Philosophy Now Forum

Siobhan Lyons argues that contemporary culture’s obsession with happiness is unhealthy in a variety of ways.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/100/On_Happiness

Philosophy Now wrote:Siobhan Lyons argues that contemporary culture’s obsession with happiness is unhealthy in a variety of ways.
http://philosophynow.org/issues/100/On_Happiness

"By ‘happiness’, I mean an ongoing state of contentment and joy in life, or more basically, an experience of pleasure and absence of pain."

" We are living in an era in which the Happiness Industry invades and permeates society and every unpleasant aspect of life is frowned upon, and dismissed as an unnecessary social ill. Rather than learning to cope with or contemplate certain aspects of life – fear, sadness, loneliness and boredom – we avoid them, gradually
I don't agree. Existentially, I cannot avoid being sad due to the sudden death of my dog, Jack. viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12360
But my sadness is not pervasive. It comes and goes in competition with the thousands of happy memories of my many days with Jack.
removing our ability to tolerate even the most mundane of the difficult aspects of life. This was the thrust of Dr Russ Harris’s book, The Happiness Trap (2008), in which he argued that the growing influence of happiness ideologies and institutions has created a generation of people unable to cope with or even understand the dynamics of grief, suffering and despair. We have therefore elevated the ideal of happiness to the extent that our capacity for self-growth is stunted – ironically so, given the gamut of self-help books readily available."

"The philosopher most nearly synonymous with happiness is Epicurus, whose philosophy was devoted to privileging pleasure and the avoidance of pain. A hedonistic caricature of Epicurus’s thinking has been eagerly adopted by contemporary society; much more eagerly than that of more critical philosophers such as Karl Marx. Epicurus’s ideas have been absorbed by society to the point that the truth of Socrates’ proclamation that the unexamined life is not worth living has become manifest. For if we privilege happiness and choose to avoid pain to an absolute extent, But, "privileging happiness and choosing to avoid pain to an absolute extent" is impossible. In my present experience, my friends (just ordinary people, not philosophers) try to comfort me while, from their words, they implicitly recognize and acknowledge, the absolute reality of my existential pain.
Socrates’ requirement to question one’s life becomes quite counter-productive, rendering philosophy futile."

Don't have access to full article, but that piece of info is complete babble and nonsense! It might be some outdated philosophy, most likely from India or something, devoid of modern day concepts like our evolved psychology, economy, etc.

It's a good waste of time and doesn't really fit the "philosophy" bill.

People with empathy avoid their own mental and emotional pain by refreining from hurting other people.

Often one does so only grudgingly, having excellent reasons to hurt someone back.

But the price is that you hurt yourself even more and so it is not worth it at all, on the contrary.

How to overcome the urge to get even with someone ?

Perhaps by remembering: I do it for myself.

(it = overcoming the urge to ...)

duszek wrote:People with empathy avoid their own mental and emotional pain by refreining from hurting other people.

Often one does so only grudgingly, having excellent reasons to hurt someone back.

But the price is that you hurt yourself even more and so it is not worth it at all, on the contrary.

How to overcome the urge to get even with someone ?

Perhaps by remembering: I do it for myself.

(it = overcoming the urge to ...)

Your comment suggests the fecund aspect of the Golden Rule.

Alas, I too am not privy to being able to read the whole article. As for the obsession with
"happiness" I very well understand that point to be made, and I would say that it is people's inability to be able to even know, nevermind experience true happiness that drives them to get caught obsessively in the seek pleasure/avoid pain paradigm. Of course neither pleasure nor pain to my mind has very much to do with happiness.

For me, to simply live and experience all of life pains and pleasure whilst maintaining my ethical and moral standards as well as striving for empathy with others creates happiness for me. The momentary experience of pleasure or pain to me is just the natural way of processing the experiences that one has as one travels through life. One of my own favorite books that has this concept as it's main idea is Siddhartha.

So many people getting caught in the plesaure/pain paradigm is one behaviors i see in society that empathetically speaking, anytime i consider it in any depth makes my spirit sob in utter sadness that they cannot see the true happiness that is so simple there for them every moment of existence.

To add to duszeks comment (and your resoponse to it) I'll say that on one hand it is a selfish outlook and way of motivated selfless behavior. Conversely, anyway to motivate selfless behavior is better than none, it just has less empathy in the originator which i suppose only really reduces the true happiness to be derived from it. When empathy is the full motivator there still can be a realization that is benefits themselves and makes them feel good about themselves, but that doesn't really invalidate it. To choose to be good to others as a empathic moral choice first, doesn't mean you can't then also be glad that you are able to make that choice. It just ceases to be the motivating factor in the choice.


