More blah blah blah?

[quote]I decline your challenge because as I said before, it's not my problem, nor is it something that I feel needs an explanation. [/quote]
Hey, if you want to believe what you want to believe, that's fine with me. Just don't expect me to believe you



[quote] the only reason I said it was to point out the silliness of aiming for happiness when one can achieve more enduring happiness by aiming for worthier goals.[/quote]
so you are saying that a person who seeks happiness would be wiser to pursue 'worthy' goals, because one would achieve 'enduring' happiness this way.



[quote]Hardly. In the statement, "We pursue and realize worthy aims precisely because we deem them worthy", the relation is causal, not tautological.[/quote]
and why do we deem them 'worthy'?


[quote]the proof I've already given. It resides in my and other people's experiences. What other proof do you want? A videotape of my life or of other people's lives? [/quote]
that's not proof, that's evidence. you offer no explanation as to why happiness must be fleeting, thus you have no proof



[quote]using your definition of failure, which apparently means the failure of achieving enduring happiness when one aims for it, then you've failed too. So what's your point?[/quote]
My point is that your 'evidence' is not proof


[quote]direct experience and a certain realization will answer these questions for you. It's something I find difficult putting into words, though I'll probably try later.[/quote]
now you sound like every religious dingbat on earth, unable to explain yourself but perfectly willing to claim that you 'somehow know' you are right



[quote]I'm saying that we should strive after aims that we deem worthy. [/quote]
can you tell me why something should be deemed worthy?



[quote]What you ask for requires a general definition of meaning, and this is something that's been written about in other places.[/quote]
so repeat it. surely it isn't difficult to repeat a general definition



[quote] If you've experienced meaningful acts, then you can ask yourself what made them meaningful, thereby answering your own question. You'll see that it's hard to put into words (though attempts have been made elsewhere)[/quote]
I'm asking you to tell me what makes an act meaningful. And I can see that you have no idea why



[quote]so without happiness, your life has no meaning and is without worthy aims? [/quote]
To fulfill a worthy aim brings happiness and is thus meaningful. If an aim does not bring happiness, it is not worthy


[quote]I'm as real as they come. [/quote]
don't kid yourself


8)

sorry 'bluebear', but I gotta run for now. I'm going to the OU-Colorado football game and won't be back 'till late. Go ahead and take the time to offer your best rebuttal, and I'll get to it when I can

happiness is definately a good motivator ; pursuits which achieved fleeting happiness ultimately led me to look for happiness elsewhere ; enduring happiness is a by-product of following my happiness which led me to what some might call worthwhile goals ; which others might call completely useless ; the one underlying theme was my happiness ; I was not content to wallow in my self - pity or misery

[quote author=Dan link=board=5;threadid=3066;start=#msg15078 date=1067114178]
so you are saying that a person who seeks happiness would be wiser to pursue 'worthy' goals, because one would achieve 'enduring' happiness this way?
[/quote]

yes, but the person who pursues worthy goals will soon realize that happiness is, in and of itself, worthless.

[quote author=Dan link=board=5;threadid=3066;start=#msg15078 date=1067114178]
that's not proof, that's evidence. you offer no explanation as to why happiness must be fleeting, thus you have no proof
[/quote]

the proof is in the experience.

[quote author=Dan link=board=5;threadid=3066;start=#msg15078 date=1067114178]
and why do we deem them 'worthy'?
[/quote]

so your strategy is to keep asking 'why' questions to every reply and explanation I post?

[quote author=Dan link=board=5;threadid=3066;start=#msg15078 date=1067114178]
now you sound like every religious dingbat on earth, unable to explain yourself but perfectly willing to claim that you 'somehow know' you are right
[/quote]

I've tried explaining, but there comes a point when recourse to actual experience is necessary.

[quote author=Dan link=board=5;threadid=3066;start=#msg15078 date=1067114178]
I'm asking you to tell me what makes an act meaningful. And I can see that you have no idea why
[/quote]

And I asked you to ask yourself what makes an act meaningful, and I can see that you have no idea why. At least I took the extra step and said that I would talk more about it later.

[quote author=Dan link=board=5;threadid=3066;start=#msg15078 date=1067114178]
To fulfill a worthy aim brings happiness and is thus meaningful. If an aim does not bring happiness, it is not worthy
[/quote]

That's fine for you, I suppose, but I have found aims much worthier than happiness, as have many of the great ones of the past that I've learned from. Fortunately, many people don't require happiness to have worthy aims in life and to have meaning. The life without happiness would be completely devoid of meaning and value for you, but certainly not for me. I think that says a lot.

[quote author=Dan link=board=5;threadid=3066;start=#msg15078 date=1067114178]
don't kid yourself
[/quote]

but aren't you kidding me with this whole 'happiness should be the aim of life' business?

