CaliforniaCoaster Posted September 4, 2017 Posted September 4, 2017 Hello everyone, Hope all of the US members are enjoying the holiday weekend. I've been struggling lately with conversations with friends and associates about what is the most important thing in life. Many are arguing that personal happiness is all that matters, and that a homeless man who is happy, is "winning" at life compared to the guy struggling to support his family. It quickly turns into an almost religious argument, where all critique of another's life is invalid. Since you don't know if the 30 year old pizza delivery driver, still living at home with his parents, is happier than the accountant with a wife and kids, then you have no right to ask why the pizza delivery driver hasn't tried to achieve more in life. After all, worth is not measured in money, but in how "happy" you are. The place where I feel this argument falls apart is when one person's happiness is derived from causing others pain/discomfort. If it makes the arsonist happy to burn down your home, then it's difficult to make the statement that personal happiness is the most important thing in life, correct? After all, the arsonist's happiness is increased by burning your home. The "well if they're happy who cares" mantra is chanted everywhere these days. What is your opinion on the argument that personal happiness is the most important thing in life?
S1988 Posted September 4, 2017 Posted September 4, 2017 That's a very thought-provoking question. In my opinion, whether personal happiness is a good thing or not depends on the individual. Personal happiness is a good thing as long as it's something someone wants to do and it doesn't exploit others. The arsonist situation you brought up is a great example of how one's personal happiness isn't a good thing. On the other hand, the pizza delivery driver may be happy with his life because he likes delivering pizzas and has a great relationship with his parents. At least he has a job and isn't mooching off of them. The flip side could be that he's miserable because his parents treat him like their personal slave, and he can't afford to leave because they're taking some of his money for their uses. The accountant may be happy because he enjoys his occupation and his family. On the other hand, he may feel depressed because he became an accountant and got married only because he felt he had to as a result of family/society pressure. Maybe he wants to stay single and travel the world, but is afraid to disappoint his parents. Personally, I don't like it when people tell me what I should and shouldn't value. I keep to myself a lot, and that sometimes attracts the attention of know-it-all, busybody extroverts who pry into my life and tell me to be more outgoing. It's not like I tell them to be less social and stay home and read a book once in a while. I don't know why some of them feel like they know what's best for me better than I do. How I live isn't harming me or anyone else. Some people are just nosy, control freaks. All in all, that's my two cents. 1
M.2 Posted September 4, 2017 Posted September 4, 2017 Hi CaliforniaCoaster Your question is a very interesting one indeed, and had been already asked by most people who ever lived. with good reason. "Is Personal Happiness the Most Important Thing In Life?": This is a very simple mathematical equation, and can be translated as such "Is A equal to B? - We know that A is a positive number, but we don't know what it is exactly. Or it could also be 0, because by some arguent personal happiness may not even exist. Basically, its possible values are: A[0;+]. - B is a bit harder, but we know that it exists, since things can be ranked by value. It is also a real number because there are a limited number of "things" in the world (even if they are abstract), and they can be counted (theoretically). Therefore: B[R] The issue is this: There is not one single value for A, or personal happiness, because there are 7 billion people on the planet, and B definitely has only 1. A can have one value only if personal happiness equals 0, meaning it does not exist, or rather does not matter. In other words, no, A cannot be B.
RichardY Posted September 4, 2017 Posted September 4, 2017 Arsonist: Yeah I wouldn't say an arsonist is happy in burning down properties, more like enjoying bloodlust or Rage. 'And when Alexander saw the breadth of his domain he wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer.' Diehard Happiness: I think ultimately you need some "purpose"(prosperity, constructive growth) to have the potential to be happy. Contentment: Perhaps more than being happy or joyful is just to be, and to not crave more for the sake of it, or something....
