Happiness

But philosophy is for nitpickers and overanalyzers. I happen to think hairsplitting distinctions are absolutely necessary. What's worse than confused philosophical discourse resulting from a failure to acknowledge fine distinctions?
 
Cythraul said:
But philosophy is for nitpickers and overanalyzers. I happen to think hairsplitting distinctions are absolutely necessary. What's worse than confused philosophical discourse resulting from a failure to acknowledge fine distinctions?

Is it? If it was, every single philosophical system would never have been created--as each has serious flaws that even the creators of such systems, realized in their days. Perhaps it is for academic nitpickers, but not the founders of such systems and philosophies.

Plus, I'm not driven to drink after engaging in philosophical discourse. So, hey, I guess I should be glad im not a philo student.
 
speed said:
Is it? If it was, every single philosophical system would never have been created--as each has serious flaws that even the creators of such systems, realized in their days. Perhaps it is for academic nitpickers, but not the founders of such systems and philosophies.

Great philosophers make mistakes and overlook things, and so do academic nitpickers trained in the art of nitpicking. They're not immune to human weakness either. Even these guys would like to hold on to their articles of faith and worldviews in the face of good reasons to reject them. That's one of the reasons why philosophers keep debating the same crap, because one group of nitpickers inevitably finds flaws in the views of their flawed nitpicking predecessors, plus it's just the nature of the subject matter.
 
Cythraul said:
Great philosophers make mistakes and overlook things, and so do academic nitpickers trained in the art of nitpicking. They're not immune to human weakness either. Even these guys would like to hold on to their articles of faith and worldviews in the face of good reasons to reject them. That's one of the reasons why philosophers keep debating the same crap, because one group of nitpickers inevitably finds flaws in the views of their flawed nitpicking predecessors, plus it's just the nature of the subject matter.

I concur.
 
Just incase anyone is interested in the Viking recipe for happiness: it is the four Fs : Fire; fodder; flax, and Frigg.
 
Cythraul said:
But philosophy is for nitpickers and overanalyzers. I happen to think hairsplitting distinctions are absolutely necessary. What's worse than confused philosophical discourse resulting from a failure to acknowledge fine distinctions?

I agree and yet disagree. Philosophy needs analysts, but it also needs intuiters. The plodding systemizers like Kant and Russell offer a necessary counterbalance to intellectual comets like Nietzsche and Heidegger. Without the former, philosophy is an exercise in creative madness, a blazing light careening into the Abyss, without the latter, it is a dead and lifeless thing remote from humanity and nature and bereft of the creative spark of genius.
 
Aarohi said:
Happiness is a satisfied expectation. Its the result of the fulfilment of a desire.

Hm, I dont agree with this aphorism at all. To truly be happy, one would elimanate all desires.
 
Hm, I dont agree with this aphorism at all. To truly be happy, one would elimanate all desires.
Which is impossible to do practically. Yet people are 'happy'. Different definitions for different people. I'm quoting the most obvious, real-world, and common-to-majority truth and you will find out there.
 
Aarohi said:
Which is impossible to do practically. Yet people are 'happy'. Different definitions for different people. I'm quoting the most obvious, real-world, and common-to-majority truth and you will find out there.

Well this is a philosophy forum; thus, you quote the obvious, and I will tell you whats wrong with it, and we'll go from there. But to refer back to your original post, to fulfill a desire, brings but temporary and elusive happiness; thus one feels a need to fulfill more desires for the same feeling. Now clearly such thinking turns into a never-ending process that never brings about permanent happiness, leading one to assume, that desires, will never be truly fulfilled. Hence fulfilling a desire does not bring happiness.
 
Well this is a philosophy forum; thus, you quote the obvious, and I will tell you whats wrong with it, and we'll go from there.
Go ahead...

to fulfill a desire, brings but temporary and elusive happiness; thus one feels a need to fulfill more desires for the same feeling. Now clearly such thinking turns into a never-ending process that never brings about permanent happiness, leading one to assume, that desires, will never be truly fulfilled.

Exactly what happens, isn't it? Temporary happiness is what everyone seeks, because, practically, no feeling (including happiness), can prevail till the time you die (a permanent feeling, quoting you).

How is Killing desires going to provide happiness? Wanting nothing from life is not happiness. Its being dead.

Hence fulfilling a desire does not bring happiness.
I can't relate how you concluded this from what you said...
 
Aarohi said:
Go ahead...



Exactly what happens, isn't it? Temporary happiness is what everyone seeks, because, practically, no feeling (including happiness), can prevail till the time you die (a permanent feeling, quoting you).

How is Killing desires going to provide happiness? Wanting nothing from life is not happiness. Its being dead.


I can't relate how you concluded this from what you said...

I refer you back to the first post on various forms of happiness and eudaimonia. You're confusing happiness with ecstasy and elation; when if you read what the ancients, Buddhists etc, have written, its more or less a lifestyle or state of being and contentment (and all espouse moderation as well).
 
Like I said, different definitions for different people. Why wouldn't contentment not be considered as happiness?

Down to applied philosophy and theoretical philosphy?
 
speed said:
Hm, I dont agree with this aphorism at all. To truly be happy, one would elimanate all desires.

Are you getting into buddhism these days?

edit: oh I see you mentioned buddhism above.
 
I was gonna say that but didn't wanna touch 'religion' cause most of the people in my circle are quite orthodox.. not very comfortable outcomes when I touch those :erk:
 
speed said:
And what milady, is Frigg?

Frigg is Odin's wife and represents love in this context - some sources say Frigg is also known as Freja.

Fodder is food. And flax is used for the material to make shelter and clothing.
 
In this life isn't all happiness fleeting and temporary. Think about what makes you happy. For me,(just an example) when I get my hands on a new music cd, I, with giddy anticipation put it in the player and transport myself wherever. After a while, the newness wares off and the original "happiness" is gone. Time to get something new. You know what I mean. I believe, in this life, everything is fleeting. You buy a new car, your elated and then it becomes old and dusty. In this life everything diminishes, except Love. Absolute happiness will be aquired in the "next" life or dimension. When we leave these decrepit vehicles we call our bodies. So, let the flames burst forth upon me. I am a Viking, and totally prepared for whatever this world will throw at me.