As for you Hex, I've rarely heard you do anything at all except simply outright condemn other people ideas. Indeed you insult them heavily. I certainly am not going to ask on your own empathetic nature, but your last bit does make me want to ask.....what do YOU consider real philosophy? After all, you're here, if you know why not at least try to enlighten us since you speak as if you know.

What would be Siddharta´s solution to crime ?

For instance men raping women and not even feeling guilty about it.

Should women be told to endure the pain (or death even) because this is their fate ? Their carma ?

duszek wrote:What would be Siddharta´s solution to crime ?

For instance men raping women and not even feeling guilty about it.

Should women be told to endure the pain (or death even) because this is their fate ? Their carma ?

Good point! As I said earlier, OP is some outdated stuff. It doesn't account for modern concepts such as psychology, evolved law, etc.

His solution? I suppose there are two ways to answer that:

1) If a person were to gain the insights that Siddhartha does, then that person would certainly not rape someone else.

and 2) If a person who were raped had gained the same insight, they would behave accordingly in reaction. Siddhartha doesn't say that people should allow themselves to be violated. He might say that it would be their perfectly natural response to defend themselves or try to escape the circumstances that allow it, but no matter what happens, to understand how and why even such a thing was possible - in this case, simply knowing that the aggressor is a violent person and not allowing their actions to disturb one's own knowledge of the truth.

On the other hand, you seem to be arguing that if someone was raped, it should make them as well become a violent, aggressive person who lacks empathy as well. They should believe that since they don't receive compassion, empathy and understanding, they no longer are responsible for action with those qualities themselves?

A peaceful and most compassionate solution I can think of:

a rapist should be allowed to die by starvation in a closed cell and while passing away pray for a better incarnation.

The earth will be a more happy place to live without him.

Perhaps this happiness thing has gotten out of hand and over the top as the author supposes. But as I see it, the pursuit of happiness is an exaggerated way of guaranteeing that society remained open and fluid. With people all over demanding their happiness there is less chance of autocracies taking over, which foment stagnation and eventual collapse. The pursuit of happiness also reinforces, albeit in a perverse way, the rights of individuals all over.

The nature of the world is that humans be slaves to something. Why not happiness?

The Siddhārtha is a free book read it, and then you will know what he would do.

http://manybooks.net/titles/hesseheretext01siddh10.html

Select a format pdf is probably best and then read it.

An allegorical novel that follows the spiritual journey of an Indian man called Siddhartha during the time of Buddha (6th century B.C.). Beginning with the main character's departure from his Brahmin home the search for enlightenment takes Siddhartha through a series of changes and realizations.

There's a good reason why Buddha's actual name is Siddhārtha Guatama.

I read "Siddharta" by H. Hesse some time ago, or rather listened to it.

Even if he really existed the story is never the whole story, only part of the whole story.
What he really did and what he was like we cannot be sure of.

Nothing wrong with peace, harmony and wise restraint. These ideas are common in many cultures.

duszek wrote:I read "Siddharta" by H. Hesse some time ago, or rather listened to it.

Even if he really existed the story is never the whole story, only part of the whole story.
What he really did and what he was like we cannot be sure of.

Nothing wrong with peace, harmony and wise restraint. These ideas are common in many cultures.

Well clearly The Siddhartha Guatama existed, Siddharta was meant to explain Buddhist philosophy in terms a Western audience can understand. I think it does that pretty well.

Nothing wrong with peace, harmony and wise restraint. These ideas are common in many cultures.

Quite as the book endeavours to explain, the path to enlightenment is as always your path, no one can tell you how to find inner peace. Not that I am a Buddhist but I do think it has some very good lessons for people.

In the book Siddhartha meets The Buddha but rejects his philosophy, to which The Buddha tells him to return to him in time and see how he has progressed towards the eight fold path, eventually we realise I suppose that Siddhartha is if not "The Buddha" at a stage in his journey towards enlightenment and this in it self reveals a sort of inner dialogue between the guatama and his past he's not literally talking to himself but the allegory is clear; no one can explain even to himself how to find the path to enlightenment it is always a journey and the end is of course not the means. It's not meant to be a sort of holy Bible of what Buddhism is more an explanation of what and how and when to follow the four noble truths and hence what it can lead to.

Siddhartha experiences all the suffering and much of the pleasure the world can provide, but it is only when he meets the boatman on the river he finally gains a perspective that allows him to progress. In this way I think Hess cleverly describes the Journey a Bhraman or a pauper can make, without telling anyone how Nirvana can be achieved. It's if nothing else an interesting insight into Eastern philosophy and in particular Buddhist theory. It's also more importantly short and can be read in a few hours, the fact that it is also free is an added bonus.

But why should any other person´s life story be less important and less valuable than that of Siddharta ?

Everybody learns from mistakes every day. Or refuses to learn and suffers.

I just cannot see why Siddharta should be special in any way. Has he inspired you in any way ?