Brave New World - A society where everyone is happy is a bad thing?

[learningphysics]

I have not finished this book. But I find myself nauseated by it so far. I'm not nauseated by the world he describes. Huxley describes a world where everyone is happy except for a very small minority. And even that minority don't seem to have it so bad. I think that's a fantastic society to live in. I'm nauseated by Huxley's message... that such a world is a bad thing. "Everybody's happy. We can't have that going on!" :rofl:

My question is why? Why is it bad?

Huxley seems to be relying on an instinctive reaction from his readers, not an intellectual one. "They all use drugs, they're all genetically engineered... that's just creepy" etc... I read reviews on amazon.com, and it is generally presumed that this world is a bad thing.

 

[GeD]

I won't delve into his proposed definition of happiness, or of my view that happiness is impossible by itself (ie. without sorrow, suffering, pain, etc), and that happiness usually means stagnation and even degradation because of contentment.

But based on a purely theoretical/ideal world model - what is wrong with a world full of constantly happy people? Notice that he calls into account moral/ethical considerations, because it 'feels' bad - jeez, I wonder when people like will stop being a slave-whore to 'guilt' & 'conscience'.

Why does he feel the need to criticize it? I see no reason to feel queasy about it, as long as we all have the choice to be happy or not. Seems to me like he just hates being the minority of miserable guys around a possible majority of happy people.

 

[learningphysics]

Hi GED. Yes, I don't understand why he does feel the need to criticize it. But I'm surprised the popularity of the book, and the general positive response. It seems like a world where everyone is happy scares people off more than the real world. Presented with the possibility of entering a heaven, I think most people would run for their life in the opposite direction.

 

[Dayle Record]

I never had the feeling for even a second, that everyone was happy in Brave New World. It seemed more to me to be a piece about a lobotomised society, and "happiness" that was not chosen, but was an enforced norm. If a society were created where everyone had to be beautiful, after the last surgery was performed, or the last genetic manipulation completed; would there be any beauty? Is not every value a contrast to some other?

 

[russ_watters]

Its been a while since I read it, but that was my impression as well. Question: if happiness is enforced, is it even real?

 

[arildno]

From what I remember, it was no more enforced than through "peer pressure".
Of course one might for example say that cheer leaders "forces" other girls to follow their example in order not to be socially ostracized, but I am a bit hesitant to use the "forcing" concept for such situations.

I recall that I found Huxley's basic attitude overly prim; he didn't really offer any good arguments for why a life in sexual abandon and drug use is such a bad thing.

 

[learningphysics]

I never had the feeling for even a second, that everyone was happy in Brave New World.

Can you explain why? This seemed like the very premise of the novel.

It seemed more to me to be a piece about a lobotomised society, and "happiness" that was not chosen, but was an enforced norm. If a society were created where everyone had to be beautiful, after the last surgery was performed, or the last genetic manipulation completed; would there be any beauty? Is not every value a contrast to some other?

I must agree with arildno. They were no more forced than people are "forced" in our society. Of course there is childhood conditioning, but how is this different from schools, being raised by parents, television... everything is conditioning. Given that we are going to be conditioned no matter what, isn't it better to be conditioned so that you'll be happy?

People took soma, and did what they did because they wished to feel good. They weren't being forced. The people in this book seemed more free to me than in our society. They had the ways and means to satisfy their desires and achieve their goals. They did not want anything they could not have. They could have everything they wanted. Perfect freedom.

The response to Brave New World reveals more to me than the novel itself. Humans seem either conditioned, or genetically predisposed, to valuing their pain and suffering.

 

[hypnagogue]

I haven't read the novel, so I only have a pretty superficial understanding of its theme. However, I still think I have an idea of what Huxley was trying to get at, and even if I'm completely wrong, this can still contribute meaningfully to the question of why Huxley's Brave New World is a 'bad' one. The following is an excerpt from an article written by Martin Seligman, a psychologist who is trying to introduce into the psychology community an emphasis on promoting positive emotional states, rather than merely alleviating negative ones. The full article can be found here. In this excerpt, Seligman talks about his conception of the word 'happiness.'

What's workable within happiness are three different kinds of lives: The first is the pleasant life, which consists of having as many of the positive emotions as you can, and learning the skills that amplify them. There are a half dozen such skills that have been reasonably well-documented. That's the Hollywood view of happiness, the Debbie Reynolds, smiley, giggly view of happiness. It's positive emotion. But, one might ask, isn't that where positive psychology ends? Isn't pleasure all there is to the positive side of life? You only have to look superficially back to the history of philosophy to find out that from Aristotle through Seneca through Wittgenstein the notion of pleasure was thought of as vulgar. There's very good intellectual provenance for two other kinds of happy lives, which in the Hollywood/American conception have gone by the boards. Part of my job is to resurrect them.

The second one is eudaemonia, the good life, which is what Thomas Jefferson and Aristotle meant by the pursuit of happiness. They did not mean smiling a lot and giggling. Aristotle talks about the pleasures of contemplation and the pleasures of good conversation. Aristotle is not talking about raw feeling, about thrills, about orgasms. Aristotle is talking about what Mike Csikszentmihalyi works on, and that is, when one has a good conversation, when one contemplates well. When one is in eudaemonia, time stops. You feel completely at home. Self-consciousness is blocked. You're one with the music.

The good life consists of the roots that lead to flow. It consists of first knowing what your signature strengths are and then recrafting your life to use them more — recrafting your work, your romance, your friendships, your leisure, and your parenting to deploy the things you're best at. What you get out of that is not the propensity to giggle a lot; what you get is flow, and the more you deploy your highest strengths the more flow you get in life.

[...]

