What is happiness?

[Cavernio]

But that begs the question, what is wrong with not trying for perfection? Why is it wrong to just have enough, and that's that?

[TimeShaper]

But that begs the question, what is wrong with not trying for perfection? Why is it wrong to just have enough, and that's that?

You might be pleased with your current lifestyle but many other people are suffering out there. Aren't you being selfish for that kind of mentality?
Perfection is utopia.

We've been racing for perfection since the beginning of our existence and it can't be helped.
It's soley our human nature that sets us on top of the food chain.

[mhss1992]

Let's analyze:

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Yes, I've flipped out over having crumbs on the floor when I've never really cared that much about them before. The point of that example was to show that I was not in a very sane state of mind at that time, such that the slightest thing I found annoying was blown way out of porportion. Its not that I had just cleaned it and it got dirty again in 2 seconds and I had cleaned it because people were coming over, or that I had just gotten into a fight with my bf or some other misplaced anger. I was having a typical day but I just snapped.

Then, obviously, there was an accumulation of different small annoying things, not just the crumbs. It happens to everyone, but the explanation is the same. You don't need to be conscious of the reasons for them to exist.

Originally Posted by Cavernio

As to being in bed all cozy and warm, of course that's nice, and then that's not neutral either. But that's not the example; the example isn't 'I was feeling comfy and then I start getting hurt by someone'.

And I did answer this as well. I said this in that same post: "It's not about whether you love your current situation or not, it's about your perspective of the best situation and how distant things are from it. "

Also from my first post in this thread, I mentioned several examples explaining this perspective thing.

Originally Posted by Cavernio

I can also very much enjoy not being in pain when it goes away. This happens to me every month when I have bad period cramps and then I take a pain killer. The relief of not being in pain anymore is so overwhelming it feels sooooo good. In that example, the happiness of not being in pain anymore was specifically caused by the unhappiness in the first place, which is another counter-example to needing happiness to cause unhappiness. I surely would not suddenly feel relief and happiness had I not been in pain a few minutes ago...

I know. The change from a worse situation to a better one brings happiness due to contrast, just like the change from a better to a worse one brings suffering. No mystery here.

When you feel pain for too long, you get used to it. Your once high perspective becomes lower, which prevents you from going insane. Therefore, you suffer less.

We tend to adapt to every situation, good or bad. It will eventually become the "neutral".

But the fact remains: there is no actual "bad" feeling that exists independently. There are feelings and models. People can have very different models and even things like pain can be a good thing for some.
If something is close to the model, it's good. If it's far, it's bad. If your model is too harsh, that means you have experienced near perfection before, which also means it will be much easier to make you suffer.

But you can't know the "model" if you haven't experienced something GOOD before. The good feeling determines the model, which determines the bad.

A simple way to understand why the "good" determines the models and not the "bad" is this: there is no model for "badness". No such thing as "perfect ugliness". If someone actually tries to find something like this, it's most likely a case of "so bad it's good". Models are always centered on good stuff.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by TimeShaper

Exactly. That's why never achieving supreme happiness is better. Once we do it, there won't be any motivation for us to reach perfection.

That's why supreme happiness is more like drugs. Sure, it makes you feel alright and have no worries but it won't get you anywhere. Once you start drugging, you stop existing.

What if ultimate happiness is perfection?

Did you read the last answer I gave you?

Also... You probably didn't notice it, but when you say that seeking perfection is better than supreme happiness, that is the same as saying that the idea of seeking perfection satisfies you more. Think about it, it's a bit paradoxal. If you think that something is better than this supreme happiness, then you don't really think that this supreme happiness is supreme.

[Cavernio]

"there is no actual "bad" feeling that exists independently"
"But you can't know the "model" if you haven't experienced something GOOD before. The good feeling determines the model, which determines the bad."

But you're still not backing this up in anyway whatsoever, and I feel like I've given counterexamples of these things particularly, and yet you gloss over them. I can stub my toe and its bad. Why must I know happiness in order to have my toe feel bad? You yourself agree that there is a neutral, so why must a bad feeling emerge only when it differs from good, instead of solely differing from neutral? You're not making sense. I mean, you are, except you're not really talking about anything that I've addressed. You're not addressing one of the underlying principles of your theory, you just expect everyone else to, upon thinking about that tenet, agree with it. I don't. You're essentially saying that pain and hurt, on an emotional level, only exist when happiness doesn't. I mean, GAH, pain is an opposite of happiness, but its certainly not a negative happiness...its a positive pain. It exists, its not solely a lack of happiness. We can be sad and happy at the same time because even though we like to think of them as opposites, they're still separate entities. And since they are separate entities, there's no reason to believe that they must be linked. If you've never been happy and sad at the same time, then I guess you wouldn't understand this. For anyone else who has, they'll get what I'm saying. And even if you did think they were linked, you have yet to say anything, (besides an example as to how unhappiness can happen because we lose happiness), about why happiness must always be the precursor here.

