What's so bad about being happy?

[Blair]

525 posts of hot air. Do you actually have something to say IE?

[NLPRN]

Being not-happy, unhappy, or depressed can occur without the benefit of happiness. Disposing of happiness does not dispose of depression for everyone. In fact I suspect for many, disposing of happiness only unleashes a truly evil beast.

I would agree. The three aforementioned states I feel can present themselves sans happiness. I also suspect there are those that could benefit from happiness (even accompanied by the other emotions). To encompass all persons as benefitting, however, would be a blanket statement and I feel likely inaccurate. I admit I am not an authority on sage-like existence, my primary reasons for being here is to find (more) intelligent conversation (which is why I usually hang-out in the Worldly Matters--this does not imply the conversation here is not intelligent--). However, simply being in a state of non-happiness could imply a stable emotional existence (such as a sage). Conversely as you stated above, it could possibly indicate the presence of a monster. I see your point. I can appreciate the seemingly obvious cause/effect relationship between morally unacceptable human behavior and lack of happiness, though I'm not sure it is correct in every instance (e.g. clinical dx'd mental illness). However, I think you have a valid concern.

BTW, I replied to your PM and I admit my response was tardy. I've no excuse other than I've never checked it before.

[sschaula]

E,

The little areas - clocks, calligraphy and cars as examples, are not even wise to learn all of. Information overload of useless information and a waste of time. The broader things, logical progression, critical thinking, these are skills that can be mastered. Telling the difference between truth and falseness - how to do that is a skill that can be learned but application in all areas requires knowing everything about all of the little areas, at least as they come up. Knowing what is the most important thing in life for each individual - to know what is best one must select from all of the options. One may have the best option available without knowing all of the options, but one can not know that is the best without knowing all of the options.

Uhh....what is your point? Nothing you've said here has shown anything I've said to be false, nor has it made any attempts at claiming a truth. It's just, as Prince put it, "hot air".

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Learning how to use your brain effectively is still a part of knowledge, and has little to do with wisdom, except that it functions as a prerequisite to becoming wise. Logical skillsets are in the realm of clocks, calligraphy and cars.

By the way, you obviously didn't understand the clock example.

What if the most important thing for all people is something that has not been discovered yet? The one who has already decided that he knows everything he needs to know will never know the most important thing.

If a man has all wisdom, there's no need to decide that he knows everything. If he would have to decide, he wouldn't have much wisdom.

What if he decides he knows everything he needs to know, but some of what he "knows" is wrong? What if the knowlege he has, he gained on a skewed sample? What if he does not recognize the effect he has had on the quality of the input he received?

This is why I made the distinction between knowledge and wisdom...if you were paying any attention.

Sorry to sound like a grouch, but you tend to bring it out in me by being so...unable to think.

The writings on women here describe you quite well.

Scott, I get it that wisdom is what is behind all things. like a common thread. Another bad example, but it's like federal law as opposed to state law or corporate policy.

I don't think you get it.

you wrote:
Quote:
My point? Don't say things like "you can never stop learning, it's impossible" when you haven't stopped learning yourself.

shortly after writing:
Quote:
Instead of saying no, as if you knew everything, open your mind to the possibilities of what I said. You could learn something.

Don't you see the contradiction that you even participated in stating?

No, there is no contradiction.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I don't think you get it.

And I don't think you get it. In fact, I suspect that you would refuse to get it from me, and your "getting it" isn't important enough to me on this issue to hash it out any further with you.

What I have learned from you, Scott, is that there really are some people who think they value reason, who are so blinded by their preconceived notions that they can't even see reasonable and rational statements right in front of their faces.

I do not like the additional suspiciousness of some men's motives that I have picked up since joining this site, but I currently strongly suspect that if I had signed up under a name like "Bob Jones" that you would be in agreement with me.

Although I am gaining a greater understanding of how prejudices can happen, I still have not learned why they overtake what is more important to an individual. I am still under the impression that you, Scott, value logic, reason, and rationality more than you value your misogyinistic views, but I strongly suspect that your prejudices do not even let you see your own unwillingness to even make a serious attempt at seeing a viewpoint that happens to come from a female. Perhaps in time Scott, I can learn form you how even someone who values rationality can allow prejudice to overtake rational thiking. That is one way that your thoughts are still valuable to me.

