"Don't have a reason for being happy, because that reason can be taken away"

originally posted by: zackli
I heard that quote on facebook a while ago in a nice little picture with some kind of dramatic background, and it's been on my mind for some reason. I think there's something wrong with the logic behind it, but I'm not sure specifically what. It's just a feeling.

Is it hypocritical to have a reason for not having a reason for being "happy"? It may seem silly, but this is the sort of thing my days are spent thinking about, rather than petty day-to-day issues that will most likely not have any sort of meaning in the grand scheme of things.

You are right that there is something wrong with the logic.

Here is specifically what is wrong: They assume that happiness is the only goal in life or the only state of mind worthy of possessing.

It's the attitude of a spoiled brat, to be quite frank. lol

Now to have joy and love is not the same thing as having happiness. Happiness is fleeting, but passion is a joy for that thing for which you have determined. And for that thing which you have determined, the joy that you possess will get you through all of the happiness, the sadness, the anguish, the anxiety, and the depression, and the successes that are inevitable as one presses on (assuming that an individual has a passion at all for anything any good).

originally posted by: zackli
a reply to: calstorm

That's where I was going with it, though my examples were fairly dramatic. I was just illustrating the point that, If happiness comes from within, it follows that an individual can remain happy in such circumstances.

Any so-called "normal" person would most likely agree that it is okay to be sad in those circumstances, even if it is only for "a little while" before they "decide" to pick themselves up by their boot straps (pardon me if I butchered that phrase, I've never used it before).

I think it's far better to have the capacity to be "happy" in any situation and choose to be sad because it's your genuine reaction, than to not have that capacity right when you feel it would do you the most good.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

You are right that there is something wrong with the logic.

Yes, quite literally. There is a logical contradiction. That is all.

Here is specifically what is wrong: They assume that happiness is the only goal in life or the only state of mind worthy of possessing.

For some people, it may be. Due to the lack of any objectively verifiable meaning, any meaning may be pursued by anyone who so chooses to make one. I can’t say I disagree with your judgment of the attitude, but it isn’t for me to say what someone else thinks in their head.

Now to have joy and love is not the same thing as having happiness. Happiness is fleeting, but passion is a joy for that thing for which you have determined. And for that thing which you have determined, the joy that you possess will get you through all of the happiness, the sadness, the anguish, the anxiety, and the depression, and the successes that are inevitable as one presses on (assuming that an individual has a passion at all for anything any good).

You’re starting to sound quite judgmental, and I, in making a judgment against you, in turn. It’s okay, though, because what you do with your thoughts is none of my business.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

have the capacity to be "happy" in any situation and choose to be sad because it's your genuine reaction

I think your choice of words is rather confusing. If you choose to react in a certain way, is it a genuine reaction? And if it's a genuine reaction, do you have any say in the matter? Just because sociopaths came up earlier, many people would suggest that they aren't having a genuine reaction even if they "pretend" to react in a certain way.

What is the difference between what you're talking about and what the sociopath would do?

originally posted by: zackli
a reply to: AfterInfinity

have the capacity to be "happy" in any situation and choose to be sad because it's your genuine reaction

I think your choice of words is rather confusing. If you choose to react in a certain way, is it a genuine reaction? And if it's a genuine reaction, do you have any say in the matter? Just because sociopaths came up earlier, many people would suggest that they aren't having a genuine reaction even if they "pretend" to react in a certain way.

What is the difference between what you're talking about and what the sociopath would do?

By "choosing" to feel a certain way, I mean that you are choosing to shift perspective in a manner that evokes whatever emotion you're looking for. While also suppressing the emotion you're trying to avoid. Kinda like when the first thing you want to do is panic, but you know that won't help, so you mentally slap yourself and focus on being calm and careful.

Speaking of sociopaths, have you seen the BBC series Sherlock? I particularly enjoy the scene where a villain (a proliferate and shameless blackmailer) taunts Sherlock about failing to be the hero, and Sherlock answers, "Oh, do your research! I'm not a hero, I'm a high functioning sociopath. Merry Christmas!" and proceeds to plant a bullet between the dude's eyes.

Being a sociopath is not necessarily a guaranteed "Evil Until Buried" condition. Life is far too messy and complicated to wear shining armor all the time, and there is always someone willing to muck it up just to watch you get pissed off about it. Which is probably why I generally refuse to put my happiness (and any keys to it) in any hand other than my own. I've had too many experiences where someone gets hurt and decides their misery wants company.

a reply to: BlueMule

"Each of us can manifest the properties of a field of consciousness that transcends space, time, and linear causality."

