You’ve said too little for me to understand. Could you please elaborate in more detail—write at least a 500- or 1,000-word piece, just like I did earlier?
1 Like
Okay.
So, once again, I get critiqued for either writing too much, or, too little. Just like I get criticised for asking too many questions, or, not enough questions.
Now, I will write as many words as I like and want to.
What you call your ‘first principle’ - “Pursue one’s own happiness” - is what leads to the unhappiness in ‘the world’.
For example, there is a person called “donald trump”, when it pursues its own happiness, it takes, steals, and robs from others, while also killing and murdering other human beings, which, in turn, leads to the unhappiness in others.
Can I made this any more simpler and easier for you to understand?
When adults pursue their own happiness, this leaves unhappiness in others, and thus ultimately in ‘the world’.
your so-called “first principle” either needs more work or just needs to be removed entirely.
Is this enough words for you to now understand?
1 Like
Thank you for taking the time to write so many words to express yourself. I can sense the anger and frustration here - this in itself is a strong manifestation of the “world should be better”, and this concern is precisely something that deserves serious consideration.
I would like to clarify a possible misunderstanding: The scenario you described - “pursuing one’s own happiness while harming others” - in the framework of the three principles of happiness, is a distortion of principle two.
The complete statement of principle one is “pursuing one’s own happiness”, but its necessary premise is principle two “not infringing upon the happiness of others”. This is not an additional modifier, but a logical built-in constraint - just like “driving a car” is pursuing one’s own happiness, but it needs to meet the condition of “not hitting others”, which is to abide by principle two (not infringing upon others’ happiness).
The situation regarding Trump is complex, with different positions, and different people will have different opinions.
Your anger over this failure is healthy. The question is: What do we respond with? To abandon any talk about happiness, or to establish a framework that is less susceptible to distortion?
The value of the three principles of happiness lies precisely in: It embeds “not infringing upon” within the three principles, allowing society to function normally. This is not naive optimism, but a recognition of the dark side of human nature - precisely because some people will choose to plunder, we need institutional constraints and collaborative environments to make plundering a non-rational choice.
Would you be willing to further discuss what framework can better prevent this distortion?
1 Like
Although there is not a single shred of any at all.
Obviously, one comes before two. So, how the first one can be a distortion of the second one I am unsure.
First so-called “principle” is 'pursue ONE’s OWN happiness. The words speak for themself. Full stop.
Why not just make ‘your’ first “principle” ‘pursue the happiness for ALL’ instead?
Obviously, this is much simpler and easier.
And, it also aligns more with the One and only Lore, principle or rule, in Life, anyway.
And, here is another example of how rules, upon rules, upon rules will eventuate.
Which more or less explains exactly the situation of your own personal principles here.
WHAT ‘anger’?
What is it with these adult human beings in the days when this is being written and their supernatural ability to KNOW ‘the emotions’, which they claim are existing, when all they have before them are printed words on a screen?
The question, “What do we respond with”, to WHAT, exactly?
If, for example, the one called “donald trump” continues to keep wanting to drop bombs on girls school, hospitals, houses, and workplaces with the obvious intention of KILLING dozens or hundreds of “school girls” and chldren, then ‘How do we respond exactly’?
So, what is your answer here?
But, if you are referring to something else, then what are you referring to, exactly?
What this is even in relation to I have absolutely no idea at all.
So, why not just use the One principle, which creates and keeps World Peace, that covers absolutely everything here as well as many, many other things?
Also, are you saying how society is functioning ‘now’ is ‘not normal’?
But, there is NO ‘dark side’ of human nature.
Why do you presume or believe this exactly?
They already exist.
Threads have been started to discuss this very thing.
Unfortunately NO one has shown any real interest and curiosity there.
I am VERY WILLING to discuss the actual framework that can and will work, absolutely.
Are you willing to look at and discuss how your own personal principles here will not work?
He didn’t say the first one can be a distortion of of the second one. He said that pursuing one’s happiness while harming others is a distortion of number 2.
