What is a non-contradictory state of joy?

[EC]

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.

The proof of his claim is your negative irrational attitude versus his benvolent rational approach. And I am an independent objective observer to you both. Why are you at this forum Styles? Why don't you leave?

[TomL]

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.

Whether or not your successes are at odds with your values is not in question. What is in question is the values themselves.

While I do not have direct knowledge of your concrete values, I can see that you do value something which is at odds with reality -- you value the culture's notion of words over what reality actually is. I can see that we have struck a nerve here, and that there really is a very deep reason for why you are digging into the meaning of "happiness" here as much as you can -- and that reason is that you are unsure what it means yourself. Remember, it was you who posed the original question. I'm sorry if the answer is difficult for you to integrate, and I would honestly like to see you attain that integration.

[TomL]

Indeed it is. Should I be killed for it?

Ridiculous. Get ahold of yourself! You are letting your emotions take over.

Don't let them!

[Styles2112]

Whether or not your successes are at odds with your values is not in question.  What is in question is the values themselves. 

While I do not have direct knowledge of your concrete values, I can see that you do value something which is at odds with reality -- you value the culture's notion of words over what reality actually is.  I can see that we have struck a nerve here, and that there really is a very deep reason for why you are digging into the meaning of "happiness" here as much as you can -- and that reason is that you are unsure what it means yourself.  Remember, it was you who posed the original question.  I'm sorry if the answer is difficult for you to integrate, and I would honestly like to see you attain that integration.

You're exactly right. However, are you saying that; either new words need to be created with more concrete definitions? Or that would need to RE-apply more concrete definitions to the words?

I will also add (yes, I'm a bit emotional, from other conversations. I apologize) that, in many ways, you're right. I don't know what happiness is, in CONCRETE words. I do, however, know when I'm happy (though, I don't regard myself as happIER than anyone else...just happy). Actually, (epiphany strikes) maybe my struggle is not within the definition of happiness, but within the definition of reality. Happiness, in itself, shouldn't be measured (in my mind anyways). It's not a measureable object. It just...is.

[TomL]

You're exactly right.  However, are you saying that; either new words need to be created with more concrete definitions? Or that would need to RE-apply more concrete definitions to the words?

I think that words represent concepts, and we can only use them accurately to the degree with which those definitions are consistent with reality. If society decides to blur them out so they can switch from one floating-abstraction to the next and claim to mean the same thing, then that damages everyone's ability to communicate clearly.

Words should be defined very specifically, very systematically, and with respect to reality and the hierarchical nature of conceptual knowledge. There is a dictionary project I have seen where there are people actually beginning this work. Link, anyone? To the degree that people in our society are rational, our society's definitions of words are accurate. Which also means, to the degree they are irrational, the definitions are inaccurate.

I will also add (yes, I'm a bit emotional, from other conversations.  I apologize) that, in many ways, you're right.

Apology accepted

Actually, (epiphany strikes) maybe my struggle is not within the definition of happiness, but within the definition of reality.  Happiness, in itself, shouldn't be measured (in my mind anyways).  It's not a measureable object.  It just...is.

Eureka!

And if happiness "is", then it, too must have a specific identity, yes?

Edited March 18, 2005 by TomL

[HaloNoble6]

Just a friendly reminder to be a judicious and concise quoter, if you are to quote at all. Also, personal messages like apologies and such should be handled through private messages, not through public board space.

[Styles2112]

[i think that words represent concepts, and we can only use them accurately to the degree with which those definitions are consistent with reality.  If society decides to blur them out so they can switch from one floating-abstraction to the next and claim to mean the same thing, then that damages everyone's ability to communicate clearly.

But, concepts are a perception thing. Not everyone (even rational people) view things the same way. My exact defintion, or defining qualities, of happiness may not be the same as yours. The BASIC quality is there, but we all differ in it's application.

Words should be defined very specifically, very systematically, and with respect to reality and the hierarchical nature of conceptual knowledge.  There is a dictionary project I have seen where there are people actually beginning this work.  Link, anyone?  To the degree that people in our society are rational, our society's definitions of words are accurate.  Which also means, to the degree they are irrational, the definitions are inaccurate.

