It feels awkward to write after a considerable time of not doing so. I feel that my sentences don't flow as well as I wish they did. I've been playing too many games, doing too much work and neglecting my writing. I can't accurately gauge how my writing is now, but I'm confident that it is still passable.
Recently, I've got around to thinking about the values that I want to live by and the importance of values and principles when playing the game of life. It seems to me that when you set your own values to abide by, you are setting your own rules to life ( however abstract this notion may be ), and essentially living however you want to. The irony of this however, is that despite the liberty you gain by living by your own rules, you are in fact still confined by a certain set of policies. However, upon further consideration I realised that by following the flawed logic of the previous statement, that would mean that someone would have to force himself to do something that contradicts with his principles ( breaking free of his self-imposed boundaries ) in order to achieve freedom. This boggles me because of the word I used - "force". I guess the concept of freedom is too abstract and definition of it depends on each individual's perception of the word.
To begin, I guess one thing we should all strive for is to not be a hypocrite. I know that it judging others is unavoidable and I've always loved to say ,"A movie critique doesn't make movies." whenever somebody accuses me of being a hypocrite, so I think the answer to this little problem would be to simply not be a blatant hypocrite. I'm not entirely sure what the boundaries of the previous statement are, but as an example - A tells B that he's a cunt for listening to X, A listens to X himself. Constructive criticism is fine though. Many a time I have found my cynical self judging others for watching X because I think it's a movie for the braindead, but I end up enjoying myself more watching X instead of the more "intellectually stimualting" Y. Yesterday I wanted to watch Dr.Zhivago, but I gave up half-way through - I wasn't in the mood to watch it (Read: Thought it was unbelievably boring) so I watched 21 Jump Street instead. The differences between the two movies and the demographic they are targeted at is obviously very vast. Did I feel bad for not watching Dr.Zhivago? Maybe. But I know I enjoyed myself and laughed more watching 21 Jump Street.
This brings me to my next value - do whatever that makes you truly happy. Many people argue that the ultimate goal in life is to be happy. I agree with this. Why? Because if you think about it, throughout your life you will indubitably experience a multitude of different emotions, and what feels the best is obviously happiness. When I think deeper into this, it's weird that happiness can be found when you are experiencing a contradicting emotion - sadness. I know people who cry because they are sad, and yet, they feel good and happy because they are crying. They are happy to be releasing their emotions. Am I making sense? I hope I am. One problem with this that I have though of is the problem of the many different definitions of happiness by many different people. Take a masochist who enjoys hurting herself, she cuts herself periodically and finds joy doing it - not because she is depressed or anything, she just likes it. Then, her parents find out about her masochistic acts and are saddened by them. They are sad while their daughter is happy. What is the win-win solution to this problem? There is such a wide variety of solutions and factors that determine what a win-win solution is. From my point of view, I think that the parents should find happiness when their daughter is happy. However, being happy because your daughter cuts herself seems very wrong doesn't it? What if the daughter was suffering from some kind of mental illness that gives her a warped perception of happiness? Man, wouldn't that be something - the implications of that would mean that there is some arbitrary standard of what genuine happiness is and isn't. And what is even more shocking if we were to further explore the previous line would be that the correct version of happiness depends on the opinion of the majority.
I'm going to end this blog here, and perhaps will continue it tomorrow. I have many things to think about before imposing rules onto myself.
Trudge comfortably | Check out some glorious music made by TLers - http://bit.ly/QXYhdb , by intrigue. http://bit.ly/RTjpOR , by ohsea.toc.
My goal is fulfillment, not happiness. Too much happiness is actually a bad thing imo.
I remember thinking about this hypothetical situation while in undergrad. If I was confronted with the option of living the life of either: (a) a person who lives a happy and easy life, or (b) a person who lives a difficult and tumultuous life, I'd take (b). Even if his life ended in despair.
A person who lives a full life does not necessarily have to have a happy one. But that's just my opinion.
There are two basic ways of talking about happiness: namely happiness as well-being (living a good life) and happiness as a state of mind (feeling happy or joyful). The vast majority of problems come if we confuse the two and consequently end up talking past each other. But yeah, I'm a big proponent of picking well-being over happiness as a state of mind because one can have an impoverished life that is lived under oppressive external values (for example as a slave) and still feel happy, but nobody would say of such a person that he leads an honestly good life.
Another problem is that we intuitively value things that are external of us and don't find meaning solely in our mind - for example, one could desire to write a book or be loved, but one would not substitute the achievement of having written a book with a mere mental semblence of that, like in a simulator; likewise one would make a big deal out of being loved FOR REAL instead of just having the other person act like they were in love with you. In fact, nobody would call a person happy who's family, friends and spouse only acted as if they liked said person, say out of pity (and without his knowledge, of course).
Having said that, I'm with Aristotle in that I think feeling happy (in terms of pleasure) is necessary for living a good life, but not the only thing there is to it.
On June 15 2012 16:10 PassionFruit wrote: My goal is fulfillment, not happiness. Too much happiness is actually a bad thing imo.
I remember thinking about this hypothetical situation while in undergrad. If I was confronted with the option of living the life of either: (a) a person who lives a happy and easy life, or (b) a person who lives a difficult and tumultuous life, I'd take (b). Even if his life ended in despair.
A person who lives a full life does not necessarily have to have a happy one. But that's just my opinion.
Is too much happiness a bad thing because it can lead to a false sense of fulfillment? How would you determine what a "full life" is? Something like that is up to an individual's perception though.
On June 15 2012 16:35 Sauwelios wrote: There are two basic ways of talking about happiness: namely happiness as well-being (living a good life) and happiness as a state of mind (feeling happy or joyful). The vast majority of problems come if we confuse the two and consequently end up talking past each other. But yeah, I'm a big proponent of picking well-being over happiness as a state of mind because one can have an impoverished life that is lived under oppressive external values (for example as a slave) and still feel happy, but nobody would say of such a person that he leads an honestly good life.
Another problem is that we intuitively value things that are external of us and don't find meaning solely in our mind - for example, one could desire to write a book or be loved, but one would not substitute the achievement of having written a book with a mere mental semblence of that, like in a simulator; likewise one would make a big deal out of being loved FOR REAL instead of just having the other person act like they were in love with you. In fact, nobody would call a person happy who's family, friends and spouse only acted as if they liked said person, say out of pity (and without his knowledge, of course).
Having said that, I'm with Aristotle in that I think feeling happy (in terms of pleasure) is necessary for living a good life, but not the only thing there is to it.
Shouldn't the first and second definitions/ways of happiness go hand in hand? If you're living a good life shouldn't you be feeling joyful? Or is this wrong because if you acquire the first (good life), you will always long for something better (greed) and hence your life becomes bad because greed has poisoned it? But then again, if you learn how to overcome greed, you should be living a good life AND be happy.
This whole discussion seems like it's going to be of a similar nature to Voltaire's Candide.
I think you will also agreed with Gottfried - "The ills of the world are shadows in a beautiful painting. But is is the shadows that bring out the colours." I agree with him.
Trudge comfortably | Check out some glorious music made by TLers - http://bit.ly/QXYhdb , by intrigue. http://bit.ly/RTjpOR , by ohsea.toc.
Store
