What is a non-contradictory state of joy?

[Styles2112]

Okay, so after doing some reading (via, VoS, and this forum) this particular phrase has popped up a bit. What does it mean, and how did we come to use it as our definition of happiness? Thanks for the responses.

[AMERICONORMAN]

Simply put: It is a stage in your life when your emotions and principles do not clash. For examples, you know you should love your work, and you feel the corresponding passion. Or you have talent in a particular field and the market welcomes your production. Or even, the market does not want you, but in your basement, you are doing joyous work that you are good at.

It is the ultimate goal and there is the most that you can experience but it is omnipresent, in that, at every stage of your life, it is your level of happiness that keeps you striving. Ultimately you must be practicing virtues, being aware that they are virtues, have your emotions reinforce your virtues, and achieving the values you desire because of your virtues.

For example, I don't consider myself happy yet (I am in my twenties). I am serene: I know there are things I can't change and I'm accepting them, and I am patient for the things that I used to long for violently, and I'm ascending step by step with courage, and I am aware of my mind's power to guide my choices and my growing wisdom.

Something like that.

Americo.

[AMERICONORMAN]

This poem by me you can find in "Poems You Like" in "Aesthetics". I paraphrase Ayn Rand a lot in the poem.

Untitled--By Jose Gainza

This torch that was forbidden

Is a wing of ascension and metamorphosis,

So that values all with me convoy.

I have risen!

Now this stage forbids The Ploy

Because happiness is

A state of non-contradictory joy.

This is candy that will thrill

Your will—

Its flames do not exhaust

To ash—

The kindling one will always use,

The thrash not from the thrill,

Leaves no tears profuse.

This joy does not slash

Your values.

This sun rolls as one’s constant ally,

As a ceremony to encounter,

When your kernel’s benediction

Is the calling of your belfry,

As you advance in your production.

It does not work for your

destruction.

As the warm light in the morning,

The rolling sanction of the drum,

It is the satisfaction always left behind—

Until the next to which you’re climbing.

It’s the joy of an efficacious find,

Not the joy of escaping from

Your mind.

When you struggle for that thing you wish

With your will and strength the mightiest—

When you grow the power

To satisfy your important wish—

It is not the failure that left you feeling sour,

It’s the attempt of using your mind’s fullest

Power!

To design and build a jewel-like tower,

Giving your style devoutest loyalty—

It is the pleasure that you feel—

Though enshrined within your shining dower—

As the deepest onion peel:

Not the joy of faking reality

But of achieving values real.

Like the champagne glass ending ten years of battle,

Like commitment day crystal joyously shattered,

It’s the tantalization of the omnipresent seducer

Who may whisper but does prattle.

It’s the serenity of a temperate consumer

Not the joy of a drunkard

But of a straight-line producer

[Styles2112]

Simply put:  It is a stage in your life when your emotions and principles do not clash.  For examples, you know you should love your work, and you feel the corresponding passion.  Or you have talent in a particular field and the market welcomes your production.  Or even, the market does not want you, but in your basement, you are doing joyous work that you are good at.

It is the ultimate goal and there is the most that you can experience but it is omnipresent, in that, at every stage of your life, it is your level of happiness that keeps you striving.  Ultimately you must be practicing virtues, being aware that they are virtues, have your emotions reinforce your virtues, and achieving the values you desire because of your virtues.

For example, I don't consider myself happy yet (I am in my twenties).  I am serene:  I know there are things I can't change and I'm accepting them, and I am patient for the things that I used to long for violently, and I'm ascending step by step with courage, and I am aware of my mind's power to guide my choices and my growing wisdom.

Something like that.

Americo.

So you can't be happy until your older? Isn't happiness one of those things where the means is the Goal? While I understand different levels of happiness (as we are not happy all the time), it seems to me that there is no real measure for this idea.

I like the poem, though. I'm working on some Objectivist works myself.

[AMERICONORMAN]

So you can't be happy until your older? Isn't happiness one of those things where the means is the Goal? While I understand different levels of happiness (as we are not happy all the time), it seems to me that there is no real measure for this idea.

I like the poem, though. I'm working on some Objectivist works myself.

It would be a rare and extraordinary human being, in today's culture, to be happy in his twenties. Most people still have too many conflicts to work out in there twenties. Happiness is always with us; without it, we wouldn't keep on moving on--and yet MORE is the goal, and that more can only be experienced through some activity. The alternative to happiness, in the psychologically conflicted, is not necessarily depression, or hostility, but it is not happiness if they have not reached the potential.

I must admit that happiness is a complicated issue still for me, intellectually. Aristotle helped me a lot in understanding it to the degree that I do. (His Nichomacean Ethics).

