The Problem With Happiness

I find this hard to believe. Are you not surprised by traveling? Art? dmt experiences?

The article has some interesting points but I believe it lacks a reflection from the eastern point of view and a critique to capitalism as it does for socialism.

Without them the discussion seems incomplete.

I feel this way about many things in my life that I used to care about that now seem insignificant due to that "big picture" feeling, e.g., all of social media; but if I focus I can enjoy the "little details" when, for example, my SO shares a meme. Also accompanies is that nothing is new, everything is a repost, etc.

It's a weird new sensation for me that I'm still learning to deal with, especially with regards to enjoying previously enjoyable activities. Or do I just drop them and search for better endeavours?

And I agree that "nothing is really new anymore".

Nihil sub sole novum.

I used to teach skydiving and watching the student's excitement during the first several jumps always brought back strong memories the initial joy. It was like reliving my first jumps.

I wonder if raising kids - sharing life experiences with a young person - has the effect of reliving the initial experience.

We alone have free will and the Law of Karma (reaping what we sow in others) is the universe's feedback mechanism to nudge us away from animalistic competition at the expense of others and towards humanitarian cooperation for the benefit of one and all, no matter what their superficial differences.

To become consumed with universal compassion for all others and therefore be committed to helping create happiness in all those around us is to have become the owner of a deep abiding peace and happiness that cannot be shaken irrespective of external circumstances.

Becoming consumed by active, selfless love for all others is the zenith of human self-evolution and is the ultimate meaning of life. That so few understand this absolute truth is precisely why so many suffer and those who gain riches are left so very empty.

It's hard to let go realizing we are not in control. It's also really hard to be present enough to enjoy things fully or detach ourselves from suffering during the bad times. But it's definitely worth a try.

The article you're replying to argues directly against such measures of happiness, and against the very idea that happiness should be the goal of society or of life.

The article deserves reading in full, but here are a few relevant excerpts:

"To assign numbers as the UN does, one must assume that happiness is a single thing measurable by a single gauge."

"As the philosopher John Rawls pointed out, a society of happiness-seekers would have no reason not to borrow heavily and leave the debt to future generations."

"Even if one's goal is the best life for the individual, the search for happiness may be a false path."

The 2019 world happiness report had Bhutan at number 95 out of 156 countries which looks kinda mediocre though I think they are happier than most countries at their GNP/capita level (about $3k/yr, more at PPP). The top countries in that report are the nordic ones, Finland, Denmark, Norway and Iceland at the top.

When you are dating someone for a while, you're asked if this is the one.

When you've made that official, you're asked if there is any news, children-wise.

There's a lot of societal pressure from family and friends to have kids or risk being perceived as a disappointment or failure.

If none of that was there, fewer people might have kids.

He did not necessarily mean this, but necessarily did mean a weaker thing: Having children does not make some people happier. Let me explain.

> if the only reason to have children is to make oneself happier, rather than to fulfill a social or moral duty, a lot fewer people will have children.

1. (happy) ⊨ (children) 2. (happy) ∨ (duty) ⊨ (children)

If (1) is the case rather than (2) being the case, then you can expect that (children) will be the consequence in fewer cases. You may disagree with the idea that a lot fewer people will have children, but he certainly said what you thought he possibly meant.

He doesn't say that "having children makes oneself happier" (i.e he doesn't say that that's a fact).

He says that "if the only reason to have children is to make oneself happier" -- meaning if having children is just upon your fancying having children or not (as opposed to "fulfill a social or moral duty") -- then there would be fewer children.

So the two statements are not contradictory.

People procreate more on a personal whim (based on whether or not they feel like it) nowadays, and less based on moral / societal pressure (they is still that, but way less), and as such, indeed fewer people have children.

The reason for my seemingly useless pedantic correction is because it seems to me that using language like "pointed out", as if "a society of happiness-seekers would have no reason not to borrow heavily and leave the debt to future generations" is a matter of fact (he has no way of knowing such things, obviously) results in valuable ideas and perspectives being rejected by those who have a more rationalist approach to ideas.

The author at least strongly implied it by "if the only reason for one to do X was if it made one happy, a lot fewer would do X".

All it costs is your entire life and the scorn of your fellow man who are mostly embroiled in the seeking of pleasures and therefore know not happiness.

What a bargain!

The point is not that suffering makes ones life meaningful but the struggle or striving or the road seems to be preferred by the wise than an end state like happiness.

> Die SS, die uns miteinander verwechselt, vermag uns nicht so weit zu bringen, daß wir uns verwechseln. Sie können uns nicht daran hindern, unsere Wahl zu treffen. Im Gegenteil, hier ist die Notwendigkeit, seine Wahl zu treffen, maßlos gesteigert und konstant. Je mehr wir uns verändern, je mehr wir uns von zu Hause entfernen, je mehr die SS glaubt, uns zu einer unterschiedslosen und verantwortungslosen Masse zu machen, was wir dem Anschein nach auch unbestreitbar sind, um so schärfer werden diese Unterschiede.