Also, you never answered my question about why you don't (or do) pop 10 or more prozac each day since you're so keen on achieving happiness.

Hi all,

just thought I might dip my oar in before this one runs out of space.
We wouldn't be happy then, would we?

One dictionary definition.
"State of well-being characterized by emotions ranging from contentment to intense joy".

So, there are degrees of happiness. I think we all know that!

I tend to think of happiness (by analogy) as like a thermostat which has a reference setting (set by ?). If glum, motivation kicks in to bring it back to or above that setting.
[by doing somerthing to increase contentment].
I can accept that if I feel glum, I may choose to do something I enjoy doing in order to increase my current state of happiness.


What I would like to know is how the stat is set.
Is it 'expectation', or by comparison to other peoples apparent state of happiness?

Best regards, Bill.

[quote author=rhymer link=board=5;threadid=3066;start=#msg15082 date=1067116789]
One dictionary definition.
"State of well-being characterized by emotions ranging from contentment to intense joy".
So, there are degrees of happiness.
[/quote]

it's good to point that out, that there are degrees of happiness, and that for any state of happiness, even happier states can be envisioned and are possible. As such, it would not be possible to be aimless if one's aim in life was happiness since one could always aim for more happiness and greater degrees of happiness. Therefore, Dan needn't worry about ever being aimless and purposeless in life, though I would still dispute that happiness is the aim in life that people should seek.

[quote author=rhymer link=board=5;threadid=3066;start=#msg15082 date=1067116789]
What I would like to know is how the stat is set.
Is it 'expectation', or by comparison to other peoples apparent state of happiness?
[/quote]

I think its basis involves many factors, including the two that you mentioned, and also involves expectations based on other peoples apparent states of happiness. Happiness can be considered within the context of brain function and dopamine release, or it can be considered from a 1st person perspective, in which case we know that we have some control over our happiness to the extent that we know what makes us happy and know how to acquire or achieve such things, and also to the extent that we recognize that happiness comprises part of one's state of mind, which we have considerable control over.

Dan,

I would like to clarify a point. When I said that happiness is worthless in and of itself, I meant that to experience happiness alone is worthless. Nonetheless, without contradicting myself, I will acknowledge that happiness can attain meaning and worth when considered to comprise a part of more meaningful and worthwhile experiences, even while I maintain that considered in and of itself, happiness, alone, is meaningless and worthless. If happiness attains meaning and worth, it is only within the context of more meaningful and worthy experiences, and these more meaningful and worthy experiences are, in general, the result of pursuing and realizing meaningful and worthy aims. Pursuing happiness as the sole aim in life is not meaningful, nor is it worthy. This does not rule out pursuing happiness as the means to further aid one in pursuing one's meaningful and worthy aims. But as such, happiness, in and of itself, is a tool and an aid, and not an end in itself to be sought for. One should aim for worthier and more meaningful goals in life, such as knowing God and oneself, and realizing one's potential and humanity's potential.

If you make happiness your sole aim in life, then you might as well be shooting heroin or overdosing on prozac, since this is what your ethics justifies and really boils down to, and this, to most people, is simply repugnant, pathetic, naive, and is not what one's life is or should be all about. Or better yet, the culmination of your 'ethics of happiness' for you would be to hook electrodes into your own brain and continuously stimulate your happy centers so as to make you happy all the time. Forget everything and everyone else, right? So long as you're happy, nothing else matters, right? The world could go up in flames, but so long as you're happy, everything's just great, isn't it?

Since you would put the pursuit of your own happiness above all else in life, Dan, I take it you have no calling in life. Further, you seem rather ungrateful to life, since according to you, the life without happiness is not worth living. Well, did you ever think that perhaps it is you who are not worthy of life? Life is a gift of sorts, and with it comes tremendous responsibilities. Yet, you don't want the gift unless there's happiness included in the package. Besides being ungrateful, that's also just irresponsible, don't you think? The key difference between your 'ethics of happiness' and my ethics seems to be that mine can justify life in the absence of happiness, whereas yours cannot. In the absence of happiness, you would turn tail and run away from life and reject it, considering it not worth living, whereas I would still fully accept life's challenge and find meaning and worth in pursuing my aims. In essence, your 'ethics of happiness' is weak and it degrades Man to a very small and ridiculous stature indeed, whereas mine elevates him to heights you cannot imagine and which are completely inaccessible to those following your 'ethics of happiness'.

