Many of you are confusing the english language. "Being happy" and "working towards happiness" are two very different things. "Being happy" is a state of mind, euphoria, joy. "Working towards happiness" is a process of attemtping to achive a goal which may have unwanted costs.
Maybe it's not the people, just the lack of correct use of the language I am disputing.
If I were caring for a loved one, who was dying, I would be miserable, not happy. Have you people ever heard of empathy? But I would take care of them, because I love them. But I would be sad.
What happens in the future is not "being."
Maybe it's not the people, just the lack of correct use of the language I am disputing.
If I were caring for a loved one, who was dying, I would be miserable, not happy. Have you people ever heard of empathy? But I would take care of them, because I love them. But I would be sad.
What happens in the future is not "being."
Wow. Sorry dude. That must really suck to have that attitude.
I had to care for a loved one and I was very happy knowing that I was able to care for them and doing things for them.
-edit- what I mean is caring for others is the meaning of life and happiness.
I think you're failing to register that a person can be happy *doing* something, working toward a goal, even before they *acheive* that goal. Sometimes the *process* of a given thing is, in fact, rewarding and enjoyable.
In your example, I think most people would feel both emotions; happiness that they can help to ease the suffering of their loved one, sadness that they can't avoid the impending loss. It strikes me as common, and yet odd, that people view emotional states as being unilaterally one or the other. I've rarely found that to be the case.
Jason
Again, you seem to be confusing the meaning of the word, or relating it in time. Or you take pleasure in other's pain. Would you have an equal level of happiness when they were healthy? I would be sad when they are sick, happy when they are healthy. When they were sick, I would try to make them feel better, happy if possible. But I wouldn't be jumping for joy while they are coughing their life out. I would be happy later if I helped make them better. I would feel guilty if I couldn't help them.
Isn't that what this happy talk is all about? Covering up for and being in denial of one's own guilt?
MartyMcFly3
Lifer
What is best in life? -- To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
That's a good and interesting point. We as humans seem to have a dual nature. I realize people can be hapy doing something, but lots of times we aren't. Should we instead just try to be happy instead of doing the things that don't make us happy at the time? Is happiness that important?
It seems that people say happiness is the goal. I don't disagree with that. I do disagree that "being happy" is the most important thing. If I were running for my life from a pack of wolves, I would not feel a bit happy, the most imprtant thing to me at that point in time would be getting away from those wolves, not feeling happy. Thinking happy thoughts will not make them go away.
I think you're trying to oversimplify complex emotions. Nonetheless, it would probably make you happy if you were not devoured by wolves like Gerald Ford so that would be a very fundamental motivator for you running as fast as you can.
You can't BE happy all the time...but that doesn't mean that some form of happiness or reward (such as living another day) isn't the underlying motivation for much, if not all that you do.
That's certainly a bold statement. As if striving for your own personal happiness automatically means neglecting the happiness of everyone else around you. Couldn't making the best of a miserable situation somehow be construed as searching for happiness?
Well, that's true, but your example is of an isolated (not to mention, incredibly unlikely) scenario which will likely end in one of two ways (you escape or you get mauled to death) pretty quickly. More than likely in a similar scenario, sure, you'd be scared sh1tless, just worrying about surviving. But *most* of life isn't that way for most people. Day to day living isn't typically an "on the edge of life or death" for most of us.
On the whole, I'd say that if you aren't happy doing something, say, a particular job that you do because you need the cash, not because you care about the work, then you should take steps to get yourself out of that situation and into one where you *will* be happy. Get an education, put in for a transfer, whatever--but you certainly *should* look for a situation that will make you happy. I'm not saying to be a fool and shirk all your responsibilities by quitting your job and running, but taking steps to get out is a must-do, IMHO. Staying forever in an unhappy situation doesn't do anything but make you cynical, tired and angry at the world and at yourself, and that's not good for anyone.
Jason
No it's not. Constant happiness simply cannot exist. Peace of Mind would be most important to me. Almost unattainable.
HardcoreRobot
Lifer
- Nov 7, 2000
- 16,403
- 3
- 81
yes
even when you say you do things bc you feel you need to do them, you are still doing them for yourself - to satisfy that need
it IS selfish, and thats not inherently a bad thing as most people's first instinct tells them
when you fight these urges to do what makes you happy/satisfies you etc. is when you end up miserable
even when you say you do things bc you feel you need to do them, you are still doing them for yourself - to satisfy that need
it IS selfish, and thats not inherently a bad thing as most people's first instinct tells them
when you fight these urges to do what makes you happy/satisfies you etc. is when you end up miserable
I don't think it's *instinct* that tells them being selfish is bad, it's *culture*. We've got a very stupid idea that being concerned with one's own interests is inherently bad or evil, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Certainly those people who act unscrupulously and are willing to sacrifice others for their own ends are an evil, but that extreme is *not* inherent in the basic definition of selfishness.
Perhaps for clarity's sake it is best to say "rational self interest" to denote that concept in which each of us is--and ought to be--reasonably concerned with things that affect us or have meaning for us.
Jason
It depends on how you define happiness. Doing things because they make you happy in the short term isn't happiness. True happiness comes from self-awareness (And global awareness for that matter)
It should make you happy that you are providing for them to the best of your ability. It should make you happy that you are around a loved one while you can in their time of need. Of course you wouldn't be jumping for joy when they are coughing their life out, that is common sense. I don't see how you relate that with the overall ideal of happiness.
You are pigeonholing the discussion.
I think you are the one confusing the meaning of the word and intent. People do what they have to do, and most try their hardest to be happy while doing it. Either way, you clearly come off as an overly complex pessimist.
I hope you find happiness in all of your life pursuits.
Hell yes, there is nothing like it.
I think when most people say "Do what makes you happy", they mean given an option between two choices that can affect your life, that ISNT a moral situation.
Think more "Above all, do the right thing, and then otherwise do what makes you happy."
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter