What constitutes a good life?

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Clearly not all of us are equally as satisfied with the hands we've been dealt in life. Most of us can name lots of people whose lives we wouldn't trade for. But the problem with comparing one's own life to those of others is that it's impossible to strip away all the experiences and influences that made you you, when pretending you were someone else. And it's equally as impossible to be aware of all the firsthand experiences that made another person who they are. People will blithely say that such and such experience would feel equally as awful to anyone, regardless of their background, but I question that. For every sort and level of hardship, there are people out there whose life experiences and underlying constitutions allow them to bear and integrate them without much psychological trauma. I could never tolerate the levels of physical pain involved in being a boxer, and forcing me to box would take a grave toll on my perceived quality of life. But that's a function of me, not of boxing. It's poor grounds for condemning the sport's continued existence.

Are there any factors that can be said, objectively and absolutely, to correlate strongly with a high subjective satisfaction with life? Clearly this is not easy and straightforward. Groups and individuals of all sorts are constantly reinventing new recipes for "the good life", claiming that anyone who lives according to their advice will come to see life as good. But what of the so-called file drawer problem: the many people who try any given life-changing advice, fail to see any improvement, and quietly turn away and try something else?

I follow the various country rankings and life quality indices that get formulated and reformulated every year. I was an especially big fan of the Human Development Index (HDI) until its formula underwent a major overhaul in 2010. Though these formulas tend to get more and more complex to accommodate the numerous factors that go into life satisfaction, not always. I can't quote you the source, but I once heard a fairly clever argument that population wide life expectancy is the sine qua non of who lives better than who. Still, the fact remains: there are many unhappy people in all the countries that top the rankings, and many happy people in all the countries that bring up the rear. Moving to a place with better life quality indicators is no guarantee your individual life quality will improve. Do these national rankings even matter? Clearly I'm applying them wrong. But what are they good for, other than national dicksizing?

I guess this is the question this all comes down to: can individual life satisfaction be quantified, predicted, and predictably improved, by anyone other than the individual in question?

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

I know it's outdated, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to know of contemporary theories, but I think Maslow's hierarchy of needs has some merit, and might be a good place to start discussion.

Indicators for life satisfaction would include physical needs being met, financial security (to guarantee needs will be met, and allow some leisure activities/getting what you want), ontological security, having a group that one belongs to, emotional intimacy, a high sense of self-efficacy, etc.

Improving the economic situation can predictably improve the first things, but the others, not so much (in fact I think a consumerist society's teachings actually work against attaining some of the those other things).

 

[Belisarius]

Quantified? No. But, like Aristotle, I believe that it is obvious when someone is living a life well-lived. Usually.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

I think the best way to sum up my thoughts on this... it's not good, it's not bad, it just is.

 

[Libby]

You make it good by enjoying what you can from it and not dwelling on the things you can't change.
I mean if you are born into extreme shit like world vision poverty there is not alot you can do, but for most anyone's life it is a good life if you make the most of it.

And no I don't really think individual life satisfaction can be quantified, predicted or improved by anyone other than the individual experiencing it.

 

[MethedUp]

The principle I live my life by is "we all only get one ride, better make it a good one." whether there's an afterlife or not, thisss is what I have now. I live my daily life to be happy. that can change as often as day to day. maybe yesterday I wanted to have a vodka shot at noon. Maybe this morning i went to church for confession. I do enjoy "nice" things like clothes, shoes, makeup, etc.... But we can't take none of that with us when we die. I live my life to make me happy and pretty much no one else. Other people see that as selfish but.... those who mind don't matter and those that matter don't mind.

 

[jobe28]

The principle I live my life by is "we all only get one ride, better make it a good one."

+1

Life is short.

... what constitutes a good life? To me - happiness.. for one anyway. I think that's pretty general but it's pretty key.
I read a good book called "The happiness hypothesis" recently and he basically boils it down to (quoted from the book) - "striving to get the right relationships between yourself and others, between yourself and your work, and between yourself and something larger than yourself".

 

[Lost Ego]

I think the obvious answer and what most people are saying is: do whatever makes you happy day by day. I believe happiness is a choice and is easily attained, if you think happy, you'll be happy. I dont think any amount of luxury/material things could raise the joy i get out of life either, but that's just me.

I think what you're getting at is that - when i'm dying can i be satisfied with my life? How?