So just to review so far, there is the pleasant life — having as many of the pleasures as you can and the skills to amplify them — and the good life — knowing what your signature strengths are and recrafting everything you do to use them a much as possible. But there's a third form of life, and if you're a bridge player like me, or a stamp collector, you can have eudaemonia; that is, you can be in flow. But everyone finds that as they grow older and look in the mirror they worry that they're fidgeting until they die. That's because there's a third form of happiness that is ineluctably pursued by humans, and that's the pursuit of meaning. I'm not going to be sophomoric enough to try to tell Edge viewers the theory of meaning, but there is one thing we know about meaning: that meaning consists in attachment to something bigger than you are. The self is not a very good site for meaning, and the larger the thing that you can credibly attach yourself to, the more meaning you get out of life.

There's an enormous range of things that are larger than us that we can belong to and be part of, some of which are prepackaged. Being an Orthodox Jew, for example, or being a Republican are prepackaged ones. Being a teacher, someone whose life is wrapped up in the growth of younger people, is a non-prepackaged one. Being an agent is a non-prepackaged one — it's a life in service of the people you conceive of to be the greatest minds on the planet. And they wouldn't do their thing without agency. You can convert agency into the idea that "I'm just doing it for all the money I make," and then it's not a meaningful life. But I don't think you wake up in the morning raring to make more money; it's rather in service of this much larger goal of the intellectual salon. Being a lawyer can either be a business just in service of making a half million dollars a year, in which case it's not meaningful, or it can be in service of good counsel, fairness, and justice. That's the non-prepackaged form of meaning.

So, basically, the kind of happiness that is ubiquitous in Brave New World is merely the 'vulgar,' 'giggly' kind of pleasure. It comes at the expense of realizing Seligman's other forms of happiness: eudaemonia and meaning. It's the equivalent of gorging yourself on junk food. Perhaps the junk food is enough to satisfy your hunger, give you the taste equivalent of cheap thrills, and ultimately keep you alive; but what you miss out on are the more sophisticated pleasures of an exquisitely cooked dinner or a sublte and complex wine, as well as the quality kind of nutrients you need for optimal health.

 

[arildno]

True enough, hypnagogue, but it is patently untrue that, say, recreational sex is vulgar or without intrinsic value, i.e. being "cheap thrills".
It all depends on the attitude you engage in it with.
It has gone at least a decade since I read BNW, but I had the distinct impression that Huxley meant that only marital sex under the bed-cover was "right".

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well, I suppose Huxley would have said giggly happiness is all most people are up for.

But it does raise the issue, if everyone were happy, or even sad, all the time, wouldn't that be a kind of social "heat death"? Without differences of affect from person to person, or from time to time, how could any social change at all ever happen?

 

[hypnagogue]

True enough, hypnagogue, but it is patently untrue that, say, recreational sex is vulgar or without intrinsic value, i.e. being "cheap thrills".
It all depends on the attitude you engage in it with.

Well, I don't know if any of those forms of raw pleasures really deserves the term 'vulgar.' They have their value, but the idea is that they are not the only or 'best' form of happiness.

Leaving that point aside, I agree with your point about attitude. Depending on how one approaches it, recreational sex could be in the spirit of eudaemonia, or it could just be a cheap thrill kind of thing. The context in which the act is done is important. I imagine that the kind of happiness seeking acts in BNW were more in the spirit of the latter than the former, though again, I can't say for sure since I haven't read it.

It has gone at least a decade since I read BNW, but I had the distinct impression that Huxley meant that only marital sex under the bed-cover was "right".

Well, I wouldn't find any merit in that, if it were true. Maybe he wants to place more emphasis on a lasting or at least meaningful relationship than on marriage per se?

 

[arildno]

The "happiness leads to stagnation"-argument (from GeD) is another argument I have issues with.
Having personal experience with rather severe depression, I know that one of the first mental faculties to be damaged is the ability to learn, and curiosity is suddenly no longer any sufficient motivator. Rather, a dull, brooding mood oozes forth in your mind which is extremely difficult to drag yourself out of.

I know also that those periods in which I have been personally happy, have also been among my most productive periods in which curiosity and creativity has been high.

So, I simply cannot accept the "happiness/stagnation"-argument.

 

[hypnagogue]

So, I simply cannot accept the "happiness/stagnation"-argument.

Your story about poor productivity during depression vs. heightened productivity with happiness is exactly the kind of situation selfAdjoint was talking about, though, so it doesn't seem to be a counterexample. A counterexample would be someone who's in a positive mood all the time, but still doesn't suffer from stagnation or diminishing returns or whatever.

For my part, I agree with you-- I don't think that happiness is only defined in contrast with sadness, or that being happy for a long period of time will necessarily lead to stagnation or complacency, etc. The way I see it, we could define two very general types of happiness: type P, which is a productive happiness, and type U, which is an unproductive one. Types P and U are probably subserved by distinct patterns of neural activity, Np and Nu.

Now, it may very well be the case that experiencing relatively more depression will make one's happy episodes more likely to be type P, that is, will make one's brain more likely to engage in Np-type patterns. It also may be that being in Np for an extended period of time generally leads to neural patterns of type Nu. But this does not mean that the connections between these states are necessary. For instance, if someone is genetically predisposed to have Np neural activity most of the time (or, if we could genetically or otherwise engineer brains that could sustain Np activity indefinitely), then by definition, we'll have an enduring, productive happiness, even in the absence of periods of depression or sadness. I find it unlikely that Np patterns necessitate the previous existence of neural activity subserving negative mentality; I think they could be generated more or less completely without regard to past history of mental states, given the proper neural mechanisms/architecture.

 

[arildno]

selfAdjoint:
You raise a really important issue, and basically, I found his portrayal of dull uniformity to be one of the main strengths in Huxley's book, even though I think he all too easily used sex&drugs as those practices which would lead to that uniformity.

When everyone think alike, or do alike, even if it is only "peer pressure" which effects it, then something vital in human societes has died.
To be generous with Huxley, I think I would agree with him on the following:
"If universal happiness requires uniformity of humans, then I won't have it, even if that uniformity can be achieved through peaceful means".

