aleles Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 I'd like to start a new topic even though I found one with the wrong order of the three words that I think matters because of the meaning of the equal sign here. http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/33098-reason-happiness-virtue/?hl=%2Breason+%2Bvirtue+%2Bhappiness I think I heard in one podcast Stef saying a different version "Reason + Virtue = Happiness", but I can't find it. How do you understand this? Reason leads to virtue which leads to happiness. Is this a more accurate version? Is it possible to use reason for vice? What are the definitions of reason, virtue or happiness? Is it possible to prove any part of this statement? Here are my thoughts on why reason (or truth) is at least necessary (may be not sufficient) for happiness. A person who has a valid theory describing the surrounding physical reality is happier than the person who doesn't have such theory or has an invalid theory. The reason for this is that if your theory is invalid (or you don't have one) then your expectations on how the reality behaves are inaccurate. You don't know what to expect or the reality regularly produces not what you expect. Uncertainty could be dangerous and also leads to frustration making you less happy. For example, people not knowing the theory of weather may pray and offer sacrifices and still have gods sending them bad weather. People having an invalid theory of government may often get upset about the political process and poor economic outcomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 Yes, it's meant as a progression from reason to virtue to happiness. It's from Nietzsche who was talking about Socrates. FDR1397 Happiness Part 1 FDR1398 Happiness Part 2 And also in this listener questions podcast starting around the 3min mark: FDR2460 Should Hitler Have Been Punished? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emman Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 Reason leads to virtue which leads to happiness. Is this a more accurate version? It is an equal sign, not an "impliy" symbol. Equal signs are for numbers, not for logic, but I suppose what they mean is to make an equivalence, which goes also in the opposite direction from happiness to reason. This is how I understand it. If you are happy, you also must be virtuous and rational. Is it possible to use reason for vice? No, because vice is (would be) the opposite of virtue by definition. What are the definitions of reason, virtue or happiness? Virtue is the only one that needs definition for most people; everybody understands what reason and happiness is. Virtue is integrity with oneself. You can only achieve that through reason, and happiness is what results from that. Children are born virtuous. The best example of a virtuous, rational and happy person is a (small) child. Is it possible to prove any part of this statement? What do you mean to prove, a definition? Here are my thoughts on why reason (or truth) is at least necessary (may be not sufficient) for happiness. A person who has a valid theory describing the surrounding physical reality is happier than the person who doesn't have such theory or has an invalid theory. The reason for this is that if your theory is invalid (or you don't have one) then your expectations on how the reality behaves are inaccurate. You don't know what to expect or the reality regularly produces not what you expect. Uncertainty could be dangerous and also leads to frustration making you less happy. For example, people not knowing the theory of weather may pray and offer sacrifices and still have gods sending them bad weather. People having an invalid theory of government may often get upset about the political process and poor economic outcomes. I think this is brilliant. Of course, you cannot be happy if you are irrational and wrong. Still, if you redefine "happiness" as "that which you get from drugs, then the statement would go: non-reason = drugs = happiness and so we have "disproven" the original statement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanielB Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 A person who has a valid theory describing the surrounding physical reality is happier than the person who doesn't have such theory or has an invalid theory. The reason for this is that if your theory is invalid (or you don't have one) then your expectations on how the reality behaves are inaccurate. You don't know what to expect or the reality regularly produces not what you expect. Uncertainty could be dangerous and also leads to frustration making you less happy. This may be true for you but it is not true for everyone. It is perfectly possible to be completely happy and at ease with total uncertainty in life. In fact, I think that as long as there is NO theory which allows you a total and perfect grasp on reality, you face the same uncertainty, which is in fact only aggravated by the fact that you now believe that you know how life and the universe work. You will be faced with what amounts to cognitive dissonance, because your beliefs do not align with reality (again, as long as the 'valid theory describing the surrounding physical reality' is not complete, which I think will never happen). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aleles Posted May 9, 2014 Author Share Posted May 9, 2014 Yes, it's meant as a progression from reason to virtue to happiness. It's from Nietzsche who was talking about Socrates. FDR1397 Happiness Part 1 FDR1398 Happiness Part 2 And also in this listener questions podcast starting around the 3min mark: FDR2460 Should Hitler Have Been Punished? Thanks Kevin. Can you please post more info about Neitzsche talking about Socrates?Stef introduces this theory in the two podcasts on Happiness, however I am looking for a more formal reasoning.For example, if someone defines happiness as having a house, a family and having a good time with their friends without thinking about philosophy, governments etc. This eliminates them from appealing to much reason and virtue and still be happy. How can we prove that happiness just like health is not subjective? Can we refer to psychology to measure some objective characteristics to determine the level of happiness just like we can do with health? No, because vice is (would be) the opposite of virtue by definition. If I want to rob a bank, I can use use reason to prepare a sophisticated plan. Then I can use reason for vice, right? This may be true for you but it is not true for everyone. It is perfectly possible to be completely happy and at ease with total uncertainty in life. In fact, I think that as long as there is NO theory which allows you a total and perfect grasp on reality, you face the same uncertainty, which is in fact only aggravated by the fact that you now believe that you know how life and the universe work. You will be faced with what amounts to cognitive dissonance, because your beliefs do not align with reality (again, as long as the 'valid theory describing the surrounding physical reality' is not complete, which I think will never happen). I don't think you can by completely happy with total uncertainty. This is the reason why kids learn the physical reality with an amazing speed. Imagine a universe that is not consistent which is "total uncertainty", your monitor randomly