Is that like how America manifested Destiny those two-three centuries ago? Cause I don't like the Destiny we got.

I had no idea who this "Stanislav Graf" character was. I think the '___' went to his head, probably even before he ever started working on that "transpersonal psychology" mumbo jumbo. "Holotropic breathwork"? Really?

I'm all for people starting cults, really, I am. I have problems with it when they're called science, though. Science is its own cult.

originally posted by: zackli
a reply to: BlueMule

"Each of us can manifest the properties of a field of consciousness that transcends space, time, and linear causality."

Is that like how America manifested Destiny those two-three centuries ago? Cause I don't like the Destiny we got.

I had no idea who this "Stanislav Graf" character was. I think the '___' went to his head, probably even before he ever started working on that "transpersonal psychology" mumbo jumbo. "Holotropic breathwork"? Really?

I'm all for people starting cults, really, I am. I have problems with it when they're called science, though. Science is its own cult.

Science is about as much a cult as water is a weapon.

originally posted by: BlueMule

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: BlueMule

I'm just trying to inject some mild pragmatism into the discussion.

OK, but don't have a reason for injecting some mild pragmatism into the discussion, because that reason could be taken away.

You keep popping up, so I doubt it.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

By "choosing" to feel a certain way, I mean that you are choosing to shift perspective in a manner that evokes whatever emotion you're looking for. While also suppressing the emotion you're trying to avoid. Kinda like when the first thing you want to do is panic, but you know that won't help, so you mentally slap yourself and focus on being calm and careful.

Actually, panic is one of the few emotions it is particularly difficult to suppress. You are far better off recategorizing it as some kind of energy or excitement, as with anxiety.

Being a sociopath is not necessarily a guaranteed "Evil Until Buried" condition.

I'm well aware of that fact, but not everyone is One of the things you learn through studying sociology are fascinating things like how the DSM doesn't care why you feel or act the way you do when it gives you nasty pejorative labels. There is no implication of evil motive whatsoever. Hell, the reason the DSM doesn't have a distinction for sociopathy/psychopathy is probably because most of the people making the DSM have it. It wouldn't look very good for the people running the mental health world to, by their very own definition, not be mentally healthy.

Life is far too messy and complicated to wear shining armor all the time, and there is always someone willing to muck it up just to watch you get pissed off about it.

That doesn't sound like it's going to make you very happy in the long run. Like sociopathy itself, good and evil are also just labels. Labels that people put on things that they like or dislike, respectively, or that they want to be seen to like or dislike.

Which is probably why I generally refuse to put my happiness (and any keys to it) in any hand other than my own. I've had too many experiences where someone gets hurt and decides their misery wants company.

I, personally, don't like a lot of happiness. I have triggered it in myself a few times and it led to me not wanting to do anything (and indeed, not doing anything other than my work responsibilities) for several days before I managed to snap myself out of it. I settle for neutral most of the time.

a reply to: zackli

Actually, panic is one of the few emotions it is particularly difficult to suppress. You are far better off recategorizing it as some kind of energy or excitement, as with anxiety.

Splitting hairs.

That doesn't sound like it's going to make you very happy in the long run. Like sociopathy itself, good and evil are also just labels. Labels that people put on things that they like or dislike, respectively, or that they want to be seen to like or dislike.

Then why are we having this discussion? You've chosen a very ambiguous position to defend.

I, personally, don't like a lot of happiness. I have triggered it in myself a few times and it led to me not wanting to do anything (and indeed, not doing anything other than my work responsibilities) for several days before I managed to snap myself out of it. I settle for neutral most of the time.

That just goes to support my previous statement.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Water is viciously dangerous when used against the wicked witch of the west or those aliens on Signs!

I know science isn't a cult. There can be no greater way of searching for the truth than with science. The scientific method, I should say.

If I thought science was a cult, I probably wouldn't have called holotropic breathwork a cult. There seems, from my experiences, to be an inverse correlation between a person's trust in the scientific method and things that don't use the scientific method at all, or worse a botched version of it.

But there is substance to this reasoning..

Sometimes when we are depressed or sad, what are we depressed about?