 

[hypnagogue]

Although, I do agree with the idea that uniformity of human temperament would lead to stagnation (maybe this is more of what selfAdjoint wanted to emphasize). This situation would elude my previous argument, since it would crucially change the types of environments, and hence sensory inputs, that human brains would receive. All the reprogramming of a given brain in the world could not make up for a lack of richness or diversity of environment.

 

[arildno]

hypnagogue:
I think your distinction in different happinesses very important.
To add a bit, as I see it, a productive happiness generally builds upon the sense of mastery, in that because you are proud of an earlier accomplishment: you have the self-confidence that you can tackle some new task, and your curiosity starts sniffing about like a puppy to find something interesting and new to do.

One rather insidious feature of depression is how you systematically belittle what you have already accomplished; essentially the depression attacks your own (well-deserved) pride by ridiculing yourself of: "having "achieved" what any idiot could have done better", and equally poisonous stratagems.

 

[Dayle Record]

There is a long ongoing debate in regards to nature and nurture, the winner has not yet been declared. So the concept of either happily conforming, or genetic predisposition to unhappiness doesn't really stand.

Happily being programmed by fellow humans, or human expectation, is at best a poor copy of the entire environment that is available to us, to which we make adaptive adjustments to our basic natures. Many of us are like fish out of water, the displacement of entire cultures and natural means of survival is a feature of the last three centuries. The dwellers of newly huge cities, and high rise dwellers, have to depend largely on every device created by humans to live. Every view, is filled with human architecture, every moment is filled with the sounds generated by the industry of our existence, every empty wavelength that used to be the silent sound of natures potential, the gap between breaths so to speak; is filled with an impossible scramble of signal. Whales and dolphins beach themselves, out of the tinnitus horrors of the deep, we create with our Happy Guaranteeing Navies. People are depressed, in high numbers, should we change their minds, or change our ways? Are they really happy, chemically happified, or are they just numbed to the impossible violation of self that our mechanized world perpetuates?

I know I that I am not an Atheist, for one thing, Atheism without some sort of altruism, leaves only sensation, and gratification. Then one can say, oh yes it is a great civilization, where everyone is guaranteed chemical happiness. Any impulse can be followed if it results in no harm to any other. Where would the great things come from, if there is a chemical uniformity? Is there a need for variation?

In nature, there are these moments that are guaranteed chemical happiness, they are generally attendant to the survival of our species. However they subside because there are a lot of other survival moves that have to be made, which do not take place under high endorphin intoxication. Our consciousness is not a flat playing field, different activities require differing levels of engagement. It has often been postulated that the hunters mind is very different than the gatherers mind. One shoe doesn't fit all.

I think that the description of the ideal world would vary tremendously from one age to another, one gender to another, one culture to another, one religion to another.

Sometime, take some time, and have a daydream, regarding what your ideal would be. Lie back, take some time with this one, and don't hold back. After it is all formed, or forming if you can dream and dissect, then look at this dream. Then delight in seeing what the effect would be on the whole world, if your dreams could come true.

 

[learningphysics]

So, basically, the kind of happiness that is ubiquitous in Brave New World is merely the 'vulgar,' 'giggly' kind of pleasure. It comes at the expense of realizing Seligman's other forms of happiness: eudaemonia and meaning.

There is a prejudice against this type of pleasure, as if it is somehow inferior to the other types, hence the word 'vulgar'. I see no intellectual reason or justification for this. Human beings just seemed conditioned into believing this. Or more likely it is just human vanity, the belief that our works of art, have some intrinsic value.

Pleasure comes from satisfaction of desires whether that desire is to have sex or construct a work of art. There is nothing intrinsically superior to the second type of desire. A work of art has zero intrinsic value. It's the pleasure that it brings that gives it any value.

I'd go as far as saying the pleasure is the same. It is just that the desires are so different, that we take the step towards saying that the quality of pleasure is somehow different.

There has been mention of "productivity" and "social change", as if these things have some value in themselves. Productivity just for the sake of productivity?? Productivity has no intrinsic value. It is the means of achieving goals.

What is the goal of a society? If it isn't the happiness of all its members, what is it?

If a drug brings about exactly the same feelings that a piece of music brings, is there any reason to value the music over the drug?

 

[learningphysics]

selfAdjoint:
To be generous with Huxley, I think I would agree with him on the following:
"If universal happiness requires uniformity of humans, then I won't have it, even if that uniformity can be achieved through peaceful means".

What is the intrinsic value of being "unique" or "special"?

Again, we just happen to have the desire to be "unique" and "special", and hence satisfaction of that desire to be "unique" gives pleasure.

If the desire to be "unique" didn't exist, then there would be no value to being "unique".

 

[Dayle Record]

There is a value difference between the drug, and the music, the drug, and the endorphans from a healthy relationship with self, or another. That is if you want our species to survive.

In monkeys given free access to cocaine, they will no longer eat, hold or feed their young, and will take the cocaine until they die. There is a big difference between this and living.

It is possible with chemical stimulants to trump the highs of existence to such an extent that it is meaningless to participate in reality, however you would like to define that. So a milder dose, seems to be to be not fractionally better. Our species lives variably to the extreme, in the current scenario. In the Brave New World scenario, would we all be fed, before we were fed the drugs?

 

[GeD]

The "happiness leads to stagnation"-argument (from GeD) is another argument I have issues with.
Having personal experience with rather severe depression, I know that one of the first mental faculties to be damaged is the ability to learn, and curiosity is suddenly no longer any sufficient motivator. Rather, a dull, brooding mood oozes forth in your mind which is extremely difficult to drag yourself out of.

I know also that those periods in which I have been personally happy, have also been among my most productive periods in which curiosity and creativity has been high.