I think the buddhists believe that cleansing yourself from all desire will satisfy you. I share similar beliefs - if i desired nothing then i could just be happy that I'm alive. "It's not until after we've lost everything that we can gain anything" - Tyler Durden. Also, I believe a great deal of it has to do with gratefulness. Always focusing on the good things you have in life, no matter how small, and appreciating them. Finding the good things in life may be what u need. I think my problem tends to be that i fear too often, too often i want to go talk to that 10 over there and get her number but i fear rejection, too often i let people walk all over me or i dont tell a girl that i love her because i fear being abandoned, too often i dont do anything productive all day because i fear social interaction and i lack motivation. I've noticed the days where i do have the courage to overcome my fears, when i have the courage to be myself, when i say and do whatever i want without restraint... im satisfied and even when i do get hurt, at least i know i tried. I'm working on getting past fear and trying to do everything to my full potential every day. I know that at the end of my life, if i tried my hardest to be who i wanted to be, I would certainly be satisfied.

edit: Love > Fear

 

[L2R]

when the grass is greener on the other side, buy a damned lawnmower and get off your arse.

 

[thujone]

I know it's outdated, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to know of contemporary theories, but I think Maslow's hierarchy of needs has some merit, and might be a good place to start discussion.

Hell yeah, Maslow knew his shit. The heirarchy of needs doesn't quantify in units or measures but it at least provides labels for a baseline of concepts that should be generally self-evident anyway. It's not like it needs to cite sources heh

 

[P A]

What constitutes a good life?

Call me a Negative Nancy, but what is a 'a good life' if not an oxymoron? Many or most of the essential preconditions for the existence of an organism as complex as a fully grown, fully conscious human being are intrinsically antithetical to what most sane people would refer to as 'good.' Leaving our gruesome evolutionary history aside for a moment, one must still consider the absolutely atrocious conditions under which most humans have lived for, like, ever. Despite the quaintly urbane, cosmopolitan worldviews of many young intellectuals/rich folk (e.g., Caucasian North Americans), nearly 1 out of every 7 people on Earth is currently taking up residence in a slum. I could describe in vivid detail what life in an average slum might be like, but I don't wish to presume, and give pause lest I sound too self-righteous. However, I am forced to consider what the meaning or significance of Maslow's hierarchy could possibly be to a nutrient-deficient child scrounging for spare parts in a rusty junkyard somewhere in India just to obtain a halfway decent meal for the day. Of course, anyone privileged enough to possess a home computer and air conditioning can easily lean back their armchair and retort that this child evidently falls into one tier of the scale or another, but the point that I'm trying to make is this: If as many as one seventh of human beings today are not only incapable of living 'good lives,' but are incapable of living passable lives (by basic human rights standards, I mean) or even of living at all on the merit of their own back-breaking subsistence labor, what room is there for evaluation of what constitutes a 'good life' on this planet? In light of such facts, what is the search for the Good but a smug, self-aggrandizing form of psychological insurance against the realization of life's essential tragedies?

One in five people experiences a psychiatric disorder worthy of clinical attention within their lifetime (and that's excluding those with substance abuse disorders). 1 in 33 people is currently incarcerated in the United States. About 15 million children die of starvation each year. A couple of years ago, I too was searching for what ingredients would be necessary for me to fashion a 'good life' for myself. Of course, I had heard of statistics like the ones above, but was never particularly fazed by the actual atrocities they represent. Eventually, however, I began to acquire a bitter taste of what it means to truly suffer, and found myself growing more and more disenchanted and disgusted with what I was doing, what I was thinking, how I was feeling, how I was living. I found that, for whatever reason, I could no longer happily repress the idea that my relative prosperity was, ultimately, carried upon the backs of those less fortunate than myself - and (lest I sound like a pinko) even if said unfortunates were to be dissociated from my own life circumstances, I could no longer abide the omnipresent notion that the balance of suffering in this world is simply unacceptable; that the agony of the many outweighs the happiness of the few a millionfold; and that there was nothing that any group or individual could do about it. The latter comment may sound boringly fatalistic, but consider exactly how far we've come in 100,000 years of human history. Surely, our species is better off in more ways than one since 10,000 BCE, but has the actual prevalence and severity of human pain decreased nearly as much as one would reasonably expect given our degree of technological advancement? Or have the modes of suffering merely shifted to new and ever more insidious domains? From the so-called 'diseases of civilization' to the varieties of psychiatric torment, there does not appear to be any end in sight for the vast majority of the afflicted, bound up as they are in an eternal biological struggle against the vile, soul-crushing reality of the world in which we have the distinct misfortune of living. Verily, life itself is the affliction, a cosmic crime of sorts. I can think of no better tragicomic image to convey this idea than the Ouroboros, a fitting metaphor for the ultimate futility of life and, seemingly, of philosophy as well - a monstrous serpent that devours only itself.