A note about definitions, by 'meaningful', I mean 'significant, full of significance', and by 'worthy', I mean 'deemed sufficiently meaningful to oneself and/or to humanity to justify personal sacrifice and investment of resources'. Happiness is not a necessary condition for being significant or meaningful. If you ask me what 'significant' means, I would reply that this is something that everyone hopefully knows from experience, and for me to further define such terms would result in a circular definition (which all definitions are if we continue to pursue the meanings of different terms indefinitely), or it would amount to me trying to explain to a blind person what it's like to see. At some point, you need to have recourse to the actual experience, and without this experience, nothing I say will get through to you.

And finally, on a different note, and maybe this is already obvious, but having aims in life (i.e., being oriented towards the future in a particular manner) does not preclude experiencing the here and now, and of vividly living in the present. On the contrary, living in the here and now, and fully in the present moment, while at the same time pursuing meaningful and worthy aims, is very meaningful indeed.

Joseph Campbell once said "follow your Bliss"
In the long way around the barn approach to relative happiness we find that we travel from one idea to another. Each idea hopefully creates an experience equal to, or better than the previous experience. This maintenance approach to life is fairly consuming.

The meaning behind the words of Joseph Campbell is to follow that which expands your consciousness Permanently.
When it comes to measuring chemical levels in the body or brain such as dopamine or endorphines and making comparisons to relative conditions, Science has not yet developed a measurment for levels of consciousness, nor has science been able to come to any agreement on whether such a thing exists beyond levels of fantasy.

Only by expanding consciousness does the need for the maintenance approach to happiness become unnecessary.
If the mind is expanded in its awareness beyond fear and judgment then what has meaning in happiness is no longer relative. Simply experiencing becomes a Joy.

Consciousness recognizes consciousness. Until man can fabricate a means to measure spirit and the awareness of higher states of consciousness then one will have to rely on experience for validation.

The subjective/objective experience will have to evolve into something greater in order to escape the differences that prevent the world and what is in it to be anything less than perfect.

I found this at http://tobyjohnson.com/clearlight.html

Joseph Campbell said, "Follow your bliss and don't be afraid, and doors will open where you never knew there were going to be doors."

Bliss is a technical term in Buddhism. It does not mean mere happiness or satisfaction. Rather it means fulfillment of who we really are, realization of buddhahood (expanding consciousness), accomplishment of the goals that drive us to find meaning in life. To follow our bliss is to disregard all the rules that tell us how we are supposed to behave and to seek our own path.

[quote]yes, but the person who pursues worthy goals will soon realize that happiness is, in and of itself, worthless.[/quote]
I disagree that happiness is worthless, and I disagree that anybody should come to that conclusion in the pursuit of worthy goals


[quote]the proof is in the experience[/quote]
since your experience does not exhaust all possibility, you have 'inducted' your proof. I have not seen an explanation as to why your 'induction' is reasonable


[quote]so your strategy is to keep asking 'why' questions to every reply and explanation I post? [/quote]
this isn't a strategy, 'bluebear'. You have simply not explained how one can deem an aim as 'worthy' short of declaring that one can deem 'worthy' aims. This is the tautology I am speaking of. Your pseudoexplanation that 'worth' involves 'striving', and that 'worth' is indicated by 'meaningfulness' do not explain what makes an aim 'worthy'. (unless you are saying that 'striving' alone makes it worthy, to which I wholeheartedly disagree).



[quote]I've tried explaining, but there comes a point when recourse to actual experience is necessary.[/quote]
I disagree. I say that this is an excuse of those who just don't understand their own motives well enough to articulate them



[quote]And I asked you to ask yourself what makes an act meaningful, and I can see that you have no idea why. [/quote]

yes, I do recall you passing the buck. Clearly I have stated that happiness is integral to the meaningfulness of an aim or have you been absent for this entire conversation?



[quote]At least I took the extra step and said that I would talk more about it later. [/quote]
all you did was dodge the question with promises of future engagement. I want to know NOW!



[quote]That's fine for you, I suppose, but I have found aims much worthier than happiness, as have many of the great ones of the past that I've learned from. Fortunately, many people don't require happiness to have worthy aims in life and to have meaning. The life without happiness would be completely devoid of meaning and value for you, but certainly not for me. I think that says a lot.[/quote]
I think that says you don't have a clue as to your motivations. You are seeking some kind of satisfaction from your aims, and to be satisfied is to achieve a measure of happiness.


[quote]but aren't you kidding me with this whole 'happiness should be the aim of life' business?[/quote]
NO!


