Why should people be happy?

[Gottservant]

Why should people be happy?

BECAUSE Jesus IS HAPPY

 

[juvenissun]

That's close to what I mean.

Ambivalence refers to some sort of internal conflict where psychological forces tug one in different directions. For instance, one might have mixed feelings about some particular value, or even one's entire life. Also, I think that one's rational judgment can conflict with one's emotions, providing the strange feeling that one is either not doing what one should, or that one is not doing what one truly loves.



That is the royal road to ambivalence. One might want to rob someone, but this would be in conflict with one's judgment about the worth and appropriateness of the action. Chances are, the conflict would be "won" by refusing to be a self-reflective person. However, the conflict wouldn't really disappear. One could never be completely whole on that path.



Only of self-destruction, if you call that an achievement.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Anything has two sides. If one side made you happy then the other side won't. If so, how do you evaluate happiness? Would 51% happiness and 49% the opposite (name?) be called happy? The OP asked why should we be happy. If a happy feeling only contains 60% happiness, would it be good enough? could a feeling also be called "happy" if it only has 35% happiness?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Anything has two sides. If one side made you happy then the other side won't. If so, how do you evaluate happiness? Would 51% happiness and 49% the opposite (name?) be called happy? The OP asked why should we be happy. If a happy feeling only contains 60% happiness, would it be good enough? could a feeling also be called "happy" if it only has 35% happiness?

I don't think that happiness can be measured in terms of percentages in the way you are doing here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

I don't think that happiness can be measured in terms of percentages in the way you are doing here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Of course, I can replace those numbers by words such as more or less or slightly more, or much more etc. But you should read them in a qualitative way. (that does not mean a quantitative study is not possible)

So, what is your answer/comment to the question?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Of course, I can replace those numbers by words such as more or less or slightly more, or much more etc. But you should read them in a qualitative way. (that does not mean a quantitative study is not possible)

So, what is your answer/comment to the question?

My answer is that you shouldn't do that, even in a qualitative way. You are either happy or you are not. Sure, there can be a relative intensity of neurochemical highs, but that doesn't matter.

What you are trying to do is force me into a paradigm into which I do not fit.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Happiness is too associated with joy for me. Neitzsche spoke of will to power. Focusing energy is peryaps more profound a attitude than joy. I WILL you to understand.

 

[juvenissun]

My answer is that you shouldn't do that, even in a qualitative way. You are either happy or you are not. Sure, there can be a relative intensity of neurochemical highs, but that doesn't matter.

What you are trying to do is force me into a paradigm into which I do not fit.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I am not force you to be anywhere. I just remind you that according to your idea, there are various degree of happiness. There is even cases that there are some happiness, but is overshadowed by other emotions. For all those cases, we can say that all of them have some degree of happiness.

And, frankly, this type of happiness analysis is meaningless. Where is the problem? It is right at the beginning. Your fundamental idea of happiness is not right. You put too many parameters into this emotion and it allows this emotion to be fractionalized so that you do not recognize it any more in most cases.

Happiness is a pure emotion. It is 100% and contains no other emotions. If you do not recognized this definition, then you fall into your own trap.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am not force you to be anywhere. I just remind you that according to your idea, there are various degree of happiness.

Where did I say that there are various degrees of happiness? If it has to do with my comments on neurochemicals or natural temperament, that only has to do with how one experiences happiness. There can be degrees in that sense. However, that doesn't mean that happiness "dilutes" in the presence of other feelings. If you are happy, you are happy, not partially happy.

Your fundamental idea of happiness is not right. You put too many parameters into this emotion and it allows this emotion to be fractionalized so that you do not recognize it any more in most cases.

The difficulty of recognizing happiness is a cultural blindness of the modern age, not a problem with the concept. See David Norton's book Personal Destinies for more.

The concept does not suffer from having "too many parameters". It has no more and no fewer than it needs.

Happiness is a pure emotion.

That is the Age of Enlightenment concept of happiness, which is not mine. I don't see why I need to conform to that paradigm.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Happiness is too associated with joy for me. Neitzsche spoke of will to power.

Yes, and Ayn Rand spoke of happiness in this way:

Happiness is not to be achieved at the command of emotional whims. Happiness is not the satisfaction of whatever irrational wishes you might blindly attempt to indulge. Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy—a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction, not the joy of escaping from your mind, but of using your mind’s fullest power, not the joy of faking reality, but of achieving values that are real, not the joy of a drunkard, but of a producer. Happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seeks nothing but rational values and finds his joy in nothing but rational actions.
-- Ayn Rand

I think that Ayn Rand tended to focus on the joy of achievement as defining happiness, whereas I look (in the manner of David Norton) for that sense of being on the right track in life. However, those two views are similar and compatible in recognizing that inner conflict destroys happiness (see the quote above).

My notion is that you can be happy even when you don't feel the elation of joy. Happiness can be "quieter", more like serenity. This makes happiness a part of the journey, and not just the destinations. (Though I may be a little unfair to Ayn Rand here. She does talk of the joy of "using your mind's fullest power", which I suppose could happen at almost any time.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

The difficulty of recognizing happiness is a cultural blindness of the modern age, not a problem with the concept. See David Norton's book Personal Destinies for more.

