Are We Living in a Post-Happiness World?

I agree - I feel the "post-happiness world" that they're talking about is really just people attempting to find happiness through money and possessions as defined by other people/groups, and validation of that happiness through social media. The most happy times and happy events in my life may get a mention on my social media; but the truly happy memories and feelings come from things outside of what I expect to post publicly. I think what people need to focus on is what has made them truly happy, without direction from others (NYT or otherwise) and without any public validation of their happiness.

NYT used to be a really good paper though.

I thought it was supposed to be this amazing intellectual, philosophical, humanistic thing spreading the courageous word of the truth to unwoked. These people were supposed to be focusing on what we have in common and building common ground.

Fundamentally, the formula of news in 2019 is like this (working on the this):

Create a topic that ignores basic human need that everyone struggles with (housing, school, paying bills, romantic life, family, etc), then imply something less urgent needs priority - oh, and only an arbitrary subset of people have problems. We need to reshape society now, after all, everyone else has an easy life.

Deprive people the validation of even having their needs recognized, even in the title itself. It insults men, women, young, old, of all situations equally :) Except if you use private mode.

That and simply learning to ignore all the rage of the week stuff. It’s pretty easy to live happier by living simpler and realizing that the things that worked for the human race for centuries didn’t magically stop working because of some political marketing campaigns.

Being a millionaire won't make you happy. Now a billionaire

That was such a great episode. But one thing I hate about the philosophy, on the surface of it, is the cynical belief that you have to be simple or stupid to be happy. This is so patently un-true. In the immediate moment, maybe you can be happier but it becomes a short path to ruin for most people.

Although I do love the idea of how Zima constructed his own version of heaven and relegated himself to it. I just hate how he had to become unconscious to do so.

Those seem more like tags for happiness. Or buckets into which happiness can be sorted. As an awkward not-so-great fit into two buckets example, think of someone who puts effort into putting together a collection of objects over a long period of time. Maybe it's art, or toys, or whatever. Over time, they show this collection to others. People hear about it and want to see it before they die. Awards may be won. But the person at the center doesn't necessarily need to decide on either type of happiness, and the philosophy barely even needs to exist. It's more of a journey of attention and energy directed both externally and internally.

I think it's worth considering whether this bi-modal distribution of happiness may in fact be just another perspective among many in an N-dimensional space of perspectives. Sure, it has some leverage. But like any model it should probably be held lightly. A multiple model approach to something as important to humans as happiness would be hard to fault.

> (spelling?)

You were probably thinking of "kitschy", but "corny" would fit your intended meaning better. Though I agree that it's actually not corny at all.

While I stand by your desire for more nuance in the discussion, I'd be wary of assuming one theorization of happiness, and it's attendant conceptual divisions, is the only theory of happiness. While the hedonistic and eudaemonic conceptions come down to us from tradition for good reason, it seems somewhat presumptuous to call these categorizations the "proper names" for the kinds of happiness.

Since it's a humanistic concept, there are many ways to break it down and define it--some competing theories might not even agree with the hedonistic/eudaemonic split (some might find the division too simple, others unnecessary).

There's a lot of different ways one can approach it. For instance, the discussion gets even more interesting when we consider, on the hedonistic side, the world of Sadism--as concepts that seems diametrically opposed (pleasure/pain) intermingle quite interestingly. I would not be surprised if a similar phenomena occurs on the level of hedonism/eudaemonia--the pursuit of one may also mix with some of the incentives and pleasures of the pursuit of the other.

Thanks for posting. I realize how true the rat race is for software workers.

>Haïta told him all: how thrice he had met the radiant maid, and thrice she had left him forlorn. He related minutely all that had passed between them, omitting no word of what had been said.