[quote]Also, you never answered my question about why you don't (or do) pop 10 or more prozac each day since you're so keen on achieving happiness.[/quote]
because it's a fool's question. Prozac is like all those other 'failure' paths of yours; happiness from a drug just isn't going to 'endure'


8)

[quote]it's good to point that out, that there are degrees of happiness, and that for any state of happiness, even happier states can be envisioned and are possible. As such, it would not be possible to be aimless if one's aim in life was happiness since one could always aim for more happiness and greater degrees of happiness.[/quote]
your belief in infinitely higher degrees of happiness is not implied by the 'evidence' you are referencing. This implication is yours alone, and it along with the consequences of it are simply your own speculations until proven



[quote]I will acknowledge that happiness can attain meaning and worth when considered to comprise a part of more meaningful and worthwhile experiences, even while I maintain that considered in and of itself, happiness, alone, is meaningless and worthless. [/quote]
who can say if you are contradicting yourself, when you lack a reasonable explanation as to what constitutes 'worth' and 'meaning'.



[quote]If happiness attains meaning and worth, it is only within the context of more meaningful and worthy experiences, and these more meaningful and worthy experiences are, in general, the result of pursuing and realizing meaningful and worthy aims.[/quote]
still only a pseudoexplanation. You have not explained why an aim should be deemed 'worthy' or why it should be 'meaningful'



[quote]Pursuing happiness as the sole aim in life is not meaningful, nor is it worthy.[/quote]
I'm thinking that you are simplifying the idea into some kind of juvenile pursuit. I agree, pursuing what you think is 'happiness' as a kid (like riding a rollercoaster) just may not work for very long


[quote]This does not rule out pursuing happiness as the means to further aid one in pursuing one's meaningful and worthy aims. But as such, happiness, in and of itself, is a tool and an aid, and not an end in itself to be sought for. [/quote]
until you tell me how I can 'deem' worth, or know that an aim will be 'meaningful', I say that you have offered no real explanation at all



[quote]One should aim for worthier and more meaningful goals in life, such as knowing God and oneself, and realizing one's potential and humanity's potential. [/quote]
and why are these goals 'worthier' and 'more meaningful'? Simply stating that they are is no explanation



[quote]If you make happiness your sole aim in life, then you might as well be shooting heroin or overdosing on prozac, since this is what your ethics justifies and really boils down to, and this, to most people, is simply repugnant, pathetic, naive, and is not what one's life is or should be all about.[/quote]
this is a 'straw man', because I disagree comletely that these pursuits will maintain happiness (or, as you know it, bring 'enduring' happiness). i.e., these means toward happiness will fail



[quote]Or better yet, the culmination of your 'ethics of happiness' for you would be to hook electrodes into your own brain and continuously stimulate your happy centers so as to make you happy all the time. Forget everything and everyone else, right? So long as you're happy, nothing else matters, right? The world could go up in flames, but so long as you're happy, everything's just great, isn't it? [/quote]
I'm quite disappointed in your use of straw men in arguing your position. But I guess this is your best recourse as you cannot logically explain your position without deferring to ambiguities and undefined notions


[quote]Since you would put the pursuit of your own happiness above all else in life, Dan, I take it you have no calling in life. Further, you seem rather ungrateful to life, since according to you, the life without happiness is not worth living. Well, did you ever think that perhaps it is you who are not worthy of life? [/quote]
My calling is to teach you some common sense, so that you are worthy of being called 'sensible'



[quote]Life is a gift of sorts, and with it comes tremendous responsibilities. Yet, you don't want the gift unless there's happiness included in the package. Besides being ungrateful, that's also just irresponsible, don't you think? [/quote]
straw men again, 'bluebear'


[quote]The key difference between your 'ethics of happiness' and my ethics seems to be that mine can justify life in the absence of happiness, whereas yours cannot.[/quote]
I think you are just living the fantasy of supreme self-importance, must be due to your coming up as a 'genuis'



[quote]In the absence of happiness, you would turn tail and run away from life and reject it, considering it not worth living, whereas I would still fully accept life's challenge and find meaning and worth in pursuing my aims. [/quote]
I would 'try again', because there is no escape.


[quote]In essence, your 'ethics of happiness' is weak and it degrades Man to a very small and ridiculous stature indeed, whereas mine elevates him to heights you cannot imagine and which are completely inaccessible to those following your 'ethics of happiness'. [/quote]
your self-importance is without bounds


[quote]A note about definitions, by 'meaningful', I mean 'significant, full of significance',[/quote]
OK. since you are pushing the definition to 'significant', can you tell me what makes an aim 'significant'?



