Happiness

[speed]

No philosopher since Bertrand Russell has touched on one of the most important things in life: happiness. Eudaimonia as the ancients called it was a center piece of philosophy, and one they created a set of ethics to attain.

To Socrates, happiness was knowledge and virtue; to Plato it was the ordering of the tripartate soul through rationality, to acheive virtue and thus happiness; to Aristotle eudaimonia was the goal of all life: rational activity and a comprehensive life brought happiness; to Epicurus simple moderate pleasures combined with ataraxia (freedom from fear), and aponia (freedom from pain) not only produced happiness, but were the sole aim of life; the Dhammapada and many Buddhist teachings take a similar view of happiness as Plato and Epicurus, and in fact, lay out a philosophy, set of ethics, to remove oneself from fear, discover the true nature of reality, and thus reach a blissful state of nirvana.

Yet today, philosophers dont bother with happiness and have left the subject largely to society, neurology, and psychology (who all dont seem to understand it--neurology in its chemical form perhaps). Why is this the case? Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize specifically for his studies of happiness, society, ethics etc. Is it merely due to happiness' ties to ethics (a field forgotten)? Can a set of ethics even be created anymore, for one to acheive happiness? And why shouldnt I agree with Aristotle and Epicurus in believing happiness is the most important thing, and the rest of philosophy is secondary?

One example I'd like to throw out, is that Buddhist monks who follow the path, have the highest levels of happiness recorded by our fancy machines. Their happiness parts of the brain are quite quite active, and far surpass any western person.

 

[Europa Ascendent]

It is ignored because the major philosophical schools are currently concerned primarily with providing a framework for justifying various political beliefs.

 

[speed]

It is ignored because the major philosophical schools are currently concerned primarily with providing a framework for justifying various political beliefs.

Haha. But seriously. I dont know of anything more important, besides the fulfillment of basic needs (food, shelter).

 

[Europa Ascendent]

Haha. But seriously. I dont know of anything more important, besides the fulfillment of basic needs (food, shelter).

You touched on it in the 'economic man' thread. The basic assumptions of the major political theories are economic - money is always the organizing principle. The axiomatic assumption is that material comfort and 'social justice' (and this is what most practica philosophical discussions in the contemporary world come down to - how to achieve those conditions) will result naturally in happiness.

Your point about Buddhist monks is an interesting one, because it would seem to provide empirical confirmation of something that is implicit in Heidegger's thought and explicit in the works of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche: discipline creates happiness.

This observation is, I think, viewed as dangerous by most contemporary philsophers because its implications don't fit comfortably within their worldviews. Discipline is a difficult concept because many people have absolutely no aptitude for it, so it undermines the ideal of equality. Moreover, discipline is not something that can easily be instilled in society without altering its institutions in ways that are fundamentally anathema to almost all academics.

 

[speed]

You touched on it in the 'economic man' thread. The basic assumptions of the major political theories are economic - money is always the organizing principle. The axiomatic assumption is that material comfort and 'social justice' (and this is what most practica philosophical discussions in the contemporary world come down to - how to achieve those conditions) will result naturally in happiness.

Your point about Buddhist monks is an interesting one, because it would seem to provide empirical confirmation of something that is implicit in Heidegger's thought and explicit in the works of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche: discipline creates happiness.

This observation is, I think, viewed as dangerous by most contemporary philsophers because its implications don't fit comfortably within their worldviews. Discipline is a difficult concept because many people have absolutely no aptitude for it, so it undermines the ideal of equality. Moreover, discipline is not something that can easily be instilled in society without altering its institutions in ways that are fundamentally anathema to almost all academics.

Yes, you know I was about to write that our happiness these days is implicity based on material or economic freedom--and success.

As for discipline, yes, I think you've hit the nail on the head. I suppose one could say discipline through subserviance to a form of ethics. Not just discipline for discipline's sake.

Well I think Nietszche, Schopenhauer and Heidegger, are so dangerous because they are so diametrically opposed to classical liberalism (really they take on a Kantian view of the world--they allow something other than pure Hume-an reason, which of course is especially important in the logical positivists and classical liberals for whom behavior can be explained, and discipline is unneeded). Some have tried to market them towards a more market friendly view: Ayn Rand comes to mind. But to do so, is a complete abomination (not to mention her philosophy is the lowest form of drivel) of their philosophy.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Happiness must be long term contentment, rather than the short-lived feeling of a thrill.

