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

[entropie]

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

Would you believe they were kidding themselves? Would you force them to admit they do desire wealth, fame, and happiness?

If these people said they have passing desires for these things, but the desires subside quickly, would you feel alienated? Would you alienate them?

*By happiness, I mean being in a good mood.

sex and power aint too far off. You know that dear intp. live with it

 

[indra]

 

[ygolo]

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.

Exactly. But I think [MENTION=20757]Opal[/MENTION] may disagree.
[MENTION=4109]entropie[/MENTION] [MENTION=21883]sunyata[/MENTION] , I am not sure I understood your posts.

 

[Opal]

Exactly. But I think [MENTION=20757]Opal[/MENTION] may disagree.
[MENTION=4109]entropie[/MENTION] [MENTION=21883]sunyata[/MENTION] , I am not sure I understood your posts.

I disagree that happiness is a means. Designer drugs, though, give an unsustainable comfort... I understand circumstances where their use is necessary, but widespread use eliminates the imperative to improve the world we live in, which makes their use more appealing and likely.

 

[ygolo]

I disagree that happiness is a means. Designer drugs, though, give an unsustainable comfort... I understand circumstances where their use is necessary, but widespread use eliminates the imperative to improve the world we live in, which makes their use more appealing and likely.

But if happiness is the goal, why do we care about sustainability?

 

[Pionart]

But if happiness is the goal, why do we care about sustainability?

For the sustainability of happiness. Happiness would need to be long lasting under utilitarianism.

What I was thinking, was like people at the top keeping things running, living maybe for the power, and then the masses taking these comfort drugs. Sustainable happiness for the greatest number.

I used to be a utilitarian. When I was younger I started to question what the point of anything was. Like, say you go on a journey to find some treasure, what exactly is the value of the treasure you find? And I decided soon after, that well, it's the happiness it brings. And happiness seemed to be universally valuable, and seemed to be the only thing valuable. Basically, goodness must be known through experience, and some experience must be in itself good, and this good experience is known as happiness.

But, now I'm just not so sure. It seems to me now that happiness is itself illusory in its goodness, and is just a reinforcement mechanism. Our brain tells us to prefer happiness, so we decide to associate happiness with healthy behaviours.

But then I have quite a conundrum, since I had previously convinced myself that happiness was good and could be the only good, for goodness must be found in experience, and good experience is happiness.

So, how do I solve this? What is good if it's not happiness?

I mentioned in the thread I made on the nature of the true good, that it must be better to believe in a true good. And I also mentioned, that the fundamental ideas we use to explain our world have some kind of parallel existence to our true nature.

So maybe the fact that we think happiness is good, means it really is?

 

[ygolo]

For the sustainability of happiness. Happiness would need to be long lasting under utilitarianism.

What I was thinking, was like people at the top keeping things running, living maybe for the power, and then the masses taking these comfort drugs. Sustainable happiness for the greatest number.

I used to be a utilitarian. When I was younger I started to question what the point of anything was. Like, say you go on a journey to find some treasure, what exactly is the value of the treasure you find? And I decided soon after, that well, it's the happiness it brings. And happiness seemed to be universally valuable, and seemed to be the only thing valuable. Basically, goodness must be known through experience, and some experience must be in itself good, and this good experience is known as happiness.

But, now I'm just not so sure. It seems to me now that happiness is itself illusory in its goodness, and is just a reinforcement mechanism. Our brain tells us to prefer happiness, so we decide to associate happiness with healthy behaviours.

But then I have quite a conundrum, since I had previously convinced myself that happiness was good and could be the only good, for goodness must be found in experience, and good experience is happiness.

So, how do I solve this? What is good if it's not happiness?

I mentioned in the thread I made on the nature of the true good, that it must be better to believe in a true good. And I also mentioned, that the fundamental ideas we use to explain our world have some kind of parallel existence to our true nature.

So maybe the fact that we think happiness is good, means it really is?

Well, if the idea is to maximize the percentage of time I feel good while I am alive, why should I care about anyone else's feeling good or even if I live very long?

