Happiness
Spring by Alma-Tadema
What do people want? To be happy. So then why do they insist on being happy only in very particular ways? (For example, “I must be rich”, “I must have a son” [in China], “I must have a prestigious job”, “I must be a size 0”, “I must get married”, etc.) Why would they make the pursuit of happiness any harder than it has to be, especially when it already seems so elusive?
It’s not romance itself that brings happiness. Then why is it seen as so desirable?
Related: Why won’t people allow themselves happiness, choose happiness, but instead make themselves sick over something they think they must have (like when they fall in [unrequited] love)? The whole point of falling in love is to be happy. But it is not making them happy, so why can’t they just give it up, forget this person and go back to normal, be happy the way they used to be before they met this person? They lived without the person before; what makes them think they can’t live without them afterward? It doesn’t really make any sense. Then again, I realize that none of us is logical.
Happiness vs love. But the definition of love is caring about the happiness of another.
A hypothetical question – 2 people; one likes to study and do scientific research, just for the fun of it. This person lives in isolation and doesn’t care to share their discoveries with the rest of humanity. The second person likes to drink booze and watch football in front of the TV, also just for the fun of it. Given the selfishness and isolation of the 2 people’s lifestyles, can we still say that the researcher’s pursuit of knowledge is higher than the loser’s pursuit of booze and entertainment? Logically, I think we can’t, but that’s still a really hard thing to say (intuition-wise). We’re to “love our neighbors as ourselves”, which neither is doing, and while I cast blame on the scientific hermit, their pursuit isn’t completely reprehensible, is it? Does it have inherent value?
But see, here’s the thing. Even a scientific researcher that contributes to society through their research doesn’t do it to benefit humanity or even to contribute to society. They do it because it’s their passion; they have a drive to discover. Now it might give them immense satisfaction to know that what they love has benefited others in practical ways, and yet, that’s not the reason they continue. So then why should I think that the former is in the wrong, while the latter isn’t, though they work from the same motives?
So the purpose of this hypothetical question was to separate the maximization of pleasure from actions having inherent value, and this from love, and this from motive.
Everyone has a different capacity for pleasure in life. I know a person who's extremely one-dimensional. By that I mean the only thing they care about is philosophy and coffee, and to a certain extent, food and sex. Most other people have many different interests. So is this one-dimensional person lacking in some way? Maybe we could even consider it a form of punishment.
Pleasure/hedonism, which is physical, goes hand-in-hand with fantasy, which is spiritual. Meaning/truth, which is spiritual, is somehow based on the physical (ie, real life/consequences).This is probably easier to understand in a more visual format:
pleasure/hedonism (physical) & fantasy (spiritual) BUT
real life/consequences (physical) & meaning (spiritual)
Now we know, also from the UQ, that pleasure + meaning = happiness. Pleasure without meaning is empty, meaning without pleasure is too grim. While the latter condition is better than the former, ideally, you wouldn't have to choose. But living in reality, while real, can be too drab for many people. They seek to escape into fantasy, which they build up on the pleasure principle.
(This observation is also found under "Reality".)
It’s not romance itself that brings happiness. Then why is it seen as so desirable?
Related: Why won’t people allow themselves happiness, choose happiness, but instead make themselves sick over something they think they must have (like when they fall in [unrequited] love)? The whole point of falling in love is to be happy. But it is not making them happy, so why can’t they just give it up, forget this person and go back to normal, be happy the way they used to be before they met this person? They lived without the person before; what makes them think they can’t live without them afterward? It doesn’t really make any sense. Then again, I realize that none of us is logical.
Happiness vs love. But the definition of love is caring about the happiness of another.
A hypothetical question – 2 people; one likes to study and do scientific research, just for the fun of it. This person lives in isolation and doesn’t care to share their discoveries with the rest of humanity. The second person likes to drink booze and watch football in front of the TV, also just for the fun of it. Given the selfishness and isolation of the 2 people’s lifestyles, can we still say that the researcher’s pursuit of knowledge is higher than the loser’s pursuit of booze and entertainment? Logically, I think we can’t, but that’s still a really hard thing to say (intuition-wise). We’re to “love our neighbors as ourselves”, which neither is doing, and while I cast blame on the scientific hermit, their pursuit isn’t completely reprehensible, is it? Does it have inherent value?
But see, here’s the thing. Even a scientific researcher that contributes to society through their research doesn’t do it to benefit humanity or even to contribute to society. They do it because it’s their passion; they have a drive to discover. Now it might give them immense satisfaction to know that what they love has benefited others in practical ways, and yet, that’s not the reason they continue. So then why should I think that the former is in the wrong, while the latter isn’t, though they work from the same motives?
So the purpose of this hypothetical question was to separate the maximization of pleasure from actions having inherent value, and this from love, and this from motive.
Everyone has a different capacity for pleasure in life. I know a person who's extremely one-dimensional. By that I mean the only thing they care about is philosophy and coffee, and to a certain extent, food and sex. Most other people have many different interests. So is this one-dimensional person lacking in some way? Maybe we could even consider it a form of punishment.
Pleasure/hedonism, which is physical, goes hand-in-hand with fantasy, which is spiritual. Meaning/truth, which is spiritual, is somehow based on the physical (ie, real life/consequences).This is probably easier to understand in a more visual format:
pleasure/hedonism (physical) & fantasy (spiritual) BUT
real life/consequences (physical) & meaning (spiritual)
Now we know, also from the UQ, that pleasure + meaning = happiness. Pleasure without meaning is empty, meaning without pleasure is too grim. While the latter condition is better than the former, ideally, you wouldn't have to choose. But living in reality, while real, can be too drab for many people. They seek to escape into fantasy, which they build up on the pleasure principle.
(This observation is also found under "Reality".)