What if someone doesn't want wealth, fame, or even happiness?

[Opal]

If someone wants anything, wouldn't that ultimately be wanting happiness? Wanting death, even, is willing something better, an end of unhappiness. I think this underlies the human experience.

 

[Lark]

[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION] , the reason this question is important to me, is that I think we as a society place such a premium on high mood that many avoid people who don’t care so much for it. I think a large reason why a lot of people are more miserable than they would otherwise be, is because they are put upon to be in a higher mood…not just more grateful, or more satisfied with life, or engagement. People are told to smile more, The lack of smiling is seen as an indictment of character or attitude.

Hmm, well, I do think that there is a lot of disconnect from feelings, or rather repression of feeling, by society at large.

The shallow and superficial experience of affect and emotion, mismanagement of feeling, can lead to people exalting one emotional state, the positive one, because joy and happiness are generally perceived as less problematic or less difficult to manage than pain and misery.

However, that's no good, its positively bipolar, the same as thinking that euphoria is worth the system of a down or lows in someone who actually suffers from bipolar disorder, its bad on personal level and bad on a social level too.

Although by that I dont mean to say that people should affirm misery and sadness, nor that I particularly think that some kind of zen or CBT neutrality is desirable either.

 

[Lark]

For my own part, I'd like to be happy, I think that that is more to do with relating to and being related to by others, find love, being productive and reasoning but money can grease the wheels sometimes.

Or at least put distance between you and the assholes of life.

 

[Mole]

Rather than worrying about wealth, fame, and happiness, it behoves us to worry about the meaning of meaning.

http://courses.media.mit.edu/2004spr...rds%201923.pdf

 

[Magic Poriferan]

[MENTION=1449]Magic Poriferan[/MENTION], would your responses change knowing that I am referring explicitly to mood?

It's easy for me to grasp a person not living for pleasure. It's harder for me to parse happiness as a state of mind feom some other form of satisfaction with ones life purpose or accomplishments.

You're saying that a doctor who looks back on his/her life and appreciates the history of successes in saving lives or healing the injured, is going to somehow want that, be satisfied with that, find that positive, but would not be in a state that you would call happiness?

 

[Thalassa]

Usually very religious people take this view of the world, that even happiness is a false goal. I can see a person also investing time into contributing to the world, say as a teacher or inventor or something, without the desire to be compensated by wealth or fame. I think Tesla is possibly a good example of this, but he got royally screwed for it.

 

[ygolo]

Unfortunately, for a good month or so, I’ll likely be posting rather infrequently. So in threads like this, I’ll be posting using the multi-quote tool. I apologize.

If what you really meant is "What if someone doesn't want wealth, fame, or to seem happy to others all the time by smiling and otherwise affecting 'happiness'?" then... whatever, I couldn't care less.

I think this is a gross mischaracterization of what I meant. “All the time” is an extreme in wealth and fame too. Also, desiring high mood does not require faking it, does it?

I made this thread in the philosophy thread for a reason. Do you subscribe to the philosophy of Hedonism? If not, how would you explain your point of view to a hedonist who has made similar statements as you?

I am not sure why pleasure and meaning or engagement cannot be seen as different things. Perhaps I am using the wrong words to describe the distinction. But I think the distinction a valid one.

If you are a hedonist, then, perhaps I understand where you are coming from. But based on what I believe I know of you, I personally think this is a miscommunication (probably my fault).

Unlikely. I would still need context of the persons situation.

The context in this case is in relation to the philosophy of Hedonism.

From Wikipedia:
Hedonism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hedonism is a school of thought that argues that pleasure is the primary or most important intrinsic good.

We are meaning creating animals, so wealth, fame, and happiness, only take their place within a framework of meaning.

So wealth, fame, and happiness, are secondary to meaning.

I agree with this. My question aims at understanding the points of view relating to judgements (possibly unexamined or purposefully compartmentalized) of those who value things different from others—especially at what seems to be a fundamental level.

