Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a Mormon I was taught that "Men are that they might have joy" and that happiness was the end of our existence and the purpose for which we were created. Since leaving Mormonism and belief in god altogether, I have familiarized myself with a fair number of philosophies of life that are out there.
One great objective in Buddhism is to give up attachment and desire, for by so doing one can eliminate suffering. I believe that that works (if one gives up attachment, one will eliminate the personal experience of suffering), but I fundamentally reject the notion that getting rid of personal suffering is good or should be a goal. I don't want to give up desire or attachment, because they are the only way I can feel true closeness and intimacy. I will gladly suffer the risk of pain and loss so that I can enjoy interpersonal warmth and love. Suffering is not all that bad. I have no phobia for pain. It is not that I want more pain in my life, but I accept it as part of life and am willing to experience it if it leaves me open to truly live.
I also find no appeal in the waves of new age movements that have lately come along such as "The Secret" and the works of Tolle. Tolle could be right in his fundamental approach; there is certainly no way to know for sure (I think there is some benefit in at least occasionally attempting to give up one's sense of self), but fundamentally I believe we are biological creatures, and our mental functions and experiences are born of the hardware of our neural circuits and the "software" we pick up from the environment."The Secret" I find just wrong on the face of it. Thinking good thoughts doesn't metaphysically make things happen.
There are a whole host of other religions and philosophies that tell us that we should make more of ourselves - that we should through meditation transcend ourselves and be more/better than the typical human. There is this emphasis that we should be doing more, accomplishing more, growing more, there is so much personal development that we need to get done before we die, we must prepare for whatever comes after death, etc. UGGGHHH & ICCCKKK!
A co-worker asked me the other day how I might live my life differently if I knew I only had two years left to live. He said that would put an urgency in him and rattled off a number of things he would do or attempt to accomplish and how he would spend his time. I thought for a moment and realized I wouldn't do anything different. I am living exactly how I want to at the present time. My immediate family is my main reason for living and I am spending time with them, and if I die, I die. So what? I don't feel that there is anything for me to accomplish, anything I must do or expectation that I must meet.
As far as the Universe is concerned, nothing is expected of me. In a few hundred years my existence will be completely forgotten (if not before then), and in a few billion years, nothing will be left of the organisms that once inhabited the planet earth. The universe really doesn't care if we exist or not, and certainly doesn't care what we do with our lives.
I am content to be a human being, a homo sapien. I do what homo sapiens do. Birch trees do what birch trees do; robins do what robins do; and I do what homo sapiens do. Nothing at the cosmic level is expected of the birch, the robin, and nothing is expected of me. I don't have to be anything or become anything; and I don't have to be happy or reach some meditative state of being (which I think is just a psychological trick anyway - it is not like we are really transcending our brains - our brains are making the experience).
For me, it is relieving to not have anything I have to strive for at the cosmic level. Now, I know I do have expectations for me locally in space and time. My contemporaries expect me to behave a certain way (pro-socially) and provide for myself and family (physically, emotionally, socially, etc). As a human I have needs and wants that I desire to have fulfilled and I work towards satisfying them. I have dreams and goals, but they are my dreams and goals that come with no external pressure to measure up. They weren't goals that were given to me by a deity, pretentious prophet, cosmic entity, or some new age guru who has a misguided confidence that they have THE powerful answer to the purpose of life.
I don't need to be happy; I am content to just be what I am - a human being. I am happy sometimes. I have given myself permission to feel a wide range of emotions, so sometimes I feel angry, sometimes I feel peace, sometimes I feel discouraged, sometimes I feel hopeful, sometimes I feel frustrated, sometimes I experience flow, and on and on.
Now for a tangent. I think emotions are a natural and normal part of being a homo sapien. I don't feel that it is bad or evil or that one is sinning if one experiences a negative emotion. I believe each of the various emotions serve a purpose and gave our ancestors an evolutionary advantage. Most serve to draw our attention to something that needs to be addressed for our well-being. Sometimes, we get stuck in an emotion (like depression or anger) or experience an emotion when the situation doesn't really call for it (an intense phobia of germs). In these cases the emotions may be causing us problems in our lives, and we need psychological help to work through what needs to be taken care of or retrain our emotions to respond differently.
The FLDS (Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints) have a saying that they tell the women and girls among them - "Stay sweet" - meaning keep a smile on your face and a cheery disposition and stuff all negative emotions. To most of us that is obviously unhealthy. But, many religions and movements to a lesser extent promote that same message: happiness is the goal and if you are not happy you are not as developed, matured, strong as, good as, enlightened as, accomplished as you should or could be. The message is you need to become like the Buddha, the saints, the gurus, the masters, the transcendent ones, etc. They say, "these people have reached a level of peace, a spiritual plane, an enlightenment that you need to obtain. They have set the example for all to follow." I reject that. Sure it is enjoyable to reach those altered states, as I have done before and do on occasion. But, those states are just another part of the human experience and do not need to be the standard by which everything else is judged.
Look, I acknowledge that for some people, living their lives with those aspirations works for them. I celebrate their humanity and as a good friend support them. I am just saying that for me, I no longer feel expectations from the cosmos or a god. I no longer use happiness as a milestone to mark whether I am measuring up anymore, or being all that I could or should be. I don't look up to transcendental states of consciousness with any special awe or high regard.
Fair enough. After all, while, as I said, anyone who puts a position here is proposing it as a credible model, I take Thom R's point that one is just explaining.
I am working with the idea that suppression of evolved instincts in not healthy. I do not consider the depiction of Vulcans in the Startrek spinnofs as very logical. It is a flawed view of what a logical being is like by those who have to meet a scripting deadline but don't actually understand logic very well.
I think it is more important to accept our evolved impulses, both healthy and unhealthy (as it is called) and understand them. There is a place for aggression, self aggrandisement, collecting women, establishing dominance over the family overaweing the masses with display of authority. Just so we don't let those impulses control us, and keep in mind the Golden rules.
... I don't need to be happy; I am content to just be what I am - a human being. I am happy sometimes. I have given myself permission to feel a wide range of emotions, so sometimes I feel angry, sometimes I feel peace, sometimes I feel discouraged, sometimes I feel hopeful, sometimes I feel frustrated, sometimes I experience flow, and on and on.
...
Good post. I especially like this part. For me, I refer to it as feeling satisfied. I don't have to feel any specific emotion to be satisfied. I can simply be satisfied that I am here to experience it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
...
I am working with the idea that suppression of evolved instincts in not healthy. I do not consider the depiction of Vulcans in the Startrek spinnofs as very logical. It is a flawed view of what a logical being is like by those who have to meet a scripting deadline but don't actually understand logic very well.
...
I like this too. I agree due to my own personal observations. I feel less satisfied with my experience when I indulge in certain aspects of my humanity. So I don't run from any of my humanity. I accept all of it. However, I rely on logic and reason to keep my feet planted on the ground and help me retain control over the aspects of my humanity that I choose not to indulge in.
Fair enough. After all, while, as I said, anyone who puts a position here is proposing it as a credible model, I take Thom R's point that one is just explaining.
I am working with the idea that suppression of evolved instincts in not healthy. I do not consider the depiction of Vulcans in the Startrek spinnofs as very logical. It is a flawed view of what a logical being is like by those who have to meet a scripting deadline but don't actually understand logic very well.
I think it is more important to accept our evolved impulses, both healthy and unhealthy (as it is called) and understand them. There is a place for aggression, self aggrandisement, collecting women, establishing dominance over the family overaweing the masses with display of authority. Just so we don't let those impulses control us, and keep in mind the Golden rules.
What is a raw most internal emotion though? Anyway, the value of painful experiences which relate to the historical evolutionary experiences are matter for reassuring that the world after-all is in form of external degradation, and chaos is beyond explanation from a temporal status with respect. Happiness is at that matter of unevolved purpose.