It seems to me that if you acknowledge that we can feel fairly 'neutral', then we can feel bad in comparison to that. Now, I could understand if you thought that 'neutrality' never really exists, so that one would always be on the good/bad side of it, but you're not saying that at all.

[Cavernio]

Timeshaper: I wasn't considering other people in the statement, but rather a determination of what we want to do as people. It could be possible that someone creates a drug that delivers the feeling of self satisfaction, and they're altruistic enough to share it with the world, and now the world's taking this drug. Yet I suspect you'd feel that this would still be totally wrong. Why is that though? I mean, why is it deplorable to not have to struggle? Again, lets not get into how the world would work and how we'd get food. Lets pretend all those robots someone has made keeps humanity alive.

[Trema]

My form of happiness is listening to music, playing video games, and isolation to society.

[TimeShaper]

Apparently I have no idea about what perfection might be. But there's one thing I know for sure, the process of achieving perfection is satisfying (at least for me).
Perfection means no more process of improvement and so no more satisfaction (the kind of satisfaction that makes me feel alive), this might be the sole reason for which I disagree with it.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

"there is no actual "bad" feeling that exists independently"
"But you can't know the "model" if you haven't experienced something GOOD before. The good feeling determines the model, which determines the bad."

But you're still not backing this up in anyway whatsoever, and I feel like I've given counterexamples of these things particularly, and yet you gloss over them. I can stub my toe and its bad. Why must I know happiness in order to have my toe feel bad? You yourself agree that there is a neutral, so why must a bad feeling emerge only when it differs from good, instead of solely differing from neutral? You're not making sense. I mean, you are, except you're not really talking about anything that I've addressed. You're not addressing one of the underlying principles of your theory, you just expect everyone else to, upon thinking about that tenet, agree with it. I don't. You're essentially saying that pain and hurt, on an emotional level, only exist when happiness doesn't. I mean, GAH, pain is an opposite of happiness, but its certainly not a negative happiness...its a positive pain. It exists, its not solely a lack of happiness. We can be sad and happy at the same time because even though we like to think of them as opposites, they're still separate entities. And since they are separate entities, there's no reason to believe that they must be linked. If you've never been happy and sad at the same time, then I guess you wouldn't understand this. For anyone else who has, they'll get what I'm saying. And even if you did think they were linked, you have yet to say anything, (besides an example as to how unhappiness can happen because we lose happiness), about why happiness must always be the precursor here.

It seems to me that if you acknowledge that we can feel fairly 'neutral', then we can feel bad in comparison to that. Now, I could understand if you thought that 'neutrality' never really exists, so that one would always be on the good/bad side of it, but you're not saying that at all.

I didn't gloss over anything. The one example you gave about hatred not being a consequence of love (the crumbs) was refuted and you didn't even address my argument.

I know that you can feel bad and good at the same time, that doesn't prove my point wrong. Please, read the last paragraph of that post.

"A simple way to understand why the "good" determines the models and not the "bad" is this: there is no model for "badness". No such thing as "perfect ugliness". If someone actually tries to find something like this, it's most likely a case of "so bad it's good". Models are always centered on good stuff."

I'm talking about models on a physical level. There are several of them, and they are different for each person. They determine the ideal quantity of each characteristic in an object. Nobody has a truly "perfect" model because nobody experienced perfection, but everyone has models.

Pain is not a bad feeling in and of itself. Like I've said, some people even like it. Pain is bad for most people because of it's meaning (danger) and because it deviates from their model of comfort. It deviates from the model just like being sweaty while standing in the bus stop does.

The other fact that proves my point is that people who have experienced more happiness can suffer more. In my first post, again, I've given these examples:

"
E.G: If you have never felt the actual satisfaction of being rich and never saw anyone rich, then you have very little perspective of this happiness. It's entirely possible that you are happy even though you are not rich.
However, if you become rich and feel the satisfaction it proportionates, your standards will rise, and with it your expectations and desires, so you'll also become harder to satisfy. If you ever become poor again, you will feel really bad.

And also a local example: once you get used to get perfects all the time, a single "good" is actually a pretty bad thing. But you don't really care about it before you actually feel (or at least try to imagine) the satisfaction of AAAing songs.
"

The contrast is what allows you to feel bad in the first place. If that's not an indicator that suffering and satisfaction are connected, I don't know what else it is.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by TimeShaper

Apparently I have no idea about what perfection might be. But there's one thing I know for sure, the process of achieving perfection is satisfying (at least for me).
Perfection means no more process of improvement and so no more satisfaction (the kind of satisfaction that makes me feel alive), this might be the sole reason for which I disagree with it.