If someone wants anything, wouldn't that ultimately be wanting happiness? Wanting death, even, is willing something better, an end of unhappiness. I think this underlies the human experience.

Well, obviously, I don’t think that wanting anything is the same as wanting to be in a high mood, or feeling pleasure.
Do you feel the same thing after doing something difficult but meaningful, as you do after hearing a good joke?
I don’t. It is not just a matter of duration. They are different emotional states for me. So it’d be interesting to learn that his is actually strange.

It's easy for me to grasp a person not living for pleasure. It's harder for me to parse happiness as a state of mind feom some other form of satisfaction with ones life purpose or accomplishments.

You're saying that a doctor who looks back on his/her life and appreciates the history of successes in saving lives or healing the injured, is going to somehow want that, be satisfied with that, find that positive, but would not be in a state that you would call happiness?

I think this hits at the core of the misunderstanding. Happiness is indeed a vague term. But I believe that it is the word that modern hedonists use when talking about what they value, advising friends in need, seeking advice, planning life decisions, etc.
Granted, modern hedonists will not call themselves hedonists. But what else would you call a philosophy of maximizing happiness? Especially if that philosophy remains unexamined?

With respect to the philosophy of hedonism, could a doctor justify the years of medical school, the painful losses of patients, the rigors of a high stress job, for the momentary look back on the rather mild contentment in terms of mood?

Usually very religious people take this view of the world, that even happiness is a false goal. I can see a person also investing time into contributing to the world, say as a teacher or inventor or something, without the desire to be compensated by wealth or fame. I think Tesla is possibly a good example of this, but he got royally screwed for it.

Something being a “false” goal is a pretty deep subject. There are a great many things that, when pursued directly, becomes self-defeating, or detrimental to the person pursuing it. I think the pursuit of high mood can be one of them.

I don’t know if I am very religious, but I think the very common notion that we all do (or should do) what makes us feel good is a notion that bears examination.

I find it interesting that you bring up someone like Tesla. He is among the people who got alienated for wanting different things from his contemporaries.

-----
[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION] I think mental illness has entirely different reasons for manifestation…a combination of genetic factors and life experiences. Although we can move our mood set-point a bit, about half of the factors are hereditary. Coping strategies ultimately require finding the right mindset, of course, just like most chronic illnesses, no matter how biologically based they are.

This does touch on the cluster of things I have been thinking about lately. I made a thread about it earlier.
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/philosophy-and-spirituality/72883-mental-illness-wisdom.html

The connection to this topic, however, may be best characterized by how dismissive people can be of the points of view of the people who are not in a high mood, while simultaneously very receptive to the points of view of those in a high mood.

Consider how many new age philosophies and religions make use of how often people smile as the basis for forming their belief systems.

 

[Opal]

[MENTION=825]ygolo[/MENTION], I think the confusion is stemming from our conceptions of happiness. After completing something meaningful but challenging I feel a more stable happiness than the brief relief of a good joke, though both sources of positivity are finite. I guess the belief that feelings are fundamentally chemical underpins my stance on this, as well as the belief we gravitate toward states that release these chemicals (physical closeness, security--to decrease stress, pleasant physical conditions, closure, intellectual improvement, achievement of any kind, etc.).

 

[lowtech redneck]

How would you react to people who don't desire wealth, fame, or happiness*?

I would just assume they had different preferences in life, and wouldn't care unless they wished to force their preferences onto me. I have little desire for fame myself, if only because I like my privacy, and I think that feeling 'happiness' all the time would ultimately be unfulfilling and unsatisfying (that's a classic disagreement within Utilitarian thought), though I could certainly do with more than I have now.

I would love to have wealth, though, mostly so I wouldn't have to work again, but also because I would kind of like to build my own eccentric castles, one on the left side of the Cascade Mountains, the other in the Appalachians.

 

[Qlip]

I didn't say it, you did! I don't understand why you're arguing, we agree completely.