The moment one has harmed others, one has gone against one of the principles. If one follows the principles, then one cannot harm others. They are to be followed simultaneously. You can only meet the criteria if you meet all the priniciples. You keep bringing up actions that only fit criterion 1. There are more criteria.
A parent leaves a note for their child:
-
You can use the car during the daytime.
-
You must follow the laws and safety precautions we have talking about when I trained you.
(there additional parts to the note)
Anew reads the note and says: The child is told he can drive the car in the daytime. He may decide to drive the car into a tree or drive the car at 150mph. Obviously this will lead to suffering. The parent’s note leads to suffering.
Um, did you read number 2?
Perhaps his principles won’t work, but you haven’t really addressed them yet, after quite a few posts. You just focus on one as if it runs utterly independently, and despite Eud bringing up the second principle several times, you have not address the two priniciples together.
So, to be clear: I am not saying his system works. I am saying that in this dialogue you are not responding to him. You are hyperfocused on one thing as if it is everything.
If you have a car that only has windshield wipers it’s not going to get you anywhere. But if it has a motor and…many other things, it is confused to keep saying you can’t get anywhere with just windshieldwipers.
1 Like
you are correct. No “he” did not.
Therefore, if 1 can lead to the harming of others, then 1, once again, would be best removed absolutely.
Again, 1 either needs ‘more work’ or needs to be ‘removed’.
Why are ‘trying to’ keep or ‘trying to’ “justify” something that could and/or does lead to the harming of others?
Why does one want to keep a so-called “principle” that even could lead to the harming of others, let alone one that does lead to the harming of others?
So, to not harm others, one has to read ALL of the following so-called “principles” first, and then remember them ALL.
Why not just remove ANY “principle” that could lead to the harming of others, and especially those “principles” that actually do lead to the harming of others, like the first one obviously does? Would this not just be simpler and easier, to you?
Also, WHY meet ALL the “principles” when just One only will suffice?
Where do you want to start?
Is it not best to start at 1, resolve that FULLY, and then, and only then, move on?
If ‘you’, as the “parent”, had trained and instructed them properly, Correctly, and fully, then you would not have to leave ‘notes’. How long are ‘you’ going to leave ‘notes’ for “your children” for?
Oh, I was NOT aware that ‘this’ is how ‘I’ was reading the note.
Thank you “greenfuse” for 1. you KNOWING, exactly, how ‘I’ was ‘reading the note’. 2. For informing ‘me’ of, exactly, what ‘I’ was doing and thinking. 3. For making ‘me’ AWARE of the actual truth here.
How did you learn to KNOW, exactly, what others do and think, exactly, “greenfuse”? Where did you obtain this Truly amazing ability from “greenfuse”?
Could ‘you’ please share with ‘us’ how you obtain this ability?
Are ‘you’ suggesting that ‘you’ are that STUPID that if “your parents” left ‘you’ a note which read:
- Seek out what makes you personally happy.
‘you’ would need a number 2. But do not seek out what makes you personally happy if doing it leads to the harm or unhappiness of others?
Are ‘you’ that STUPID that ‘you’ really need to be TOLD: 2. Do not do what makes others unhappy?
Either way if “your parents” need to leave ‘you’ notes, in ‘the way’ that ‘you’ are ‘trying to’ “justify” here, then, obviously, “your parents” had not previously taught ‘you well’.
They WON’T. Again, so-called “principle 1” leads to the unhappiness and harm of others.
Yes I HAVE. I just did it just ‘now’, as well as all the other times I HAVE.
True, I may not have yet addressed ALL of the so-called “principles”, but this is because I just wanted to address the first one first, and just remain focused on ‘that one’ first. Once ‘this one’ is resolved, then ‘we’ can move along to the other ones.
Once more, ‘that one’ is not necessary and actually causes harm and unhappiness. Are you, still, not yet aware of this?
When it discusses, addresses, and resolves the issues with the ‘first one’, then ‘we’ can move on to the ‘second one’.
Once more, if this is something Wrong with the ‘first one’, which needs to be resolved by a second “principle”, then the ‘first one’ does not and even should not even be there.
And, if you adult human beings need to be TOLD: Do things, but do not do things if what you do causes the harm and/or unhappiness in others, then how STUPID are you adults?