[quote]and by 'worthy', I mean 'deemed sufficiently meaningful to oneself and/or to humanity to justify personal sacrifice and investment of resources'. [/quote]
great! so we remain with the question of why something should be 'significant'. At least we've condensed two unknowns to one



[quote]If you ask me what 'significant' means, I would reply that this is something that everyone hopefully knows from experience, and for me to further define such terms would result in a circular definition (which all definitions are if we continue to pursue the meanings of different terms indefinitely), or it would amount to me trying to explain to a blind person what it's like to see. [/quote]
I figured as much. You can't explain it so you blow a lot of smoke


[quote]At some point, you need to have recourse to the actual experience, and without this experience, nothing I say will get through to you. [/quote]
actually, an explanation will get through to me. It's the cop-outs that don't convince me


[quote]And finally, on a different note, and maybe this is already obvious, but having aims in life (i.e., being oriented towards the future in a particular manner) does not preclude experiencing the here and now, and of vividly living in the present. [/quote]
I pretty much agree with that assessment. After all, it's not like I can live anywhere else than where I am. In fact, I would say that it is impossible to live at any other place than 'here and now'.

[quote]On the contrary, living in the here and now, and fully in the present moment, while at the same time pursuing meaningful and worthy aims, is very meaningful indeed.[/quote]
Since I can't live anywhere else than 'here and now', 'here and now' is the only place where meaning can be found. Thus, you have not explained what the meaning is, only that if there is meaning to be found 'here and now' is where it's at


8)

It's a funny thing, that when you should be shown the absurd consequences that result from your 'ethics of happiness', you should mere shrug them off as straw men, when in fact they aren't straw men at all. Hmmmmm, looks to me like someone's in denial.

Another weakness in your argument is that you're unwittingly projecting yourself onto everyone else, meaning that since the only purpose of your life is happiness, you project it onto others and presume the purpose of their lives is just as base as yours, which Einstein himself labeled the ambitions of a pig. But of course you still believe that you're right, because in your mind, you're never wrong, right? And in this case, I suppose you can convince yourself that Einstein, and the countless other great individuals who explicitly warn against making happiness the sole aim of life, are just downright wrong, because if they were right, then god forbid, you would have to admit being wrong, and of course, you can't do that, now can you? I suppose you can convince yourself of just about anything, am I right?

Whatever be the case, I'm sufficiently comfortable with my refutation of your 'ethics of happiness' and of making the case for a higher ethics in this thread, that I'm sure most, if not all, reasonable and open-minded people will agree with me for the most part, if not completely.

What's funny is that you still have not explained what makes an aim 'worthy' (by virtue of deferring to the yet-unexplained idea of 'significance'). As for your theory of 'unwitting projection', what do you think you are doing?. I'm not interested in your appeals to authority, only your explanations (which are at least incomplete). Enjoy your illusory comfort while you can


8)

Hey, what's going on in here fellas?

It seems silly to argue at great lengths about such an intangible and extremely subjective experience. As soon as you tear the idea out of the experience you have reduced it somehow into something that is not real and never found in reality.

I agree with blue. Happiness ought to be thought of in proper context, as relative to experience. But whether one ought to pursue happiness directly and/or indirectly seems to be a personal choice where one approach may be perfectly suitable to one and unacceptable to another, with no ultimate "right way."

I keep my options open in this regard. I don't shun frivolous entertainment or the contempletive life. I say try it all and see how it works out for you.

[quote author=T_Tom_Terrible link=board=5;threadid=3066;start=50#msg15120 date=1067213425]
Hey, what's going on in here fellas?
[/quote]

Right now, Dan is still in flat-out denial over my classical reductio ad absurdum of his 'ethics of happiness', which states 1) that happiness is the meaning of life, 2) that everyone aims solely for happiness whether they know it or not, and 3) without happiness, life is not worth living. Clearly, such an 'ethics of happiness', if taken to its rational conclusions, results in the absurdity of each person doing anything, no matter how distasteful, repugnant, or degrading, in order to achieve personal happiness. He also seems to be in denial of the fact that multiple individuals, myself included, constitute counter-examples to his argument that everyone aims solely for happiness, and has tried to rationalize all the irrefutable evidence against his 'ethics of happiness' in some oftentimes amusing ways, though recently, he's put up a rather disappointing performance by resorting to aping some of my arguments against his position, seemingly unaware of the asymmetry between our two positions, and of the fact that the burden of proof has been on him all along to prove that everyone aims for happiness, and that happiness is the meaning of life, which he has never given any evidence for whatsoever. And so, it is becoming increasingly clear to me that Dan's mind is completely impervious to reason, at least insofar as the issue of ethics is concerned, and so it's probably best to just end on the semi-pleasant note, "To each his own".

I am not in 'flat denial' of your reductio ad absurdum, I am in disagreement with your conclusion of absurdity. Your conclusion:
[quote]such an 'ethics of happiness', if taken to its rational conclusions, results in the absurdity of each person doing anything, no matter how distasteful, repugnant, or degrading, in order to achieve personal happiness.[/quote]
is a non-sequitor concerning the alleged absurdity. Why is it absurd that a person should seek happiness, and that their actions would reflect that underlying theme?