[sschaula]

How have I been prejudice against you? It is YOU who I've been replying to, not your gender. Your posts don't make sense whether you have a penis or not.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

How have I been prejudice against you? It is YOU who I've been replying to, not your gender.

Sorry to sound like a grouch, but you tend to bring it out in me by being so...unable to think.

The writings on women here describe you quite well.

you obviously didn't understand the clock example.

Repeat:

The writings on women here describe you quite well.

I understood just fine - it is you and your misogyny that decided I don't. If you were addressing me and I truly did not understand what you meant by the clock example, you would have explained to me how you do not think that wisdom is what is behind how all things work, like a fundamental principle. If you do not believe that wisdom is what is behind how all things work, like a fundamental principle - then you are the one thinking like how the writings here describe "women."

[sschaula]

I understood just fine

I repeat: you didn't.

- it is you and your misogyny that decided I don't.

You call me a misogynist, yet what evidence of that do you have beyond the fact that I think you're stupid. You don't know me in real life. You also don't know my thoughts.

If you were addressing me and I truly did not understand what you meant by the clock example, you would have explained to me how you do not think that wisdom is what is behind how all things work, like a fundamental principle.

Is that true...that if you actually didn't understand, I would take the time to explain it? Sounds like a stupid sort of argument to me.

For one: you actually don't understand.
Also: my actions aren't dependent upon whether you understand or not. You could misunderstand and I wouldn't take the time to explain it.

But seeing as how I posted to you numerous times in this topic, on the same issue, I WAS trying to help you understand. Then I saw it as pointless, so I didn't take the time to say the same thing I've said numerous times already.

If you do not believe that wisdom is what is behind how all things work, like a fundamental principle - then you are the one thinking like how the writings here describe "women."

That's funny coming from you. Actually no it's not...it's just stupid.

Wisdom is not behind anything. It isn't a fundamental principle of anything...whatever you're talking about.

My disapproval of you has nothing to do with the fact that you have XY chromosomes. It has to do with your inability to grasp any value in logical thought...to put it simply: you just try to sound smart.

Even me, a pretty stupid person, can see that you are full of it.

Now, I'd rather not come on here and bicker with you anymore. It's kind of pointless and annoying. I prefer to relax and not do this kind of thing. I've said enough so that you will either change into a sensible woman, or you will keep babbling about nothing at all. Most likely the latter. It makes no difference to me, since I'm choosing to stop this right here and now.

Just so you know, in case we run across eachother in future discussions: I hold no grudge.

[sschaula]

Oh I should also add: it doesn't make a person a misogynist when they say "You are just like the description of women here".

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

my actions aren't dependent upon whether you understand or not. You could misunderstand and I wouldn't take the time to explain it.

In which case you would ignore it rather than accusing me of being "unable to think."

To the guy who just wrote that he thinks that I'm stupid:

My disapproval of you has nothing to do with the fact that you have XY chromosomes.

Go review your biology - normal females have XX chromosomes, normal males have XY chromosomes.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Now, I'd rather not come on here and bicker with you anymore. It's kind of pointless and annoying. I prefer to relax and not do this kind of thing.

So now you're saying it's better to be happy?

[sschaula]

That's pretty embarassing seeing as how I'm taking Bio right now and we just finished studying that.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

That's pretty embarassing seeing as how I'm taking Bio right now and we just finished studying that.

lol - I admire you for admitting that. :)

[sue hindmarsh]

Yes, women love it when men make fools of themselves. And like the above, they love to rub it in men’s faces.

To them, men admitting their mistakes is just more evidence of ‘male inferiority’. Men become more lovable, human and childlike – and less arrogant, cold, and invulnerable. Women feel closer to men who openly admit their faults. They want to hug them, or in the above scenario: pat them on the head and say “there, there”. Of course, women can’t help acting in this manner, for they are hard wired to circle like vultures and tear great chunks off of any unsuspecting, or suicidal soul that enters into their domain. This 'connecting' with others is how they survive.

It is a completely different story for men. Men don’t praise other men for admitting they’ve made a cock-up of something. And they don’t try and make him feel better about it. As far as they are concerned it is his business and not theirs, and they leave it to him to right the situation, or not.

-
Sue

[Shardrol]

Sue

I wonder if you think men habitually swoop down to eviscerate someone who may seem vulnerable or confused.

I thought Elizabeth appreciated Scott's honesty in admitting he made a mistake, which is actually pretty unusual for someone who's been telling the other person she's stupid & can't think. Most people would have solidified into negativity & said something like 'That's just typical of your little peabrain that you would fixate on a trivial error' or they'd say it was a typo or something to save face.