Last edited by tgnostic; 11-18-2010 at 06:59 AM..
Reason: syntax
I view the attachment and clinging points made by Buddhists as a warning to not get so obsessed with things like power, wealth, people, etc., that you get sidetracked and wind up further and further from your basic nature or true self.... sometimes called by zen people "your original face before you were born." The biggest attachment that we have though is to our egos. imo.
I view the attachment and clinging points made by Buddhists as a warning to not get so obsessed with things like power, wealth, people, etc., that you get sidetracked and wind up further and further from your basic nature or true self.... sometimes called by zen people "your original face before you were born." The biggest attachment that we have though is to our egos. imo.
I would agree...and they often get us into big TROUBLE sometimes. Jesus taught the same thing when he said to sell all you own and follow me. It's not that you have to give away all of your possessions...it just means that you don't give possessions more value than they actually have. Consider how you would feel if you lost them, would it upset you greatly or would you just accept the loss and move on?
I agree with much of what you have said here. What inspired you to post your thoughts on this matter?
I originally wrote it a year ago. Recently on another board a poster wrote something and I quoted this old post because it fit. Once it was on my mind again, I thought I'd share it here just to see what discussion it might start.
I'd agree that happiness is not necessarily the main goal in life, but that always struck me more as the religious than irreligious view. As I understood most, but not all, secular perspectives "the pursuit of happiness" was pretty important. However in Christianity there's a lot about the value of suffering, sorrow, life's challenges, not placing personal happiness over doing what's right, etc. One religion teacher we had went so far as to say a good Christian should simply not be happy, but I personally think that's going a bit too far. Later she ended up leaving her husband so I sometimes wonder if she was justifying her own unhappiness as somehow necessary. Specific to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy many of our saint stories involve people who were mistreated, tormented, tortured, and/or killed. So the idea that life for a Christian should be constant happiness and potluck dinners is not exactly where we're at. Possibly why Catholics are sometimes seen as "tormented", but considering the Baptists I know I think our reputation there is exaggerated. (No one told me at 6 I was going to burn in Hell, at least not that I can remember, but I think some Evangelicals do hear that)
Granted I think some white Protestant churches maybe don't go for that (I'm specifying because the black Church I think has many hymns about suffering or how to deal with it plus blacks did not have the luxury to deny that sometimes things aren't shiny/happy for good Christians) and I've heard that some white Protestantism states that "pray and be good, then you'll be happy" or "think positively, be happy." However that is pretty much "not my world" so I can't speak for it. (Although I've certainly been asked to speak for it at CD, even when I say I'm not of it and I'm not going to speak for it. This is thankfully no longer happening much.) Also I think "that world", positive-thinking white Protestants, is not really well-rooted in the history of Protestantism either. The Calvinists, the Lutherans, and I think even the Quakers were not "be sweet, be happy all the time" people. I think that arose more in the nineteenth century US and UK. So you might see it most in denominations that started then. Like I've read Christian Scientists are very much about "positive thinking" and that's part of why CSers often seem like chirpy/happy people when you see them on TV.
For me happiness is not a big goal in life because happiness is relatively easy. I'm naturally "up" I suppose, to a point that's occasionally bordered on mania. Happiness isn't that great if it involves you doing nothing, caring about no one, and just blissing out while you laugh at the wall or talk to the furniture. Granted there are less extreme examples than that, but the point is I guess I'd differ with what you're saying because although happiness isn't really a goal I think self-improvement and achievement is or should be. I'm not sure you're disagreeing with that or not, but you seemed to be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyway, the value of painful experiences which relate to the historical evolutionary experiences are matter for reassuring that the world after-all is in form of external degradation, and chaos is beyond explanation from a temporal status with respect. Happiness is at that matter of unevolved purpose.
Jesus taught the same thing when he said to sell all you own and follow me. It's not that you have to give away all of your possessions...it just means that you don't give possessions more value than they actually have. Consider how you would feel if you lost them, would it upset you greatly or would you just accept the loss and move on?