turns into a monkey that punches you in the face. When we are a few years old we already have a very good theory describing the behavior of the surrounding reality to the degree with interact with it. We also don't need to have the complete theory, Newtonian physics is sufficient if that is the degree we interact with reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Thanks Kevin. Can you please post more info about Neitzsche talking about Socrates? I actually don't know anything about it beyond the little bit stef mentions in the third podcast I linked. I haven't read any Nietzsche and only the Trial and Death of Socrates from Plato, so I'm probably not the person to say. I think basically the idea is that if you are logical, you are being UPB which is the be virtuous. And to be UPB is, I think, to be less conflicted about your own values which at the very least causes relief if not happiness. And then if you're acting UPB then you know virtue. And if you act virtuously it increases your own sense of self mastery, efficacy and esteem. Something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 It is perfectly possible to be completely happy and at ease with total uncertainty in life. Biology disagrees with you. From the moment we are born, we are full bore, totally switched on, all senses in full delivery mode. Most of the reasons why babies cry is because they can't dial any of it down. It's also why they're perpetually exhausted. We explore the world around us, learning how to filter our senses in a meaningful way, through pattern recognition. This is only possible due in part to certainty and predictability. Imagine how different your life would be if you couldn't count on gravity or if heat so intense so as to harm your hand could spontaneously be a characteristic of the surface of any object you touched. Why, the only reason you bothered communicating is because of your certainty that others would be able to receive and interpret that communication in a meaningful way. Reason brings happiness because like it or not, your subconscious is calling the shots. If you refuse to accept reality, your subconscious will not let you rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanielB Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Biology disagrees with you. You mean you do. From the moment we are born, we are full bore, totally switched on, all senses in full delivery mode. Most of the reasons why babies cry is because they can't dial any of it down. It's also why they're perpetually exhausted. It's not true they're perpetually exhausted, not even close. It's also irrelevant. Babies cry mostly because they're tired or hungry, or have a full diaper. It's true they can suffer from 'overload' but a sensitive parent will quickly recognize it and remedy it. I have no idea what this has to do with the subject, btw, We explore the world around us, learning how to filter our senses in a meaningful way, through pattern recognition. This is only possible due in part to certainty and predictability. Imagine how different your life would be if you couldn't count on gravity or if heat so intense so as to harm your hand could spontaneously be a characteristic of the surface of any object you touched. Why, the only reason you bothered communicating is because of your certainty that others would be able to receive and interpret that communication in a meaningful way. Sure, we get the hang of lots of things in life. And then there's an earthquake and your reality pulls a fast one on us. Or a bridge collapses on top of the car you drive home in. Airplanes drop out of the sky or just vanish. It's an illusion to think you know what's going on. Like I said, superficially, to a point, yeah sure. But not really. Humans have a terrible urge to know how it all works, and absent that, we'll convince ourselves that we do. History is rife with examples of heretics burned at the stake, the latest examples of which are the 'climate deniers,' who dare contest the 'science.' The debate is over, the votes are in. Never mind that 30 years ago we were meant to be in a new ice age. Reason brings happiness because like it or not, your subconscious is calling the shots. If you refuse to accept reality, your subconscious will not let you rest. Reason brings happiness? Another bald assertion. There is no reason to assume that a total and complete understanding of the workings of the universe would make you any happier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 You mean you do. [...] Reason brings happiness? Another bald assertion. There is no reason to assume that a total and complete understanding of the workings of the universe would make you any happier. For someone who's appealing to someone's humility, you are not being very humble. How about asking for elaboration instead of flatly telling someone that they are wrong? I mean, you don't know if he's got something that could change your whole life, much less your current perspective on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanielB Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 For someone who's appealing to someone's humility, you are not being very humble. How about asking for elaboration instead of flatly telling someone that they are wrong? I mean, you don't know if he's got something that could change your whole life, much less your current perspective on this issue. Humble? Who wants that? And whose humility am I appealing to? Why should I ask for elaboration? If he's got something to say, let him say it. Where did I say he's wrong? In three different responses of him to posts of mine he's made bald assertions. That does not mean they're wrong, just that he makes claims he does not back up with facts or arguments. So now I will appear even less humble by noting that you are reading things in my earlier post that are simply not there. It's clear this forum is not for me. I will follow Stefan on YT. Best of luck guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Wow... haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emman Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 If I want to rob a bank, I can use use reason to prepare a sophisticated plan. Then I can use reason for vice, right? You can use reason for anything you want; but stealing is not rational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aleles Posted August 18, 2014 Author Share Posted August 18, 2014 Hey guys, I listened to the series of podcasts "Fascists around you" where Stef talks about sociopaths and I wanted to get back to this topic. A sociopath lacks empathy and mostly acts to their advantage only therefore violating UPB and the first part of this "formula" - reason. However, can we say that a sociopath is happy when he or she achieves their evil goals? Generalizing, are there other ways to reach happiness? Is someone asks you why do you engage in philosophy? You may answer, I want to be happy and to achieve it I will resort to reason and virtue. A politician may (secretly) reply that he will instead make tons of money through preferential legislation, get cool stuff and hot chicks to be happy. We see politicians who are responsible for the death of millions of people, but they travel in luxury, give speeches and don't seem to be agonized by their conscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts