1
   

Happiness--is it our own responsibility?

 
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2004 08:35 pm
Sweet dreams dear Letty.
0 Replies
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 11:14:07