And why is my refusal of your references as proof of your claim evidence that I am 'in denial'? Where is the irrefutable evidence you claim to have presented? All you have presented is appeals to authorities who are unavailable for cross-examination, and your own personal testimony. In fact, I present as a counter-example to your authories the Dalai Lama, who says I believe that the very purpose of life is to be happy and I believe that the very purpose of our life is to seek happiness. http://www.thinkexist.com/english/Author/x...uthor_825_1.htm . The reason I am 'aping' your arguments is because you offered them as evidence that refutes my claim. If the burden of proof is on me to prove my claim 'Happiness is the meaning of life', then simply refuse my claim until proven. However, you have gone to 'disprove' my claim by offering your own counter-claim that 'Happiness is not the meaning of life'. The burden of proof for that claim is on you. The comment about my being impervious to reason is rather ironic, considering that you have not offered a sound reason to support your counter-claim yet believe that you have. I'm happy to end this conversation at any time, however I do not concede that you have either proven my claim wrong (which is not your burden) or proven your counter-claim right (which is your burden).



(p.s. Joesus, where's the image? ??? )

I'm glad to see you're a good sport about things, Dan. You know I was just joking about being impervious to reason. In fact, I do believe you're permeable to it sometimes, though it seems certain that we do have very different conceptions concerning the nature of Man and about what Man ought to do with his life. Nonetheless, some good may come from laying the arguments out on the table and making clear the definitions we're using and the assumptions we're making.

" making clear the definitions we're using"

i think you guys are using different definitions of 'happiness'.

personally, i think i like dan's definition better becuz dan's seems like a more noble and worthy definition than the idea of happiness being "i got what i want and screw everybody else" or a definition that would include having the pleasure centers of your brain stimulated till you rot to death.
thats my interpertation, i have no idea if anybody elses is the same or similar.
but then im not gonna argue if nobody agrees with me when i say that the yab norgile flamapanatat imperative gleek leepadrit without first making sure they understand what i mean by it. ;D

well, 'bluebear', I am likewise glad to see your sportiness and humor concerning our little debate. I agree that our debate can be taken in a positive way toward understanding this fundamental question, and I appreciate the opportunity to dance with you.




(p.s. v3d4
I, like, totally disagree that the yab norgile flamapanatat imperative would ever gleek leepadrit. And anybody who has shipnot forrge could easily see that! ;D )

I'm not sure that happiness can even be defined in an objective sense.

...But, supposing that it could, I would postulate all over the rug, uh, *ahem* that is, postulate that sorrow and happiness have an interdependent, cyclical relationship. Which is why happiness alone is not the meaning of life, even if the Honorable Dali Llama's mama said so herself. ...Mr Don't Appeal to Authority.



Perhaps we should start another thread entitled, "What is True happiness?"

[quote]postulate that sorrow and happiness have an interdependent, cyclical relationship.[/quote]

It has been my experience that as some point these became one :-*

Hi Swan,

"Happiness and sorrow" as 'one', yes ... but at opposite ends of the scale of the emotion of contentment.
Back to my 'thermostat' concept. We all have a different 'normal' setting.

And, pity the manic depressives who oscillate from end to end (bliss to hopeless sorrow) in an uncontrollable fashion! :'(

I have amended the line above in view of negative criticsm received later.
My amended words, (which mean exactly the same) are:-

I have sympathy for all those suffering from manic depression (who oscillate between the extremes of despair and exuberance, characterised by deep depression and manic excitability). Indeed, I have sympathy for anybody who suffers from mood swings, however strong or weak their experiences may be, if it adversely affects their experience of life. The sympathy I have for such people, resides within myself and is expressed as a fact. It should not be construed to be sent or given to anyone.

Bill

Why should we aspire worthy goals?

To improve our effectiveness.

This improves and boosts our intelligence, skills, satisfaction and finally our happiness.
So this would support the quote of Happiness being a by-product.

But very generally, one does aspire happiness, contentment, enlightenment. There are people who do more, and people who do less for it.

I'm disposed to regard life as ultimately meaningless, and consciousness merely a sinister trick of evolution.

But ask me again tomorrow....

[quote author=rhymer link=board=5;threadid=3066;start=50#msg15138 date=1067274798]
And, pity the manic depressives who oscillate from end to end (bliss to hopeless sorrow) in an uncontrollable fashion! :'(

Bill
[/quote]

And, pity the greyfaced hunchbrains who are trapped in such dull and "normal" lives that they must try to prop themselves up by disparaging those who can change rapidly. Sure, some folks need help getting a handle on it, but all "manic depressives" do not suffer, Bill.