CaliforniaCoaster Posted September 5, 2017 Author Posted September 5, 2017 3 hours ago, S1988 said: That's a very thought-provoking question. In my opinion, whether personal happiness is a good thing or not depends on the individual. Personal happiness is a good thing as long as it's something someone wants to do and it doesn't exploit others. The arsonist situation you brought up is a great example of how one's personal happiness isn't a good thing. On the other hand, the pizza delivery driver may be happy with his life because he likes delivering pizzas and has a great relationship with his parents. At least he has a job and isn't mooching off of them. The flip side could be that he's miserable because his parents treat him like their personal slave, and he can't afford to leave because they're taking some of his money for their uses. The accountant may be happy because he enjoys his occupation and his family. On the other hand, he may feel depressed because he became an accountant and got married only because he felt he had to as a result of family/society pressure. Maybe he wants to stay single and travel the world, but is afraid to disappoint his parents. Personally, I don't like it when people tell me what I should and shouldn't value. I keep to myself a lot, and that sometimes attracts the attention of know-it-all, busybody extroverts who pry into my life and tell me to be more outgoing. It's not like I tell them to be less social and stay home and read a book once in a while. I don't know why some of them feel like they know what's best for me better than I do. How I live isn't harming me or anyone else. Some people are just nosy, control freaks. All in all, that's my two cents. With my acquaintances, it can be hard to keep from pointing out how they may be burdening the happiness of those around them in the society. For instance, if you have someone with a 130 IQ who chooses to live with their parents and work as a cashier at the local hardware store, assuming they are happy, is that really the best and most virtuous outcome? Isn't that person living drastically below their capabilities? If they are happy as a cashier, but might experience more pain and stress as a doctor, is it really the greatest choice to be a cashier? I've had conversations with many of my friends who tell me they do not want kids because it will effect their long term happiness in life. Even going as far as to say they don't want a significant other, since that could have the potential to add more stress to their life... Exploitation is a great avenue to take the argument down. However, how do we actually measure exploitation or personal happiness? There are hard measurements - like welfare usage, etc - but there are also soft measurements. (Who enjoyed a conversation more? What was the opportunity cost of a conversation? Etc. Choosing personal happiness as the most important variable quickly becomes maddening to measure.) 2 hours ago, Mishi2 said: Hi CaliforniaCoaster Your question is a very interesting one indeed, and had been already asked by most people who ever lived. with good reason. "Is Personal Happiness the Most Important Thing In Life?": This is a very simple mathematical equation, and can be translated as such "Is A equal to B? - We know that A is a positive number, but we don't know what it is exactly. Or it could also be 0, because by some arguent personal happiness may not even exist. Basically, its possible values are: A[0;+]. - B is a bit harder, but we know that it exists, since things can be ranked by value. It is also a real number because there are a limited number of "things" in the world (even if they are abstract), and they can be counted (theoretically). Therefore: B[R] The issue is this: There is not one single value for A, or personal happiness, because there are 7 billion people on the planet, and B definitely has only 1. A can have one value only if personal happiness equals 0, meaning it does not exist, or rather does not matter. In other words, no, A cannot be B. If A is personal happiness, what is the definition of B? Material items? 2 hours ago, RichardY said: Arsonist: Yeah I wouldn't say an arsonist is happy in burning down properties, more like enjoying bloodlust or Rage. 'And when Alexander saw the breadth of his domain he wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer.' Diehard Happiness: I think ultimately you need some "purpose"(prosperity, constructive growth) to have the potential to be happy. Contentment: Perhaps more than being happy or joyful is just to be, and to not crave more for the sake of it, or something.... The motive for the happiness is besides the point. If the arsonist gets an endorphin rush of happiness from their rage or blood lust, they are still obtaining a short term happiness at the expense of others. What about the pizza driver in my example, assuming he is happy and content? If he argues that he has great amounts of happiness out of not exerting effort to change his current situation, and nobody feels he is exploiting anyone, is he really the winner in the game of life? If that was the case then why want anything? (Eastern philosophy enters) Happiness turns into a finance equation of limiting your expenses so much that any trickle of joy is amplified to fill up your reserves with bounding happiness. But since personal wants are all - well, personal - very quickly this turns back into an almost economics argument of who is exploiting who for "happiness" creation rather than capital creation.
RichardY Posted September 5, 2017 Posted September 5, 2017 1 hour ago, CaliforniaCoaster said: The motive for the happiness is besides the point. If the arsonist gets an endorphin rush of happiness from their rage or blood lust, they are still obtaining a short term happiness at the expense of others. Let us resume our inquiry and state, in view of the fact that all knowledge and every pursuit aims at some good, what it is that we say political science aims at and what is the highest of all goods achievable by action. Verbally there is very general agreement; for both the general run of men and people of superior refinement say that it is happiness, and identify living well and doing well with being happy; but with regard to what happiness is they differ, and the many do not give the same account as the wise. For the former think it is some plain and obvious thing, like pleasure, wealth, or honour; they differ, however, from one another- and often even the same man identifies it with different things, with health when he is ill, with wealth when he is poor; but, conscious of their ignorance, they admire those who proclaim some great ideal that is above their comprehension. Now some thought that apart from these many goods there is another which is self-subsistent and causes the goodness of all these as well. To examine all the opinions that have been held were perhaps somewhat fruitless; enough to examine those that are most prevalent or that seem to be arguable. Let us not fail to notice, however, that there is a difference between arguments from and those to the first principles. For Plato, too, was right in raising this question and asking, as he used to do, 'are we on the way from or to the first principles?' There is a difference, as there is in a race-course between the course from the judges to the turning-point and the way back. For, while we must begin with what is known, things are objects of knowledge in two senses- some to us, some without qualification. Presumably, then, we must begin with things known to us. Hence any one who is to listen intelligently to lectures about what is noble and just, and generally, about the subjects of political science must have been brought up in good habits. For the fact is the starting-point, and if this is sufficiently plain to him, he will not at the start need the reason as well; and the man who has been well brought up has or can easily get startingpoints. And as for him who neither has nor can get them, let him hear the words of Hesiod: Far best is he who knows all things himself; Good, he that hearkens when men counsel right; But he who neither knows, nor lays to heart Another's wisdom, is a useless wight. Nicomachean Ethics Book 1 Aristotle.