LOL Imagine believing that you adults need ‘notes’, left for you, or so-called “principles”, to TELL you what to do, and then not what to do.
you made this clear previously when you mentioned this.
If this is what you want to believe is true, then you are perfectly free to do so.
you are also absolutely free to believe this, if this is what you really want to believe is true here.
Okay.
If you say and believe so, then okay.
1 Like
Same way you learned to do it. Only my claims to know are minor compared to yours.
Well, actually, there was this person who gave a list of 10 nouns in 9 steps. They’re second step, I believe it was, turned to be the suggestion to answer any question from anyone fully honestly and openly. In part because of wonderful facets of my parent’s parenting, in part because of my own wisdom, I saw the harm potential in this. I presented this to the other, paternalistic person, one who takes a kind of parental relation to others for some reason, and he was incapable of explaining why exposure to this very likely harm was necessary. Is he that stupid that when presented with problems in his system, he simply starts attacking the other person? Is he that stupid that he could not see the harm his overly simplistic suggestions would lead to, especially if they were made to children? Is he that stupid? Actually, I don’t think the problem is intelligence.
It’s a good thing you are not supervising doctors, for example. Just imagine all the ridiculous conclusions you would draw about the problems of only doing step one in operations, interviews, interventions. Just imaging all the procedures thrown away because you can’t imagine the problem with your evaluation system. It’s a good thing also you are not parenting children for the same reasons.
Which was HOW, exactly?
And so they should be. Except, of course, in relation to claiming to know what emotions another have. you claim that you KNOW irrefutably what the truth is here, and even after you have been TOLD you are Wrong. Whereas, ‘I’ would NEVER ever do such a thing as you do and have done here.
So what?
LOL, LOL, LOL
What you believe here could not be more Wrong.
So, once again, what ‘we’ have here is another prime example of how beliefs and believing things can and do lead people completely and utterly astray.
LOL I was wondering why you were speaking and asking questions in ‘the way’ you were back then, now I fully understand and realise why.
So it becomes crystal clear here, what you believe the suggestion is is NOT what you are believing.
So what?
What has this got to do with your note example, and with the ‘very thing’ that was being discussed?
you are also somewhat arguing AGAINST your own ‘not example’ also, by the way.
So, again, it was all of the others’ fault, correct?
‘you’ could not have misrepresented anything, nor could ‘you’ have misinterpreted or misunderstood anything, right?
But, there was NO ‘problem’ AT ALL in what ‘you’ believed there was in some so-called ‘suggestion’.
Again, could you have been MISTAKEN anywhere there?
your attempts at ‘trying to’ provide examples, which, once again, had absolutely nothing at all to do with that was being presented was only confusing ‘you’ there.
‘We’ would have to go back over ‘the discussion’ to ‘see’ and find out, for sure, if “he” was or not.
JUST MAYBE, “he” is ‘that stupid’. But, then again, JUST MAYBE, something was actually happening and occuring there.
Okay. But, ‘what problem’ are you referring to here, exactly?
Let ‘us’ ‘see’ if you can just answer and clarify ‘this question’, at least.
If you believe and say so, then okay.
What even is step 1 here, exactly?
And, why do you talk about ‘only’ doing step 1?
Was it NOT ‘the problem or the issue’ in the so-called “first principle” which is what I was addressing and talking about, to you?
Could ‘this one’ have gone off on more of an off topic tangent here?
I just pointed out the flaws in its examples, and now it is talking about how it is a ‘good thing’ that I am supposedly not supervising doctors and not parenting children, for some reason.
Is there anything at all this one will not ‘try to’ use to discredit ‘me’ here?
That is one way to do things. Follow step 1 and do that until you understand and can do it well. Then start step 2. But there are other ways to do things. People can be given several guidelines at once without a chronological gap in when people should apply them. Your assumption that your preferred method is the only way to do something is, just that, an assumption. And since he did not say that was how he expected people to use his principles, critiquing it as if he had, is using a strawman. Since he has made clear that is not what he intended and you continue, is repeating the strawman beyond basing as you did the first strawman, on a faulty assumption on your part. Repeatedly expressing your incredulity about using principles in a different way than you do is not a rebuttal of a criticism. It parallels: I don’t like chocolate ice cream, I like vanilla. But without acknowledging this or justifying that incredulity.
