-
Is it possible to justify a state of permanent unhappiness? If yes, how can this done? If no, why not?
-
Is it possible to justify a state of permanent happiness? If yes, how can this done? If no, why not?
Regards
Lukas
erm I’m sorry but justify it to who?
I don’t want it to be justified on simply subjectivistic ground. I rather prefer som kind of objectivistic ground if its possible.
I’d say the least subjective definition of “happy” is something along the lines of “a feeling of fulfillment”; this fulfillment can be of anything or everything that is important enough to invoke a feeling. Therefore, someone who feels as if they are doing what they want to do with at least a part of themselves can be happy, whereas someone who feels as if they are not doing what they want to do with at least a part of themselves can be unhappy. I don’t see any direct consequence of either of these states as inhibiting either of their potentials for continuity.
I’m not sure what you mean by “justify” though; it seems to me that something is objectively (not relating to any humans) justified if it exists.
No need for any justification.
Life is a permanent state of discontentment with moments of temporary contentment called pleasure or happiness or whatever.
Discontentment is what drives all progress and all growth.
Contentment, if pushed to the limit, results in stagnation.
A truly contented individual, if this were even possible, would have no reason to do anything.
Contentment for me is the state of accepting one’s own fate without surrendering to it.
It is finding honour in a lost cause and dignity in a battle fought well.
Accepting life, as it is, is accepting it entirely, suffering and all.
I see I need to make some clarification in this thread. Lets assume a hypothetical situation where a person ends up in a situation where there are only two alternatives to be chosen among. The first alternative is a state of permanent happiness and the second alternative is at state of permanent unhappiness. After the choice has been made there is no return and the state will be everlasting.
I will try to clarify the states below:
-
The state of permanent happiness is associated with complete satisfaction and permanent happiness for everyone. It’s a optimal state for everyone. Everything is perfect and it can not be better.
-
The state of permanent unhappiness is associated with complete unsatisfaction and permanent unhappiness for everyone. It’s the worst state for everyone. Everything is imperfect and it can not be worse.
Is it possible in a rational way to justify one of these states more than the other? I think it is very hard or even impossible to justify a choice of the second alternative, and I have never heard any arguments for such state. If it’s true that is impossible to justify a choice of the second alternative then one conclusion is that the objective moral right choice is the first alternative and the objective moral wrong choice is the second alternative. If this conclusion is correct then the mystery of the objective moral is solved. But I assume I have made some kind of mistake in my conclusion. If you find it speak out 
What if you are content only while you are driven toward progress and growth?
I believe you have. Those two cases rely on forms of “good” and “bad,” so using them as definitions for “morally good” and “morally bad” is redundant and doesn’t establish an objective definition, especially since “good” and “bad” are subjective.
→ Alun Aedicita
Good point! But do you see any potential solution to this redudant problem?
That’s not contentment. That’s being lost in your discontentment.
The relief of being distracted away from your sense of need, using the very pursuit to do it.
But the word there is “towardsâ€.
One never reaches any state of finality, one is only driven towards it.
I become absorbed in my pursuit of completeness and so I escape my conscious awareness of my incompleteness. This distraction becomes pleasing, just like all temporal forms of relief from suffering distracts us from our overall dissatisfaction.
Lukas, I am not sure why I am broaching this subject but alas, here we are;
IT’S A TRICK QUESTION! Slowly back away from the question, don’t make any sudden moves (or assumptions for that matter), and RUN. Run far Lukas, run very far, and may the force um, …sorry.
Let’s seriously look at a word in your question: Justify. nuff said.
You seek some sort of objectivity where states are concerned? I don’t know Lukas… this just reeks. Hey, some like apples, others like oranges…who am I to infringe upon their pursuit of happiness?
I know, I know, you try to qualify the argument by creating a distinction, or is that delineation, between these states in the hopes of forcing a non compliant rationalization …um, I mean answer. So, my question; if your subjects were stuck in a perpetual state of unhappiness, how could they possibly know happiness and vice versa? And don’t tell me you are going to introduce them to happiness and then proceed with deprivation just so you can see what they’ll prefer. I knew I shouldn’t have broached this subject matter. Next thing you know we are looking at satisfaction/dissatisfaction and the guiding principles or driving mechanisms here involved (you know, upbringing, peers, that whole brain chemical fiasco, and all that other environment stuff). And last but not least, we (that being you and I) find ourselves dealing with a left over word commonly referred to as -reconciliation-. Don’t ask me where it goes as I can not objectively tell you… besides, I am still trying to figure out where all the pieces on this piece of furniture I procured from some swedish franchise go…happy, happy, joy, joy.
Without love (even the love of evil) nothing would work. Ever wonder why some people feel comforted in their misery?
Yeah, but you aren’t going to like it. Forget about objectivity; it’s impossible, because we’re subjective and we’re the ones talking, so we aren’t ever going to imagine an objective viewpoint (in a universal sense anyway) because we’ve never seen anything besides our subjective one. So, from the subjective viewpoint of every individual, what they want–and I don’t mean just sensual desire, I mean the totality of themselves wants it–is what is good for them. Thus, (all) people having what the want is the not-so-objective moral right choice. Of course you could say that this would make giving a murderer what he wants morally good, but, for one thing, many murderers wouldn’t want to be murderers and, more improtantly, virtually all murder victims wouldn’t want to be dead.
Err…I’m not sure I see the distinction; if you don’t feel your discontent, then where is it? Perhaps I’m using too broad a definition of “content.” I get your idea; people wouldn’t do anything if they were satisfied doing nothing, so I guess any more discussion in that direction is just academic.
Life is such a temporary state that it hardly seems worth calling any emotional state “permanent” at all.