The concept does not suffer from having "too many parameters". It has no more and no fewer than it needs.



eudaimonia,

Mark

OK, I like to try again. What are the parameters needed for happiness?

 

[juvenissun]

Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy—a joy without penalty or guilt,
eudaimonia,

Mark

OK, I would say: there is no such thing.

How about an example?

 

[Ronald]

Title basically says it all. Why should people be happy as opposed to unhappy? Why is happiness important?

Because God has taken care of us and promises eternal life through Jesus. Once you get beyond material things that are temporal and you focus on spiritual things above, and realize that God is in control, the result is contentment, peace, love and joy.
God wants us to be happy. Blessed can be translated as to make happy. We are blessed, therefore we should be happy. However, even knowing that you are saved, have eternal life, etc., we still experience unhappy moments -- because there is sin in the world and we still have sin in the members of our flesh. Until we die and get rid of our earthly suits or are resurrected at His Coming, we have to confront sin and evil, pain and suffering. "God causes all things to work for good for those who love God, for those who are called to His purpose." Rom. 8:28 So you got to get to the place where you can say it's ALL GOOD.
If you are unhappy too much, then you lack faith or are too self-focused. Depression can cripple you; so be thankful and less self-absorbed and serve others. If you help others, you will be happy, because that's the essence of love.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I saw a show on the bbc iirc snd a psychologisr commented that humans are inherently optimistic. So they fail to recognise the full danger of stuff like global warming etc. It is this happy attitude that i resent. We are drunk on it. Our minds are clouded and we cant make decisions properly in our interests. Thats my reading anyway.

 

[Eudaimonist]

OK, I like to try again. What are the parameters needed for happiness?

1) Rationally understanding that you are doing what you ought to do
2) Emotionally feeling that you are doing what you love to do

Implicit to (1) and (2) combined is:
3) A lack of conflictedness, or to put that more positively, the presence of serenity

I'm not certain that I want to call happiness an "emotion". It is something that can be felt, but it isn't like the classic emotions, such as joy, sadness, fear, anger, etc.

I'd just like to add that I've been talking about how one evaluates the present moment. It is possible to turn one's attention to one's past, and evaluate that. If there were problems doing what one ought or loved, then regret, guilt, or shame may be possible impediments to one's happiness. This is just another form of internal conflict, and probably frustrating since one can't change the past.

OK, I would say: there is no such thing.

How about an example?

Mars Curiosity Rover Landing a Success — NASA Jubilant - YouTube

In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours.
--Ayn Rand


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you are unhappy too much, then you lack faith or are too self-focused. Depression can cripple you; so be thankful and less self-absorbed and serve others. If you help others, you will be happy, because that's the essence of love.

Some of the most depressed people I've known are people-pleasers who do little more than help others.

What I imagine when I hear this advice is a lot of Christians who are being made neurotic because they are depressed and feeling guilty that they "don't have enough faith" or are "too self-focused". Depression may have medical reasons. It isn't necessarily anyone's "fault", and may not have such a quick fix.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

1) Rationally understanding that you are doing what you ought to do
2) Emotionally feeling that you are doing what you love to do

Implicit to (1) and (2) combined is:
3) A lack of conflictedness, or to put that more positively, the presence of serenity

I'm not certain that I want to call happiness an "emotion". It is something that can be felt, but it isn't like the classic emotions, such as joy, sadness, fear, anger, etc.

I'd just like to add that I've been talking about how one evaluates the present moment. It is possible to turn one's attention to one's past, and evaluate that. If there were problems doing what one ought or loved, then regret, guilt, or shame may be possible impediments to one's happiness. This is just another form of internal conflict, and probably frustrating since one can't change the past.



Mars Curiosity Rover Landing a Success — NASA Jubilant - YouTube



eudaimonia,

Mark

OK, they are apparently happy. No doubt.

But, this could also be the scene of gangsters, rebels who are celebrating a victory of some kind.

We can not see the happiness of inner heart just by looking at what the actions are. Somebody in that group may feel a relief (I can go home, finally), or a burden (now, more hard work ahead) while they are dancing.

I am not saying that they are not happy. It comes back to my point: It is always a mixture of happiness and other (opposite) feelings. Even I feel slightly happy, I laugh and celebrate. But it does not mean I am really happy or even mostly happy.

Why should we be happy? From your point of view, there is really no reason to be truly happy, even you can define what a true happiness is.

 

[Eudaimonist]

We can not see the happiness of inner heart just by looking at what the actions are.

Then don't ask me for an example.

From your point of view, there is really no reason to be truly happy, even you can define what a true happiness is.

From my point of view, there certainly is a reason to be truly happy, and I've already addressed that in my very first post to this thread.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

Happiness is a feeling associated with successfulness at achieving one's deepest values, a lack of internal conflict, and peace of mind. It is a sign that one is successful at flourishing as a human being.


eudaimonia,

Mark

My argument is that you asked for too much. The internal conflict MUST exist no matter how happy you are.

 

[Eudaimonist]

My argument is that you asked for too much. The internal conflict MUST exist no matter how happy you are.

Would you say that peace of mind (serenity, tranquility) is impossible?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

Would you say that peace of mind (serenity, tranquility) is impossible?


eudaimonia,

Mark

For a short moment, may be yes. For a whole day, not likely.
Needless to say a few days, a week, a month, etc.

Are you satisfied with a momentary happiness?