I think the calculus of utilitarianism implied here is rather ambiguous.

We can take the percentage of time I feel good while alive, the amount of time I feel good while alive, the percentage of time anyone feels good, the amount of time everyone feels good, ... etc. Optimizing any one of these things is different from optimizing the others, nevertheless all four of the scenarios has a drug enhanced scenario that can be quite optimal.

I should note (again) that there are many things that motivate people beyond feeling good...like finding meaning or purpose, and even achieving flow...these things may or not feel good for people.

 

[grey_beard]

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

Would you believe they were kidding themselves? Would you force them to admit they do desire wealth, fame, and happiness?

If these people said they have passing desires for these things, but the desires subside quickly, would you feel alienated? Would you alienate them?

*By happiness, I mean being in a good mood.

Ahhh, I'd just identify them as an INFP 4w5 sp-dominant.

 

[grey_beard]

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?

Interesting point in the bold...someone once asked Hall-of-Fame baseball legend Reggie Jackson if he was happy.
He thought for a bit, and then replied, "Well, I don't know if I'm happy. But I'm one d@mn GLAD son-of-a-bitch!"

 

[Pionart]

Well, if the idea is to maximize the percentage of time I feel good while I am alive, why should I care about anyone else's feeling good or even if I live very long?

I think the calculus of utilitarianism implied here is rather ambiguous.

We can take the percentage of time I feel good while alive, the amount of time I feel good while alive, the percentage of time anyone feels good, the amount of time everyone feels good, ... etc. Optimizing any one of these things is different from optimizing the others, nevertheless all four of the scenarios has a drug enhanced scenario that can be quite optimal.

I should note (again) that there are many things that motivate people beyond feeling good...like finding meaning or purpose, and even achieving flow...these things may or not feel good for people.

I would say that utilitarianism is the amount of good-feeling minus the amount of bad-feeling, taken over as long a time frame as possible. Hedonism tends to have a more individualistic basis, I think. But utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number. And it's amount, not percentage. Feeling good for a thousand years and bad for a hundred years is better than feeling good for ten years and bad for one year.

I guess it's arguable whether a sense of meaning/purpose feels good or not. If it is something that be experienced, then surely it is something that feels good? But if it is not something that is experienced, then this isn't a problem. And I agree then that a meaningful life would be good, but what constitutes meaning and why is it good?

 

[Hitoshi-San]

They could have a desire for realism, but anyone who says happiness is unrealistic is wrong. Emotions are part of the real world, people being too similar to robots isn't.

That's obviously not to say without fame and wealth, you can't be happy. Happiness is more centered around your self-value, how you handle life, and the people you surround yourself with.

 

[prplchknz]

this is what i've learned, if i don't want what the rest of the world wants there's something wrong with me, but the rest of the world is unhappy. I don't think i can be happy pretending to want what they want even if it is part of the herd. so I have two choices well three actually. I can either join the rat race and become rich and pretend to agree with the world and pretend to be happy but deep down want to go to willoughby or i can say fuck it be internally happy but at the same time frustrated because what i want and what i notice about the world the rest of the doesn't. so do i stay true to myself and not have friends or do i pretend to give a fuck about things society expects me to fit in but only be a puppet? I don't like either option to be honest

 

[ygolo]

Interesting point in the bold...someone once asked Hall-of-Fame baseball legend Reggie Jackson if he was happy.
He thought for a bit, and then replied, "Well, I don't know if I'm happy. But I'm one d@mn GLAD son-of-a-bitch!"

I would say that utilitarianism is the amount of good-feeling minus the amount of bad-feeling, taken over as long a time frame as possible. Hedonism tends to have a more individualistic basis, I think. But utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number. And it's amount, not percentage. Feeling good for a thousand years and bad for a hundred years is better than feeling good for ten years and bad for one year.

I guess it's arguable whether a sense of meaning/purpose feels good or not. If it is something that be experienced, then surely it is something that feels good? But if it is not something that is experienced, then this isn't a problem. And I agree then that a meaningful life would be good, but what constitutes meaning and why is it good?