So, I simply cannot accept the "happiness/stagnation"-argument.

You mistake "motivated" and "pleased" with one's self with happiness. Happiness (when it is complete) is completecontentment with your situation - you want things to continue the way they are in exactly the same way. Happiness is not simply made up of a feeling, that is just joy or pleasure or even a motivation. Of course, I find myself a better worker when I am feeling good yes, and quite pleasant and not at all in a bad mood. However, I don't mean that every happy feeling is worthless or stagnates people. The real culprit is when one is happy and becomes completely content with what he is. To be content, is to want things to stay the same - to be stagnant.
Although I agree that I do better work when I feel happy and motivated, I also find myself shockingly weak, limited or surprised, whenever I feel "content-happy". That is, content with my skills as they already are.


Secondly, for those who said that the world that is completely happy is one where he has full freedom. Again, that world could not happen (like in ours), simply because not everyone values the same thing, with the same intensity at the same time. If there were multiple, truly all powerful Gods, there would be constant conflict. Thus, it is inevitable that life will always have conflict as long as we are alive and we want our power and freedom. It has already been said, a world with no conflict yet perfect happiness can only occur if there was universal uniformity - were all exactly the same, or we all sacrificed ourselves completely for a certain group or group of beliefs - giving up one's individuality, and suppressing one's instinct for personal power and freedom.

 

[GeD]

Pleasure comes from satisfaction of desires whether that desire is to have sex or construct a work of art. There is nothing intrinsically superior to the second type of desire. A work of art has zero intrinsic value. It's the pleasure that it brings that gives it any value.

I'd go as far as saying the pleasure is the same. It is just that the desires are so different, that we take the step towards saying that the quality of pleasure is somehow different.



If a drug brings about exactly the same feelings that a piece of music brings, is there any reason to value the music over the drug?

Here lies many problems.
Let's just assume that there really is no intrinsic value in anything. We invent our values on thing - depending on what we believe in, and what we need to survive and what we need for our power.
So even if art and music have no intrinsic value other than those we put to it, there's a difference between those things and any other ordinary pleasure giver. Music & art are not just about bringing PLEASURE or AMUSEMENT. Art and music show us a different way of looking at things, a unique VIEW or PERCEPTION of the world - either of phenomenon or of our own will.

 

[learningphysics]

Here lies many problems.
Let's just assume that there really is no intrinsic value in anything. We invent our values on thing - depending on what we believe in, and what we need to survive and what we need for our power.
So even if art and music have no intrinsic value other than those we put to it, there's a difference between those things and any other ordinary pleasure giver. Music & art are not just about bringing PLEASURE or AMUSEMENT. Art and music show us a different way of looking at things, a unique VIEW or PERCEPTION of the world - either of phenomenon or of our own will.

But so what?

Yes, there is a difference. But I only meant that there is no difference in "value" between the two.

Ultimately, IMO, the only thing that has intrinsic value in the universe is pleasure (very generalized including all forms), and the only that has intrinsic disvalue is pain (very generalized including all forms of suffering).

 

[learningphysics]

The real culprit is when one is happy and becomes completely content with what he is. To be content, is to want things to stay the same - to be stagnant.

And why is stagnation a bad thing?

 

[GeD]

Stagnation isn't a "bad" thing, there's no "good" or "bad" because as you said, nothing has no intrinsic value - and that includes 'pleasure'. When you say there is no "intrinsic" value, there is no value to anything outside what we place on it. But it doesn't mean that if we do not value it, that it cannot affect us. It also doesn't mean to say that if something has no intrinsic value, it is worthless to everyone. The values we place on things are what's important - not that things have some kind of universal or objective worth.

Stagnation brings about the inability to deal with future challenges, and may lead into degradation, which would bring about one's destruction in the long run. My concern with it is strictly its tendency to degrade one's power - I have no "moral" concerns with stagnation.

No intrinsic value in power, yet the world will always have differences in power. So for those who are unable or unwilling to 'compete', they will eventually be destroyed or enslaved by those who are stronger. For those who are concerned about power, stagnation will be something to be avoided.

 

[AKG]

I think one major problem with any "stagnation" argument is that it tends to presume that progress for the sake of progress is worthwhile. If people were entirely happy, we may not progress, but that's only because we don't need to progress. If someone has everything they want out of life, there is nothing inherently good in seeking more; insatiability is not a virtue. Why do we progress? Because progress makes us happy, not simply for the sake of progress. So, if we are already happy, "stagnation" is not a bad thing at all.

I also think that arguments like "their happiness is not a true happiness," or "it is a worse level of happiness," seem to be based on nothing. I'm sure that if you enjoy some type of happiness, you won't have any complaints (otherwise, why would it be called happiness?). If there are types of happiness that in fact are more "sophisticated" than others, are these sophisticated types of happiness, for any reason whatsoever, better or truer types of happiness, or is it simply that they're different?

Both arguments are based on a similar premise. It is very common in our culture to value progress for the sake of progress. Progress is in some ways sacred in our culture, almost treated like a religion. Because of this essentially baseless value for progress, the argument that contenment is bad because it leads to stagnation naturally follows. Also, it is the more "unsophisticated" types of happiness (drug use, sexual abandon, hedonism) that hinder progress, and so these types of happiness are seen in a bad light. However, since both argument it seems stem from the premise that progress is inherently good, and since this premise is false (progress is good when it makes us happy, there's no reason why happy people need to progress any further if they are truly satisfied with their lives), I think that neither argument is good.