I think I disagree with this. I think abstract ideas are a good thing. If everything was so clearly defined, then everything is known. If everything is known, we'd have nothing to talk about. Rationality, in my experience, does not have only one path.

Eureka! 

And if happiness "is", then it, too must have a specific identity, yes?

No. It's an emotive state. How can you measure an emotive state? (since I believe I see your argument in "identity" = "measurable"). Rationality does not affect happiness. Again, my argument, a believer in god is not less happy than a person who doesn't believe. There is no REAL measurement, just a judgement, that because through your (generic "your") rational thought says there isn't, you must happier than that individual, because you are "grounded in reality." I just don't see it. Happiness is happiness whether through rational or irrational means.

[AMERICONORMAN]

So don't use the word "happy" just yet. Use the word "Metaphysical Joy" representing a fundamental, and widely filled concept, that reaches into every instance of joy, to joy of seeing one's beloved day by day, to the joy of succeeding at some important task in your work, to the joy in cooking a good meal.

I don't see what the confusion is. All humans have the capacity for pleasure and pain. Pleasure is preferrable to Pain, unless one can find pleasure in feeling pain, but then one won't last that long to experience such pleasure from pain.

So it seems that the solution to any confusion is beyond ethics now. How are emotions formed, how are concepts formed, what's the difference between pleasure and joy; are men born with different emotional and intellectual nature, innately? Are different types of men born, with different destinies, and thus different standards of joy and suffering? Can genuine joy be achieved on earth, or must one wait to be transported to some other dimension?

I think OPAR covers this long before it even gets to Ethics or Happiness. But you don't need OPAR to come up with answers to these questions for yourself. Use your tools: Look at perceptual reality, observe, and induce--or look into your subconscious, use your intuition, and feel the right answer, feel and accept some noumenal entity communicating "truth" on these subjects: Which ever method you use to answer these questions, choosing one method will necessitate different answers, and consequently lead to different "convictions" about Happiness or Metaphysical Joy.

Americo.

[TomL]

Proper concepts are founded in reality, every single one of them, whether they are abstract or not. Everything in the universe which exists, including abstractions such as "happiness", have an identity. If "my definition" and "your definition" for a thing are different, then one or both of us is wrong. We can't both be right.

You are not allowed to redefine reality in your head to suit your desires, if you want to succeed in achieving happiness. You must be as consistent with reality as your mind can get.

Happiness exists, and it is part of the nature of man. It has a particular nature, which is as constant as the definition of water. Just because an idea is abstract and not directly perceivable doesn't mean that it is suddenly open to definition by whim.

The reason things are not always defined clearly and consistently with reality is that man has volition, and he can make errors. Knowledge is not automatic, it requires focus.

Rationality definitely affects happiness. Let's look at the definition of happiness one more time:

Happiness is the emotional state which proceeds from the achievement of one's values.

If values are clearly defined with respect to reality, and the achievement of them is easily perceivable, then it follows that the amount of happiness one has is directly proportional to the amount of consistency one's values have with reality, plus the degree of success in obtaining those values.

Happiness is happiness whether through rational or irrational means.

You're wrong. Any pleasure derived from success of irrational goals is not truly happiness. To quote Miss Rand: "Neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive by any random means, as a parasite, a moocher or a looter, but not free to succeed at it beyond the range of the moment -- so he is free to seek his happiness in any irrational fraud, any whim, any delusion, any midless escape from reality, but not free to succeed at it beyond the range of the moment nor to escape the consequences." -- Lexicon page 199

Edited March 20, 2005 by TomL

[JMeganSnow]

Emotions can be measured, by their intensity. Are you afraid of spiders? Are you MORE afraid of, say, putting your hand into a fire? Do you love chocolate? Is it the same intensity of love you would feel for, say, your wife?

Emotions differ in intensity, and the various intensities can be distinguished. Happiness, as an emotional state, can also be measured, although with nothing like the precision of measuring, say, inches. But, until recently there was no mathematical measure for colors, either. Approximations will do.

