Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Fidcal

We have become Big Brother

Recommended Posts

I agree, it's also important to note that happiness and enjoyment aren't complementary to one another. I could enjoy taking a pee but it doesn't make me happy. I could be happy but watching a boring movie I don't enjoy. You can have either without the other one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
also important to note that happiness and enjoyment aren't complementary to one another. I could enjoy taking a pee but it doesn't make me happy.

 

I don't think you actually mean "complementary".

 

You seem to be saying that happiness and enjoyment aren't the same.

 

In which case, how would you define happiness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with jdude and his examples are good. Happiness is more of an on-going contentment (even if it only last a day) not requiring an object whereas enjoyment needs an object to enjoy. After a bereavement you can 'enjoy' a good meal in the sense that you appreciate the flavour and deliciousness but inside there is an on-going emptiness. Or if you fall in love it seems the world is a better place all day - even if you are standing at a bus stop in the rain, even if your loved one is not with you. But those are not ideal examples because your happiness relied on the loved ones (0bjects.) Yet is it not true that many people are almost always miserable for no good reason while others are mostly content with life - both despite the things that are available (or lacking) for them to 'enjoy'. Such happiness does not rely on things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to your definition, is there a meaningful distinction between "being happy" and "enjoying life"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do mean complementary Spring :)

One can enjoy without happiness and be happy without enjoyment.

 

But lets keep to differentiating being happy and enjoyment because enjoying life is different from the other 2 imo. I don't think you can enjoy life without happiness because enjoying life would resemble enjoying almost everything you do. But one can have enjoyment without happiness.

 

I can give another example about the differences of being happy and enjoyment.

I've been depressed but enjoyed playing videogames, however the enjoyment is limited to the time I was playing a videogame and there's subconscious and physical symptoms from the lack of happiness in my life (being unhappy drains energy). Playing the videogames were enjoyable but did not make me happy. It stimulated me in a way almost to forget I'm unhappy.

 

Later I'm not depressed, I enjoy everything I do more and have a good feeling inside me opposed to an emptiness I felt when depressed. Happiness is more like an attitude or perspective and as Fidcal said, long lasting and more encompassing to one's life than enjoyment which is temporary stimulation.

 

I hope that made some sense :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do mean complementary Spring :)

One can enjoy without happiness and be happy without enjoyment.

 

Being able to experience one without the other has nothing to do with being "complementary". Complementary means capable of "combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasize each other's qualities". You don't think happiness and enjoyment complement each other?

 

But one can have enjoyment without happiness.

 

Probably. You can enjoy many different things. However, I think a decent definition of happiness is "enjoying life". Do you disagree? And if so, what is your definition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. And I think the phrase 'enjoying life' does in a way mean 'happiness'. It means you are enjoying life without necessarily having any 'object' to enjoy except life itself. Life seems meaningful rather than meaningless. Life seems worthwhile rather than worthless. It transcends the enjoyment (or lack of it) of temporary things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being able to experience one without the other has nothing to do with being "complementary". Complementary means capable of "combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasize each other's qualities". You don't think happiness and enjoyment complement each other?

No I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the phrase 'enjoying life' does in a way mean 'happiness'

 

If that's the case, I think the point both Sotha and Sneaksie have made is completely legitimate.

 

technological wonders create mechanisms which bring forth abundance of resources. More resources mean more people can get up from poverty. When people get up from poverty they become more happy.

 

Living in poverty is not enjoyable. ... Technological advancements in that area (vaccines, cures, medication for managing serious/life threatening illness, pain relief, gene therapy, prosthetics, transplants, etc., etc., etc.) certainly make life more enjoyable for nearly everyone who enjoys the benefits.

 

If enjoying life is equivalent to happiness, then anything that reduces our ability to enjoy life reduces happiness. Serious illness, harsh living conditions, pain, starvation...all of these things clearly interfere with our ability to enjoy life. Anything that helps to reduce those things would, therefore, increase our level of average happiness. Scientific advancements have resulted in improvements in all of those areas for the majority of people in first world countries.

 

I think the only way to argue that assertion is to come up with an alternate definition of "happiness".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't think happiness and enjoyment complement each other?

 

No I don't.

 

So you don't think it's easier to enjoy things when you're happy? Or that it's easier to be happy when you're doing things you enjoy?

 

I would consider those two things to be axiomatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's the case, I think the point both Sotha and Sneaksie have made is completely legitimate.

 

 

 

 

 

If enjoying life is equivalent to happiness, then anything that reduces our ability to enjoy life reduces happiness. Serious illness, harsh living conditions, pain, starvation...all of these things clearly interfere with our ability to enjoy life. Anything that helps to reduce those things would, therefore, increase our level of average happiness. Scientific advancements have resulted in improvements in all of those areas for the majority of people in first world countries.

 

I think the only way to argue that assertion is to come up with an alternate definition of "happiness".