So what is contentment then? Absence of negative stress for one thing. But knowledge and virtue? That depends on the individual. The most "happy" people are often idiots. Virtue and knowledge are irrelevant to them. Often they seem to have most reason to be unhappy. Which must be perplexing to those of us with less contentended souls. Hence the phrase "ignorance is bliss". Groups of mentally deficient people such as mongoloids often seem very blissful.

Despite experiencing more fear and pain than we westerners could bear, people who live in poverty in Africa are very often to be seen smiling and breaking into song and dance at the least excuse. How wonderful for them, or is it?

And the Brazilians with their carnival culture! How happy they are! And how I don't want to be like them!

Contentment is indeed virtue and knowledge for some of us. However, pressure to be more virtuous than one naturally is capable of being does cause feelings of annoyance. And pressure to be more knowledgeable and widely read than one even has opportunity to be (or inclination) is also a cause of discontentment.

Happiness is different for different people. The more intelligent someone is, the more they feel a need to gain satisfaction by justifying their existence in some way, acheiving a sense of worth.

 

[Europa Ascendent]

As for discipline, yes, I think you've hit the nail on the head. I suppose one could say discipline through subserviance to a form of ethics. Not just discipline for discipline's sake.

I wouldn't be too certain of that. My inclination is to say that the human mind craves the structure of discipline (there are some obvious evolutionary benefits to this). I suspect, however, that this comfort comes from the mere fact of structure itself, rather than from the nature of any particular structure. As a result, people find their discipline in all sorts of pursuits, and it explains phenomena as diverse as the enduring happiness many derive from military careers, the positive experiences of the 'born again' believer, the joy that many take from political activism, and the way many artists are incapable of any happiness outside the discipline of their art.

That said, I think this innate tendency can be exploited to encourage positive action in other areas. Something like the Reich, but maybe without the Jew killing.

 

[speed]

I wouldn't be too certain of that. My inclination is to say that the human mind craves the structure of discipline (there are some obvious evolutionary benefits to this). I suspect, however, that this comfort comes from the mere fact of structure itself, rather than from the nature of any particular structure. As a result, people find their discipline in all sorts of pursuits, and it explains phenomena as diverse as the enduring happiness many derive from military careers, the positive experiences of the 'born again' believer, the joy that many take from political activism, and the way many artists are incapable of any happiness outside the discipline of their art.

That said, I think this innate tendency can be exploited to encourage positive action in other areas. Something like the Reich, but maybe without the Jew killing.

Yes, I think we're both saying the same thing, and I dont care to get into semantics battles with you epistemological philosophers (i lose, or lose interest). Religion, the military, all have a set of guidelines or codes (ethics) which they follow. So...

Oh and I added to my previous post about Nietszche and Heidegger. See what you think.

 

[Europa Ascendent]

Well I think Nietszche, Schopenhauer and Heidegger, are so dangerous because they are so diametrically opposed to classical liberalism (really they take on a Kantian view of the world--they allow something other than pure Hume-an reason, which of course is especially important in the logical positivists and classical liberals for whom behavior can be explained, and discipline is unneeded). Some have tried to market them towards a more market friendly view: Ayn Rand comes to mind. But to do so, is a complete abomination (not to mention her philosophy is the lowest form of drivel) of their philosophy.

It's more than just classical liberals (and their descendents among the analytics) that react negatively to the ideal of discipline. Derrida, Foucault, Lacan (all engaged in philosophy while hailing from other fields) etc. are very much intellectual descendents of Nietzsche and Heidegger, yet their antipathy to discipline is well known, and much of Foucault's work, in particular, is dedicated to attacking discipline itself as a source of social injustice. The liberals reject discipline as being incompatible with 'liberty,' and the postmoderns reject it both as a 'metanarrative' and because it undermines the discontent and alienation they see as integral to bringing about social justice.

 

[speed]

It's more than just classical liberalism (and its descendents among the analytics) that react negatively to the ideal of discipline. Derrida, Foucault, Lacan (all engaged in philosophy while hailing from other fields) etc. are very much intellectual descendents of Nietzsche and Heidegger, yet their antipathy to discipline is well known, and much of Foucault's work, in particular, is dedicated to attacking discipline itself as a source of social injustice.

True. Perhaps this is a social/historical phenomom? Our current culture and recent dealings with totalitarianism perhaps compels such hatred to any form of discipline. I dont know really. You have any ideas?