I got to go to work now,

Americo.

[TomL]

Okay, so after doing some reading (via, VoS, and this forum) this particular phrase has popped up a bit.  What does it mean, and how did we come to use it as our definition of happiness?  Thanks for the responses.

"Non-contradictory" means that your emotional response -- the emotional pleasure of happiness -- is not in contradiction with reality. You are a man, you have a particular nature, and you must use it within the limits of the universe as it exists. When do this with utter consistency and without uncorrected error, then you have non-contradictory joy as the reward.

Edited March 14, 2005 by TomL

[Styles2112]

"Non-contradictory" means that your emotional response -- the emotional pleasure of happiness -- is not in contradiction with reality. You are a man, you have a particular nature, and you must use it within the limits of the universe as it exists. When do this with utter consistency and without uncorrected error, then you have non-contradictory joy as the reward.

So, they idea being a "Rational" state of "nirvana."

[TomL]

So, they idea being a "Rational" state of "nirvana."

Not just "rational". Everyone is rational to some degree. Non-contradictory joy requires that a man hold no contradictions in his value system.

As far as your equivocating it with the term "nirvana", I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean "an ideal condition of harmony and joy", then yes. If you mean something else -- maybe trying to somehow link this Objectivist idea to mysticism (the word "nirvana" means very specific, mystic things to a Buddhist or a Hindu), then -- no. It is not mystical idea, but one directly connected with and founded in reality.

[Styles2112]

Not just "rational". Everyone is rational to some degree. Non-contradictory joy requires that a man hold no contradictions in his value system.

As far as your equivocating it with the term "nirvana", I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean "an ideal condition of harmony and joy", then yes. If you mean something else -- maybe trying to somehow link this Objectivist idea to mysticism (the word "nirvana" means very specific, mystic things to a Buddhist or a Hindu), then -- no. It is not mystical idea, but one directly connected with and founded in reality.

Yes, but if you look at it in terms of Natural and supernatural being direct opposites, the same same measures are still taken to reach enlightenment/happiness. In the Buddhist idea, it is a total separation from reality into the spiritual world. In Objectivism it is a total grounding in reality (i.e. total separation from the spiritual) It's the exact same idea, just ground in opposite views. To reach a state of "Total" happiness, all thoughts must be ground in rationality (i.e. reason) and, via the idea of reason, cannot contradict itself. Which is kind of funny, because the same rules apply on the supernatural side, just oppositely.

[Styles2112]

So, I finished "The Objectivist Ethics" in VoS and was quite impressed. In fact, the only thing I would argue with is the definition/application of happiness. I felt like it was an arbitrary definition created to suite the needs of the philosphy. (Which has been my long-standing argument so far.) Of course, I'm hoping that I might find further information in the book, or in other books, but as it stands, I'm not happy with that definition/application.

Beyond that, I thought that it was a great learning piece. It brought new ideas to my mind, and news to think about old things. I'm looking forward in moving on to the next essay.

[TomL]

In Objectivism it is a total grounding in reality (i.e. total separation from the spiritual)  It's the exact same idea, just ground in opposite views. 

Wrong. Objectivism does not reject any idea of spirituality, but rather defines spirituality as being both existent and caused, rather than apart from or independent of reality. Objectivists do worship -- or "look up to" -- heroes, who have the ambition and drive needed to innovate and create in the face of everyone else demanding the products of their minds as a "right". Emotional motiviation does exist and does have a proper place, but it is not the source of existence or a reason for continuing to exist.

[TomL]

In fact, the only thing I would argue with is the definition/application of happiness.  I felt like it was an arbitrary definition created to suite the needs of the philosphy. (Which has been my long-standing argument so far.)

What part of the definition of happiness is "arbitrary", exactly? Can you quote something specific from VoS and give us a page number so we can look at the context? Perhaps start a new thread.

[Styles2112]

What part of the definition of happiness is "arbitrary", exactly? Can you quote something specific from VoS and give us a page number so we can look at the context? Perhaps start a new thread.

I'd rather not start a new thread, since this directly pertains to the definition of happiness.

But, there are two given definitions.

The first on page 28. 4th paragraph down. "Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values."

Now, this I can agree with, as it can be applied to anything that makes you happy. Whether it's finding a rational solution, serving god, playing drums, playing a video game, cooking dinner, etc.

the second, from Galt's speech (It's funny to me, idolizing a fictional character)

"Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy - a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction."

So, how does happiness work for your own destruction? We now have different types of happiness? The contradictory and non-contradictory kind? Happiness with Guilt and penalty? Seems to me there is no happiness with guilt and penalty, so why is it addressed? In my opinion, and rational thought process, she would have just been better off to leave it at the first definition. Leaves less questions to be asked.