Indeed, one can easily answer questions such as, "Why do I feel such a poignant sense of un-belonging in this world, always in need of some connection?" or "If life truly possesses redeeming value, where or what is it, and why must it be so mysterious?" when one considers the primacy of suffering in life. After all, the very nature of life (i.e., that what makes it 'alive') lies in its distinctive resistance to entropy which truly is the rule of the universe and not the exception. In this sense, we truly don't belong here in any way. We are flukes of chemistry, evolutionarily-engineered perpetual motion machines of flesh and bone, blood and sinew, biologically 'programmed' for resistance to the very thing that this universe seems to do best. Owing largely to these dismal origins, our entire history, along with our current existence, has been bartered in blood, and from where I'm sitting, there is no end sight. If it's the good life you're looking for, I suggest that you look elsewhere. For me, it is impossible to imagine the existence of a 'good life' for anyone in the presence of as much pitiful suffering as this world contains. In the end, the life of the truly jolly person is a life of bias, of skewed perception, of narcissistic rationalizations, of averted gazes, and of satisfying half-truths. To wit - I have never met a perfectly happy, fully satisfied person for whom I had a scrap of respect, intellectually or otherwise. There was always a latent stupidity, an incorrigible delusion, or a probable fluke of neurochemistry to account for their fundamentally inappropriate affection for life.

it's not good, it's not bad, it just is

I've tried very hard to accept this enlightened perspective, only to find that I am stubbornly resistant to and incapable of taking an affectless view of myself and the world that I inhabit. Why can't we just admit that it's overwhelmingly 'bad?' Because that would be, like, 'subjective,' or something?

 

[ParappaTheRapper]

...

 

[Grondelduck]

Forgive my English, since it isn't my natural language I unfortunately won't be able to convey my feelings in such splendid detail as your (P A)post. This is not wholly in response to your post, but I'll take bits and pieces and evaluate them from my perspective.

There is a lot of suffering in the world indeed, and while I do take it to heart, I do consider myself a content human being. I accept the tragedy and happiness alike as a part of our reality. Like all other people I feel my heart sink when I look at the sad things in the world, but I am also amazed at what reactions it spouts from other people. Compassion, empathy, sadness, the people who have made it their life goal to help those less fortunate, those people fill my heart with hope and joy.
We are just another species inhabiting this vast universe, you can't possibly take on all the anguish and suffering and make it your own. When looking at the world from a humanitarian point of view you will see a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering, but it's all part of the world we live in and I am at peace with it.
I am amazed at how everything simply is, how we as collections of atoms form such intricate beings with a conciousness and the ability to feel and experience the world around us. How the world in it's entirety makes part out of a universe of which we still don't comprehend why it is there in the first place. Pain and suffering are a part of life, just as happiness and contentedness. I do like how you used the ouroboros as the prime example of the infinite circle of life. However, why ponder about the futility of live instead of accepting live for what it is? What if the purpose of life is just to experience it? Everything is not nearly as plain as we make it out to be. As for myself, I try to live a life where I show love and care to those around me, and I find happiness in that.
I can honestly say that I do love life, being able to feel all these emotions, from sadness to euphoria, is reason enough for me to appreciate my life. Just the sheer fact that I am sitting here typing these words and being able to read other people's experiences cheers me up, the universe is a wonderful place in all it's complexity and just being part of it makes me feel content.

 

[Josair]

I guess this is the question this all comes down to: can individual life satisfaction be quantified, predicted, and predictably improved, by anyone other than the individual in question?

Statistics are used to describe (and, somewhat, predict) populations, not individuals. And HDI is based on statistics.
Still, it makes sense that living in a country whereby everyone is literate, everyone has the chance to go to university (without having to worry about tuition fees), everyone gets free (or almost free) healthcare, there is a sound pension scheme, there is little unemployment, there is social stability, the currency is solid, there is little inflation, there are social safety nets, there is a low level of criminality, everyone pays taxes, corruption is low, public services are good.. is better the living on a country which has only some of this quality (or none at all). If the society is also open, tolerant, "warm", etc, we're delving into the realm of perfection.