> When he had ended, the holy hermit was a moment silent, then said: "My son, I have attended to thy story, and I know the maiden. I have myself seen her, as have many. Know, then, that her name, which she would not even permit thee to inquire, is Happiness. Thou saidst the truth to her, that she is capricious for she imposeth conditions that man can not fulfill, and delinquency is punished by desertion. She cometh only when unsought, and will not be questioned. One manifestation of curiosity, one sign of doubt, one expression of misgiving, and she is away! How long didst thou have her at any time before she fled?"

> "Only a single instant," answered Haïta, blushing with shame at the confession. "Each time I drove her away in one moment."

> "Unfortunate youth " said the holy hermit, "but for thine indiscretion thou mightst have had her for two."

Ambrose Bierce - Haita the Shepherd.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ha%C3%AFta_the_Shepherd

>The pursuit of "happiness" is just about the best way to ensure you remain unhappy.

I strongly disagree.

We may agree, however, that the route many people take in pursuit may be somewhat... misguided.

You didn't state your circumstances but in my limited experience I rarely meet happy people that don't have a sitaution for happiness. They have a loving partner and/or loving friends and family around and/or a fulfilling job. VS say myself which hasn't had a lover in > 16 years, no family within 7000 miles, and no hangout friends, only a few friends I see once every 1 to 2 months. In my 50s also makes it hard to find peers to make these things from vs say if I was 20 in college it's trival (or at least much easier) to find people to hang with who have time to hang out, to being around the same often enough that mutual attraction develops into lovers, etc...

If it's not clear what I'm saying I'm saying that just writing in a journal everyday and someone will be happy is not enough to make someone happy. They do actually need love and friends and physical contact and purpose.

If you think even basic social interactions are lacking for suffering, you’re wrong.

If it were the default state would people find it so hard to attain? It's hard not to want things, to not believe that there's just one more thing that could make things better. If it were simple it wouldn't be the core basis of so many religions.

Even if happiness is ephemeral, it’s worth pursuing. It’s something you can really only recognize through contrast with unhappy states.

To me the best kind of happiness is tinged with the sadness of knowing that it won’t last.

Large cities can have very vibrant local communities. I lived in NYC for several years and had very rewarding connections with other people in my same neighborhood, not different from the one you'd expect in a small village.

Your argument perfectly applies to 'meaning' as well, as companies increasingly market their products as life styles, communities, families etc. Someone can focus on meaning and still fall into that exact same trap, which I don't think is helpful either.

I think the problem lies with work. Increasingly, people have to work more for less in order to survive. They have to squeeze more out of meager savings, worry about their health and often have little to no time to actually explore their lives or their communities. Suburbanization has made this aspect worse by making it harder to leave the suburbs and placing people into small bubbles of slowly fermenting restlessness.

I struggled a lot with purpose until my first son was born. Then life suddenly snapped into perfect clarity. I also had this instant revelation about what "faith" really means to the religious. It was a beautiful feeling to know, without any doubt or waivering confidence what your purpose is. It makes every decision I ever have to make really simple, because it always boils down to what is best for my kids.

Am I "happy"? I dunno. My 10 month old woke me up 5 times last night and as a result today was a stunningly miserable slog. But I have meaning, and that gives me direction and tremendous joy.

Unless meaning makes me happy, I don't see the reason to focus on it.

This discussion is rather circular, to be honest. Happiness, by my definition, is a state of having achieved a goal or goals. (I wrote this lengthy thing over ten years ago trying to put hard definitions on words like happiness/satisfaction/pleasure etc: http://www.karmatics.com/docs/dictionary.html )

Maybe you define happiness differently than me, but I have a hard time understanding how it can be considered "not worth chasing" by any definition that makes sense to me.

Should you expect to be happy most of the time? I feel like a lot of youngsters self-diagnose themselves with depression/bipolar disorder because they feel they should be happy the majority of the time, then feel there is something wrong with them if they aren’t.

Tangentially related: why are some people always in a bad, meanie-pants mood? Don’t they too believe happiness is a mindset they can just be in if they want to?