Magee

Hi Maniac Magee,

I have amended my post on the presumption that my use of the word pity is what caused the problem. It is an emotive word with different meanings for different people.
If that is not the problem you will need to be more specific.

Why not come and join us on Mind-Brain?
Our intentions are good, even if we sometimes upset each other!
It is a good place to relate experiences, thereby educating others and gives an opportunity to remove biasses, prejudices and misconceptions.
It is also a good place to learn, or at least be aware of other peoples thoughts.

Best regards, Bill.
PS.
If I see any of those people you referrred to I'll boot them for you!

wel.. I onyl read soem of that really long thread. I decided to put my input of teh meanign of life into this discussion because...well...I felt like it. I think that there is no meanign of life. We all live here because our parents had sex and you knwo all that good biology stuff. anyways, the meaning of life is nonexistent. peopel talk abotu teh meanign of life today because of hte inner need to establish a reason for them to live. So maybe in a way the meanign of life is to live? hmmm.....

One might say happiness is dependent on its antithesis to exist. If you step beyond your emotions, you would move on from happiness, as well.

And perhaps the "meaning" of life is simply to do as you will do; nothing more, nothing less...

-James

Many have the conviction that the modern society is crossing by a deep crisis of values and meaning at the moment. Some alarming situations seem to indicate that the world has deteriorated to huge steps in the last years; but Is it really like this? can say truly say that our world is crossing by a period of crisis? The problem with this question is that it estimates a normality parameter, the existence of absolute values and an objective standard of behavior that governs all the human beings the same. If in the African forest a family of lions attacks a wild boar and she breaks it, the news will not appear on the following day in newspapers; but when an adolescent one takes a firearm and unloads its fury shooting against its professors and companions of school, that frightens and scares, because one does not hope that the human beings behave thus. But, how do we determine the behavior that is expected of the human beings? Based on the authority of whom, do we distinguish the good thing of the bad thing, the unjust from the just, the true thing of the false thing? Perhaps its determined by the things each person believes? The tradition? The opinion of the majority or an elite of experts in the human conduct? We needed a base legitimate authority that could establish the values that are to prevail the same to all, otherwise we will not have no parameter to pass judgment over the actions of the men. That is the great problem which nowadays the western society faces: it has rejected the jew/christian base on which it had constructed its system of values and now is as a boat to the drift in the ocean of the relativism and the subjectivity. What is good for you might be what is bad for me and vice versa. The concept of the absolute truth has become obsolete and with the death of the truth the virtue has also died. The modern man contemplates frightened the deterioration that there is to his around, but does not perceive that that one is the fruit that is harvested inevitably when it rejects to God and Its revelation. If a personal and supernatural God does not exist that created and maintains all the things with an intention, a God that has revealed itself to the infallible man in a book which we can include/understand rationally, then we do not have towards where to watch to find true answers to the most important questions of the man: Which is the intention of our existence? How one assumes that we must live? What is what is well, what is what is bad? If everyone has the prerogative to respond according to its own criteria or convenience, that is equivalent to say that the absolute and objective truth does not exist, nor the moral values either. When the foundations are destroyed is only time question so that the law of the forest prevails in the human society: the survival of the fittest

I would argue trhat truth is always subjective. What we believe is conditioned largely by our hopes, our fears and our experiences. The truth for me, born female in a certain time and country, having had various experiences and emotions about those experiences cannot be exactly replicated by any other human being. My perception of the world, no matter how open I may be to the viewpoints of others, is inevitably coloured by this. Personally I find little to believe in the book to which the original writer refers, finding it more interesting as socio-political history of a primitive tribe. The basic premise seems to be that there are those (men!) who have, or claim to have, a 'god-given right' to dominate and control others. Macchiavelli did the same thing in a much more entertaining way!
However, lack of belief in an omniscient masculine deity does not, per se, obviate a personal standard of ethics and morality; indeed, when one has worked out one's own values, free from the hypocricy and double standards of the churches (of whatever persuasion), one may well find these not merely easier to adhere to, but much more meaningful.
It is, of course, so much easier to accept the standards and beliefs of others without taking the time and trouble to formulate one's own, in religious as well as political matters. But it's a darned lazy or unintelligent way to live one's life.

To Dan and Bluebear,

I'm a newbie, this is my first post (if you hadn't already noticed) and I am engrossed in your discussion. That said, i haven't had the time to read all of it yet, but i want to raise a point that you've already touched on, which i consider an integral part of the argument.

If you're not happy, then...what's the point in being 'alive' as we know it?

You can know everybody in the world, you can have everything, but that will not necessary make you happy. It will only contribute to your happiness.