Would all the citiziens of this nation necessarily be happy? No, maybe not. But I'd still live there rather than anywhere else... (if it also has a nice climate!)

 

[slimvictor]

can individual life satisfaction be quantified, predicted, and predictably improved, by anyone other than the individual in question?

I would say no, because "good" is based on an interpretation of the facts, not directly on the facts.
Someone who has a positive perspective understands what just happened as a good thing, while the next person understands the same event as a bad thing.
It is only the individual who can decide how to interpret events, and therefore, what is good/bad.

 

[thujone]

you'd have to be really high off your tits to interpret your house burning down and the rape of your wife and the loss of your job all on the same day as a good thing.

@P A: I couldn't possibly disagree more. It's one thing to quote stats about all the destitute children in the world, it's a whole other ballgame to actually better yourself to the point where you can do something about it. We are mere mortal men. Unless you plan to transcend that standard, there is no way you could feed and clothe and bring fresh water to the door of every destitute family in the world. Even Superman isn't doing that shit. Who does Superman prioritize saving? The people of Metropolis, the people of his home.

There are seven billion people on the Earth, and it's hard enough for us as individuals to keep track of just the ten to twenty people we have in our personal lives. It's not exactly reasonable to expect anyone to disregard our own lives and work for the greater good as we gradually become more and more powerless to actually make change happen. Say what you want about the motives of multimillionaire philanthropists, their dollars have put more food on African plates than we ever will and they started out focusing on their own life to gain the power necessary to actually help people at home and far away.

To wit - I have never met a perfectly happy, fully satisfied person for whom I had a scrap of respect, intellectually or otherwise. There was always a latent stupidity, an incorrigible delusion, or a probable fluke of neurochemistry to account for their fundamentally inappropriate affection for life.

You're fooled by your own delusions of assuming that all the smiling people are happy. Gandhi smiled all the fucking time, which was a goddamn impressive feat considering how tiring his daily life must have been. Notice he wasn't rallying to put A/Cs and refrigerators in the house of every Indian family, all he wanted to do was spread the power of love and that power was shining through the smile on that goofyass face of his.

Maybe you don't realize this, but if you just marshal enough strength in yourself to smile and put on a positive front then you will make better the lives of everyone who meets you. You might not be able to put rice in the bowl of a poor Indian kid tomorrow, but if you smile long and hard enough to reassure everyone you meet that everything will be ok then maybe just maybe some of those people will be convinced you're worthy enough a person to follow that they will help you when you decide it's time to do something to really put clean water in the cup of a Subsaharan kid who is on the verge of losing hope. Hope is what keeps us alive, and what keeps us moving, and what gives us reason to live on even when we feel like dropping dead from mental or physical anguish. If you scowl at everyone and talk like the sky is falling then you're robbing hope from yourself and draining it from everyone around you. In short, you become the antithesis to change for the better and ultimately a good life for as many people as possible.

 

[P A]

Unless you plan to transcend that standard, there is no way you could feed and clothe and bring fresh water to the door of every destitute family in the world.

Exactly right. What you seem to have missed, however, is that this was kinda my point in the first place. It is the intrinsic nature of this world and of our existence within it that guarantees suffering on a unacceptably grand scale. You're the one with the progressive ambitions, not me. All I'm saying is that (for most non-psychopaths, at least) the 'good life' is an idea in serious need of justification in light of the following: Even if I were to secure my finances, ensure the wellbeing of my family, and do whatever else Maslow or Aristotle would require of me, all the while maintaining an impossible state of quarantine from the rest of the world in the process, there would still be so much left to do in order to make my life a 'good' one - at least by any definition of the 'good life' that preserves room for interpersonal empathy. In fear of proselytizing hippie woo-woo, I feel inclined to remind you that humans are a fundamentally social and interdependent species. What is horrific for most or many members of the group is ultimately a problem for all. Like many others with whom I've conversed on this topic, you appear to operate under the illusion that one must offer solutions to the social or philosophical problems they raise. One need not dispense the cure to diagnose the illness, no matter how hard an idea that may be for you to stomach.