Shardrol

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I thought Elizabeth appreciated Scott's honesty in admitting he made a mistake

This is correct.

women can’t help acting in this manner, for they are hard wired to circle like vultures and tear great chunks off of any unsuspecting, or suicidal soul that enters into their domain. This 'connecting' with others is how they survive.

Funny you should phrase it exactly like that Sue - you gave yourself away. Just because you are hard-wired to be vulture-like does not mean that all females are.

[Carl G]

women can’t help acting in this manner, for they are hard wired to circle like vultures and tear great chunks off of any unsuspecting, or suicidal soul that enters into their domain. This 'connecting' with others is how they survive.

Funny you should phrase it exactly like that Sue - you gave yourself away. Just because you are hard-wired to be vulture-like

Phrasing it thus does not indicate Sue is vulture-like.

does not mean that all females are.

Nor does it mean they are not. You have said nothing.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

women can’t help acting in this manner, for they are hard wired to circle like vultures and tear great chunks off of any unsuspecting, or suicidal soul that enters into their domain. This 'connecting' with others is how they survive.

Funny you should phrase it exactly like that Sue - you gave yourself away. Just because you are hard-wired to be vulture-like

Phrasing it thus does not indicate Sue is vulture-like.

Sue knows what I'm talking about.

Quote (EI): does not mean that all females are.

(CG:)Nor does it mean they are not. You have said nothing.

Very well Carl, I'll spell it out for you. I am not vulture-like, and I am a female; therefore, all females are not vulture-like.

[sue hindmarsh]

Shardrol wrote:

I wonder if you think men habitually swoop down to eviscerate someone who may seem vulnerable or confused.

Men don’t need to make connections with others in that manner. As independent beings, they are able to give each person the benefit of the doubt, thereby allowing that person to first make clear his or her intentions and ideas before either deciding to accept or reject a person, and/or their ideas. Women, not possessing independent lives, don’t have this luxury, and therefore must feed off of anyone they can get hold of.

I thought Elizabeth appreciated Scott's honesty in admitting he made a mistake, which is actually pretty unusual for someone who's been telling the other person she's stupid & can't think. Most people would have solidified into negativity & said something like 'That's just typical of your little peabrain that you would fixate on a trivial error' or they'd say it was a typo or something to save face.

Women have many ways of ‘getting back’ at someone who they feel has slighted them – Elizabeth’s small intimate moment with Scott is just one example.

Again – I’m not saying that she purposely thought of it in that way – not at all. It is a natural reaction for a being that must always live through others. Elizabeth, and all other women have only the barest of independent souls, which means that they must be considered innocent in their relationships with others – as innocent as children.

-
Sue

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Women have many ways of ‘getting back’ at someone who they feel has slighted them – Elizabeth’s small intimate moment with Scott is just one example.

Sue, you are reading something into the interaction that was just not there. Scott and I were not seeing things the same way. We argued to get to the truth of why we were not seeing things the same way. That is all.

Again – I’m not saying that she purposely thought of it in that way – not at all. It is a natural reaction for a being that must always live through others. Elizabeth, and all other women have only the barest of independent souls, which means that they must be considered innocent in their relationships with others – as innocent as children.

That sounds like a piece of David's work. Coming from you, it sounds like an excuse you may hide behind to allow yourself to get away with whatever manipulation or attempt to tear down another that you may indulge yourself in. I interact responsibly with others, and you are just as capable of interacting responsibly as anyone else. It might be tempting to accept absolution for all actions and to latch on to an immunity from all future interactions, but to be ethical, we must resist that temptation. By taking responsibility for our words and actions, we open our minds up to growth.

Please try to be objective Sue. Only see what is there - do not try to distort the truth for any reason: pettiness because I entered your domain at Genius Forums, some unhealthy emotional charge out of seeing whose buttons you can push and what happens when you push those buttons, feeling powerful if you can knock somebody down - any reason.

[Taffaplatzel]

Nietzsche discussed this very question in depth. It's one of his more famous pieces of writing. I can't believe this thread went to page 2.

-Taffaplatzel

[sue hindmarsh]

Taffaplatzel,

Are you refering to something Nietzsche wrote about woman? Or another issue?

