First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
The Psychology of Happiness is a Fuzzy Logic
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/9/10 , edited 1/9/10

Jiggalo wrote:



Right. If people rebel, then then there will be bloodshed. Sacrifice is the idea, though it is harsh. People do live side-by-side, but are they happy about it? The answer; possibly, but usually not quite happy enough. There will always be an occasional state of influx between people. It is part of the system which we live and die by. People go to war, thousands or millions die, then the smoke settles and peace reigns for a time. All that energy we expel seems to have a good end result.


Firstly, sacrifice does not, in reality, exist. Sacrifice entails that an offer was made and something acquired in exchange, which does not exist in a situation where loss is a possibility not an inevitability tied immediately and invariable to some form of gain. If people rebel and losses are sustained, that results from a failure to coordinate affairs in a desirable fashion. And I agree, people are not always happy to live side-by-side, but collectively, the decision has been made over centuries and millenia that losses will be regarded as unwanted, and a state from which losses are likely to result and do normally result, will be regarded the same way. War is an activity separate from any meaningful activity which promotes our shared interests as a species. It may be beneficial to a certain party or group of people, but it is not, from the perspective of our species, desirable. War produces nothing in addition and it consumes resources and almost invariably prevents or halts the production of additional resources. It is, overall, a loss. Consecutive wars, despite any gain on the side of the respective participants, hinders humanity as a whole in making progress and sustaining itelf.

In a hypothetical, smoothly running global system there are no wars.
Posted 1/9/10


don't really care anymore.... i will die early anyways so what's the point in living even it's a farce meh oh well
Posted 1/9/10


No sacrifice... that is very plausible. Since everything we do comes back around to the same result, what meaning is there is sacrifice? I think of sacrifice in terms of throwing one thing away entirely to sustain another. It's like a person jumping in a river to save a drowning child without any regard for his/her well-being. The sacrifice becomes so if that person perishes. Consciousness, which is valued, becomes lost possibly forever in death. Martyrdom I think is just too far-fetched.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/9/10

Jiggalo wrote:



No sacrifice... that is very plausible. Since everything we do comes back around to the same result, what meaning is there is sacrifice? I think of sacrifice in terms of throwing one thing away entirely to sustain another. It's like a person jumping in a river to save a drowning child without any regard for his/her well-being. The sacrifice becomes so if that person perishes. Consciousness, which is valued, becomes lost possibly forever in death. Martyrdom I think is just too far-fetched.


We seem to have a disagreement as to label not as to what reality is. I did not call into question the existence of the phenomenon you interpret as sacrifice, rather, I called it a loss, resulting as a by-product of activities which do not invariably lead to a loss being sustained. In your scenario, the person who drowned in an attempt to save the child died not for exchange of the child's life, but as a result of the failure to avoid the scenario of a child moving into a state of emergency. Had the car been fitted with better parts, the child supervised more carefully, the body of water closed to the public, and on and on, no losses would have been sustained. The person died as a result of someone's fault, the child's, his own or a third party's fault. He did not die for but because of someone.
Posted 1/9/10


We all have the right in the end to make our choices if we have the one thing that gives us that right; responsibility. If you want to just fade away whilst realizing that you are, then so be it. No one will hold your hand past a certain point in life. Adults are expected to support their every need by themselves for themselves or support the needs of someone else. If you think and feel that there is no hope for you and will to not change that, given the fact that you are mature enough to make your own decisions, you'll receive what you wished for.

Living and dying for nothing is just too painful. However, few people want an intervention. We are stubborn. We don't want to be seen as vulnerable or weak. We think it is appealing to appear apathetic and rigid, when all we are is caring and soft underneath our fronts. If we want to break away from darkness, we need to realize that loving ourselves is more important than the love from others since we first have to love ourselves to love anyone else. It's like Shinji from Evangelion, he didn't love himself because no one taught him how. He died horribly and then sank into an abysmal and nightmarish fate.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 1/9/10
'Happiness is programed into us.'

Satisfying are baser needs, or are instincts will generate a feeling of happiness.
Eating food, having sex, or many other things that are base on you instincts will create the sense of happiness. (It is as simple as that.)

Posted 1/9/10


The cause is just one part of it. However, would the person who decided to become a sacrifice know or care for the reason why the child was drowning in the river? Maybe so, maybe not. The idea of sacrifice is to put all of the bullshit that caused the rotten situation aside and do what is right. It seems naive to think we can accomplish anything when we do something completely reckless. Heroics, which I feel sacrifice is a part of, are reckless and even naive, and that is what makes them good. You can't see everything from an analytical perspective when oftentimes some things can't be analyzed, let alone interpreted.

Why did Joan of Arc save France? She did it for the right reason, although she was quite insane.
Posted 1/9/10 , edited 1/9/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

'Happiness is programed into us.'

Satisfying are baser needs, or are instincts will generate a feeling of happiness.
Eating food, having sex, or many other things that are base on you instincts will create the sense of happiness. (It is as simple as that.)



