderstandings, ask questions and then make your mind up? To me that would be a healthier option, for rational Men. Am I wrong?

Especially if you end your post with "peace"! Because, a post like yours seems to be seeking/provoking conflict where there may be none, at least potentially. Or have you already decided about the definitive incompatibility of our positions and then decided to attack because there will be no movement on both our parts or at least with a party to this?

Peace?

 

[fela fan]

Ahhh! Happiness is a state of being that allows its practitioner to accept (often sharply) differeing views (to one's own) without recourse to verbal violence...

 

[mentalchik]

I think happiness is a bit like trying to grip the soap.........




contentment and a bit of peace of mind....that's what i'd go for !

 

[goldenecitrone]

I think happiness is a bit like trying to grip the soap.........
contentment and a bit of peace of mind....that's what i'd go for !

I agree. Happiness is elusive, but important to appreciate when it fleetingly lands in your lap. Being content with what you are is the key. Happiness is a bonus when it comes, but impossible to hold onto for long periods of time.

 

[fela fan]

I agree. Happiness is elusive, but important to appreciate when it fleetingly lands in your lap. Being content with what you are is the key. Happiness is a bonus when it comes, but impossible to hold onto for long periods of time.

I feel like i can agree with all of that to varying degrees, yet also disagree with some of it. Cannot disagree with the contentment bit.

I don't get though where this elusive bit comes in. I hear quite a bit of that from people. I've also often heard that it is a bonus. But bonuses by their nature come and go, and i believe that happiness is a state, not a reaction to any particular external event, which is where enjoyment comes from.

It may be impossible to hold onto to it because it cannot be held onto. It comes from within. Water comes from a tap, you cannot hold onto the water, either the tap releases it or it does not.

I think there are people who do get fleeting moments of happiness based within their state of non-happiness, and there are also people who get fleeting moments of non-happiness within their state of happiness. I think people carry varying degrees of happiness as their default.

I know i spent about six or seven years of unadalterated and uninterrupted happiness where, being british, i was so conditioned to think this absolutely against the norm i kept on wondering when it was going to end.

Of course this state went as suddenly as it came. But since then i've concentrated on contentment, which to me is the key, because it means an absence of negativity, or rather, not attaching myself emotionally to negativity outside of me.

 

[fela fan]

I think happiness is a bit like trying to grip the soap.........




contentment and a bit of peace of mind....that's what i'd go for !

But really... is not contentment and peace of mind a very good description of happiness?!

And if you were to change to liquid soap...

 

[goldenecitrone]

Of course this state went as suddenly as it came. But since then i've concentrated on contentment, which to me is the key, because it means an absence of negativity, or rather, not attaching myself emotionally to negativity outside of me.

I think it's elusive in as much as you can look for it in certain places and not find it at all, then suddenly, out of the blue, it creeps up on you. I always remember one morning when I lived in Germany I was on the early morning tram to work listening to a couple of old women nattering in German and I understood it all and the sun was just rising over the river and I just felt absurdly happy for the next few minutes.

And yes, getting rid of negative thinking is also important. I'm glad I'm not in my twenties full of Weltschmerz anymore. Not taking most stuff too seriously helps.

 

[kyser_soze]

Don't obey authority if that authority is impinging on your human rights, on your sense of justice, on your right to live a free life in this world while you negotiate your very own dot of time on this planet.

If on the other hand authority has come up with a sensible rule or law, then by all means accept it. Just don't blindly accept or obey the arbiters and self-appointed rulers of our societies.

But what about when that society's law fails or contradicts my sense of justice? Is you non-action proscription going to help then? What if my sense of what my rights are are in conflict with authority - for example, smoking weed? Many would argue that prohibition of drugs is a sensible rule, many would argue that it isn't. But not obeying that rule would mean actually doing something...indeed, not obeying many things that impinge on one's sense of justice would involve action...

 

[gorski]

Happiness without freedom is not happiness at all...

Yep, Bloch's book "Natural Right and Human Dignity" is arguably the best ground for questioning that principle.

Customs might be against Human Dignity etc. General mores sometimes must be challenged!

Even Positive Laws can be unjust and must be opposed.

That is our innermost core!

Freedom!

 

[kyser_soze]

No Gorsk, that's your innermost core, not everyone's...for some people, conformity and negligible responsibility is freedom, not your form of self-actualising freedom which brings with it the same kinds of or pleasure and pain as williingly seeking new knowledge all the time does...

 

[gorski]

Indeed, not everyone gets there. But it is their potential as well.

 

[kyser_soze]

Personally I'll take the pain and the pleasure and the consequences that come with it...

 

[fela fan]

I think it's elusive in as much as you can look for it in certain places and not find it at all, then suddenly, out of the blue, it creeps up on you. I always remember one morning when I lived in Germany I was on the early morning tram to work listening to a couple of old women nattering in German and I understood it all and the sun was just rising over the river and I just felt absurdly happy for the next few minutes.

And yes, getting rid of negative thinking is also important. I'm glad I'm not in my twenties full of Weltschmerz anymore. Not taking most stuff too seriously helps.

But that's what i was thinking, it will remain elusive while looking for it. The action of looking for it blocks the desired fruits of the action.

I do hope that wasn't the last time you felt absurdly happy! But i think it well worth using this example to illustrate the conditions that led to your feelings of happiness.

i) you were slowed down in time, in passive mode (ie not actively doing something). Perhaps i should say you were in the moment, in the now.

ii) you were alone, yourself, not living up to society's impositions.

iii) nature made itself into your consciousness: the sun, the river.

iv) you achieved a small victory for yourself, understanding your second language.

I feel strongly that by understanding the conditions that underlie happiness, we will act our lives accordingly, and then happiness will cease to be elusive, and will become a much more frequent acquaintance in our lives.

And your final comment: as far as i can make a call on it, i find thais in general a much happier people than my own fellow british citizens. And i'm certain it's because they adopt a far less serious approach to life, allied to far lower personal expectations. It's a generalisation i know, but i've spent 16 years observing and thinking about it.

 

[fela fan]

But what about when that society's law fails or contradicts my sense of justice? Is you non-action proscription going to help then? What if my sense of what my rights are are in conflict with authority - for example, smoking weed? Many would argue that prohibition of drugs is a sensible rule, many would argue that it isn't. But not obeying that rule would mean actually doing something...indeed, not obeying many things that impinge on one's sense of justice would involve action...

Well fair enough then. Action or non-action, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that wherever possible i refuse to let other people - directly or by way of some kind of rule or law - impose themselves and their views on me against my wishes or will. The only proviso i put upon myself when finding the need to disobey is that my action does not itself impose on others.

We really are tiny insignificant dots on the landscape of time and no-one has any right whatsoever to impinge on other people. It happens all over place, but it is only done by people who have not found happiness.

I feel that recognising this is also a pre-condition that helps lead to a general sense of happiness in one's life as a default rather than a bonus.

 

[fela fan]

Freedom!

Freedom is indeed a necessity for those who wish to have happiness. And let's remember that real freedom can be felt by someone imprisoned, yet may remain elusive to the screw...

And from what i've observed in life, in three different countries, is that once a person gets married, they have given themselves a huge chance of entering a life of very restricted freedom. And therefore happiness will indeed remain elusive.

My aunt, after my uncle died (and outwardly at least they seemed a happy couple) told me on a visit back to england that she had spent her whole life thinking that happiness was a bonus. This was a couple of years after his death, and she had joined this club and that club, got into walking, widened her social circle and so on. She said that happiness was now an almost constant companion...

Freedom to be yourself is vital if we are to make the most of our miraculous entry into this life. And as my aunt showed, it is never too late...!