Our First Reading | INFJ Forum

Our First Reading

Read this and say what you think about it. I will say what I think later. No excuses; it is fun, short, and easy.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/the-spoils-of-happiness/

It's well thought out, well written, a point well made. But I disagree with it almost in it's entirety. It does show what kind of happiness the author aspires to, and that is external validation. If the validation, the world outside, is fake, then all experience would be without value. I think that is a very extroverted way of thought. I think when internal validation is what one aspires to the reasons for not plugging into the machine are about self perception rather than an existential fear. One does not want to do that because one would think of oneself as weak willed, cowardly, and so forth.

Then I have some issue with how he addresses drug addiction, and some minor quibbles here and there, but that is basically what it boils down to for me.
 
His concept of happiness relies on the knowledge of reality. Which makes sense in some ways, assuming that one cares about which reality is important. But what if one doesn't care that much about reality?

He makes a statement that one who plays video games all day is not happy. How does he know? I know plenty of people that aren't excelling by standard metrics in life that are plenty content. Now, they probably aren't the best prepared for certain circumstances that could prevent them from playing video games in the future, such as poverty or war. Those could change the emotional state in someone, I would say they would change the state in almost anyone.

Buddhist monks are perhaps some of the happiest people in the world, they don't have much at all. They focus on non-attachment. Buddhist Monks Really Are Happier

We do hate to give up control over the most important things in our lives. And viewing happiness as subject to external influence limits our control — not just in the sense that whether you get to live happily might depend on how things go, but also in the sense that what happiness is is partly a matter of how things beyond you are. We might do everything we can to live happily — and have everything it takes on our part to be happy, all the right thoughts and feelings — and yet fall short, even unbeknownst to us.
In my opinion, looking in the wrong place for happiness, and investing considerable effort into things that simply cannot sustain a mental state one way or another, makes it clear that relying heavily on external circumstance simply sets one up for failure. Things are good until your external environment fails, which is almost guaranteed to happen in some form or another. Non-attachment essentially takes the external environment out of the picture.

I am still convinced that happiness is reliant on a mind state. If your mind is out of shape, it is going to get exhausted pretty easily. But certain exercises can wear any body out, just like the mind. Those in better shape will bounce back more easily.
 
With the pursuit of happiness being central to his reasoning, I have trouble plugging into his line of thinking. I
 
i don't understand it. i thought he was saying that if you plugged into the machine that you wouldn't be able to tell that you weren't having a real experience, then when he started talking about the difference between having a friend and the experience of having a friend i got severely confused. i can't grasp the fundamentals.

will read again another time when less tired
 
I guess this endeavor was a failure. I keep seeing this but don't want to do anything about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Inquisitive
The author said:

We wouldn’t suffer the pain of loneliness and that’s a good thing.

imo - that is NOT a good thing.

How would one develop compassion, empathy, and care for sentient beings?
Also - Being happy all the time is nonsense - not possible. Where's the balance?

Dragon - have you ever read the novel "Catspaw" by Joan D. Vinge? Really good read that incorporates some of this concept and also telepathic abilities.

No way would I plug in. Give me real life any day - no matter if I cry every day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Inquisitive
Happiness as a purely electro-chemical equation in our minds takes away the context of happiness.

Happiness is the obvious consequence or natural reward for something we truly do well and has meaning. An irreductionist argument: happiness has no meaning when taken out of context and reality. Meaning, whether kleos aphthiton or the simple satisfaction of holding a baby, provides context for our lives. Context, connection, meaning allows us to feel like we deserve the happiness achieved.

And for those who chase happiness itself - it is an illusory concept. There is no pure happiness floating around, save perhaps only in the realm of forms; here, in life, happiness exists only as amalgamations of experience and meaning, of worth and connection.
 
I feel like the idea of happiness is too subjective for anyone to write a conclusive article about it. The main idea of happiness is basically a social construct, but we as individuals are free to shape that in any way we like. Of course I wouldn't jump into the machine, it's like cheating life. And myself.

Also, this reminds me of a newer psychology known as positive psychology. If anyone is bored they should look it up. I believe Martin Seligman is basically the creator of positive psychology.