If you achieved it, you really wouldn't care about "the kind of satisfaction that makes you feel alive". Satisfaction is satisfaction.

You're actually acting as if perfection would be an eternity of boredom, but you can't be bored if you feel supreme happiness. If you are bored, then you're by definition NOT happy.

[Cavernio]

Again, I'm not arguing that happiness and unhappiness aren't connected. I agree that they are. I'm saying that it is not necessary for happiness to exist in order for hurt to exist.

"A simple way to understand why the "good" determines the models and not the "bad" is this: there is no model for "badness". No such thing as "perfect ugliness". If someone actually tries to find something like this, it's most likely a case of "so bad it's good". Models are always centered on good stuff."
Neither does the fact that we strive for good things mean that 'bad' doesn't exist by itself. And neither does the fact that we strive for something necessarily mean its good, although you seem to specifically define it as such. People do things out of habit, out of addiction, out of stupidity, out of not knowing anything better to do.
Pain IS a bad thing in and of itself. It only becomes not so if the person's body/brain is ****ed up or if you include social situations and other psychological situations, like sex or you trying to hurt someone else or you're trying to jar yourself into emotionally feeling something, or you enjoy the endorphins that rush in afterwards.

This whole model thing is really starting to get annoying. You're being a philosopher about the human condition, while ignoring the human body. And you're trying to define what a model is, and somehow they're physical?, and you keep saying it's just necessary for them to use ultimate happiness as their baseline or something. But if you think that, then you could clearly understand how neutrality or even purely negative could be used as a baseline, but you've chosen to ignore either of those possibilities because people strive for happiness.

[Cavernio]

So, what about someone who's a villain who strive to **** everything up for everyone else perfectly? They're some deranged person who's probably been epitomized in a comic book, and what makes them happy is to upset everyone else. If we had no ideology of perfect ugliness, then that person could not understand how to get everyone else in the world to have it. Even though for that individual, (I'm trying to use your theory here), they would be getting happiness, they still most definitely have an idea of what perfect ugliness is for everyone else, which is NOT good. As such, this super-villainistic individual MUST have a 'model' that is centered around suffering, right?
I really have no idea if this disproves your point, I suspect it might, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't because I'm clearly not quite getting it.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Neither does the fact that we strive for good things mean that 'bad' doesn't exist by itself. And neither does the fact that we strive for something necessarily mean its good, although you seem to specifically define it as such. People do things out of habit, out of addiction, out of stupidity, out of not knowing anything better to do.

We only do what we consider most satisfactory. Always. That doesn't mean we always know what's most satisfactory.
Sometimes, we can consider more satisfactory to do a sacrifice in order to get more satisfaction later, or we might think that the immediate satisfaction is better... But it's always for the same reason.

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Pain IS a bad thing in and of itself. It only becomes not so if the person's body/brain is ****ed up or if you include social situations and other psychological situations, like sex or you trying to hurt someone else or you're trying to jar yourself into emotionally feeling something, or you enjoy the endorphins that rush in afterwards.

I guess I chose the wrong words. Pain is the name we give to an unpleasant physical sensation, and it is a bad thing BECAUSE it represents danger and deviates from comfort. The physical sensation that is associated with pain can be satisfactory in some situations, like after a workout (sometimes, the LACK of this physical feeling can be unpleasant in this case).

If we don't associate this physical sensation to the idea of comfort or danger, it's not unpleasant. I've tried this before, and so have many other people: try to ignore the notion of comfort in your head while feeling some intense physical pain of some sort. The unpleasant feeling WILL be diminished or even nullified (if you succeed forgetting about the comfort. Of course, you can't forget it completely).

This whole model thing is really starting to get annoying. You're being a philosopher about the human condition, while ignoring the human body. And you're trying to define what a model is, and somehow they're physical?, and you keep saying it's just necessary for them to use ultimate happiness as their baseline or something. But if you think that, then you could clearly understand how neutrality or even purely negative could be used as a baseline, but you've chosen to ignore either of those possibilities because people strive for happiness.

What?
It looks like you misinterpreted everything I've said about the models, and this is annoying. I'm not ignoring the human body.

The fact is simple: there are individual restrict ideas for what can be considered "good" ( a beautiful person, a good cake, etc.) and there are inumerous ways to deviate from these ideas.
There aren't combinations of pure "badness", something that will automatically become better when changed in some way.

Can you think of a model for a BAD thing?

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

So, what about someone who's a villain who strive to **** everything up for everyone else perfectly? They're some deranged person who's probably been epitomized in a comic book, and what makes them happy is to upset everyone else. If we had no ideology of perfect ugliness, then that person could not understand how to get everyone else in the world to have it. Even though for that individual, (I'm trying to use your theory here), they would be getting happiness, they still most definitely have an idea of what perfect ugliness is for everyone else, which is NOT good. As such, this super-villainistic individual MUST have a 'model' that is centered around suffering, right?
I really have no idea if this disproves your point, I suspect it might, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't because I'm clearly not quite getting it.

