1
   

Happiness--is it our own responsibility?

 
 
Post: # 745,534
View Profile Diane
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2004 08:35 pm
Sweet dreams dear Letty.
0 Replies
 
Post: # 752,284
View Profile alikimr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 10:56 am
Letty;
Happiness , in the last analysis, chemistry
not-withstanding, and like everything else,
depends on the circumstances that we find ourselves in. As our existentialist friend Sartre
said........"we are all creatures of circumstance".
0 Replies
 
Post: # 752,353
View Profile Letty
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 11:29 am
alikimr, If I subscribed to existentialism, I would agree. Are you familiar with Martin Buber's psychology existentialism? Shocked

Thanks for your input, my friend.
0 Replies
 
Post: # 761,145
View Profile alikimr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 09:52 pm
Letty:
I gather you are not an Existentialist, in the philosophic sense, at least. No. I am not familiar with Martin Buber's psychology existentialism.
Is it basically materialistic, where existence preceeds essence , or is it idealistic, which anchors itself to Christian foundations?
Existentially speaking, I must say that the best way I can define my state of happiness that I
can muster from my circumstance on this planet earth is to be "less unhappy".
0 Replies
 
Post: # 761,710
View Profile BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 08:48 am
alikimr wrote:
......Existentially speaking, I must say that the best way I can define my state of happiness that I
can muster from my circumstance on this planet earth is to be "less unhappy".


alikimr brings up a good point:

all 'happiness' regardless of its source, must be tempered by the awareness that on this planet, all is not 'well'; there are miles, and miles to go before we sleep; and to an extent, 'happiness' comes only from adopting the 'social contract' that we do not drop the 'torch', and seek only our own!
0 Replies
 
Post: # 761,753
View Profile Letty
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 09:12 am
alikimr, Buber theorized that people had either an I/it relationship, or an I/thou relationship, i.e. if we see a tree in the respect of what it can give us, shade, pretty leaves, etc. then we are looking to get things from people as opposed to giving things. The problem with the I/thou part, is that if one decides to talk about the tree, it becomes an I/it relationship. Sooooooo. It seems rather dead end to me.

Bo, and your line of thought is exactly what I was musing about. You're right, but I have never understood what one person could do to keep that torch alive. See you know Frost. <smile>
0 Replies
 
Post: # 761,767
View Profile BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 09:19 am
everyone in Canada, knows both 'Frosts'!

one merely has to change our every descision into a 'world affirming' one Shocked ; it's that easy! :wink:
0 Replies
 
Post: # 761,776
View Profile Letty
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 09:26 am
Easy, he says. Confused Well, for some, perhaps. We Yanks seem to have a bit of trouble with what's easy and what's "I don't give a damn". Hey, I'm workin' on it, Bo. Cool
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Can God commit suicide? - Discussion by Randall Patrick
Is Reality a Social Construction ? - Discussion by fresco
I do, therefore I am - Discussion by Randall Patrick
Gotta Start Somewhere - Help. - Discussion by bermbits
Future Population Numbers. - Discussion by Algis Kemezys
Virtues Versus Values - Discussion by pueo
 
Copyright © 2009 Horizontal Verticals :: Page generated in 0.36 seconds on 11/28/2009 at 09:01:19 Top End