I would call fulfilling instinctive impulses more satisfying rather than joyful. In the human sense of happiness, we also need security. If you simply feed, sleep, breed or whatever, you are just fulfilling basic functions.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/9/10

Jiggalo wrote:



The cause is just one part of it. However, would the person who decided to become a sacrifice know or care for the reason why the child was drowning in the river? Maybe so, maybe not. The idea of sacrifice is to put all of the bullshit that caused the rotten situation aside and do what is right. It seems naive to think we can accomplish anything when we do something completely reckless. Heroics, which I feel sacrifice is a part of, are reckless and even naive, and that is what makes them good. You can't see everything from an analytical perspective when oftentimes some things can't be analyzed, let alone interpreted.

Why did Joan of Arc save France? She did it for the right reason, although she was quite insane.


The person's state of mind at the time of learning about the circumstances or at the time of his death is of no relevance. There is no such thing as 'right' on its own. The person evaluated with his mind at the time of the events what is the action he feels driven to perform and having done so made an attempt at performing the action in question. His persona having been determined and formed by his genes and through his instincts and reactions to external impressions and information, it can be said that the person performed an action without further reference to nonsensical lofty concepts such as 'right'.

Everything does or will eventually yield to analysis. Something that does not yield to analysis is nonexistent, hence why it cannot be explained in clear terms and with relative certainty. Right, wrong, morality and so on and so forth, are all nonexistent things, as they do not yield to scientific analysis. Prove to me that a right exists, please. Point to anything that would scientifically support the allegation that right and wrong exist. Point to a place anywhere on Earth or in the universe where 'right' can be found in the form of existent matter.

Why Joan of Arc acted the way she did? Look at my example above, her brain dictated certain movements of the body. Arbitrary movements, with no reason, purpose or meaning.
Posted 1/9/10


You want proof. Okay, look deep inside of yourself. What do you see? Is there a void? If so, then there needs to be a HEART in that void. In terms of analysis, really, some things can't be analyzed. Right doesn't exist physically, it is a concept. Wrong is the same. If you want to see right, get out there and find it. Right and wrong are all too often just assumptions. Oh, how terrible that is. If I was to come into your life and try to take something away from you, wouldn't it be right for you to stop me? I think so.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 1/9/10

Jiggalo wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

'Happiness is programed into us.'

Satisfying are baser needs, or are instincts will generate a feeling of happiness.
Eating food, having sex, or many other things that are base on you instincts will create the sense of happiness. (It is as simple as that.)



I would call fulfilling instinctive impulses more satisfying rather than joyful. In the human sense of happiness, we also need security. If you simply feed, sleep, breed or whatever, you are just fulfilling basic functions.


Fulfilling are baser needs is what leads to are advancements. As sense of security as you call it, is part of are instincts. To be shielded from the environment, to be part of a group, to eat, to survive. The advancements of are technology is in the end to aid in satisfying are baser needs. To work toward those instincts leads to happiness, because that is how are animal minds are wired in-order to assure are survival.

Just fulfilling are basic functions is indeed how all humans are, because it is programmed into us, and the sense of happiness a person gets from it is do to nothing more than the natural urges created by are brain to survive and move ahead.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/9/10

Jiggalo wrote:



You want proof. Okay, look deep inside of yourself. What do you see? Is there a void? If so, then there needs to be a HEART in that void. In terms of analysis, really, some things can't be analyzed. Right doesn't exist physically, it is a concept. Wrong is the same. If you want to see right, get out there and find it. Right and wrong are all too often just assumptions. Oh, how terrible that is. If I was to come into your life and try to take something away from you, wouldn't it be right for you to stop me? I think so.


I tried looking inside of myself. I can't see through my epidermis. There is a heart inside, though, which I know from biology class is beating valiantly to supply blood to my body. Why can some things not be analysed? I would really appreciate some evidence of proof if you are making making such ambitious claims to the extent that there exists this special class of 'things' which cannot be understood, which is contrary to everything else we have, thus far, experienced in the material world. Right and wrong exist physically, only not in the same sense as you mean it. Both right and wrong are firings and data in the brain in a tangible form which yields to analysis. If you were to do something contrary to my desires, I would try to prevent that and there is no further reference to right or wrong. Your believing in it can hardly prove the existence of something.
Posted 1/9/10


I wonder if animals feel joy on the same level that we do. I think maybe not. They are likely happier. A small bird, for instance, seems happier than any person because it doesn't have to deal with quite as many complicated issues as we do. Security, in the case of humans, I feel goes way beyond simply not being afraid for their lives. We need security on "deeper" levels. Or happiness is maybe not applicable to humans since we have uncertainty. A good feeling might be pain in disguise.
Posted 1/9/10


Of course you can't see through your skin. I didn't imply that you should peer into your own solar plexus to find your heart. The concept of a heart I speak of is indefinable because we all have a different one, so it is subjective. That will be a specially-classed ''thing''. Right to me, and I do believe it, is when we support something beneficial. Wrong is when we simply destroy for no good reason.

The universe is chaotic, but somewhere amidst quantum physics, as I will put it, there is a definition of right and wrong. Nothing is quite clear, distinct or relevant when all we see is discord.
Posted 1/9/10
You're thinking about it too much.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.