[TomL]

the second, from Galt's speech (It's funny to me, idolizing a fictional character)

"Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy - a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction."

So, how does happiness work for your own destruction?  We now have different types of happiness?  The contradictory and non-contradictory kind?  Happiness with Guilt and penalty?  Seems to me there is no happiness with guilt and penalty, so why is it addressed?   In my opinion, and rational thought process, she would have just been better off to leave it at the first definition.  Leaves less questions to be asked.

Since you agree with the first definition from VoS there should be no need for me to address it.

Note that Galt said non-contradictory joy, not happiness. The two terms are not interchangable. Joy is a instantaneous emotion, whereas happiness is an overall emotional state. No concept, including "happiness", can be defined in terms of itself. It is this equivocation that is confusing you, and I've pointed out this issue before.

If all of your joyous moments do not contradict each other, then the emotional state that results from them is "happiness".

One might feel "joy" in being successful at getting high on cocaine, if that is one's chosen goal. But it is not "happiness" because the joy of it contradicts the joys that result from one's choices to continue to live -- such as the joy taken in eating, or in working. In reality, the joys contradict each other in purpose, regardless of whether the person is explicitly aware of the contradiction or not. There is joy with penalty and guilt -- even if it is "only" implicit -- but not happiness.

Now, which part of Galt's definition do you think is arbitrary?

Edited March 16, 2005 by TomL

[JMeganSnow]

The first on page 28. 4th paragraph down.  "Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values."

Now, this I can agree with, as it can be applied to anything that makes you happy.  Whether it's finding a rational solution, serving god, playing drums, playing a video game, cooking dinner, etc.

the second, from Galt's speech (It's funny to me, idolizing a fictional character)

"Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy - a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction."

So, how does happiness work for your own destruction?  We now have different types of happiness?  The contradictory and non-contradictory kind?  Happiness with Guilt and penalty?  Seems to me there is no happiness with guilt and penalty, so why is it addressed?  In my opinion, and rational thought process, she would have just been better off to leave it at the first definition.  Leaves less questions to be asked.

Small, individual actions which you enjoy don't create a lasting state of happiness unless they are a part of a rationally identified hierarchy of values. One can get "joy" from snorting cocaine, or a drunken binge, or religious mania, but the rejection of what is necessary for the life of a human being cannot lead to happiness.

That kind of joy CAN work for your destruction, as is explained, I believe, in VOS. The two definitions of happiness don't contradict each other, you simply must understand that you must choose your values RATIONALLY, by looking at reality and what is required for your life long term, and not by whatever feels good at the moment.

A large part of the value-system of a rational man is the perfection of his own character, as practicing virtues is the only method that can lead to the real-life achievement of concrete goals. Hence, if he practices his virtues scrupulously, a rational man is not bound to the achievement of specific concrete goals (a specific job, a specific house, a specific car) but to broad abstractions that can be concretized in varying ways.

In this way, a rational man that is practicing his virtues already has some measure of happiness; it may not be total, complete happiness, but the minor frustrations of the world cease to have metaphysical importance for him. So, you don't have to wait until you're old to be happy. You can be happy NOW, you just have to work for it, the same way you must work for anything else you want.

Happiness, like any other emotional state, has degrees of intensity. Properly, if one is working progressively towards greater heights, one's happiness grows progressively as one ages. It's a reward to anticipate for practicing one's virtues scrupulously, and basing one's values on reality.

[Styles2112]

I agree with most of that. I think I just don't like the phrasing. My prerogative I guess.

[JMeganSnow]

I agree with most of that.  I think I just don't like the phrasing.  My prerogative I guess.

Which phrasing don't you like? In what way?

[Styles2112]

Note that Galt said non-contradictory joy, not happiness.  The two terms are not interchangable.  Joy is a instantaneous emotion, whereas happiness is an overall emotional state.  No concept, including "happiness", can be defined in terms of itself.  It is this equivocation that is confusing you, and I've pointed out this issue before.

Well, to start how are they not interchangable? If I feel joy, I feel happy. If I'm happy, I'm full of Joy. I disagree with your chosen definitions of Joy and Happy. Some of the definitions I'm getting are contradictory (haha...and I'm not happy with them...irony, it's a blast )

[TomL]

Well, to start how are they not interchangable? If I feel joy, I feel happy. If I'm happy, I'm full of Joy. I disagree with your chosen definitions of Joy and Happy. Some of the definitions I'm getting are contradictory (haha...and I'm not happy with them...irony, it's a blast )

The reason for the distinction between "joy" and "happiness" is to point out that there is a difference between an instantenous emotion that covers the range of a moment, and a background emotion that defines a person's sense of life. There is such a distinction, and unless we devise concepts to represent them, we can't talk about them.