 

Yea but we weren't talking about enjoying life, just enjoyment like a computer game.

You've added life into the thing we were talking about making it mean something new than the original argument.

 

The points I made in counter to what you and Sotha are saying is that these take away from a neutral state of happiness because the absence of these things such as pain does not make someone happy. I've never thought 'wow I'm sure happy I'm not in pain' just out the blue which cheered me up for the day.

 

So you don't think it's easier to enjoy things when you're happy? Or that it's easier to be happy when you're doing things you enjoy?

 

I would consider those two things to be axiomatic.

I don't understand what you mean by axiomatic, but as for the rest:

The way I view it is happiness can limit or push enjoyment of life in general and its subsidiary activities. This happiness will of course affect things you do which the symptom will be increased enjoyment. However the key point me and Sotha were talking about was that materialistic enjoyment will increase your life happiness, however I say no because the happiness we find in material possessions are temporary, like a good meal. This was Sotha's main point that technology will lead to technology or a discovery which will make us happy through materialism, while eliminating our need to compete in a materialistic nature which didn't make sense to me and still doesn't. One could theoretically become more happy by going camping for a while which isn't necessarily a materialistic act and the enjoyment of camping increases one's mood making them happy, so I suppose enjoyment can lead to heightened happiness like a vacation, however the context of the previous posts I made were in relation to enjoyment of a material world which wasn't expressly said but hopefully implied since it was a tangent of the previous discussion on happiness vs materialism.

 

I suppose it all comes down to how one lives their life though, it's difficult to imagine other realities, I prefer not to try and achieve happiness through the material world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea but we weren't talking about enjoying life,

 

We were talking about happiness. And the current definition of happiness we're using is "enjoying life". Therefore, they are the same thing in this conversation, unless you want to explain how they're different.

 

I've never thought 'wow I'm sure happy I'm not in pain' just out the blue which cheered me up for the day.

 

Happiness is a spectrum, not a black and white state. You can be a little happy or a lot happy.

 

You're not really going to argue that being in pain has no affect on your overall level of happiness, are you?

 

I suppose enjoyment can lead to heightened happiness

 

My only point in that particular reply was that you misused the term "complementary".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No we were talking about enjoyment VS happiness not enjoying life vs happiness.

 

I didn't misuse complementary I don't think happiness and enjoyment go hand in hand, I wasn't talking about enjoying life and happiness. Maybe I glazed over something you posted, but right now I got to get back to studying! :) If I did let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No we were talking about enjoyment VS happiness not enjoying life vs happiness.

 

You started talking about that, yes. But that was a side-track from the main issue that Sotha was raising and Sneaksie reinforced (which I quoted above but can do so again if necessary). I was trying to bring the discussion back to the point they were making in order to show that they are actually correct.

 

I didn't misuse complementary I don't think happiness and enjoyment go hand in hand,

 

"Complementary" does not mean "go hand in hand". That's the point I've tried to make three times now. Red wine and red meat complement each other (they enhance each other's qualities) but that doesn't mean you can't have red wine without red meat, or enjoy red meat without red wine. You're using "complementary" to mean "correlated", and they're not the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I said that the presence of these things aren't enjoyable but raise you to a neutral status where-by you don't experience the pain of their absence. An absence of pain does not equal happiness.

 

If you are poor you lack food and shelter which inflict pain. Of course that's unenjoyable:(Vocab used to mean unhappy).

Having them don't make you happy though, they make you reach a state of neutrality whereby you aren't affected by the dissatisfiers in your life. Again, because you're 'enjoying' (vocab used to mean the same as receive) the benefits of not having to sleep in the rain or starve doesn't mean you're happy. What I heard from Sotha is that the middle class is happy because they have material things serfs didn't have. I disagree.

 

I think the issue is enjoy is the flexibility of the word enjoy which shouldn't be the focus of the conversation, I think my position on materialism and happiness is quite clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And I said that the presence of these things aren't enjoyable but raise you to a neutral status where-by you don't experience the pain of their absence. An absence of pain does not equal happiness.

 

You're still referring to happiness as a "state", rather than a spectrum. You can be a little happy or a lot happy.

 

Which makes you happier, being in pain or NOT being in pain? Watching your children die from starvation, or NOT watching them die?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's both:

 

Imagine:

-10 - -2 = unsatisfied

-1 - 1 = neutral

2 - 10 = happy

 

the higher up the happy area of the scale the more you exhibit symptoms of being in a happy state.

 

Spring, in my last post i said "An absence of pain does not equal happiness." Why would you asking me the opposite change my mind, why should I explain my perspective again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're stubbornly clinging to the word "happy" when everyone else is talking about "happier".

 

That's your prerogative, but if you want to use your own language, it's not surprising you don't see what other people are saying.

 

My Question:

Which makes you happier, being in pain or NOT being in pain?

 

Your response:

Spring, in my last post i said "An absence of pain does not equal happiness."