Say what you want about the motives of multimillionaire philanthropists, their dollars have put more food on African plates than we ever will and they started out focusing on their own life to gain the power necessary to actually help people at home and far away.

I hitherto haven't mentioned multimillionaires nor philanthropists nor hedonism at all, and therefore have not offered a comment upon the matter either way, explicitly or otherwise. And though I don't exactly disagree with what you said, I'm detecting a dangerous whiff of 'ends justifying means' here, and would prefer to steer clear of such discussion, which goes beyond the current topic and probably deserves its own thread.

there is no way you could feed and clothe and bring fresh water to the door of every destitute family in the world. Even Superman isn't doing that shit. Who does Superman prioritize saving? The people of Metropolis, the people of his home.

You betray yourself as an old-fashioned social conservative, espousing the time-worn policy of 'taking care of our own.' Though this is all really beside the point that I was intending to make, I'll play the Devil's Advocate here and attempt to rebut this as well. If Superman truly did exist, I'm of the opinion that he has a moral imperative to assist those of other cities and nations as well. Of course he should have some time for R&R, friends, or maybe even a family (if he's into that sort of thing), but there's no way that you're going to convince me that Mr. Kent shouldn't spend a shred of his time outside of the Metro saving children from terrorists (a la Iron Man) during times of comparatively low supervillain activity. If Tony Stark can manage, I'm sure that Clark is capable. Either way, of course no single individual can save all of the people all of the time. This amounts to little more than a banal tautology, and only serves to reinforce the same dreary fatalism of which you accuse me (which, by the way, I had already addressed in my post).

You're fooled by your own delusions of assuming that all the smiling people are happy.

No. I'd appreciate it if you didn't presume that I am so shallow a person as to require the use of facial expressions to gauge a person's satisfaction with their life circumstances. The 'happy' people to whom I was referring had simply told me as much, and proceeded to engage me in conversation regarding the very topic under discussion. And for the record, I do not believe that Mohandas Gandhi was a happy person.

Hope is what keeps us alive, and what keeps us moving, and what gives us reason to live on even when we feel like dropping dead from mental or physical anguish.

In your opinion, exactly what endows the continuation of human life with such great intrinsic value that emotional and intellectual honesty regarding the horror that it entails becomes a sort of thoughtcrime worthy of immediate negation or suppression?

Maybe you don't realize this, but if you just marshal enough strength in yourself to smile and put on a positive front then you will make better the lives of everyone who meets you.

If you scowl at everyone and talk like the sky is falling then you're robbing hope from yourself and draining it from everyone around you. In short, you become the antithesis to change for the better and ultimately a good life for as many people as possible.

Out of politeness, I will only respond by suggesting that chronically smiley (i.e., ignorant, dishonest, and/or biochemically addled) people as such do not actually make the world a better place in which to live. You may choose to disagree and cite pop-psychological literature exhorting the wondrous healing power of facial muscles, but it will be an uphill battle for you. In fear of sounding as rude as yourself, you assume far too much of me, thujone. What makes you think that I don't dedicate more of my time to helping others than I do to helping myself? What gave you the idea that I'm not in any way philanthropically active? It sounds to me as though your worldview has been challenged in a way that you cannot personally abide, necessitating these mildly offensive implications and extrapolations from what was intended as a post about the human condition and how said condition precludes the 'good life' by it's very nature. Also, have you considered that this 'positive front' to which you refer isn't actually, in most cases, a front at all? Excuse me for the presumption that people sometimes truly mean what they say, but I have a feeling that apparent happiness and satisfaction with life and the world that contains it has a real psychological/ideological basis, and is not just a cynical ruse like the one you purport to affect. Whether you like it or not, the sky really is figuratively falling for many or most people on this planet. For them, life really can be a living hell. Are you seriously recommending that I censor this information and my sincere opinions thereabout because such sincerity is offensive to your sensibilities and morale? What a guy.

And while I'm on the subject, do you even realize how amoral and disingenuous you're making yourself out to be? In one sentence you extoll optimism and hope as redeeming forces for humanity's betterment, and in the next you treat them as well-meaning, emotionally manipulative ploys, as a benevolent sham to be foisted upon others for practical purposes completely irrespective of their position relative to reality and/or truth. What could possibly be more cynical than that?