Now, I think there is something to be said about unsophisticated types of happiness, and that is that they tend to be unstable. Drug use, if it is one's primary means of achieving happiness, tends to become troublesome. Mindless materialism ends up being quite unsatisfying for some, and people either reach a point where they want more but can't achieve it (and are hence disappointed), or they reach what they want, but then continually want more (i.e. once they get those new clothes, they're still not happy until they have the even newer clothes, etc.). Some people on the other hand get the material wealth that they can be satisfied with, and don't crave more. There is also the fact that excessive materialism tends to be unstable on a macro scale, since it tends to create demands on the environment that the environment can't keep pace with. However, it seems to me that in Huxley's world, these problems don't exist. Soma is something people seem to be able to take their whole lives without it ruining their lives. They don't seem to have environmental problems.

So, it seems from this perspective, Huxley's world is not so bad. I think one should perhaps look at it from a different perspective. A lot of people tend to find at some point in their lives that their lives seem meaningless. All the things they do or plan to do: get an education, get a career, get married, have kids, etc. have no intrinsic value. People find that they are headed in a direction dictated by social norms, and based on the values that one's culture has imposed on the individual. When one feels that their values have been subtly forced on them, they develop a feeling of angst, and they feel like rejecting their values.

Also, people tend to be ethnocentric. When looking at another culture, they will view their norms as strange, or may be unable to see meaning in certain traditions that the members of the culture find meaningful. I think Huxley's book should be seen through one of these two perspectives. At Huxley's time, I believe the world around him was changing. Materialism, rationalization, sexual promiscuity, etc. were becoming more prevalent. A new culture was emerging, and from the perspective of the culture he grew up with, the new culture looked distasteful. It may also be that he was rejecting the new common social values simply because they were common, and hence it appeared that people adopted them under the force of culture, i.e. they adopted the new values mindlessly, blindly.

Ethnocentrism is something one ought to avoid when evaluating a culture, so although Huxley's depiction of the Brave New World as bad may have been a poor evaluation, one can see why his evaluation was as it was, and I wouldn't be surprised if people find themselves feeling the same way as he did.

 

[GeD]

I think one major problem with any "stagnation" argument is that it tends to presume that progress for the sake of progress is worthwhile. If people were entirely happy, we may not progress, but that's only because we don't need to progress. If someone has everything they want out of life, there is nothing inherently good in seeking more; insatiability is not a virtue. Why do we progress? Because progress makes us happy, not simply for the sake of progress. So, if we are already happy, "stagnation" is not a bad thing at all.

That assumption isn't really the case for my "stagnation" argument. I don't assume to value furthering the pursuit of progress for the sake of progress. In fact, the idea is that we pursue progress for the sake of security and power - extending and maintaining one's sphere of influence and action with the world around him. It's not about "progress for its own sake". I also don't think of progress as focused primarily on "happiness". Even though some people expect and do get happiness while they progress, I talk about progress for the sake of power.
I've already agreed with you that if people were entirely happy,they feel content and want things to remain the same. But that's why it's dangerous for their power, because eventually, circumstance or someone powerful enough will ruin their happiness at some time or other (by accident or otherwise). The inevitability of conflict and counteraction of different wills are obvious.

Just look at the world we have today. Where fads and products can die out in a matter of months, and be replaced by something new. Where people are fired after a few months work, because someone can do their job cheaper, faster or better. The world is about change, driven by competition, where the strong will come out on top of whatever they do (doesn't just have to be money, or sport, could be anything they are striving for). If you stagnate and be 'happy' with the way things are, you'll stay the same while the people around you pass you by.

 

[AKG]

Neither power for the sake of power nor security for the sake of security are worthwhile goals. It is because power and security promote and stabilize happiness that they have any value. Although it may not be the premise of your argument (and my comments weren't directed at you specifically), people very often say that progress is better than happiness because without progress, we might not have light bulbs and computers. Of course, if we were happy, we wouldn't need light bulbs or computers. I believe happy people existed before the 20th century. Comforts are nice, and do make us happy, but we don't constantly need as many comforts as possible. If we are happy with the quality of life we have, there is no imperative to improve that quality. If you want to, go ahead, but to claim that there is something wrong with not doing anything to improve it is wrong.

There is a difference between doing the work necessary to achieve security, which is one of the most fundamental thing people value (and thus require for happiness), and making "progress" no matter what. Once you achieve a good level of health, it's not as though you stop eating. Once you can bench 200, it is not as though you stop working out, but at the same time, there is no imperative to shoot for 250, even if people are passing you by.

One problem is that you seem to base happiness relative to other people. You're not happy unless you have more than or as much as your neighbour. Some people want things not because of any personal reason for wanting or liking it, but simply because their neighbour has this. People like to call this "ambition." But so what if others pass by you and have more than you? Basing happiness on comparison with other people seems to me a rather shallow measurment of happiness, and moreover, an unstable one. Being "on top" means being on top compared to other humans, but why should I base my happiness on something like that?

Where and if progress is required to ensure security (of the things, people, lifestyle, etc. that make you happy), you are indeed correct that progress is valuable, and stagnation is bad. But progress in general has no inherent value. In fact, someone who is happy but stagnates will lose security, and thus will eventually lose happiness, and it is (yet again) in order to maintain happiness that progress is valuable. So, it is not happiness that is bad because it leads to stagnation (in fact, I don't believe that happiness generally leads to stagnation), but rather stagnation is bad when and if it detracts from happiness.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Without differences of affect from person to person, or from time to time, how could any social change at all ever happen?

Why would it be necessary?

edit: I see that AKG has handled that nicely.

 

[GeD]

Neither power for the sake of power nor security for the sake of security are worthwhile goals.

According to you they are not worthwhile. But they are still necessities of survival, action and freedom.

It is because power and security promote and stabilize happiness that they have any value.

Only if you assume in the first place that happiness is the ultimate goal. You do not consider the possibility that power and security are the goals themselves, and that happiness is only a side effect of such ventures.

