DigitalDuality
Bluelighter
order and chaos.. balance and unbalance, neutrility and extremes.. is what makes life IMO.. i think swinging to any sole view as a 100% DEFINITION as what we need or what you think it is.. doesn't sum us up so well.
-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe
Wouldn't lifelong happiness make us stagnate?
- Thread starter Vaya
- Start date
DigitalDuality
Bluelighter
it was more to anyone who thinks pure balance is the answer..
Vaya
Bluelight Crew
Grreaat responses.....!!!! Seriously...
My take on it is that lifelong happiness would indeed make us stagnate...
Firstly, for your information, the background of the quote is a statement regarding the theoretical use of opiate-based medications to treat psychological disorders too, not just as a physical pain-solving medication; subsequently, if they were to be used to treat, say, depression, and make those taking the medicine have lifelong happiness, would it create a stagnate quality to their lives?
And while, considering you all didnt have that background unless you read the site, you've all deviated from the topic (that is, opiate based medications causing stagnate qualities) I think that the deviation was for the better because with that topic theres not really much room to move around.
So, having gotten that out of the way,
...I believe it was either Socrates or Aristotle that said that everything in the world is generated from its opposite: fire from water, cold from heat, happiness from sadness, high from low, big from small, love from hate, and so on. Both respected philosophers of their times, the idea they provide is that one thing cannot possibly exist without the other.
In the world, if sadness did not exist, then happiness would not exist. Happiness is the term we use to describe an elated state of mind. But the term 'elated' describes nothing more than the superlative form of being merely content, in other words, not sad.
If lifelong happiness were a reality, and sadness did not exist, then 'happiness' as we know it would not exist, and by that reasoning, lifelong happiness would not exist either. Therefore, aside from it making us stagnate, it is also an impossibility.
But let's say it is a possibility, and people were happy all the time. What would be the point? Speaking from experience, and from the testimonies of others as well, when one is happy, one doesnt strive to accomplish anything whilst in a state of pure contentment. Rather, they want to enjoy it! But when one is sad or depressed, action is required to metaphorically dig themselves out of the depression.
The very defintion of 'stagnant' is
a. Showing little or no sign of activity or advancement; not developing or progressing; inactive
b. Lacking vitality or briskness; sluggish or dull: a stagnant mind.
Thus, the lack of action that occurs in purely content individuals constitutes 'showing little or no sign of ...advancement' and also represents inactivity.
And whether or not Socrates/Aristotle was correct in saying that things in this world are generated from their opposites, lifelong happiness would, in my opinion, undoubtedly create stagnancy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, great responses I'm really impressed concerning the depth with which people turned this simple question into a real discussion.
Peace...
Vaya
My take on it is that lifelong happiness would indeed make us stagnate...
Firstly, for your information, the background of the quote is a statement regarding the theoretical use of opiate-based medications to treat psychological disorders too, not just as a physical pain-solving medication; subsequently, if they were to be used to treat, say, depression, and make those taking the medicine have lifelong happiness, would it create a stagnate quality to their lives?
And while, considering you all didnt have that background unless you read the site, you've all deviated from the topic (that is, opiate based medications causing stagnate qualities) I think that the deviation was for the better because with that topic theres not really much room to move around.
So, having gotten that out of the way,
...I believe it was either Socrates or Aristotle that said that everything in the world is generated from its opposite: fire from water, cold from heat, happiness from sadness, high from low, big from small, love from hate, and so on. Both respected philosophers of their times, the idea they provide is that one thing cannot possibly exist without the other.
In the world, if sadness did not exist, then happiness would not exist. Happiness is the term we use to describe an elated state of mind. But the term 'elated' describes nothing more than the superlative form of being merely content, in other words, not sad.
If lifelong happiness were a reality, and sadness did not exist, then 'happiness' as we know it would not exist, and by that reasoning, lifelong happiness would not exist either. Therefore, aside from it making us stagnate, it is also an impossibility.
But let's say it is a possibility, and people were happy all the time. What would be the point? Speaking from experience, and from the testimonies of others as well, when one is happy, one doesnt strive to accomplish anything whilst in a state of pure contentment. Rather, they want to enjoy it! But when one is sad or depressed, action is required to metaphorically dig themselves out of the depression.
The very defintion of 'stagnant' is
a. Showing little or no sign of activity or advancement; not developing or progressing; inactive
b. Lacking vitality or briskness; sluggish or dull: a stagnant mind.
Thus, the lack of action that occurs in purely content individuals constitutes 'showing little or no sign of ...advancement' and also represents inactivity.
And whether or not Socrates/Aristotle was correct in saying that things in this world are generated from their opposites, lifelong happiness would, in my opinion, undoubtedly create stagnancy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, great responses I'm really impressed concerning the depth with which people turned this simple question into a real discussion.
Peace...
Vaya
Last edited:
_high_life_
Bluelighter
we would be neutral ???? without emotions maybe but wat the fuck do us humans kno about anything other than maybe a little of the physical world but thats it we all fuckheads that will never aquire anything but knowlegde butwe are to stupid and dont live long enough to use it anyways . in the end were all fucked, and have a nice day
L O V E L I F E
Bluelighter
As Belisarius said, there are so many different "happy" pursuits that I think we are kidding oursleves if we think that we need to experience the 0's and 1's of life in order to fully appreciate the 9's and 10's that life has to offer.
If all I experienced were 9's and 10's, eventually I would rescale things - a 9.0 would become a 0 to me; a 9.4 might become a 4, etc. As a result, I would have a range of emotions - just at a higher level.
Also, since learning from OTHER people's mistakes is among life's most valuable talents, sympathizing with other people's pain (or even imagining hypothetical pain) would allow us to fully appreciate extreme happiness.
Or maybe I'm just kidding myself.
If all I experienced were 9's and 10's, eventually I would rescale things - a 9.0 would become a 0 to me; a 9.4 might become a 4, etc. As a result, I would have a range of emotions - just at a higher level.
Also, since learning from OTHER people's mistakes is among life's most valuable talents, sympathizing with other people's pain (or even imagining hypothetical pain) would allow us to fully appreciate extreme happiness.
Or maybe I'm just kidding myself.