The distinction I am making is not at all new. To be heavy handed about it, I am talking about the difference between eudomainic and hedonic happiness. I didn't want to bring out the concepts directly because I thought I could describe the difference by less conceptual means. I suppose I have not been doing a good job.

"PLEASURE" VS "ENJOYMENT" - Coaching Leaders

Human Body Distinguishes Between 'Hedonic' and 'Eudaimonic' Happiness on Molecular Level : Health & Medicine : Nature World News
From the second article:
"However, if all happiness is created equal, and if all forms of well-being are equally opposite to "ill-being," then the patterns of gene expression would be identical regardless of the source of the sense of well-being, the scientists hypothesized.
This, it turned out, was not the case."

 

[grey_beard]

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.

Soma.

 

[entropie]

hah just read the thread title; fuckers

 

[Pionart]

The distinction I am making is not at all new. To be heavy handed about it, I am talking about the difference between eudomainic and hedonic happiness. I didn't want to bring out the concepts directly because I thought I could describe the difference by less conceptual means. I suppose I have not been doing a good job.

"PLEASURE" VS "ENJOYMENT" - Coaching Leaders

Human Body Distinguishes Between 'Hedonic' and 'Eudaimonic' Happiness on Molecular Level : Health & Medicine : Nature World News
From the second article:
"However, if all happiness is created equal, and if all forms of well-being are equally opposite to "ill-being," then the patterns of gene expression would be identical regardless of the source of the sense of well-being, the scientists hypothesized.
This, it turned out, was not the case."

This is interesting. I had thought of happiness as a "YES" message being sent to the brain as opposed to the "NO" message of pain. So if I'm right about that, we have two different types of YES, one in response to an event in isolation, the other taking into account the whole picture of life. So, perhaps this is like moral and amoral happiness? Morality referring to meta-goals, or the perceived purpose of action in general, rather than the achievement of a goal for the sake of the goal. Idk, I'm just BSing.

 

[hacbad macbar]

It's not the question does someone wants or doesn't wants fame and wealth, the question is - why?

If someone is perfectly happy without fame and wealth, that's the choice of wisdom. If someone doesn't want fame, wealth and happiness due to disappointment at life that's the act of nihilism. Self-defeated and self-destructive mechanism which is selfish at the core. That's the speech of infantile, maladjusted narcisissm. The first is the speech of altruism, an integrative, all-encomapssing force which drives humanity forward.

 

[entropie]

It's not the question does someone wants or doesn't wants fame and wealth, the question is - why?

If someone is perfectly happy without fame and wealth, that's the choice of wisdom. If someone doesn't want fame, wealth and happiness due to disappointment at life that's the act of nihilism. Self-defeated and self-destructive mechanism which is selfish at the core. That's the speech of infantile, maladjusted narcisissm. The first is the speech of altruism, an integrative, all-encomapssing force which drives humanity forward.

Hoe your real world isnt that easy aswell, you will miss a lot of things

 

[Studmuffin23]

(post deleted)

 

[Evastover]

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

Would you believe they were kidding themselves? Would you force them to admit they do desire wealth, fame, and happiness?

If these people said they have passing desires for these things, but the desires subside quickly, would you feel alienated? Would you alienate them?

*By happiness, I mean being in a good mood.

Typical INFP.

Hehe, but in all seriousness, is this really all that uncommon? I would say that I don't really want either of those three things, defining happiness the way you did- that is, I'm satisfied when I know I've done something to make the world a better place (however overused and cliché that phrase is), but I don't necessarily want to feel "good" or "happy". The knowledge that I've accomplished what I set out to do is enough.

As far wealth and fame go, those seem like only temporary things. Even in the rare cases that they last, happiness is derived more from the mindset they might inspire, not those things themselves. Like [MENTION=22071]lil_Red[/MENTION] said, "Happiness is more centered around your self-value, how you handle life, and the people you surround yourself with."

That said, I would be worried if someone said they occasionally desire happiness but the desire quickly subsides; this seems like a sign of a mental health problem.

But would I alienate them or try to convince them they should want those things? No.