In this context, conflict is a reality, but not the ideal.
This is a value statement, it is not merely fancy semantics.
The converse would be a form of relativism. Are you a relativist?
Yeah, happiness is ultimately very subjective. I tried to underscore that in my previous posts. Most of the time, individuals do things to eliminate or decrease conflict in our lives, which makes us happier. But I could see that many need conflict to feel alive, or for some other reason enjoy it.Is it a hindrance to happiness, or is it the result of different people having different ideas of what should be? Different ideas of what will make them happy?
I realize it's unfair in some degree to introduce God into an argument, because an argument is of the world and God is not provable.Your reasoning is tendentious, here, and it is unclear to which version of God you happen to subscribe. Google "theodicy" for a thorough discussion of the issues you disregard.
But I also believe in God or the Greater Good. And feel that there are sound reasons for doing so, not the least of which is that it gives the best explanation for our love-leaning drive and emotional foundation. This stuff ain't symmetrical, it's not a zero-sum game. It's skewed. And it's skewed toward the Good.
Yeah, I worded that quickly, not intending for it to be inspected so closely.Conflict is not the antithesis of happiness, certainly not in a strict sense, and I find it hard to see that as true even with a lot of leeway in interpretation. Happiness is not found by avoiding conflict or finding peace. Read up on Enneagram 9 integration/disintegration. Happiness is found (in part) by seeing conflict for what it is: neither good nor evil, but rather a set of choices. If you make the choices that are right for you (which doesn't imply selfish choices, but does imply that it's in sync with who you are, with how God made you), then you find happiness whether or not those choices result in "conflict."
My main assertion, back a few posts, was that conflict is definitely not necessary for being a better society, as someone had alluded to a book where the author said conflict was beneficial because it made people advance. That is likely because advance does not necessarily mean better.
Conflict IS inevitable, but not ideal. At least not for most people, and therefore, not for society.
Exactly. A side effect, an inevitability. But not a desired goal in and of itself, necessary for growth.And this exchange is entirely tangential to the point about whether conflict helps a society grow. I wouldn't say that conflict helps directly, but rather that conflict is a side effect of cultures and peoples interacting. The interaction of diverse peoples is what causes growth. As Newton put it, "If I have seen further it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants." In this aspect, I would say you'd be more correct to assert that conflict doesn't help growth, and likely hinders it, but that's a more temporary result of societies interacting. In general, they share knowledge and wealth and become more than they would have been without any interaction.
Contentedness and Happiness.
I refer to contentedness as that deep satisfied and grounding emotion you feel that is not tied to life circumstance. Your circumstances can change drastically, but you remain relatively fixed and .... content.
Happiness is the more superficial feeling or thought of joy in a certain moment(s). It's bliss. We all know we cannot have bliss 24/7, yet some of us chase bliss incessantly, and usually, unconsciously.
Hence the difference with why someone living in a palace with a harem could be unhappy (I changed up your example a bit, ent ), and why the bum can be happy (maybe it's a warm day outside and for once he's not freezing his ass off).