[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 224 KB, 990x742, 1394557259431.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.5067514 [Reply] [Original]

Why is it that people believe happiness is the desired state of being?

>> No.5067522

>>5067514
Basically, because they're told it is.

>> No.5067533

Because people desire happiness above all else
Usually

>> No.5067538

Because it is the best state of being most humans can easily achieve

really I like that placid, cold dark cave high where only echos and cold whispers of wind reign

>> No.5067545

>>5067514
Why wouldn't it be. Are you telling me you'd rather be angry and sad all the time?

>> No.5067552

>>5067545
Isn't that a false dichotomy?

>> No.5067557

>>5067545
False dichotomy

>> No.5067606

>>5067533
Is this desire natural or is it instilled in people?

>> No.5067614

The problem is with words they don't adequately describe states. States are vastly complex. Words are simple. They are intended to be oversimplifications.

>> No.5067617

>>5067552
>>5067557

So is the state some completely foreign emotion that humans can't feel?

>> No.5067622

>>5067614
>vastly complex

>> No.5067623

>>5067617
*ideal state

>> No.5067624

>>5067617
I'd say it's something between the highest possible state and the lowest possible state. What goes up must come down.

>> No.5067626

>>5067552
>>5067557
>False dichotomy
ELI5 ?

>> No.5067630

>>5067622
I don't understand your meme arrow.

>> No.5067637

>>5067514

which people?

desired by who?

by state of being do you mean emotion?

Your question leaves a lot of space for ambiguity.

>> No.5067642

Good question, OP. I think that >>5067545 inadvertently answers it: people believe that there is no choice to be had between "happiness" (whatever that is - and I doubt one person in a million could provide you with a convincing, positive definition) and states of emotional suffering. Sometimes I wonder if the great philosophical project, the search for the eudaemonic life, hasn't just led everyone terribly astray. Much like how Christianity's negative definition of what is good (i.e. Christ, the sinless god-man) produces only bad and sinful people in contrast to an unreachable standard, any negative definition of eudaemonia will only serve to make unhappy (cacodaemonic?) those who strive failingly to attain it. On the other hand, if you 'smash the measures and burn the weights' you can see that there is plenty to human experience that shouldn't be divvied up into "happiness" or "unhappiness".

>> No.5067670

>>5067514
Isn't this what post-structuralism exists to answer?

>> No.5067690

>>5067514
Because happiness is the most agreeable state to be in, obviously.

>> No.5067728

>>5067642
This is a good answer. I can't help but feel that the idea of happiness is propaganda of some sort, because I can't remember a time when I was actually happy. I'm not even sure what it feels like. "Happiness" is one of the emptiest words out there.

>> No.5067729

>>5067626
The state of being not happy is not the state of being sad

>> No.5067732

>>5067728
>I'm not even sure what it feels like

Dopamine.

>> No.5067737

>>5067728
I believe it comes from deep propagandizing by corporations. They claim that the ideal is to be happy, and you can't be happy how you are, and it's your fault that you are not happy. You become frustrated in your pursuit to always be happy, and it keeps you distracted and eventually, compliant

>>5067690
Agreeable between which two parties?

>>5067637
"I want to be happy" is a statement with equal ambiguity. My question was purposefully ambiguous so the thinkers on /lit/ would question the ambiguity and realize how confusing the idea of happiness even is.

I'm not really looking for some half-baked thoughts that directly answer the question; it's a rhetorical question made to have us question which values we hold in western society.

>> No.5067759

>>5067617
Do you want to pursue a workable dialectic or do you want to continue begging the question?

>> No.5067766

Can't happiness be redefined and made to fit a particular person's tastes? Basically, it boils down to whatever people fucking want. Happiness is acheiving one's desires, at least from a hedonist's perspective.
On the other hand, a buddhist will say happiness comes from the elimantion of desire. This leads to the thought that desire is the path and enemy of hapiness.
>I'm totally fucking joking, happiness is what your big monkey brain tells you what to do (Fuck, eat, shit, etc.)

>> No.5067767

>>5067614
The problem is that happiness is both an emotion and a rational state of contentment. Ambiguity is a blight on communication.

>> No.5067771

>>5067514
happiness is defined as the desired state of being you fucking retard

>> No.5067774

>>5067766
Right. "It makes me happy" is used as a blanket justification for however a person chooses to live.

Have you ever heard Zizek speak on desire? Life without desire would be absolute hell. In fact, the sense that you can accomplish your desires is possibly a better state to be in than the state that follows accomplishing your desires.

I think the problem is, not just the ambiguity of happiness, but the idea that all of human experience can be dichotomized into the happy/unhappy (contentment) dichotomy. No such objectivity exists; it's clear that emotions are far too complex for such.