Although it may not be the premise of your argument (and my comments weren't directed at you specifically), people very often say that progress is better than happiness because without progress, we might not have light bulbs and computers. Of course, if we were happy, we wouldn't need light bulbs or computers. I believe happy people existed before the 20th century. Comforts are nice, and do make us happy, but we don't constantly need as many comforts as possible. If we are happy with the quality of life we have, there is no imperative to improve that quality. If you want to, go ahead, but to claim that there is something wrong with not doing anything to improve it is wrong.

Again, you continue to attack an argument that I'm not making. I never claimed that there is an error associated with not doing anything to improve something. Your counterargument to progress for the sake of progress is not something that I need to defend - please understand that. I'm saying that if you don't progress, you will be left behind and your interests threatened by those who become more powerful. This is a completely different argument from "we improve just so we get better".

There is a difference between doing the work necessary to achieve security, which is one of the most fundamental thing people value (and thus require for happiness), and making "progress" no matter what. Once you achieve a good level of health, it's not as though you stop eating. Once you can bench 200, it is not as though you stop working out, but at the same time, there is no imperative to shoot for 250, even if people are passing you by.

That is a difference that I focus on myself. However, you keep assuming that I'm arguing for "progress for its own sake" - I am not. The only reason I would argue for progress for its own sake, is for future threats which we are not ready for right now.

One problem is that you seem to base happiness relative to other people.

Never stated this.

You're not happy unless you have more than or as much as your neighbour.

Never stated this. Even if someone ignores his pride, he still needs power.

Some people want things not because of any personal reason for wanting or liking it, but simply because their neighbour has this. People like to call this "ambition." But so what if others pass by you and have more than you?
Basing happiness on comparison with other people seems to me a rather shallow measurment of happiness, and moreover, an unstable one. Being "on top" means being on top compared to other humans, but why should I base my happiness on something like that?

Even for those who have overcome their pride, it is STILL a matter of power. For those that ignore this idea, they purposely stagnate or degrade their power - relying instead on "I am content" or "I am happy with the way I am" arguments.

Where and if progress is required to ensure security (of the things, people, lifestyle, etc. that make you happy), you are indeed correct that progress is valuable, and stagnation is bad.

Hey, there we go.

But progress in general has no inherent value. In fact, someone who is happy but stagnates will lose security, and thus will eventually lose happiness, and it is (yet again) in order to maintain happiness that progress is valuable. So, it is not happiness that is bad because it leads to stagnation (in fact, I don't believe that happiness generally leads to stagnation), but rather stagnation is bad when and if it detracts from happiness.

You return to putting things in my mouth. I never said happiness is bad. I have clearly focused on saying that stagnation itself is bad. But complete happiness is the reason people undertake stagnation in the first place (short of those people that want to be weak and helpless). As it has been shown before, the more complete your happiness is, the more you want things to remain the same - stagnate. Stagnation is bad because of its effects of reducing our power. Stagnation can only detract from happiness, if because of that stagnation, your security or power was undermined.

 

[AKG]

According to you they are not worthwhile. But they are still necessities of survival, action and freedom.

Maybe. At any rate, power for the sake of survival may be more worthwhile, not power for its own sake though.

Only if you assume in the first place that happiness is the ultimate goal. You do not consider the possibility that power and security have uses beyond happiness, and that happiness is only a side effect of such ventures.

This is the type of thing people argue all the time that doesn't make sense. Perhaps, if you see happiness as equivalent to selfish sense-gratification, then happiness may not be the only goal. But otherwise, if you understand happiness as general satisfaction (although "happiness" really is the right word, and it doesn't mean just selfish sense-gratification or just giggly happiness or anything of the sort), then no other goal takes primacy over this one. If power and security did have some other uses, uses that made me miserable, then why the heck would I want them? Or suppose they had some other uses as means to some other ends to which I felt indifferent? Well, given the definition of "indifferent", why would I care about those ends, and using power and security to those ends?

Again, you continue to attack an argument that I'm not making.

No, I specifically said:

"Although it may not be the premise of your argument (and my comments weren't directed at you specifically), people very often say that progress is better than happiness because without progress, we might not have light bulbs and computers."

You even quoted me saying that.

I'm saying that if you don't progress, you will be left behind and your interests threatened by those who become more powerful.

If you don't take proper effort to secure your interests, then you might be headed for misery, but constant progress is not always necessary. Do you not believe that people can enjoy a simple life? Modern Western culture, being characterized by materialism and rationalization, does not surprisingly create a mindset among people that if one does not constantly acquire more and constantly work at peak efficiency that they will lose out. My English teacher in grade 11 or 12 gave us an essay which was a man's personal essay about his father. His father was a simple barber, not rich at all, he had the same shop and did the same job for most of his life, and he was happy. Sure, sometimes "mom and pop" operations lose business, but our culture would have you believe that this is only the case, and that a simpler life cannot lead happiness. The father in this story is by no means the ideal of happiness in Western culture, in fact, you warn strongly against such a lifestyle. On the other hand, one could warn strongly against the rationalized lifestyle, where we have people on BlackBerrys all the time, people always in a rush, stress giving people heart problems, etc. Of course, both representations are gross generalizations, and the notion that progress is always required to survive in this dog-eat-dog world is a result of such a generalization.

The fact is that different things do work for different people. Work is required to maintain security, but constant progress is not imperative. Moreover, although you don't argue this, I will repeat that it is a very common notion that progress itself is inherently good. Progress can be good, but this generalization (that it is inherently good) leads to incorrect ideas of what is best for one in life.

Even for those who have overcome their pride, it is STILL a matter of power. For those that ignore this idea, they purposely stagnate or degrade their power - relying instead on "I am content" or "I am happy with the way I am" arguments.

You believe that there is any reason why, if my neighbours all buy SUVs, that I need to work harder and progress so that I can have one? I assure you, I don't.

You return to putting things in my mouth. I never said happiness is bad. I have clearly focused on saying that stagnation itself is bad. But complete happiness is the reason people undertake stagnation in the first place (short of those people that want to be weak and helpless). As it has been shown before, the more complete your happiness is, the more you want things to remain the same - stagnate.