Actually anew just shifted the focus and started calling me stupid. That he could not understand what he was doing in his responses to EU and me is very clear. There is no one to discredit him with. Anyone reading the OP’s posts and anew’s responses would find anew’s thinking very confused and idiosyncratic - the latter not a problem on its own.
Here’s one of the times anew pointed out the flaws:
If you say and believe so, then okay.
He conflates saying something is wrong with making a point. And with the quoted example, he conflates his little status games with pointing out flaws.
But, if one does the first so-called “principle” well, or at all, then this, again, can lead to harm and unhappiness. Which, obviously, defeats the whole purpose here.
Okay.
So, exactly like the Nine Step process then, right?
Oh, that is right; you have shown absolutely no interest in reading it, nor even in regard to what is in it exactly? Therefore, you would have no idea nor clue how it is written nor how it works exactly.
Have I ever mentioned any so-called “preferred method of mine” here?
If yes, then where and when, exactly?
Usually the word ‘first’ means ‘first’. So, if the first so-called “principle” is 'pursue your OWN happiness", and what is intended to be done, first, then, as I have been explaining and showing, ‘this’ will and does not work, because, once more, this all too often leads to harm, unhappiness, and misery in others.
Now, if this so-called “first principle” needs a solution or fix, for the problem which you mentioned is within it, then I suggest combining the “first principle” with any other needed “principle” to fix the “first principle” in with the “first principle” itself.
Like, for example, the “first principle” coud be 'Pursue your OWN happiness, but if your OWN happines causes the harm, damage, or unhappiness of others, then do NOT pursue your OWN happiness". Or, something like that, combined together.
Because, obviously, some people will only read the “first one”, and then think, “Great, I can do whatever I like in pursuit of my OWN happiness, and it does not matter what harm, damage, or unhappiness I cause others”.
you know, exactly like people like “donald trump” think.
you claims here, are, also, False and Wrong. But anyway, if what was intended in what was actually written, then I can only suggest to go back and ‘work on’ it further, or remove it completely. I certainly can not nor would make that person do it.
If that person wants to keep ‘the wording’ in the exact way that it is now, then okay. I can only show and explain HOW and WHY it does not and will not work.
The rest is up to ‘that person’.
But, I do not use so-called “principles”. So, I am not sure how nor why I would express, in ‘any way’, about using “principles” in a different way than I do.
But, you on just about every occasion appear to know better than I do.
If what I have said and done here, to you, parallels to ‘this’, then okay
Okay.
Okay, noted.
Again, ‘this one’ appears to KNOW more than ‘me’ here, even though they are ‘my writings’.
But, do not let the Fact that what ‘my writings’ could be KNOWN better ‘by me’, get in ‘the way’ of what “greenfuse” believes is the absolute truth here.
The three principles of happiness consist of three elements, and without any one of them, the set is incomplete. Just like the three laws of motion, if only one of the laws is considered, people will be confused.
The three principles of happiness form a system and are somewhat complex. It is recommended to download the paper, input it to the AI, and let the AI analyze and explain it to you. Currently, the AI has surpassed top-performing students and 95% of its content can be trusted.
Therefore, and once again, it is bound to FAILURE.
So, you suggest to an actual intelligent being to use an ‘artificial intelligent’ machine to explain ‘it’ to them.
Do you NOT ‘see’ the ABSURDITY and RIDICULOUSNESS here?
Pacifism employs a package deal. It treats all violence as equal. It fails to distinguish between the initiation of force and the retaliatory use of force.
2 Likes
The Three Principles of Happiness are essentially a form of pacifist theory.
Self-restraint is achieved through the second principle—“not infringing upon others’ happiness”—while public constraints on others’ actions are established via the third principle—“co-creating a happy environment.” When individuals or groups recklessly violate others’ happiness, the community can unite to stop such harm, providing an ethical justification for peacekeeping and anti-aggression operations under the United Nations framework.