>> No.5067776

>>5067771
Read the thread before replying, and lose the condescending attitude.

>> No.5067778

>>5067626

>eli5
back to leddit you go

>> No.5067786

>>5067774

Not only can they be dichotomized, but there is absolutely no way to achieve an objective dichotomy, anybody can find happiness in anything they like. Reward circuits are adaptive. People can learn to love getting beaten, cut up, bound, kicked in the nuts - love these things so much that it literally makes them cum.

>> No.5067790

>>5067774
Yeah, happiness is a state of mind and all that jazz.
Also, I remember reading something a while ago about plans. Something along the lines of people enjoy creating plans and thinking out how they will work than actually doing those plans. That kind of leads into the idea that having desires is more important than fulfilling the desires themselves.
>Nice job on the thread btw. You've been keeping shit on topic and continually reply.

>> No.5067795

>>5067737
>Agreeable between which two parties?
pls don't autist

>> No.5067797

It's all about feeling comfortable, or in control, OP. That said, your bit on desire as essential is dumb, desire is but a manifestation of not being in control.

>> No.5067801

>>5067514
It differs from person to person. Why are you making a generalization?

>> No.5067811

>>5067786
>People can learn to love getting beaten, cut up, bound, kicked in the nuts - love these things so much that it literally makes them cum.

But is not the very statement, "learn to love", ambiguous in itself? Love has several understandings, but we do hold some seemingly objective ideal for love that lies in romance, or friendship. But then what you seem to say is, "people desire what they desire, and that desire can be anything". Do we have a better word than a double meaning for the subjective desires of an individual? And are you right in saying that an individual would truly be at their psychological best when they achieve their desires? You claim there is absolutely no objective dichotomy, and yet seem to hint that a desire for self harm being fulfilled is a better state than not so, or, the state of "love".

>>5067790
Yes, having desire and being desired are both extremely important to people. This is, in my view, the largest problem of a postmodern, highly productive utopia: strong desires either do not exist or feel shallow

>> No.5067814

>>5067797
What is there besides desire? What is there besides the inclination toward action?

>>5067801
It is not a generalization; you did not parse my grammar well. "Why is it that birds fly?" is not a generalization that all birds fly.

>> No.5067828

>>5067814
>What is there besides desire? What is there besides the inclination toward action?
Contentedness, self-assurance, unconsciousness, sleep, etc. It is an exclusively human trait to always think bigger, and it's because we are bigger, have greater potential, etc. A dog, on the other hand, will lie down on a doorstep for the entirety of its life, because that's all it has and that's OK. The same state is possible for humans.

>> No.5067844

>>5067828
How do you know what is content for a dog?

Contentedness is a false state; it does not exist.

>> No.5067853

>>5067844
i'm content

>> No.5067857

>>5067853
Not in any absolute sense; to say you're not having desires is to misunderstand yourself in a very critical way. The sense you're using contentedness is arbitrary

>> No.5067865

>>5067853
Also, you should remember that I've been using content to establish the state of being that is somehow ethereally "better" for a subject; I believe you've confused this established term with your feelings while sitting relaxed in your chair

>> No.5067885

>>5067811

>psychological best
>better state

I don't think this is really relevant way to look at it honestly. My point of view is basically neurological: people broadly speaking call "happiness" that state that is evoked within them when the VTA shoots dopamine into the nucleus accumbens (and serotonin and oxytocin and so on and so on...) and their prefrontal cortex tells them "hey, you should do what you just did again if you want to get more dopamine". And people keep paying the pusher. But what triggers that release is different for every individual, that's what I mean when I say that there is no objective dichotomy. There's nothing that's morally or otherwise objectively "better" about a VTA that shoots more dopamine. But the way in which we treat the depressed in our society shows that this value judgment (that the brain which has more monoamines is "better") is so widespread as to go generally unquestioned. Which says something about the idea of happiness in itself.

>Do we have a better word than a double meaning for the subjective desires of an individual?

Only insofar as it is a romanticization or idealization of what you describe. It is a (culturally constructed) morally prescribed formalization of the mesolimbic pathway experience. It's extremely widespread notion, I can't think of or even imagine a culture that wholly discounts it. If you've ever taken heroin or, you know, experienced any pleasure at all, it is easy to see why man everywhere considers the experience of dopamine release to be sacred.

>> No.5067916

>>5067885
So then you assert that a lifestyle that doesn't support the maximization of dopamine is also good? e.g., asceticism

>> No.5067949

>>5067857
Nothing every anything in an absolute sense. I'm content having desires.

>>5067865
Well if you define contentedness as some magical unattainable state then yes, it's unattainable.

>> No.5067955

>>5067949
>Well if you define contentedness as some magical unattainable state then yes, it's unattainable.

You change what I say and then point out a tautology?