ofd Posted September 5, 2017 Posted September 5, 2017 Quote If it makes the arsonist happy to burn down your home, then it's difficult to make the statement that personal happiness is the most important thing in life, correct? I don't see why. You act on your personal preferences which are subjective. For one person the highest good might be eating strawberry ice cream for the other person it could be burning down houses. Both act and that makes them happier. If they didn't value what they acted out, then they wouldn't do it.
M.2 Posted September 5, 2017 Posted September 5, 2017 6 hours ago, CaliforniaCoaster said: If A is personal happiness, what is the definition of B? Material items? No... It is in your title. B is the most important thing in life.
S1988 Posted September 5, 2017 Posted September 5, 2017 On 9/4/2017 at 8:49 PM, CaliforniaCoaster said: For instance, if you have someone with a 130 IQ who chooses to live with their parents and work as a cashier at the local hardware store, assuming they are happy, is that really the best and most virtuous outcome? Isn't that person living drastically below their capabilities? If they are happy as a cashier, but might experience more pain and stress as a doctor, is it really the greatest choice to be a cashier? Why should one pursue a career that causes them stress, even if it's more "respectable?" Besides, what's a good career and what isn't is something only the individual can decide, not anyone else. On 9/4/2017 at 8:49 PM, CaliforniaCoaster said: I've had conversations with many of my friends who tell me they do not want kids because it will effect their long term happiness in life. Even going as far as to say they don't want a significant other, since that could have the potential to add more stress to their life... I think it's better for someone to not have kids than to have children without giving it any careful thought. When it comes to bringing a new life in the world, that's not something to be treated with levity. Even some kids themselves can pick up on the fact that their parents never wanted them to begin with. In the book Mean Mothers, author Peg Streep described how when she was three or four years old, she knew that her mother didn't want her because her mother would cringe when she tried to kiss or hug her. Other kids grow up being told by their parents how much they hate them and wish they were never born. Some parents admit that they only had children because their parents wanted to become grandparents. People should only become parents because they want to and have the resources to provide for children, not because they feel they have to. About significant others: Some people avoid committed relationships because they're afraid to end up with a possessive abuser. Others feel that such relationships are akin to adult babysitting and prefer to keep to themselves or only engage in platonic relationships. There are other risks like divorce, which is very expensive, or having a spouse become laid off or disabled, and you have to take on extra work to provide for the both of you. If kids are involved, what if one of you were to pass away, and one person is left to raise kids alone? As long as no one is being hurt or feel like they're required to live a certain way, why make someone's private life your business?
JoinOrDie Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 Personal happiness is subjective as to source and fleeting in reality. A shallow dopamine hit temporarily covers the hole in your soul made for contentment. To answer the original question, and again this answer may be subjective, is that personal happiness is NOT the most important thing in life. Personal fulfillment or contentment may be that important, but personal happiness may actually hinder the realization of personal fulfillment. Using the Arsonist example, and it may not be the best, if the arsonist who gets a short term but extreme dopamine buzz by burning other peoples stuff spends a lot of time in jail or in hiding he may not get to experience that which is truly personally fulfilling. He may never experience the deeper contentment of real, good work. The opportunity cost of his temporary happiness may prevent real contentment. As for children, I have 2 and sometimes I wonder what if. There is no replacement for the love of your child. There is no greater joy (i.e. happiness) than helping then watching your child master the world one piece at a time. There is no greater struggle than raising a child.