No, security is a necessary condition for happiness (why do people want peace of mind so badly? why do they have police? why do people buy insurance and security systems?), and in some cases, stagnation is a sufficient condition for insecurity. Therefore, being more happy doesn't mean one is more likely to stagnate, being more happy means that someone is more likely to have security, and having more security normally requires that one doesn't stagnate. Of course, total stagnation is bound to lead to unhappiness (in the extreme, total stagnation means you don't even do enough work to afford food). I'm not advocating stagnation. I'm saying that you have to do work to ensure the security of whatever it is that makes you happy. Sometimes this requires progress, but realistically, there is a level where you can be nicely secure, you don't always have to push for infinite security. If you have a decent job, and a good amount of money saved away, if you live in a good neighbourhood, have good friends and family, life can be nice, it doesn't have to be a competition driven rat race where if you snooze for a minute, everyone will pass you by, gain power and win over you in an inevitable conflict of interests. I believe two people can look out into the world, and one will see it to be much harsher than the other, when all the while the two people are looking at the same world. This has a lot do with sociological and psychological factors, as well as the person's actual circumstances. Regardless, I don't believe that it is in fact the case for all, or even most, that the world is a harsh place and that progress is as vital as you suggest.

 

[GeD]

Maybe. At any rate, power for the sake of survival may be more worthwhile, not power for its own sake though.This is the type of thing people argue all the time that doesn't make sense. Perhaps, if you see happiness as equivalent to selfish sense-gratification, then happiness may not be the only goal. But otherwise, if you understand happiness as general satisfaction (although "happiness" really is the right word, and it doesn't mean just selfish sense-gratification or just giggly happiness or anything of the sort), then no other goal takes primacy over this one. If power and security did have some other uses, uses that made me miserable, then why the heck would I want them? Or suppose they had some other uses as means to some other ends to which I felt indifferent? Well, given the definition of "indifferent", why would I care about those ends, and using power and security to those ends?

I understand that your definition of happiness is not some simplistic feeling or some other. But again, the possibility is serious. I'm also not attacking that we want to be generally satisfied. General satisfaction is exactly what one goes for even if they are willing power. If this is what you meant, then I can agree, but must argue that the focus of such satisfaction will come from power - victory of the strongest (not necessarily by physical means). Also, even if this is the case, the level of general satisfaction is never unchanging. Thus, there will always be a constant need to increase satisfaction - there is no "complete satisfaction" - the demands always increase.
If on the other hand, your point was happiness itself, then considering the standard use of happiness involves pleasure, the accomplishment of desired goals/projects and of course, satisfying the needs of the body. In this sense, complete happiness could never be fully satisfied until one is content with his position at some time or other. And this involves stagnation, until either a man feels the drive for competition again, or he lowers his standards so that he feels content again.

No, I specifically said:

"Although it may not be the premise of your argument (and my comments weren't directed at you specifically), people very often say that progress is better than happiness because without progress, we might not have light bulbs and computers."

Sorry I missed that, but if we both agree that progress for the sake of progress is not a very good argument, then it's kind of worthless in our mini-debate.

You even quoted me saying that.If you don't take proper effort to secure your interests, then you might be headed for misery, but constant progress is not always necessary. Do you not believe that people can enjoy a simple life? Modern Western culture, being characterized by materialism and rationalization, does not surprisingly create a mindset among people that if one does not constantly acquire more and constantly work at peak efficiency that they will lose out.

You mistake progress with materialism here. The progress I talk of is POWER, accumulation of things would only have use if it was for power.

My English teacher in grade 11 or 12 gave us an essay which was a man's personal essay about his father. His father was a simple barber, not rich at all, he had the same shop and did the same job for most of his life, and he was happy. Sure, sometimes "mom and pop" operations lose business, but our culture would have you believe that this is only the case, and that a simpler life cannot lead happiness.

And it's also our culture to have you believe that happiness is what all the more influential people are working for. But to those who will power, the 'simple' and 'complex' life are all the same - just different rules and requirements.

The fact is that different things do work for different people. Work is required to maintain security, but constant progress is not imperative.

Work is required to maintain security, because conditions change. But progress is inevitably required to keep the security in the long run, not to mention, one wants to further his influence on people - power. This is the significant point: security is just the first step - going beyond security is always going to follow. It's this mistaken view of life that people continue to ignore. Most people don't go around thinking, "Oh, once I'm secure, I'm just going to maintain what I have." Most people always want to be better, more influential - to increase their power. Or if you want to think of it pessimistically, no one really feels secure, and thus must continue to increase their power. Semblance of security and of course base survival are just the more pressing and immediate steps that need to be taken, but deeper within himself a person always wants to get more and more.

No, security is a necessary condition for happiness (why do people want peace of mind so badly? why do they have police? why do people buy insurance and security systems?), and in some cases, stagnation is a sufficient condition for insecurity. Therefore, being more happy doesn't mean one is more likely to stagnate, being more happy means that someone is more likely to have security, and having more security normally requires that one doesn't stagnate.

The part about stagnation being a sufficient condition for insecurity is a good point. It shows you that happiness is neither static nor complete. But this is the same point you made before, and I only agree with you if this happiness is the general satisfaction dealio, not the standard understanding of happiness. And if you do mean general satisfaction, then I argue that the person's level of satisfaction is determined by their level of power.

Of course, total stagnation is bound to lead to unhappiness (in the extreme, total stagnation means you don't even do enough work to afford food). I'm not advocating stagnation. I'm saying that you have to do work to ensure the security of whatever it is that makes you happy. Sometimes this requires progress, but realistically, there is a level where you can be nicely secure, you don't always have to push for infinite security.