> The SS, which mistakes us for one another, cannot bring us so far as to make us mistake ourselves. They cannot hinder us to make our choice. To the contrary, here the necessity to make one's choice is limitlessly increased and constant. The more we change, the further away we get from home, the more the SS believes to have made us into an undifferentiated and irresponsible mass, which we undeniably are on the surface, the sharper these differences become.

I can't speak for any of this, either way. As I said, I'm mainly with you, and I certainly don't want to glamorize concentration camps. But for what it's worth, I recommend this book.

And who defines what "the right thing" is?

>The surest way to invite misery is to go chasing happiness. Ask a heroin addict.

Or you could ask an entrepreneur who made his dream come true by chasing happiness. He would tell you the surest thing he did to get out of his misery was chasing happiness. Depends on who you ask.

I don't know Tolstoy but we are only responsible for loving others; if they don't return it that determines their outcome, not ours. Love is the opposite of selfishness so to require something in return is not love at all but some kind of manipulative transaction. That doesn't mean it doesn't emotionally hurt when someone treats you cruelly.

And 'Nature Boy' by Nat King Cole is a great, great song. It's amazing when a song can embody wisdom. My favorite is Louis Armstrong's "What a Wonderful World" with his spoken word intro:

"Seems to me, it aint the world that's so bad but what we're doin' to it. And all I'm saying is, see, what a wonderful world it would be if only we'd give it a chance. Love baby, love. That's the secret, yeah. If lots more of us loved each other, we'd solve lots more problems. And then this world would be a gasser."

One name in particular jumps to mind, which I won't mention because it's just my opinion.

But, generally speaking, how can one explain behaviour like that?

Ideally, you want people happy enough to form long-term, stable pair-bonds and have kids.... no kids, there's no future.

>> Capitalism is built to make sure that psychopaths are never satisfied;

Although it happens all the time, it's not the nature of capitalism that makes it so, just the greedy potential of human beings. We each develop an inertia of life and capitalism (especially 2019's unfettered capitalism) definitely allows the rich to get richer, but that is not built into the system, just the majority of human beings. No, capitalism is also very good at letting those who earn a great deal of money share that money with those who have been less lucky in the roll of life's monetary dice. More simply put: systems designed/implemented by human beings are only as good as the human beings who manifest them. If they are callous, then the system will be callous, and that is precisely what we have today.

>> The fact that wealth and happiness are often mentioned together in articles and books is a very strong indicator that they are related.

No, that just indicates that most people don't understand the difference between pleasure and happiness. Pleasure is related to physical well-being -- i.e. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and the like -- and wealth is the easiest way to get any kind and amount of pleasure one desires. Happiness and/or its opposite is the accumulated results of our treatment of others; it results in a feeling that wells up inside of us. It is absolutely unrelated to any physical pleasure.

At the most raw, basic level of our universe are the physics-level automatic systems but at the most sublime level (and only for human beings) there is the Law of Karma. Because we are endowed with free will and are required to live in groups to survive and prosper, the universe is designed with an automatic feedback mechanism to nudge us toward selfless cooperation and away from the selfish competition of our animal physicality. As such, we quite literally reap the feelings we sow in others. That is why wealth has no direct bearing on our happiness, although it is very negatively correlated with the tyrannical corporate execs who have reduced their workers to 'human resources' to be brutally bargained with to maximize the owners' profit.

As surely as a person can be drunk on power or alcohol or drugs, one can be drunk on accruing wealth at the expense of others; in all instances, the hangover is unpleasant. If the intoxication leads to maltreatment of others, then that hangover will be a deep-seated unhappiness that can only be cured by creating fresh happiness in others; each day is a new day, i.e. "there's still time to change the road you're on". The problem is that the inertia of our lives combined with the general denial of the Law of Karma's existence usually leads the person to only dig the hole deeper.

The entire purpose of human life is to rise above our mammalian competitive instincts and self-evolve ourselves and our societies into cooperative groups of humanitarians where we are obsessed with compassion for everyone. That such compassionate regard for the poor is almost non-existent in today's world societies is the source of much misery and unhappiness -- misery for the poor and unhappiness for the selfish, unfulfilled wealthy who callously disregard their ability to uplift their fellow man.

There was a great story that popped up here (IIRC) about a successful health-care company whose owner was in the process of converting it to a non-profit. Because he had realized that his wealth was the direct result of his workers' efforts he out-of-the-blue gave large bonuses to ALL his employees (based upon seniority). That man gets it and his happiness should be held up as how capitalism is capable of enriching society.