On Happiness

[victorel21]

@finishedman

Nature is interested in only two things - to survive and to reproduce one like itself. Anything you superimpose on that, all the cultural input, is responsible for the boredom of man. So we have varieties of experiences. You are not satisfied with your own teachings or games; so you bring in others. They become interesting because they are something new. You pick up a new language and try to speak it and use it to feel more important. But basically, it is the same thing.

No talent is required to reproduce. Nature has done a tremendous job in creating this extraordinary piece - the body. The body does not want to learn anything from culture. It doesn’t want to know anything from us. We are always interested in telling this body how to function. All our experiences, spiritual or otherwise, are the basic cause of our suffering. The body is not interested in your bliss or your ecstasies. It is not interested in your pleasure. It is not in interested in anything that you are interested in. And that is the battle that is going on all the time. But there seems to be no way out.

nature is not interested in anything, it is a chaotic system that favors does who can survive. there are people and animals that are born with no will or capability of reproducing or surviving are they not “nature.”

you say things without even giving a hint of why you say them, one key thing in philosophy is that there is no obvious thing.

saying nature is not interested in your pleasure does not seem like a good argument to me.

[finishedman]

@victorel21

…. one key thing in philosophy is that there is no obvious thing.

Then dialogue has no meaning at all. You may very well ask why the hell is there talking. If it’s not in the nature of your intellectual self-fulfillment, then the motive is to make clear that there is nothing to understand.

… with no expectation of pleasure only depression can arise.

That’s like saying if I have no friends everyone is my enemy. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

[Drusuz]

Maybe studying psychology and neurology would be good for getting more aspects to understand happiness.

[victorel21]

@finishedman

@victorel21

…. one key thing in philosophy is that there is no obvious thing.

Then dialogue has no meaning at all. You may very well ask why the hell is there talking. If it’s not in the nature of your intellectual self-fulfillment, then the motive is to make clear that there is nothing to understand.

… with no expectation of pleasure only depression can arise.

That’s like saying if I have no friends everyone is my enemy. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

in philosophy only the meaning of words have to be agreed on.

on the other part, if there is no pleasure foresight then only two others can exist: the expectation of pain or nothing.

if pain is expected then depression arises, if nothing is expected then boredom arises, boredom is discomforting and thus avoided.

so yes the conclusion follows the premise.

[finishedman]

…. if there is no pleasure foresight then only two others can exist: the expectation of pain or nothing.

Disagree because anticipation or wanting is absent (wanting and thinking go together). ‘Life’ is not something abstract or considered intellectually WHEN it is the life of the senses, functioning naturally without the interference of thought. Thought, AS an interloper, thrusts itself into the affairs of the senses. Thought’s profit motive would direct the activity of the senses to get something out of them.

It’s basically true that most all people want continuous pleasure without one moment of pain. But that’s more of a neurological problem because the nervous system cannot take prolonged sustained pleasure. It would destroy its sensitivity. So the reality of there being moments of both pleasure and pain is accepted by the averagely intelligent person.

…. boredom is discomforting and thus avoided.

Why do you think that is? I mean most would admit they have no reason to be discontented having relatively little to complain about, but for some reason they want to change their situation. Why the paradox?

Something there determines that all is not right. That’s why there’s this desire to want to bring about a change. And who is responsible for that demand to change? That is what I am asking. Is it culture or society or some other outside agency placing the demand before you, namely, that you should be like that, you ought to be like that? People often accepted that as a model for themselves.

[victorel21]

@finishedman

Disagree because anticipation or wanting is absent (wanting and thinking go together). ‘Life’ is not something abstract or considered intellectually WHEN it is the life of the senses, functioning naturally without the interference of thought. Thought, AS an interloper, thrusts itself into the affairs of the senses. Thought’s profit motive would direct the activity of the senses to get something out of them.

It’s basically true that most all people want continuous pleasure without one moment of pain. But that’s more of a neurological problem because the nervous system cannot take prolonged sustained pleasure. It would destroy its sensitivity. So the reality of there being moments of both pleasure and pain is accepted by the averagely intelligent person.

wanting is dependant on thinking, thinking is merely an act to associate, no association no wants. “animals think”.

thought does not thrust itself it is merely an association between sensations, it a mechanism nothing else, and it develops it does just come a go as it pleases.

when i said that i was assuming the person is normal, (no genetic anormalies) and in the normal state (not under the unfluence of substances that could alter the standard way in which the body behaves).

the last part i agree with but i fail to see why this contradicts me. one thing is what we want and another is what really is.

if there is no expectation of pleasure then only pain or nothing can be expected this causes depression.

…. boredom is discomforting and thus avoided.

@finishedman

Why do you think that is? I mean most would admit they have no reason to be discontented having relatively little to complain about, but for some reason they want to change their situation. Why the paradox?

Something there determines that all is not right. That’s why there’s this desire to want to bring about a change. And who is responsible for that demand to change? That is what I am asking. Is it culture or society or some other outside agency placing the demand before you, namely, that you should be like that, you ought to be like that? People often accepted that as a model for themselves.

because we are made to seek pleasure, this is a necessary mechanism for the survival of the species, why? the answer is sex.

remember sex is not necessary for the individual to survive, when a persons wants sex he wants pleasure. if we were not designed to seek pleasure “happiness” then the specie would have been extinct many years ago. ( this explains competition as well).

animals do not work or live for the species, they are a closed chemical system, they work for themselves,

we do not have sex for the sake of the species we have sex for the sake of ourselves.

paradox solved.

[James_S_Saint]

A healthy neurological system is never bored.
Boredom arises from neurological anxiety.

[victorel21]

@James S Saint

A healthy neurological system is never bored.
Boredom arises from neurological anxiety.

define healthy.

[victorel21]

@James S Saint

A healthy neurological system is never bored.
Boredom arises from neurological anxiety.

the problem with this definition is that healthy is equivilant to standard, you wouldnt say a genius has a healthy mind you would say he has a gifted mind.

i can presume that the vast majority of people upon your definition are not healthy, so i must dismiss this. unless you define your terms properly.