 

I didn't ask about "happiness". Was the question really not clear enough?? I don't think I could make it any more straightforward. For a native English speaker, you are remarkably difficult to converse with. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trust me I feel 100% the same way about you :laugh:

As far as I can tell you haven't disagreed with what I've said you just like to point out I'm using the wrong words according to their dictionary definitions.

 

This is the last time I'll talk about how I view happiness and being 'happier' blah blah blah, I'll do my best to clear it up for you:

 

 

You said:

Which makes you happier, watching your children die from starvation, or NOT watching them die?

 

The framing of the question implies this:

You have a choice, you have the ability to choose life or death for your children, which would you make and which result make you happier?

 

It's an irrelevant and emotionally loaded straw-man question to ask. I think so because in real life you don't choose between watching your children starve or not unless your some asshole who likes to starve his kids on purpose. One could argue that people have the choice through being responsible but this obviously isn't always the case and is an ignorant position to take. You've also implied that being poor is the same as starving, assuming your asking about starvation because we were talking about the relationship between material wealth and happiness (context). While in some cases that is true, it is not the case 100% of the time and I consider them separate subjects to approach. I'm ignoring any poverty aspect for your question.

 

To answer your question, we need to look at two completely separate situations. Situation 1: Child starves to death Situation 2: Child does not starve to death.

The question implies that at some point in time the child was not starving to death.

 

Situation 1:

Man meets woman

Woman has child

Man, women and child live happily for a while

All the sudden the child starts to starve to death.

 

The child starving to death is a dissatisfier from the previous state of the family. It's such a large dissatisfier it could ruin the rest of their lives. There is no happiness generated.

 

Situation 2:

Man meets woman

Woman has child

Man, woman and child live happily

 

The fact that there's no starvation doesn't add anything to the life of the people. Not starving is expected, only when they begin to starve will they be at situation 1. So again, no happiness is generated.

 

So neither situation 1 or 2 generate happiness. How can I say one makes me happier when I'd define being happier as having additional happiness in my life?

 

One may argue that in situation 2 one would be happier because their taking care of their child. Yes I agree, but being happy because of taking care of a loved one is not the same as watching them starve; the giving of food has no bearing on the happiness, the real happiness comes from the symbolic meaning of giving the food as a form of nurturing, dedication and love to another and full fulling a responsibility or commitment to them.

 

If you were to ask "Who is happier, someone who watches their child starve to death or who hasn't witness such a thing" I'd say almost without a doubt the person who has not witnessed their child starving to death, but this isn't what you asked me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question:

Which makes you happier, watching your children die from starvation, or NOT watching them die?

 

After 8+ paragraphs, your response:

If you were to ask "Who is happier, someone who watches their child starve to death or who hasn't witness such a thing" I'd say almost without a doubt the person who has not witnessed their child starving to death, but this isn't what you asked me.

 

Holy shit. :wacko: If anyone else can tell me how those two questions are different, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I'm just going to assume, all superficial evidence to the contrary, that we're not speaking the same language.

Edited by Springheel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You ask:

Watching my child die VS not watching, WHICH makes me happier? (Which adds happiness to my current situation!)

Answer: NONE, I get no happiness from watching someone die and I get no happiness from the status quo of living a life free of starvation.

 

 

I ask:

Someone who has a dead child or doesn't have a dead child, WHO is happier.

Answer: Person without dead child.

 

 

They're different questions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're different questions...

 

They're not two different questions at all. I'm asking which glass is more full and you're arguing I should ask which glass is less empty. The answer to the question I asked was blatantly obvious from the start, and you've even admitted that your answer is the same as mine. So why did we have to go through half a dozen posts arguing semantics?

 

Someone who has a dead child or doesn't have a dead child, WHO is happier.

Answer: Person without dead child.

 

Thank you. So the person without the dead child is happier. Science and technology has resulted in more people without dead children. Therefore, at least in that particular example, it has resulted in more happiness. Sotha and Sneaksie are correct.

 

With that, I'm out. My interest in the topic isn't enough to sustain this kind of effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny news. (this is from a newsgroup) The CIA is running a WikiLeaks mirror I was going through WikiLeaks mirrors list, and noticed a small oddity; http://wikileaks.psytek.net was on netblock which belonged to the Central Intelligence Agency. It has now changed, but 010-12-08 12:27:34 (EEST) was still registered to the CIA.

There's more - check out this Google search: http://i.imgur.com/JqLJ9.png?2092

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CIA is running a WikiLeaks mirror I was going through WikiLeaks mirrors list, and noticed a small oddity; http://wikileaks.psytek.net was on netblock which belonged to the Central Intelligence Agency.

Well, if you worked for the CIA and wanted to catch terrorists, what better way than setting up a whistleblower site which 'leaks' a list of vulnerable locations for terrorist attacks and then see who downloads it? Of course you wouldn't want to take every single lead seriously:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...