Cheers, hope to see you guys around soon.

hi Shai'tan

this is an old conversation that was pretty much concluded in a state of mutual acceptance of fundamental difference of opinion, but does have extension into recent conversation. Further comments on this thread are always welcome, as is engagement in more recent conversation

Isn't "in all things, moderation," immoderate?

Because all the aims are wrong and its biologically rooted. If person X experiences a sublime state of happiness (State X) for just 5 minutes as a fleeting peak experience, Hypothetically, person X can be in that state of consciousness 24/7/365 if all the internal factors which produced that state + all the external factors be sufficent to allow it to continue were reproduced and maintained constantly. Also whos to say that state X cant be farther improved upon. We see increasing evidence that the hardware (brain) will do whatever its designed to do. produce whatever state its inner workings can produce.

You can jack me up too Tone :-)

I think every person in the world ask this question him/her self.it comes time when human thinks about his life,who is he,what he wants,what is he doing in this world,what is his goal and at last, how is he going to finish his life. sombody thinks that he was born to live several years,to do some things, to make a family,etc. and then die.and some one thinks only about his entertainment,relaxation,how to make his life more beautiful and happier... and what then?is this all?do you think that you were born in this world only for this?
only for this reason create you God? God?-you may ask surprisingly. Yes God.He create you,he was tortured for you, and with what are you going to answer him in return?
You must love God, live with Christian way and defence the commandment.

I like this words very much: What would be my life without your love, my God?

What is the evidence for a belief in a supernatural being?

A better explanation of life is evolution by natural selection.

Evolution does not explain how anything came to be. Evolution and creation are completely different.

What evidence is there for the involvement of a supernatural being in creation?

I have no more evidence for than I do against, thus is it only proper to assume that both possabilities are valid. I will however say that it would not be a supernatural being, but the ultimate natural being if anything. Who knows, maybe that singularity which scientists know nothing about is the Godhead--the ultimate natural force, the Tao maybe.

I won't argue with that. It implies that the universe is self-created.

For all I know the Universe is no more than a thought--I don't understand how consciousness works, so I really don't think I will be able to understand how the Universe works. It seems like an atom trying to understand how life works; the atom can be a part of a living being, but in and of itself, it has no characteristics of life.

Maybe it's no less than a thought. Certainly it contains many thoughts.

Thats a good point. If your talking in scientific terms, life is a chemical composition that randomly formed billions of years ago. Living beings are in themselves a chemical equation.

So if you want to define "life" it is a chemical equation made up of atoms, which have a certain number of protons and electrons which when formed together in a very complex equation - make up a human being. Its like making artificial intelligence with a computer, the silicone in itself could be used for anything, but when it has a certain combination of variable transistors - it can make up an intelligent computational being.

Your right, atoms in themselves are not what we define life - but personally I find the very concept of life and death a bit cavemanish. For me, it gets more and more difficult to define the line between what is living and what is dead. We eat things, which are not alive - such as iron (although in micro amounts) and somehow this causes us to stay alive.. which seems perplexing to think a metal - is making an organic being.

My understanding is right now, its about the whole - not the pieces. You can use paint to make any sort of painting, just as you can use chemicals (see organic chemistry) to make any sort of being.

This certainly isnt a perfect explanation, but it is a good starting point. The truth is, nobody "understands" consciousness. All we have are theories right now, the thing is, there is so much we dont know about our minds and about our reality. I think the best way to start getting an idea of consciousness theory, is to ask a single question.

What if this world is just a dream?

For me, this leads to about 10 more questions, such as.

If its just a dream, what is beyond this dream? How do I know its a dream? Can I change the dream if it is one? Why do the laws of physics apply if this is a dream, or is that a figment of my imagination? Maybe this is a computer simulation? What if im already in a consciousness singularity but am unaware of it?

Consciousness and Reality are joined at the hips, you cannot separate them from each other.

But it doesn't keep people from thinking they are separate. How can something so inseparable be so gracious as to allow itself to be perceived as separate?
Consciousness has a hip?

Have you ever read the Urantia book?
Personally I can't agree with everything that is in it but there is a great deal of useful information about this subject.

It's because people perceive consciousness as how the human mind perceives reality. People view reality as a objective existential world in which others interact and our perception is simply an interpretation of reality.

The problem with that theory is that one has not, to this day, been able to get outside ones own little box of consciousness. What I mean is that, while its nice to believe that there is something to reality beyond our perceptions - there is no proof of it because we have yet to get beyond our own perceptions of reality.

The expression consciousness and reality are joined at the hips - is a metaphor, consciousness is the interpretation of reality. Therefore, reality does not exist without consciousness - consciousness does not exist without reality.

I tried to read the Urantia book, once. It didn't seem useful to me. What did you find useful in it? It's pretty big. Maybe I just didn't look in the right place.