>> No.5067959

>>5067916

Does an ascetic lifestyle not support the "maximization of dopamine"? This article suggests that prayer and meditation can get the ol' mesolimbic pathway fired up as well.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3185195/

>> No.5067960

>>5067844
That's a ridiculous assertion. Contentedness is self-assurance, which is where humans fall down. A lion sits and does nothing for 18 hours of its day. Sure, it would conquer more if it could, but it can't, and as such it just lives with that, content. Where are the lions in a constant effort to manufacture arms?

>> No.5067968

>>5067959
Asceticism does not include prayer or meditation intensionally. Are you saying now that we should maximize dopamine production?

>> No.5067981

>>5067960
>That's a ridiculous assertion. Contentedness is self-assurance, which is where humans fall down. A lion sits and does nothing for 18 hours of its day. Sure, it would conquer more if it could, but it can't, and as such it just lives with that, content. Where are the lions in a constant effort to manufacture arms?
Again, why are you trying to assert what animals want to do?

You rest because you have the desire to rest, not because resting is an ultimate good. You sleep and then wake up and continue. There is no end in relaxation.

>> No.5067992

>>5067981
I'm merely explaining contentedness and the end point of desire: comfort, control, all that can be done has been done. Desire is not towards the utterly random, but an end always, and with that end satiated, we just are.

>> No.5067997

>>5067968

>Asceticism does not include prayer or meditation intensionally.

"Asceticism is a lifestyle characterized by abstinence from worldly pleasures, often pursuing spiritual goals." I mean yeah, I'm sure people COULD call themselves ascetics by sitting in a box and doing literally nothing at all, no religious justification, no prayer or meditation or nothing, but I don't see anyone doing this anywhere in the world.

>Are you saying now that we should maximize dopamine production?

I'm saying that your argument to "a lifestyle that doesn't support the maximization of dopamine" requires that you demonstrate the existence of such a lifestyle. If you would like to describe to me a tradition of non-religious, non-philosophical asceticism that has been shown not to involve the reward circuit whatsoever, I would gladly listen to it. I don't care in the slightest what way of life is "good", much less what chemical stimuli are "good". What I'm saying is that people make the experience of the reward system into a moral virtue because feels good man and it's as close to a universal human experience as anything. Do I think that we should maximize dopamine production? No, but I can certainly see why some people have basically made that their life goal.

>> No.5067999

>>5067992
I disagree. People who become comfortable for too long become miserable and suffer from ennui.

>> No.5068011

>>5067997
>"Asceticism is a lifestyle characterized by abstinence from worldly pleasures, often pursuing spiritual goals." I mean yeah, I'm sure people COULD call themselves ascetics by sitting in a box and doing literally nothing at all, no religious justification, no prayer or meditation or nothing, but I don't see anyone doing this anywhere in the world.
Now you're just being dense; the definition itself states that religion is not intrinsic to asceticism.

>I'm saying that your argument to "a lifestyle that doesn't support the maximization of dopamine" requires that you demonstrate the existence of such a lifestyle. If you would like to describe to me a tradition of non-religious, non-philosophical asceticism that has been shown not to involve the reward circuit whatsoever, I would gladly listen to it.

I'm not trying to prove the opposite, I'm testing you. It seems you think that we are all driven toward happiness with or without, not that we should be driven toward happiness.

> I don't care in the slightest what way of life is "good", much less what chemical stimuli are "good".

Then why are you in this thread?

>What I'm saying is that people make the experience of the reward system into a moral virtue because feels good man and it's as close to a universal human experience as anything. Do I think that we should maximize dopamine production? No, but I can certainly see why some people have basically made that their life goal.

I would counter here by saying that most people actually do not maximize dopamine production, and that human psychology is much deeper.

>> No.5068023

>>5067999
Nonsense. Of course people will feel like they've lost control, mid-life crises and such, and sperg after a while having done the same for so long. But this is because we're host to god-complex and insecurity like no other animal. Humanity could be brought to a rest. Who gets sick of being Christian, for example?

>> No.5068028

Because it feels good?

>> No.5068043

>>5068028
This. Some things are really pleasantly simple without any need to make them more complicated.

>> No.5068044
File: 433 KB, 1000x1500, KierkegaardWasBadAtSmallTalk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>> No.5068051

>>5067514
>implying you aren't a slave to the pleasure center of your brain like everyone else

>> No.5068077

>>5068011

>Now you're just being dense; the definition itself states that religion is not intrinsic to asceticism.