 

[Europa Ascendent]

There are certainly sociopolitical elements involved, but really the rejection of discipline is generally rooted in ideology rather than a simple aversion to totalitarianism (indeed, many of the postmoderns can't really be seen to be anti-totalitarian in any meaningful sense).

 

[Justin S.]

Europa, I understand the absolute neccesity for generalization here, but I dont think its quite that simple with the post-modernists. They certainly have much ambivalence to power, discipline, and knowledge, and often are just as opposed to humanism/liberalism as the other thinkers mentioned.

Heidegger is all the more interesting due to his experience with "Nazism"- his personal letters and public adresses (in addition to published works) of the time shed much light on his struggle and eventual turn away from support of the developing national socialist movement. However, I do agree that post war thought is largely reactionary and incapable of critical thought on issues in anyway connected to the taboo of Nazism.

edit: a little late with the post

 

[unknown]

the idea of discipline as a path to happiness is interesting. I'm reminded of Candide by Voltaire, where at the end, after all they've went through, they find that working a field and keeping one's mind occupied can lead to contentment. Indeed, when I'm at work, I find myself to often be in a good mood (if everything is going smoothly). I engage in coversation with my co-workers, I meet people, and I hear interesting stories from time to time.

even just my simple morning routine of enjoying a leisurely breakfast with no noise or interference makes me feel happy.

 

[Horus]

The reason that discipline is a path to happiness is because the person doing the disciplining has control. The last time I checked, control is a good thing to have. When you have a whole bunch of people working to serve your needs, people are happier. So the Powers that Be disciplin eht people to serve them and make them happy. Or really anybody on any kind of ladder of power that isn't at the bottom step.

 

[Justin S.]

 

[Europa Ascendent]

Heidegger is all the more interesting due to his experience with "Nazism"- his personal letters and public adresses (in addition to published works) of the time shed much light on his struggle and eventual turn away from support of the developing national socialist movement. However, I do agree that post war thought is largely reactionary and incapable of critical thought on issues in anyway connected to the taboo of Nazism.

I don't think there's much evidence that Heidegger ever turned his back on National Socialism as a political ideology, his real dispute with the NSDAP was over their choice of fuerher (he had someone else in mind for the post...Martin Heidegger). He continued to argue right up until his death that his philosophy had revealed the 'inner truth and beauty' of the National Socialist movement.

 

[Justin S.]

I don't think there's much evidence that Heidegger ever turned his back on National Socialism as a political ideology, his real dispute with the NSDAP was over their choice of fuerher (he had someone else in mind for the post...Martin Heidegger). He continued to argue right up until his death that his philosophy had revealed the 'inner truth and beauty' of the National Socialist movement.

Heidegger's idea of national socialism was in stark contrast to the governments ideology (it took a while for there to be something coherent on that scale).

He was very active in the movement when it was still undecided, when there was no clear "philosophical" core and he banked his hopes on being able to direct the upsurge more in line with his thought.

Very quickly, however, it turned into his nightmare- a vast bureaucracy with petty infighting, a program of populism ("crowdism" as some use the term here), and the worst misinterpretation of will-to-power, and worship of rationalizing technology.

Already in late 1935 and 1936 he was publishing works with explicit criticisms of the state. Everything he supported in the initial breakout of the movement in 1933 was abandoned shortly after it became a political body.

I also disagree that he was supportive of "discipline", although its not very clear to me how the word-concept is being used in this thread. However, he placed great emphasis and urgency on the individual radically grasping his capacity for thought and action within ones historical moment- not some form of submission to an arbitrary power or structure for the sake of order or discipline.

 

[speed]

Does anyone else feel philosophy can bring them happiness?

 

[Cythraul]

Doing philosophy or applying the results of philosophical reflection to one's life? Doing philosophy simultaneously drives me towards alcoholism while being one of the only things that gives me fulfillment.

 

[speed]

Doing philosophy or applying the results of philosophical reflection to one's life? Doing philosophy simultaneously drives me towards alcoholism while being one of the only things that gives me fulfillment.

Haha. But you overanalyze and complicate everything Cythraul. Just an observation. When I read your posts, Im always amazed at how much thought goes into them, but how unneeded much of it is. Too much epistemology for you I say. You need to be free from your fear of needing perfection--which is always impossible to attain. Oh, such nonsense Im spouting! We all have our flaws, and I;m guilty of making such comments as Im doing now.