At a deeper level, the Three Principles of Happiness can reconstruct the modern education system by embedding the fundamental mindset of peaceful coexistence into individual cognition.
Unlike Kantian deontology, which remains limited to moral exhortation, the Three Principles of Happiness integrate both foundational value principles and practical implementation methods, making real-world intervention possible.
But, self-restraint is not achieved through a principle, made up by someone, which tells you to have self-restraint.
Self-restraint is achieved through another way or process.
Public constraints are just things enforced onto human beings, which are just rules and laws that are again just made up by someone and labeled as ‘another principle’.
How?
Which would involve violating others’ happiness. Thus leading to another self-contradiction here.
When the community, which is just individuals or groups, are uniting to stop such harm, through recklessly violating others’ happiness, which they would be doing when they are stopping and enforcing people from doing what they want to do, then, again, you are infringing upon others’ happiness. Again, you have claimed that the first principle is the pursuit of one’s OWN happiness after all.
NO one can provide an ethical justification for peacekeeping, if what is involved in peacekeeping is the abuse and unhappiness of others. Judging, enforcing judgments, and/or punishment violates your self made-up first principle of pursing one’s OWN happiness. If while one or a group within a community violates someone’s OWN pursuit of happiness, which is judged by some to be causing harm, but in the so-called “unite to stop such harm” the community group are causing to that one’s OWN pusuit of happiness, then all this is doing is going around and around in circles.
Next you will be saying that to ‘stop such harm’ “we” the community can decide to kill and murder prople, which “we” judge as recklessly violating others’ happiness. Without ever ‘see’ and realising that “we” “ourselves” have just caused ‘harm’ when we recklessly violated that one’s happiness, in their pursuit of happiness. Therefore, “we” can also be forced to ‘stop such harm’ by also being killed or murdered, because others have, laughably, also “justified” to “themselves” that they have some sort of ‘right’ to judge, enforce judgments, and to punish who they want to.
What ‘your’ three principles here point out and highlight is what is happening and occurring ‘now’, in the days when this is being written. and the actual absurdity of it all.
So, to ‘stop such harm’ a united group of human beings ‘use aggression operations’ and thus cause ‘harm’ “themselves”.
This has NEVER worked in the past, for if it had you people would ‘now’ ‘currently’ be living in a much better Peaceful world. you are not. Therefore, your principles here, which, by the way align more or less with exactly how you adults live anyway, are obviously absolutely worthless and useless.
Pursuing your OWN happiness, but if while doing so, “we”, (the ones with more money, power, and control), will judge you and use force to even kill you, if “we” so choose to want to. And, “we” will “justify” doing so till the day “we” die.
1 Like
Why not just not want to judge anyone for anything and not ridicule nor punish anyone for anything, while not wanting more than you need, and instead just actually help and support absolutely everyone, then, that way you will be actually leading by example, and teach your children to do what is is actually Right, in Life, as well.
But, to be able to do that successfully, you need to admit, and seriously, want to change your OWN Wrongdoing, first.
If you did this Openly and Honestly, then you will learn what is Truly needed in Life, what the One and only REAL Lore in Life is, exactly, as well as understanding who and what ‘you’ are exactly, along with Truly understanding what EVERY one is what they are and thinks and does what they ALL do.
But, in order to be Truly Open and Honest about ALL of your OWN Wrongdoing, you will have to have absolutely NO fear of being judged, ridiculed, NOR punished in absolutely any way at all.
So, what comes first?
you adults Openly admit the Wrong you ALL do, and then change “yourselves” and thus also ‘the world’ for the better?
Or, do you ALL just wait for ‘the world’ to change, before you become Truly Open and Honest here?
If you adults REALLY did have your children’s best interest at heart, as some of you claim to do, then it is VERY OBVIOUS what you would do FIRST.
However, and very sadly, ‘your fear’ will just not let you to.
So, what you NEED to do is overcome ‘your fear’ here.
Now, who is going to be the next one ‘after me’?
What will be revealed, ‘to you’, by the way, is and will be far more rewarding and satisfying than you could have ever previously imagined.
1 Like