[Styles2112]

You're wrong.  Any pleasure derived from success of irrational goals is not truly happiness.  To quote Miss Rand:  "Neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims.  Just as man is free to attempt to survive by any random means, as a parasite, a moocher or a looter, but not free to succeed at it beyond the range of the moment -- so he is free to seek his happiness in any irrational fraud, any whim, any delusion, any midless escape from reality, but not free to succeed at it beyond the range of the moment nor to escape the consequences." -- Lexicon page 199

But, see, this is the exact thing that I'm talking about. where's the proof? Do you simply accept it, because SHE said so? While I see some rationality in it, I don't see total rationality in it.

Also, Jmehansnow, I agree. An individual can measure individual happiness (or individual joys=instantaneous joy) against each other (i.e. I'm happier spending "private" time with my wife, than drumming, and I get more joy from drumming than riding horses). However, What I'm saying, is how do we measure those collective joys against one another to say that I'm happier than you/ you're happier than me? And, in the end, why would we want to?

Americonorman, I liked what you had to say. it is similar to what TomL had to say to begin with. The Introspect thing. My one question. What is OPAR?

[TomL]

Which part of the Ayn Rand quote do you see as not being totally rational, and why?

OPAR is an abbreviation referring to the book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff.

Edited March 20, 2005 by TomL

[Richard Roark]

Pehaps an example would better examplify this matter.

Let's say you have a man who is seeking happiness through tricking out his ride. First, you must ask why is he tricking out his ride? What is the purpose of tricking out a ride? The answer to both of these questions is to impress other people and having status over other people. He is happy, because he has his status and others a veiw him with pleasure, and others envy him because he has something others don't as well. Yet, is this true happiness in the sense that Ayn Rand is talking about? Now, view this with a man who is working on piece of writing and completes this piece of writing. The difference between the two are very apparant.

[AMERICONORMAN]

Harry Binswanger, an Objectivist philosopher, who I respect tremendously, once said in a talk on Free Will at Harvard (correct me if I'm wrong): that if he were stuck in a dictatorship, with no chance to flee, every attempt frustrated, then he would committ suicide. There is a level of political freedom required for happiness. The most frustrating thing for me is when someone else interrupts my thought processes, or expects his intellectual concerns of the moment to take priority over mine, when he has no idea as to what I am engaging in in the silence of my own mind. A political prisoner, if strong enough, would still be able to endure his capture because of what ever level of happiness he has achieved. But so much more is possible to him.

Harry Binswanger, in his course on Emotions, once said that when he sees a computer cable he gets intensely aroused. A computer "geek" acquaintance of mind could relate, whereas I can't. I on the other hand, take great joy in the fiction writing and poetry writing process. For the non-literary person, such and undertaking would be tortuous. However, there is nothing immoral about loving computers or loving writing. The source of joy is, one, the health of the endeavour, and, another, the sense of efficacy engaging in that task.

To succeed in the life process, should be joyous, for a rational man. The whole first third of The Objectivist Ethics, is indicating this.

In a bare minimum free society, the potential intensity of one's happiness is inexhaustible. But there is a bare minimum of happiness that one must first achieve.

In human psychology, when one is transforming oneself from worse to better values, there is waiting period before one experiences joy in what previously caused pain, but was actually life advancing. One must understand the good, seek it, attain it, and in time one's emotional mechanism will follow.

These are just some thoughts to indicate that there is much to think about. Happiness is the goal of Ethics. So it is a later achievment necessarily.

Trying to muse about Happiness with Aristotle's four causes in mind can be fruitful. One might see that "Happiness" has more than one aspect and angle of looking at it.

However, I'm not as happy as I know is possible to me but I'll let you know when I get there ... maybe.

Americo.

[JMeganSnow]

But, see, this is the exact thing that I'm talking about.  where's the proof?  Do you simply accept it, because SHE said so?  While I see some rationality in it, I don't see total rationality in it. 

First off, please try not to misspell my name; if my User Name is too much trouble just use my name from my sig.