Then you should have no trouble in showing me a non-religious, non-philosophical ascetic whose reward circuits do not fire off due to his ascetic behavior, should you? My point is that people do things not primarily because of their values (values such as happiness), but because of the experiences that lead them to construct their values (such as the experience of dopamine being poured into the nucleus accumbens). Is this all that motivates anyone to do anything? No, but it is a response to way more stuff than is immediately apparent (more than sex, food, and drugs and all that go with them: communicating one's own experiences [http://wjh.harvard.edu/~dtamir/Tamir-PNAS-2012.pdf], monetary reward, charitable giving [http://www.pnas.org/content/103/42/15623.full]) and I don't think it's at all surprising conclusion to draw that people want to define a value "happiness" from these sorts of experiences, because they permeate and enrich our lives. Of course people don't "maximize" dopamine production because that implies a calculation that humans are not capable of making, much less making in their moment-to-moment life. Yet some humans will gladly sacrifice every other aspect of their life so that they can keep their (dopaminergic) drugs coming, and others get their kicks from fucking and haute cuisine instead, because people are highly variable. That variability is why formalizations of experiences such as values are valued to begin with. But if you think that people deliberately do not do what feels good to themselves, I don't really know what kinds of people you hang out with.

>Then why are you in this thread?

Now who's being dense? I'm here because you asked why people believe happiness is the desired state of being and I get a kick out of talking to people about big gay abstract questions on the internet.

>> No.5068101

>>5067670
In what way?

>> No.5068110

>>5068077
I'm not here to assert anything about happiness, I'm talking about the hypocrisy of you criticizing cultural impressions of depression and then continuing to say that dopamine production is desired is stupid.

If you had read the thread you would understand why I posted. But you clearly did not, and now you're speaking nonsense.

>> No.5068112

>>5068051
he is not implying that

>> No.5068138

>>5068077
>if you think that people deliberately do not do what feels good to themselves, I don't really know what kinds of people you hang out with.
I think if you hung around with people who actually studied neuroscience, you would understand why claiming that people are driven purely by dopamine is ignorant.

>> No.5068158

>>5067514
Ofcourse there exist some oddity which revel in suffering. But for the most part, people prefer comfort and happiness over suffering.

>> No.5068171
File: 1.66 MB, 500x500, u wot.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>5068138
>>5068110

>I think if you hung around with people who actually studied neuroscience, you would understand why claiming that people are driven purely by dopamine is ignorant.

Except I am not claiming that at all. I'm claiming that people are driven by their experience, as you would know if you were actually reading my posts. The only person who has suggested that people are purely driven by the urge to "maximize dopamine" (protip, this doesn't mean anything) is you. Good job resorting to insults in lieu of actual counterargument (sorry, "testing") though. You had a pretty good thread going until that.

>I'm talking about the hypocrisy of you criticizing cultural impressions of depression and then continuing to say that dopamine production is desired is stupid.

Nice coherent sentence you've got there. Go to bed.

>> No.5068181

>>5068171
>Except I am not claiming that at all. I'm claiming that people are driven by their experience, as you would know if you were actually reading my posts. The only person who has suggested that people are purely driven by the urge to "maximize dopamine" (protip, this doesn't mean anything) is you. Good job resorting to insults in lieu of actual counterargument (sorry, "testing") though. You had a pretty good thread going until that.
I'm actually not understanding what point you're trying to make. You were the one that starting to be insulting.

>> No.5068184

Happiness is a superficial and modern thing.

What people really want is self-actualization and contentment. You can be "happy" eating ice cream.

>> No.5068185

>>5068171
next time trigger warning your gifs for the high people jesus fuck i scared

>> No.5068191

>>5068184
Content in the moment, or in the future? I can make myself content in any moment, this is not a problem. What if, when you die, you look back on your life and realize that your contentedness was misplaced, and you die discontent knowing that you spent your life seeking wrong things? Does the present self matter most, or the future self?

>> No.5068271

>>5067514
>ctrl-f evolution
>nothing

>>5067771
>happiness is defined as the desired state of being

The derision is unnecessary, but this is exactly what I believe. "Happiness" is largely a response to certain stimuli which, in our evolutionary history, increased our chances of genetic propagation. It's just the name we've assigned to our brain's positive behavioral reinforcement mechanisms, which of course is what we "desire".

>> No.5068303

>>5067514
well happiness is the word we use for "the desired state of being."
you cant really define the feeling itself because it feels different for everybody and it can be caused by different things. even if it feels the same as sadness, for example, to someone else, it would still be happiness if they enjoyed it

>> No.5068318

>>5067514

Look up the definition of happiness

It is the state everyone desires because it is an emotional (see: irrational) sensation.

>> No.5068344

>>5067514
Because their physiology leads them to.

>> No.5068475

Being happy is lack of pain, but with a kick to it.
So being happy is nicer than sadness which hurts. Or frustration that pushes down on your eyebrows. Pain indicates something is wrong, airgo painless=nothing is wrong.
So happiness is desireable as a state of being.