Hacker News Reader

> I cannot stand people who complain when they live in a first world country.

Saying someone shouldn't be unhappy because there others who have it worse is a bit like saying someone shouldn't be happy because there are others who have it better.

"...once you stop setting yourself impossible goals, lead a simple life, find humility, have a minimum amount of discipline, you won't be so unhappy."

"I read so many people on facebook quoting weird happiness, meditation stuff that makes no sense at all to me."

I think if you looked into it a bit more, you might discover these two statements are contradictory.

> I cannot stand people who complain when they live in a first world country. I find it so insulting for the entirety of the third world out there.

Don't forget that there are still people living in terrible poverty, people imprisoned unjustly and slaves in every "first world" country. Equally there are people who are extremely wealthy and people above the law in every "third world" country :-)

You're right, but I was generalizing.

> I cannot stand people who complain when they live in a first world country. I find it so insulting for the entirety of the third world out there.

Although such a response is understandable, it's also very counterproductive. Give it 300 years and all nations will be facing these "first world"-problems.

We should not be sweeping these problems under the rug, but try our best to solve them for everyone.

> I cannot stand people who complain when they live in a first world country. I find it so insulting for the entirety of the third world out there.

Eh, at least people in the third world have a better future to look forward to. In the first world you can expect decades of watching your country crumble, wondering if you'll be blessed with death before it gets too bad.

The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.

You're right, people in the third world have a better margin for progress, and people in the first world will be frustrated because it becomes harder to accomplish any sort of progress. Although you can still do a different kind of progress in a first world country, but I agree that it's a little more complicated and not always accessible.

That's why it's important to be humble. If you're not you can still go in those third world country and accomplish things.

It's entirely natural for first world countries to "get worse" as the rest of the world improves.

> ...once you stop setting yourself impossible goals, lead a simple life, find humility, have a minimum amount of discipline, you won't be so unhappy.

As George Bernard Shaw said, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

I accept my unhappiness as the price of striving to be the best I can be, however little that might amount to. Anything less is a waste of my one and only chance (i.e. an all too brief existence) to make a difference in this world.

To make a difference in the world? That sounds like a grandiose rationalization used to cover up an abyss underneath it. A sentiment is a poor substitute for purpose and justification, a vacuous idol whose twilight approaches.

> To make a difference in the world? That sounds like a grandiose rationalization used to cover up an abyss underneath it. A sentiment is a poor substitute for purpose and justification, a vacuous idol whose twilight approaches.

What purpose and justification could there possibly be in "stop setting yourself impossible goals, lead a simple life, find humility", etc., as the original poster writes? That's just trying to put a good face on defeatism using flowery language. If that works for people, more power to them, but let's not pretend it's something that it isn't.

I agree.

Happiness understood in hedonistic terms, what most people nowadays search, is futile, because a single inconvenience will make us unhappy.

However, optimising for virtue, as the stoics understood it, can make feel that we are doing what must be done and this brings peace, despite of any inconvenience.

Living and humble life, setting realistic goals (but not lazy ones, of course), caring for parents, spouse and children, and thinking in terms of virtue can help a lot.

> optimising for virtue

What does this mean, I've never heard of it before?

I believe GP is talking about virtue ethics even if it is worded a bit clumsily. Two proponents of virtue ethics are the Stoics and Aristotle. A brief introduction:

"Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach that emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism). Suppose it is obvious that someone in need should be helped. A utilitarian will point to the fact that the consequences of doing so will maximize well-being, a deontologist to the fact that, in doing so the agent will be acting in accordance with a moral rule such as “Do unto others as you would be done by” and a virtue ethicist to the fact that helping the person would be charitable or benevolent."

Link: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

Aren't there more men who consider themselves feminists than men interested in men's rights? In which case you might be thinking about the wrong thing.

Radical feminists and mens rights advocates don't even define happiness that differently - they just want it for different gender. (I know there are also feminins and mens rights advocates who deal with actual issues of the respective gender and don't bother with philosophy around happiness. Respect to them.)

Excuse me, but you didn't say "radical feminist" before, you said "feminists". And you aren't describing the views of any feminists or radical feminists that I know.