We may remember in our past, some period of feeling - happy times, and in the present we do not feel so happy. Maybe we had a loved one, or friends we got along with, and now they are not around anymore. or on a lighter note, maybe you experienced happiness on your couch watching TV, and become unhappy when you are at work, doing hard labor and dealing with unpleasant things; or stuck in traffic.

So in a sense, when we experience happiness, we become attached to it - the feelings of happiness. And when things change (and inevitably they do) we feel sad or depressed. In a sense, you can say happiness and sadness are like two sides of the same coin. It is a very uncomfortable realization to wake up to.

So I think what this lady is thinking is - why get happy when you receive a present when you know it will be taken away.

---

I agree with others that thinking in this way can be bad depending on how you view or react to it. We cannot help but to try and be happy it seems, or at the least - not be miserable.. misery is not good.

This is actually the central theme of the Buddha's philosophy.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Then why are we having this discussion? You've chosen a very ambiguous position to defend.

You were attacking me? I don't take sides. I simply point out the flaws in all of them. It's the only intellectually honest way to be.

That just goes to support my previous statement.

Yes, the original point I was looking for, the one that originally provoked this thread, has been resolved. It was a logical contradiction. A logical contradiction that, in fact, is only a logical contradiction in name. I highly doubt that "reasons being taken away" as a reason in itself will ever be taken away. We would have quite the logical conundrum if it did.

When I thought you were actually talking about changing your feelings at will, I thought you were just unsound. Now that I know you're just talking about intellectualizing them away, as I did, I no longer think you're unsound.

a reply to: nOraKat

But there is substance to this reasoning..

Is it alcohol? Cause that's the only substance I can think of that would bolster that position.

So in a sense, when we experience happiness, we become attached to it - the feelings of happiness. And when things change (and inevitably they do) we feel sad or depressed. In a sense, you can say happiness and sadness are like two sides of the same coin.

Why wouldn't you just think, in spite of all of the garbage that just happened to you, you actually have it really good. Compared to the slaves who were brought over to America to help build the country you're now whining in, you have it made. Especially compared to one of the slaves brought over to America who never even made it there, who died on one of the boats transporting him/her.

a reply to: zackli

You were attacking me? I don't take sides. I simply point out the flaws in all of them. It's the only intellectually honest way to be.

I don't recall attacking you. I recall making the statement that I would rather have the capacity to be happy in any situation and choose not to utilize it, than desperately wish I was happy and be unable to obtain it by my own power.

When I thought you were actually talking about changing your feelings at will, I thought you were just unsound. Now that I know you're just talking about intellectualizing them away, as I did, I no longer think you're unsound.

I'm glad we reached an understanding.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

I don't recall attacking you.

You said earlier that I picked an ambiguous position to defend, and I took from that that it meant you were attacking the position. As you stated, it is ambiguous, precisely because it is a summing up of all of the flaws I thought I saw in your reasoning and in other peoples' reasoning throughout this thread.

I'm glad we reached an understanding.

Insofar as this thread is concerned, yes. I don't subscribe to the idea that anyone can really understand anyone else for the simple reason that what someone says is going on in their head is not verifiable in any way.

a reply to: zackli

Insofar as this thread is concerned, yes. I don't subscribe to the idea that anyone can really understand anyone else for the simple reason that what someone says is going on in their head is not verifiable in any way.

I can't tell if you're trying to be deep, or you're just being facetious.

I'm not sticking around long enough to find out anyway.

a reply to: zackli

originally posted by: zackli
a reply to: nOraKat

So in a sense, when we experience happiness, we become attached to it - the feelings of happiness. And when things change (and inevitably they do) we feel sad or depressed. In a sense, you can say happiness and sadness are like two sides of the same coin.

---

Why wouldn't you just think, in spite of all of the garbage that just happened to you, you actually have it really good.

I am talking in general, and it is something that happens regardless of what you think or reason. It happens very often all throughout the day, though subtle at times.

It is the dynamic nature of your being and emotions.

Hmm..I took it to mean don't let your happiness depend on anything, just be happy for it's own sake...which makes sense - to me - but also seems very hard to do. Contentment is probably more achievable in that regard.

a reply to: kosmicjack

Hmm..I took it to mean don't let your happiness depend on anything, just be happy for it's own sake...which makes sense - to me - but also seems very hard to do. Contentment is probably more achievable in that regard.

Especially when you're at a funeral. "What are you smiling about? MY MOM IS DEAD. Aren't you sorry for me?" Sounds like a way to lose friends quickly.