No, not really. The situation you've described is impossible because there is no perfect ugliness.

Why is a person considered ugly, in the first place? Isn't it because it's physical traits are very different from the good-looking standards?
It can be deformed, assymetrical, have a really big nose, etc. Those are all examples of traits that deviate from a model: symmetrical, traits following a certain proportion, etc.

There is not a model for assymetry, deformity or whatever. There are infinite possibilities that deviate from a good model.

[Cavernio]

I guess I can't think of a model for a bad thing despite giving half a dozen examples. And I guess I never will give you a model for a bad thing because I have no clue what you mean when you ask that. If I misinterpret what you say, its because you're not doing a good job of explaining. Physical pain seems to fit the criteria perfectly, yet because you can mentally dull pain apparently that means that it only hurts because we're always in a state of comfort or something. You keep ignoring the meat of my discussion and counter it with examples that aren't relevant to what I'm getting at whatsoever. This discussion is going nowhere fast, and I think I'm done with it.

[mhss1992]

You can't say I do a bad job explaining things when you completely distort or simply ignore the things I say.

I never said we're in a constant state of comfort, that's impossible. I said the phrase "It's not about whether you love your current situation or not, it's about your perspective of the best situation and how distant things are from it. " twice and you ignored it both times.

I gave very clear examples about models, including the one from my last post regarding beauty, which you also completely ignored. If it wasn't clear enough for you, there's nothing else I can do.

[GG_Guru]

Being happy is when there is absolutely no sense of negative energy pulsating deep within the cerebral cortex of your brain. You become happy when something good happens to you and the only emotion you can express that feeling is through being happy and joyful. Emotions exist because of the myriad of things that occur to someone like winning the lottery, being stepped on the toe, crashing your car. All these effects give a certain emotion and your brain decides whether its good or bad. Some may feel that hurting others will make them happy, others may feel that being taken advantage of is a good thing. There are some people that can't even feel emotions. It all depends on the certain aspects of that individual and how he/she programs theirselves to project their emotions.

[Cavernio]

I haven't ignored your examples of models, things I'm largely not talking about are things I generally agree with you about. But for me, an example of a concept that I haven't really thought of for myself doesn't define it for me at all. Call me stupid however much you like, you're still not enlightening me. However, what I do think I understand is that, by definition, your 'models' MUST be centered around happiness. Therefore it IS impossible for me to give you a counterexample.

I also find it pretty annoying that you took my use of the word 'ugliness' to be literal in a paragraph where its synonym is clearly 'misery', and my pargraph really had nothing whatsoever pertaining to physical beauty, yet you grasped at it and then talked about it as if to show I was wrong about what ugliness is. Who's not listening to who now, really.

I'm not addressing your examples that show that happiness can dictate unhappiness, because I agree. I know. But this by no means proves what I have a problem with, which is that happiness is always first and everything's always compared to it.

Let me try something else. IF models are always centered around happiness, then why does pain exist at all? If unhappiness can't exist without happiness, then why would we, as living beings who evolved into who we are, have separate feelings and emotions for pain? Why would we not solely be regulated with 'neutral' being the worst feeling, and then we'd be regulated solely using more and less happy? It seems very unlikely that if happiness were always the first thing we must feel, then we would never ever have bothered with pain in the first place, and we'd all just really be functioning around more and less happy.

I said that it seemed like you must think we're in a constant state of comfort because you say that pain exists only because it deviates from comfort, but I still say that we can feel pain when it only deviates from neutral. Consider a person in solitary confinement who has reached a 'neutral' state (an example YOU first brought up), and then a rat bites them and it hurts. IF pain exists only when deviating from comfort, then your theory falls apart unless you change it by saying that a) say that that person was not actually in a neutral state at all, but rather in a state of comfort or b) physical pain is not always linked to happiness.
I suppose you might say something that at the exact moment of the bite, the person was neutral, but now that they are in pain, they yearn for that comfort of not being in pain. But still, even if you say that, the CAUSE of this change was the pain of the bite, not the yearning for not being in pain. The yearn happens AFTER the pain, and the model changes BECAUSE of the pain. It cannot be the otherway around, because then there is no catalyst, nothing to cause the change to happen in the first place. And if the pain is the cause, then it clearly MUST exist by itself, happiness not included.

And lastly, you asked me for an example of perfect ugliness, and no, I can't give you one. But neither can you give me an example of perfect beauty, so I don't know where you were going with that.

[bobeck2]

Happiness is complete contentment and satisfaction. The actions one does to achieve this depends solely on the individual. It must be contrasted with "thrills" and "pleasure" which are more potent forms of positive energy.

[Fogfactor]

Could you people please stop double posting?