You might not be able to put rice in the bowl of a poor Indian kid tomorrow, but if you smile long and hard enough to reassure everyone you meet that everything will be ok then maybe just maybe some of those people will be convinced you're worthy enough a person to follow that they will help you when you decide it's time to do something to really put clean water in the cup of a Subsaharan kid who is on the verge of losing hope

I find this comment to be more bizarre and misplaced than any I have seen on these boards. You manage to pack loaded presumptions, leaderly ambitions, and the dubious necessity of hope into a single sentence, the purpose of which is unclear to me after my third reading. In your worldview, are there really no scowling philanthropists? Does the manifestly false belief that the conditions of living in this world are already acceptable and bound to improve (i.e. optimism, hope, etc.) really endow those who possess it with greater powers of charity or remediation? Do you truly believe that offering false hope to entire groups of people is a morally commendable and practically beneficial thing to do? And what makes you think that being a successful leader requires the rictus grin of an aspiring politician? Last I checked, charismatic leaders from Fidel Castro to Barack Obama often accompanied their speeches with looks of grim resolve rather than glib optimism. And on that note, most of the charitable people that I've personally encountered do not fit the tired stereotype of the ebullient optimist. Indeed, many of them are avowed self-deprecating cynics who simply cannot accept the thought of reserving prosperity for themselves. You seem to be propounding the notion that it takes an optimist to change the world for the better - I'd argue that it takes a pessimist to recognize that there is anything wrong in the first place.

TL;DR - You completely missed my point (see above), which principally concerned the contradictions inherent to the primacy of empathy and honesty in living a 'good life' in a world containing as much suffering as this one has/does; you conflated my pessimism with socially impotent fatalism; and you rudely presumed to deprecate personality traits that I simply do not possess. For the record, thujone: I rarely scowl, I consider my life a fine one, I regularly donate money and consumer products to both local and international charities, and I deeply resent your arrogance in suggesting otherwise. Naturally, I will be accused of being haughty and self-righteous for tooting my own horn, but I suppose that's the price that I have to pay to respond to someone who purports to inform me of my own lamentable deformities.

 

[P A]

you can't possibly take on all the anguish and suffering and make it your own.

I have heard this observation made a few times before in different contexts, and I sincerely believe that its underlying sentiment is fundamentally good; nevertheless, I find myself suppressing an interior revulsion when I find myself thinking along such lines. Though I cannot possibly presume to take on the brunt of this world's suffering for many reasons (for instance, it would be arrogant to presume intimate knowledge of a person's private agony other than my own), it seems to me that I am almost required or reasonably expected to do so, endowed as I am with a capacity for human pity and open access to global awareness of human strife in the digital age. Obviously, I can only attempt to do what I can within my means and limitations, but the simple awareness of that fact does not and, I think, should not stop me from being dissatisfied with the world in which I live. To declare myself satisfied in full awareness of my pathetic impotence in the face of senseless misery would amount to nothing more than resignation and an admission of defeat, of cowardly retreat from abject cruelty and despair. It is a sickness to which I am liable to eventually succumb, but, at least for now, I'll strive to resist the temptations of contented solipsism in favor of a thoroughly tragicomic worldview.

I can honestly say that I do love life, being able to feel all these emotions, from sadness to euphoria, is reason enough for me to appreciate my life. Just the sheer fact that I am sitting here typing these words and being able to read other people's experiences cheers me up, the universe is a wonderful place in all it's complexity and just being part of it makes me feel content.

I am genuinely glad to hear about your sense of personal belonging and contentedness, and I won't presume to tell you how to think or how to live. But I want to point out the degree to which this statement serves to underscore my opinions regarding the 'good life.' The material preconditions that I assume enable you to take part in this conversation are woefully absent in the lives of over half of the world's population, which has swollen to over 7 billion people in a very short period of history. If one (erroneously and generously) equates functional plumbing, air conditioning, reliable access to clean water, and internet connectivity with happiness and the lack of such things to unhappiness, what we have on our hands is a colossal amount of suffering. When you then consider the real world in all of its social complexity, you end up, if one can imagine, with an even grimmer picture. I don't mean to impose or to come across as harsh, but I think we both know that what I have mentioned in another thread is certainly true: It is far easier to proclaim any variety of personal attributes by way of keystrokes on the internet than it is to implement them and prove them in practice. I take your proclamations of wellbeing at face value, but I implore you to consider whether some kid in a Tanzanian shanty could appreciate the same love for life as could you. I must repeat that my purpose here is not to personally criticize nor to somehow invalidate your satisfaction with life, but merely to point out that the criteria for said satisfaction (as with the recommendations by philosophers on how to live the 'good life') are far from universally realizable in their real-world application, and woefully inadequate in principle for most of humanity to adopt. Again, this is not directed at you in particular, Grondel. Your post was congenial and non-combative, and I'm not attempting a rebuttal; I'm just offering my observations.