The basis of the quote is proven, extensively, in OPAR and other books. But, briefly:

The basis for all values is man's life, and that is, man's life qua man; the life proper to a rational being. This is because in order to HAVE values you have to be alive; if you are dead, the question of values is moot.

In order to live, one must produce the values (food, shelter, clothing, art, science, medicine, etc.) required for one's survival. If one does not PRODUCE values, one cannot survive except via other men, as she says, as a parasite, looter, or moocher.

Parasites, looters, and moochers are not operating on the principle of life, they are operating on the principle of death; they have defaulted on what is necessary for them to survive. Any activities of this sort are contradictions of their ultimate value, their own, irreplaceable life. They cannot achieve a state of happiness, because their values, what is ultimately most important to them, contradicts what is necessary for them TO value.

[Styles2112]

Pehaps an example would better examplify this matter.

Let's say you have a man who is seeking happiness through tricking out his ride. First, you must ask why is he tricking out  his ride? What is the purpose of tricking out a ride? The answer to both of these questions is to impress other people and  having status over other people. He is happy, because he has his status and others a veiw him with pleasure, and others envy him because he has something others don't as well. Yet, is this true happiness in the sense that Ayn Rand is talking about? Now, view this with a man who is working on piece of writing and completes this piece of writing. The difference between the two are very apparant.

Question, is the man tricking out his ride himself? If he is doing the work himself, then his pride in his craftsmanship is equal to that of the writer, he can then be as happy.

[AisA]

But, see, this is the exact thing that I'm talking about.  where's the proof?  Do you simply accept it, because SHE said so?  While I see some rationality in it, I don't see total rationality in it. 

What do you regard as proof? What constitutes "total rationality"?

[Styles2112]

First off, please try not to misspell my name; if my User Name is too much trouble just use my name from my sig.

Sorry, my finger reached over too far and hit the "h" instead of the "G."

The basis of the quote is proven, extensively, in OPAR and other books.  But, briefly:

Proven by Scientists? Do we teach this in schools? Or is it just a couple of people who "happen" to agree, and then write their own books on the matter? How is THAT proof?

In order to live, one must produce the values (food, shelter, clothing, art, science, medicine, etc.) required for one's survival.  If one does not PRODUCE values, one cannot survive except via other men, as she says, as a parasite, looter, or moocher.

However, I know several people who produce all their values, i.e. work for their money, follow trade principles, but believe in god, and therefore...by your definition, cannot be happy. Yet all other rules are followed. THIS is what I'm talking about, you're trying to say that THESE people AREN'T happy? Again, I don't see your measuring stick. I'm not talking about thieves, murderers, and parasites. I'm talking about simple people who work hard, live life, and believe in god. You condemn them to a lifetime of not being happy? For what, so you can be? I don't see it.

[TomL]

It's a matter of degree. Happiness is not an on/off switch. Certainly, the average person can be happy to some degree, to the extent they are actually using reason to set and achieve goals. But, one can be even happier if one does that consistently in all areas of one's life. To the extent that average people accept contradictions on faith, any happiness they may have gained from other areas of their life with be diminished proportionately.

[JMeganSnow]

Proven by Scientists?  Do we teach this in schools?  Or is it just a couple of people who "happen" to agree, and then write their own books on the matter?  How is THAT proof?

Proven by logic. That is, in fact, the only method of proof.

However, I know several people who produce all their values, i.e. work for their money, follow trade principles, but believe in god, and therefore...by your definition, cannot be happy.  Yet all other rules are followed.  THIS is what I'm talking about, you're trying to say that THESE people AREN'T happy?  Again, I don't see your measuring stick.  I'm not talking about thieves, murderers, and parasites.  I'm talking about simple people who work hard, live life, and believe in god. You condemn them to a lifetime of not being happy?  For what, so you can be?  I don't see it.

I don't condemn them, their irrationalities and/or contradictions condemn them to face doubt and unhappiness when their values clash with their life, and to experience a state of chronic guilt for their inability to live up to their impossible expectations. They may be somewhat happy, when they're fortunate enough to not have to address those issues, but if they cleared those clashing values and contradictions out they could be happier STILL. Unless you think being stuck in a Catch 22 is an enjoyable experience.