-
Sue

[Gretchen]

Learning how to use your brain effectively is still a part of knowledge, and has little to do with wisdom, except that it functions as a prerequisite to becoming wise. Logical skillsets are in the realm of clocks, calligraphy and cars.

No matter how much one learns, there is more to be understood. I have read that true Wisdom or rather union with God requires complete detachment from anything derived from the senses. Therefore, there is nothing one can do to achieve this state other than allowing oneself to be amenable to receive what is revealed and to rid oneself of all things, figuratively speaking. It is difficult to face how much one is attached to things and even more difficult to rid oneself of them. In short:

The best way to describe the state of the sage is - "free".

Happiness is a state of mind, to be free would be to not be bounded by the confines of your mind. It is something, I believe, that one does not fully experience until they return to God, therefore, I do not believe in complete and full enlightenment while one is still alive. One can have moments on the mountain, but that is all. These moments cannot be held onto or they become completely meaningless.

I think what Scott may have been trying to say is that you don't really have to go out and sell everything you own and give it to the poor, thus leaving yourself to starve to death, but you have to rid yourself of your desire for all things. Things have to be dusted, worried about, protected, insured, managed, feared...you get the idea, therefore you are not truly free as long as you long for these things and not true wisdom.

Sue, you said in regards to men:

As independent beings, they are able to give each person the benefit of the doubt, thereby allowing that person to first make clear his or her intentions and ideas before either deciding to accept or reject a person, and/or their ideas.

I would honestly like to meet the men to whom you refer. Maybe it is the country where you reside, but where I live, men take every opportunity to refute any idea or intention of anyone who allows them. It is only by being well-informed and strong in constitution that keeps them in their place…but don’t think for a moment that they wouldn’t rip your guts out if they see the slightest hint of weakness. In fact, men are the worst because their egos must be fed, and to feed them takes feeding off of another’s weakness, male or female.

Dictionary:

dog eat dog
if a situation is dog eat dog, people will do anything to be successful, even if what they do harms other people.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Nietzsche discussed this very question in depth. It's one of his more famous pieces of writing. I can't believe this thread went to page 2.

-Taffaplatzel

Sue asked:

Taffaplatzel,

Are you refering to something Nietzsche wrote about woman? Or another issue?

This topic asked what is so bad about being happy. Nietzsche wrote "The Gay Science" which had segments on that. Nietzsche was in favor of happiness, and had a good sense of humor himself.

[sue hindmarsh]

Elizabeth,

I wasn’t sure what issue Taffaplatzel was commenting on – I’m still not sure - but you could be correct.

Below are just a few of the “segments” from The Gay Science that I find joyful. Each of these clear and simple sayings dance gracefully and joyfully in one's mind, sprung as they are from that deep well of Truth.

-
The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.

Morality is herd instinct in the individual.

The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.

We are always in our own company.

But perhaps this is the greatest charm of life: it puts a gold- embroidered veil of lovely potentialities over itself, promising, resisting, modest, mocking, sympathetic, seductive. Yes, life is a woman!
-

Perhaps these are some of the segments you were thinking of?

-
Sue

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Sue, I have to admit that due to our previous interactions, I am having difficulty ascertaining if you are being sarcastic or not. I will therefore address the quotations in interpretive responses. I don't have the book with me, so I will have to get back to you later with some even more positive statements.

Elizabeth,

I wasn’t sure what issue Taffaplatzel was commenting on – I’m still not sure - but you could be correct.

Below are just a few of the “segments” from The Gay Science that I find joyful. Each of these clear and simple sayings dance gracefully and joyfully in one's mind, sprung as they are from that deep well of Truth.

-
The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.

This appears to be N's observation that pessimism begets poisoned fruit. Although not a directly optimistic statement, it is obviously an anti-pessimistic statement.

Morality is herd instinct in the individual.

Without others there would be less of an opportunity to either be moral or immoral. I find this neither joyful nor joyless.

The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.

Duh. That so true it could be considered humorous.

We are always in our own company.

Whether that is a joyful comment or a frightful one would depend on what kind of company you keep with yourself, wouldn’t it?

But perhaps this is the greatest charm of life: it puts a gold- embroidered veil of lovely potentialities over itself, promising, resisting, modest, mocking, sympathetic, seductive. Yes, life is a woman!
-

I don’t get the impression that N. had anything against women.

Perhaps these are some of the segments you were thinking of?

-
Sue

No, not really. I’ll have to get back to you when I have a copy of the book in hand.