I cannot stress enough that the sum of my views on this subject hinge near-entirely upon the primacy of suffering in social discourse and the empathy that results thereby as a means to foster a real emotional and philosophical connection with other human beings - and I make no mystery of this fact. If one chooses to deny the role of empathy or interpersonal connection in their own fulfillment as individuals, then they have my condolences and best wishes; but never my personal respect.

If one were to listen to folks like thujone, they would get the impression that this whole state of affairs is so obvious and banal as to be unworthy of mention, even in passing. For them, human misery is a tacit, dirty-but-open secret that is not to be discussed in a manner that does not admit of redemption or change. They view pain and suffering as acceptable (and perhaps even reducible) prices to pay for the gift of existence, a metaphysical toll of sorts that is fully justified by the destination to which it admits entry. I do not. Their popular attitude is, I think, misinformed at best. At worst, it is actively destructive because it fosters complicity and promotes a glassy-eyed vision of redemption though social progress in a world that has, all things considered, seen precious little.

 

[Damien]

I think the buddhists believe that cleansing yourself from all desire will satisfy you. I share similar beliefs - if i desired nothing then i could just be happy that I'm alive. "It's not until after we've lost everything that we can gain anything" - Tyler Durden. Also, I believe a great deal of it has to do with gratefulness. Always focusing on the good things you have in life, no matter how small, and appreciating them. Finding the good things in life may be what u need.

Like my father once told me "A man's wealth is not measured by what he has, rather, what he desires."

when the grass is greener on the other side, buy a damned lawnmower and get off your arse.

The grass is greener on the other side because it's fertilized with bullshit. :D

One thing I have noticed about myself and the people around me is that there seems to be some correlation between pride and happiness. It seems that the more you think you deserve the less happy you are with what you have. As a subscriber of the idea of total depravity to the extent that I believe I don't deserve anything good I find myself very happy with what I have. With that said I have lived a very blessed life and I can only hope that my ideas will carry through any real tough times that I might encounter. For me, in my life, anything that is the result of following Jesus Christ is good, up to and including death.

 

[thujone]

TL;DR - You completely missed my point (see above), which principally concerned the contradictions inherent to the primacy of empathy and honesty in living a 'good life' in a world containing as much suffering as this one has/does; you conflated my pessimism with socially impotent fatalism; and you rudely presumed to deprecate personality traits that I simply do not possess. For the record, thujone: I rarely scowl, I consider my life a fine one, I regularly donate money and consumer products to both local and international charities, and I deeply resent your arrogance in suggesting otherwise. Naturally, I will be accused of being haughty and self-righteous for tooting my own horn, but I suppose that's the price that I have to pay to respond to someone who purports to inform me of my own lamentable deformities.

It was too long a damn read but I did read it *shakes fist*. Well, I apologize for making you feel that I was assuming anything about you, that was not my intention but I do take on a debating style which I suppose lends itself to using some assumptions to form statements. You become clear to me here:

Obviously, I can only attempt to do what I can within my means and limitations, but the simple awareness of that fact does not and, I think, should not stop me from being dissatisfied with the world in which I live. To declare myself satisfied in full awareness of my pathetic impotence in the face of senseless misery would amount to nothing more than resignation and an admission of defeat, of cowardly retreat from abject cruelty and despair. It is a sickness to which I am liable to eventually succumb, but, at least for now, I'll strive to resist the temptations of contented solipsism in favor of a thoroughly tragicomic worldview.

So I see we're on the same side after all, you're just taking a pessimistic bias to it. I have to cop to the same tendency but I still believe in trying to be optimistic not for myself but just to help others feel better. The person down the hall might have food on their plate but they are just as human as a starving child and as shallow as it might all be I would rather just see a smile on their face instead of having to stare at the face of some child in Africa whom, as you put, I am pretty much impotent at doing anything meaningful for. I hope you won't think less of me for talking all grandiose while I hoard a bit of feel-good for myself as well.