Jsbrads Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 An old question, they used to argue against things like eating too much instead of psychopathic arson, but the ideas are the same. Note: Eudaimonia would encourage someone to work hard all day to build a fence and enjoy that fulfillment, over sitting in the shade everyday feeling deliriously happy for no reason. Eudaimonia (Greek: εὐδαιμονία [eu̯dai̯mo'níaː]), sometimes anglicized as eudaemonia or eudemonia/juːdɪˈmoʊniə/, is a Greek word commonly translated as happiness or welfare; however, "human flourishing" has been proposed as a more accurate translation.[1] Etymologically, it consists of the words "eu" ("good") and "daimōn" ("spirit"). It is a central concept in Aristotelian ethics and political philosophy, along with the terms "aretē", most often translated as "virtue" or "excellence", and "phronesis", often translated as "practical or ethical wisdom".[2] In Aristotle's works, eudaimonia was (based on older Greek tradition) used as the term for the highest human good, and so it is the aim of practical philosophy, including ethics and political philosophy, to consider (and also experience) what it really is, and how it can be achieved. 1
Gavitor Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 What is happiness? What is purpose? And what makes you think life cares if you have either?
Jsbrads Posted October 15, 2017 Posted October 15, 2017 Some abstract third party may not care. it is we who care for ourselves who seek what is best for ourselves.
Donnadogsoth Posted October 15, 2017 Posted October 15, 2017 On 9/4/2017 at 2:57 PM, CaliforniaCoaster said: Hello everyone, Hope all of the US members are enjoying the holiday weekend. I've been struggling lately with conversations with friends and associates about what is the most important thing in life. Many are arguing that personal happiness is all that matters, and that a homeless man who is happy, is "winning" at life compared to the guy struggling to support his family. It quickly turns into an almost religious argument, where all critique of another's life is invalid. Since you don't know if the 30 year old pizza delivery driver, still living at home with his parents, is happier than the accountant with a wife and kids, then you have no right to ask why the pizza delivery driver hasn't tried to achieve more in life. After all, worth is not measured in money, but in how "happy" you are. The place where I feel this argument falls apart is when one person's happiness is derived from causing others pain/discomfort. If it makes the arsonist happy to burn down your home, then it's difficult to make the statement that personal happiness is the most important thing in life, correct? After all, the arsonist's happiness is increased by burning your home. The "well if they're happy who cares" mantra is chanted everywhere these days. What is your opinion on the argument that personal happiness is the most important thing in life? Schiller said that, "A soul, says one wise man of this century, enlightened to the degree, that it has the plan of divine providence as a whole before its eyes, is the happiest of souls. An eternal, grand, and beautiful law has bound perfection to delight, discontent to imperfection. That which brings a person closer to that atonement, be it directly or indirectly, will delight him. That which brings him away from it, will grieve him, and what grieves him, he will avoid, but what delights him, for that he will strive. He will seek perfection, because imperfection causes him pain; he will seek it because it delights him himself.... Thus it is as much whether I say: the person exists to be happy; or he exists to be perfect. He is only then perfect, when he is happy. He is only then happy, when he is perfect."
RichardY Posted October 18, 2017 Posted October 18, 2017 Is Personal(but, still compared to others) Happiness( Happenstance, Luck) the most(maximum,quantity, pinnacle, divine spirit/kamikaze)important (imported) thing (of limited or quantifiable quantity) in life(body)? Health or sanity could be said to be the more important thing. In France they say santé in a toast. Although geniuses and entrepreneurs imho are often insane in some respects, probably like everyone else just more so, but obviously sane enough to be functional. -------------------------- "Don't worry about a thing, cause every little thing, gonna be alright." - "Three Little Birds" Kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Would it be fair to say that in the fairy tale the people were unhappy it had no golden eggs inside? If so why? The people had wanted more for the sake of it, when they already had ample wealth. "Oh, Agent Starling, you think you can dissect me with this blunt little tool? You're so ambitious, aren't you? I will make you happy — I'll give you a chance at what you love most. - And what is that? - Advancement. Listen carefully. Look deep within yourself, Clarice Starling. Go seek out Miss Mofet, an old patient of mine. M-O-F-E-T." The previous heavily edited dialogue from Silence of the Lambs. Was thinking how although mofet is an anagram used in the movie in finding a storage locker. It also has psychological meaning referring perhaps to the children's nursery rhyme Little Miss Muffet, my thinking being that even if you are unhappy by surprising events you still have a goal and can stay the course, where as if you don't you act more on short term impulse. -------------------------- "A man of superior virtue is not conscious of being virtuous, hence is truly virtuous." Tao Te Ching - Verse 38.
Recommended Posts