Hmmm, yes? Happiness is not a feeling or a mood. I'm good with that.

 

[five sounds]

i'd give em a high five, and say, "me either bro. F that S."

 

[Pionart]

[MENTION=825]ygolo[/MENTION], I think the confusion is stemming from our conceptions of happiness. After completing something meaningful but challenging I feel a more stable happiness than the brief relief of a good joke, though both sources of positivity are finite. I guess the belief that feelings are fundamentally chemical underpins my stance on this, as well as the belief we gravitate toward states that release these chemicals (physical closeness, security--to decrease stress, pleasant physical conditions, closure, intellectual improvement, achievement of any kind, etc.).

Yes, this is why I don't think happiness is the be-all end-all. It's just friggin' chemicals! The chemicals send a message to our brain of "keep on going". So, happiness chemicals become associated with things that are good for the individiual.

Oxytocin facilitates bonding. Dopamine activates when we achieve goals. Several such chemicals are associated with exercise.

It is these activities themselves which are valuable, happiness only points us in the right direction (or, at times, the wrong direction).

 

[á´…eparted]

The context in this case is in relation to the philosophy of Hedonism.

From Wikipedia:
Hedonism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hedonism is a school of thought that argues that pleasure is the primary or most important intrinsic good.

That's not what I mean by context. I mean the individual that would be in question. What are their life circumstances? What is their background? What are they like? To me this question really can't be answered in a vacuum or on a theoretical level. I mean it could be, but I'd find the answer to be unsatisfying.

 

[ygolo]

[MENTION=20757]Opal[/MENTION], I figured this. But for me the surprising thing is that you seem to be saying that the things you mentioned give you the same feelings, just different durations. (I am probably misinterpreting.) Like I said, completing something difficult doesn’t give me the same feeling at all as hearing a good joke. It is not just a matter of duration for me.

Also, “The release of chemicals” is pretty vague (perhaps not as vague as “happiness”). Considering how little we know, and considering how complicated what we do know is, I don’t know how that changes our discussion. I believe the conflation of all the different forms of happiness is detrimental to society at large, and can create more suffering for people who don’t conflate these different forms of happiness.

[MENTION=18819]five sounds[/MENTION], thanks for that

[MENTION=921]lowtech redneck[/MENTION], this is what I was getting at. There are a lot of us who care nothing (or very little) for the mood form of happiness. But, at least in the circles I’ve been in, especially in my explorations of spirituality, this form of happiness is used as the yardstick of wisdom.

[MENTION=22833]Legion[/MENTION] [MENTION=20757]Opal[/MENTION], a thought experiment I often use to highlight an extreme case of this difference in point of view is to consider the following great scientific endeavor (next in line with the moon landing and the human genome project): Find drugs that will continually make everyone in society “happy” by stimulating the reward centers of their brains.

[MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION], I understand wanting to make things more real. But this is not meant to be an issue in vacuum, nor an issue just in theory, but one that addresses a societal and systemic[\b] issue. I meant to have people examine their preconceptions of happiness, and most especially, examine knee-jerk reactions regarding the notion of happiness.

Asking for specific cases for individuals is often a trick used to ignore systemic issues. I am sure you are not doing that. But that is why I have hesitated giving individual context, because I believe the appropriate context is cultural not individual.

Still, in my case, the places where I have found this “happiness yardstick” to be problematic is in the context of seeking counsel or wisdom. So, instead of giving an individual case, (whose specifics could be used to circumvent a societal problem), I will give a few different (not even close to exhaustive) individual cases.

Case 1: A person is having trouble motivating themselves in school or work. He dislikes doing anything difficult. When he seeks counsel, the advice he’s given is to do what makes him happy. He responds that nothing similar to work makes him happy, and not much at all makes him feel good. Nevertheless, he derives meaning from doing difficult things, and says he doesn’t care much for feeling good.