The way in which "joy" and "happiness" are generally used as interchangable by most people in our society is a further illustration of how fuzzy our language has become. The fuzzier it gets, the fuzzier it will become in the future, since abstract concepts are only defined in less abstract concepts. The cultural interchangability of "joy" and "happiness" has resulted from the rejection of the idea of a background emotion at all. After all, isn't it wrong for me to say that I'm happier than you in general? There is no word for this concept of a background emotion -- a sense of life -- in American English today. There used to be, and it was "happiness".

[Styles2112]

The reason for the distinction between "joy" and "happiness" is to point out that there is a difference between an instantenous emotion that covers the range of a moment, and a background emotion that defines a person's sense of life. There is such a distinction, and unless we devise concepts to represent them, we can't talk about them.

The way in which "joy" and "happiness" are generally used as interchangable by most people in our society is a further illustration of how fuzzy our language has become. The fuzzier it gets, the fuzzier it will become in the future, since abstract concepts are only defined in less abstract concepts. The cultural interchangability of "joy" and "happiness" has resulted from the rejection of the idea of a background emotion at all. After all, isn't it wrong for me to say that I'm happier than you in general? There is no word for this concept of a background emotion -- a sense of life -- in American English today. There used to be, and it was "happiness".

Now, I REALLY think you're making up definitions. Are you blaming language for the concepts of man? or are you blaming the concepts themselves, and saying that language doesn't represent them? Either way, it's still wrong to say that you're happier than I, because you have no way to measure it.

[TomL]

Now, I REALLY think you're making up definitions.  Are you blaming language for the concepts of man?  or are you blaming the concepts themselves, and saying that language doesn't represent them?  Either way, it's still wrong to say that you're happier than I, because you have no way to measure it.

I am blaming the current altruist culture for eroding perfectly usable concepts by stealing them and trying to erase them from existence because they are incompatible with altruism.

I am happier than you, and I do have a way to measure it. By comparing my consistency with reality, and then comparing your consistency with reality -- not by comparing the two directly with each other. With a common, proper measuring stick (reality), its not too difficult to see who is the happier person.

But that can change. Wouldn't you like to be happier? Isn't that why you came here in the first place?

[Styles2112]

I am happier than you, and I do have a way to measure it.  By comparing my consistency with reality, and then comparing your consistency with reality -- not by comparing the two directly with each other.  With a common, proper measuring stick (reality), its not too difficult to see who is the happier person. 

But that can change. Wouldn't you like to be happier?  Isn't that why you came here in the first place?

Wow. I'm perfectly happy. You have no measuring stick because reality cannot be measured. You THINK you're happier because you assume that following this philosophy makes you happier than me. You have no HONEST measuring stick.

And I came here because I noticed that many of my beliefs were in line with Objectivist thinking. I, however, and not going to change them (especially when I see them as QUITE rational) to be an Objectivist. I simply wished to learn more and see how much I agreed with.

But, go ahead, pull out a "My rational thought is more rational than your rational thought" argument.

[TomL]

I simply wished to learn more and see how much I agreed with.

The choice is yours.

But, go ahead,  pull out a "My rational thought is more rational than your rational thought" argument.

I didn't say that. What I said was that my life, my goals, and my successes are more consistent with reality than yours. Reality is an entity, with an identity -- and you don't get to choose what that is. It exists independently of you, me, or anyone else. Reality is what "is", and what is determines what you "ought" to do.

Do you not see the difference between your direct comparison of two people, and comparing two people independently to reality? How else is one to properly judge people at all? Don't let society or me decide for you, decide for yourself.

[Styles2112]

I didn't say that. What I said was that my life, my goals, and my successes are more consistent with reality than yours. Reality is an entity, with an identity -- and you don't get to choose what that is. It exists independently of you, me, or anyone else. Reality is what "is", and what is determines what you "ought" to do.

Do you not see the difference between your direct comparison of two people, and comparing two people independently to reality? How else is one to properly judge people at all? Don't let society or me decide for you, decide for yourself.

And how do you measure that? You don't know what my life, my goals and my successes are, so you could you POSSIBLY relate them to reality. Again, you assume reality has some sort of measuring stick attached to it, that everyone stands up against. None of my accomplishments have gone against any of my values, so there is no contradiction there (a part of your definition) so, tell me how you're a happier person. Please provide proof of your claim.

[Styles2112]

The choice is yours.

Indeed it is. Should I be killed for it?