the sources of happiness

Chocolate!

(it's a chemical thing too)

...and love!

x

Love

and


Creating.

Creating is just a form of accomplishment

Love...yes I should have mentioned this because it is quite an important one. My thinking on this is that what we call love can really be broken into 2 parts; the passion part, which is how it starts, and then after that it would become just personal connection. That we may reserve a special level of attention for a few important people doesn't fundamentally change the emotional source of happiness, I think.

Happiness is a transitory and relative state. It may result from any number of pleasurable conditions that cater to the ego's needs. As such, blind efforts to achieve and maintain happiness are also the source the source of suffering. Only when we move beyond the ego and unreasonable selfish desires is lasting "happiness" possible. Once we conditionally accept the conditions of perceptive reality, we can become content and suffering loses its power over us.

Creating is just a form of accomplishment
Mostly I agree, but I wonder what "accomplishment" you are talking: The accomplishment of accomplishing, or the accomplishment of merely doing and struggling and venturing.
Personally speaking I place more emphasis on the latter

Love.
haha I read an article on National Geographic that two "love"s have their own different chemical sponsors.

Anyway, nice to meet you Stuh.

Sounds like Epicurus

So, you have reached that state?

I think your definition of the word passion is too narrow. I took it to mean the fire and enthusiasm of doing something that excites you, and as such, would be something that is integral in the pursuit of happiness.

I don't believe that romantic passion is a necessary proponent of happiness.

On second thought, forget all that ****. Good drugs. That's the ticket.

yes, good drugs and chocolate


x

Transitory? I agree, although you seem to contradict yourself on this in the next few sentences.



Well this is quite a bold statement in which you basically claim to know much more about happiness than it is possible for you to know. If you consider the sources of happiness to be infinite, and wish to make your point, you must demonstrate it with some evidence or logical reasoning.

It is also entirely unclear that happiness is only achievable by satisfying one's ego. Many of the broad categories I have already described are counterexamples to the general principle you have so casually put forth as though it were fact...



I am not sure what specific examples you are thinking of, but I must vehemently disagree about this statement in general. I believe that people are very much capable of consciously guiding their own happiness by seeking out their own sources of happiness. If we can go beyond that, and recognize with greater precision what makes us individually happy, we will become even more capable of satisfying ourselves.



Already in the same paragraph you stated that satisfying our egos would bring us temporary happiness. Now you state that only by depriving our egos of satisfaction can we attain lasting happiness. These two statements are not logical contradictions, but for them both to be true necessarily implies that there are two separate deep mechanisms for happiness...and I see no evidence whatsoever to support the truth of that. I find it much more reasonable to believe that happiness is chemically induced and that the same fundamental things will always cause those reactions to occur.

Furthermore, you have already stated that happiness is relative. If I take your meaning correctly, then I do agree on this point, and furthermore conclude that it contradicts the previous point I was arguing, making the notion of "lasting happiness" impossible! If indeed happiness is relative, how could we possibly maintain a state of prolonged happiness? Would the relative nature of happiness, over time, degrade that sensation of happiness until it literally was no more? A drug addict who attempts to maintain prolonged happiness soon becomes accustomed to it, and it becomes more and more difficult to feel happiness at all. If happiness is relative, it is necessary to have sadness to appreciate it.

Sadness is, furthermore, a natural part of life that we should not attempt to exempt ourselves from completely.

This was the painting of an aging crusader returning home. What did he get? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. No glory. No fortune. No eternity of life. No cleaning of "sins". Then what's the value of him? The movableness and his life itself insists he must have a certain amount of value. Then I suspect it may lies in this soldier's life of battling, struggling, fighting for what he thinks to be right, in every sword he possessed, in every footprint he stamped down, in every view he beheld along the journey. Thus when looking back, one may not be able to say "I have done that", but rather, raised his stubborn head, wistfully as well as triumphantly:"I have gone through that."

That's my view of "accomplishment"

I'm allergic to chocolate.

I'm longing to see Asherman's response


(I suspect it's actually more a difference between generations rather than beliefs.)

Or perhaps, J-B, he feels the weight of guilt upon his shoulders for all the innocents he has so ruthlessly invaded, slaughtered raped and pillaged in the name of the Pope.

Yes. I am just taking it subjectively in line with my thoughts and feelings. Actually another fact is this warrior was very very sad. He didn't realize his value as a living being as I said he should realize.

I would add love and luck to your list, Stuh (where have you been all
these months?)

Without a certain amount of luck your opportunities to accomplish what
you've set out to do, might not be as readily available. There are many
brilliant people out there who are just waiting for their lucky moment,
some forever.

And love - without love in your corner, everything else has no meaning.

Hey Jane,

I took a long break from forums and concentrated on being productive in my real life! Now I'm in a new place (Raleigh) and starting a new life (entering a PhD program).

Love was mentioned, and I commented on that already.

As for luck, well luck itself does not make one happy, although things that happen luckily can. I think the interpersonal aspects of that are covered but perhaps not the materialistic ones.

PhD in Philoshopy?

Haha no, I hate philosophy! It's the debate part I like. No, it'll be in computer science.