Case 2: A person’s mood fluctuates wildly and the fluctuations seem to have nothing to do with anything. She is trying to find a direction in life, and seeks counsel from friends and family. She is told to do what makes her happy. She responds by saying she doesn’t think that’s reliable, and that happiness is fleeting.

Case 3: Someone is looking for spiritual nourishment and wisdom regarding life. She derived meaning from finding principles to apply to all arenas of life, but in spiritual matters, she sees that the yardstick is often “happiness”. She says she doesn’t derive much meaning from feeling good.

 

[á´…eparted]

[MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION], I understand wanting to make things more real. But this is not meant to be an issue in vacuum, nor an issue just in theory, but one that addresses a societal and systemic[\b] issue. I meant to have people examine their preconceptions of happiness, and most especially, examine knee-jerk reactions regarding the notion of happiness.

I'll repeat: I can't answer unless it's case by case. Outside of that I don't feel there is an answer, or it gets into semenatical discussions that I have no interest in or would bore me to tears.

 

[ygolo]

I'll repeat: I can't answer unless it's case by case. Outside of that I don't feel there is an answer, or it gets into semenatical discussions that I have no interest in or would bore me to tears.

What about the three cases I listed, I can offer more detail if needed.

 

[Mole]

Someone is looking for spiritual nourishment and wisdom regarding life. She derived meaning from finding principles to apply to all arenas of life, but in spiritual matters, she sees that the yardstick is often “happiness”. She says she doesn’t derive much meaning from feeling good.

The powerful do not want us to ask, what does it mean? Rather the powerful want us to be on the treadmill constantly seeking happiness.

If we asked what it meant, the powerful may have to limit their power and even share power, and we can't have that. So instead we are misdirected away from meaning to happiness, and it works.

For instance, when I suggested we find meaning rather than happiness by reading The Meaning of Meaning, I received a private message sneering at the very phrase, meaning of meaning, even though the book The Meaning of Meaning was written in 1926 and discussed ever since.

The corruption of the mind has taken deep and permanent root. The anti-intellectuals sneer at the very idea of meaning.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I think this hits at the core of the misunderstanding. Happiness is indeed a vague term. But I believe that it is the word that modern hedonists use when talking about what they value, advising friends in need, seeking advice, planning life decisions, etc.
Granted, modern hedonists will not call themselves hedonists. But what else would you call a philosophy of maximizing happiness? Especially if that philosophy remains unexamined?

Utilitarianism. That's what I call it, but I've examined it. However every philosophy comes in examined and unexamined forms and one probably doesn't need differentiating names for them all.

With respect to the philosophy of hedonism, could a doctor justify the years of medical school, the painful losses of patients, the rigors of a high stress job, for the momentary look back on the rather mild contentment in terms of mood?

To continue answering in the vein I could consider utilitarian, that depends on how much there is of each. How much of those negative things vs how many of the positive things (which mostly likely would not just be that one moment of reflection). If there is ultimately more positive, then the answer is yes. It's really slightly more complicated if we consider the concept of alternative choices and optimal amounts of happiness, but the answer is basically yes. It's all basically a kind of cost-benefit analysis.

 

[ygolo]

The anti-intellectuals sneer at the very idea of meaning.

Indeed they do.

Utilitarianism. That's what I call it, but I've examined it. However every philosophy comes in examined and unexamined forms and one probably doesn't need differentiating names for them all.



To continue answering in the vein I could consider utilitarian, that depends on how much there is of each. How much of those negative things vs how many of the positive things (which mostly likely would not just be that one moment of reflection). If there is ultimately more positive, then the answer is yes. It's really slightly more complicated if we consider the concept of alternative choices and optimal amounts of happiness, but the answer is basically yes. It's all basically a kind of cost-benefit analysis.

My claim is that the cost-benefit analysis when done regarding pleasure would come out negative in many cases where meaning is sought instead.

 

[Pionart]

Oh my god that would be terrible if they designed drugs to keep you happy. People would have nothing left to live for, they would just live for these drugs. We need to realise that happiness is a means, not an end.