It's not infinite security that I talk about - you're just making the same point about "progress for the sake of progress" here. You must understand that my argument is about increasing one's power - feeling the competition and willing to defeat it. Thus, the goal isn't about having infinite power - but of victory over those weaker than himself (and I don't mean just simple brute physical victories, even if that may be one drive for power).

If you have a decent job, and a good amount of money saved away, if you live in a good neighbourhood, have good friends and family, life can be nice, it doesn't have to be a competition driven rat race where if you snooze for a minute, everyone will pass you by, gain power and win over you in an inevitable conflict of interests.

Of course you don't need to be competition driven for such things. But you have again changed 'happiness' from general satisfaction, to the standard use of happiness (some static goal where you are "happy" and "content").

You don't quite understand it, but I have observed that you oscillate between "general satisfaction" and reaching "happiness". I see this phenomenon in people all the time - a fight in themselves between:

-the will that is tired of laboring for security & the need for contentment.

versus

-the will that follows the instinct for power and looks only to increase it.

I believe two people can look out into the world, and one will see it to be much harsher than the other, when all the while the two people are looking at the same world. This has a lot do with sociological and psychological factors, as well as the person's actual circumstances. Regardless, I don't believe that it is in fact the case for all, or even most, that the world is a harsh place and that progress is as vital as you suggest.

At least for those who seek power (and not just contentment), they do not see the world as being harsh or cruel. Only those who feel tired with life would see the constant drive by competition as harsh or cruel. If one sees things only as a matter of power, the 'harshness' of the world is a only a reminder of the tough conditions and the fragility of life. And THAT drives their will to even more power.
When people or societies "make the world a better place", it is work for the future - a legacy that makes life less fragile, its conditions less difficult (not as many life or death decisions), and by not wasting life for worthless conflicts. But this does not erase that conflict will always be there, and that power is still the primary drive.

 

[AKG]

I understand that your definition of happiness is not some simplistic feeling or some other. But again, the possibility is serious. I'm also not attacking that we want to be generally satisfied. General satisfaction is exactly what one goes for even if they are willing power. If this is what you meant, then I can agree, but must argue that the focus of such satisfaction will come from power - victory of the strongest (not necessarily by physical means).

This may be the case for some people, who measure fulfilment in terms of power, but I don't think you can claim that this is what all humans want, and thus why progress is needed. In fact, although I know of some people who focus their lives on increasing power, the majority of people I know are not like this. Some people I know are focused on spirituality, having friends and good health. Others are interested in pleasure, and having a good time. A guy at my gym recently quit his job because if he were to move up (and have more power) he would have to move into a more administrative job, and he enjoyed doing research. There are people I know who are concerned with power, and like to feel in control and show that they are in control, but these people are just one type of the wide variety of people that there are. Power is certainly not the main focus of satisfaction among people I know, and is probably even insignificant in most people.

Also, even if this is the case, the level of general satisfaction is never unchanging.

That is a contradiction in terms. If you reach a level of satisfaction and then want more, then you haven't really reached satisfaction, have you? You haven't been satiated, rather, you are in a sense, insatiable.

If on the other hand, your point was happiness itself, then considering the standard use of happiness involves pleasure, the accomplishment of desired goals/projects and of course, satisfying the needs of the body. In this sense, complete happiness could never be fully satisfied until one is content with his position at some time or other. And this involves stagnation, until either a man feels the drive for competition again, or he lowers his standards so that he feels content again.

You are forgetting security, as it is fundamental to happiness (along with fulfillment of desires, etc.). Yes, once a person has reached his standards in terms of desire fulfilment, security, etc. he is satisfied, and there is no need for more. Why would there be? I don't know why you're commiting yourself to a view that makes it theoretically impossible to ever be satisfied, because the facts are that people have existed that have felt satisfied.

And it's also our culture to have you believe that happiness is what all the more influential people are working for. But to those who will power, the 'simple' and 'complex' life are all the same - just different rules and requirements.

That's not the case at all. Most people have very strong reactions when I suggest that happiness is the prime goal, just as you have displayed. Some people recognize that things like power, intellectual pursuits, progress, etc. are pointless if they don't make me happy (What's so great about power anyways? Power for the sake of power? Or power because it satisfies some of your desires, i.e. makes you happy? What if power made you miserable, or had no effect on you? Then what in the world would you want it for?), and some continue to resist, and insist that things have inherent value, and whether they make us happy or not is irrelevant.

Work is required to maintain security, because conditions change. But progress is inevitably required to keep the security in the long run, not to mention, one wants to further his influence on people - power.

Perhaps you want to further your influence. Myself, and most people I know, couldn't really care less about this.

And if progress is required to maintain security, and since security is required to maintain happiness, then progress is required to maintain happiness, and so to say that maintained happiness leads to stagnation is evidently a contradiction. Given these premises (the "since" one I accept, and the "if" one you accept, and I accept to a degree), maintaining happiness requires progress, and thus cannot lead to stagnation.

The part about stagnation being a sufficient condition for insecurity is a good point. It shows you that happiness is neither static nor complete.

Happiness requires work (and in that sense, it is not static, i.e. you can't stop eating after recovering from a famine and expect things to remain good), but that doesn't make it "incomplete."

But this is the same point you made before, and I only agree with you if this happiness is the general satisfaction dealio, not the standard understanding of happiness.

Could you think of a better word for "general satisfaction" other than "happiness"? "Bliss" sounds too strong and/or spiritual.

And if you do mean general satisfaction, then I argue that the person's level of satisfaction is determined by their level of power.

I do indeed mean general satisfaction, and facts abound to show that in many people, if not most, this has little to do with their level of power. My father, who was moving up in his company very quickly retired 12 or so years ago. At that time, IT people and programmers were in high demand and relatively short supply, and he was able to get a lot of power and money relatively fast, and thus was able to retire when the opportunity presented itself at a relatively young age. He spends a lot of his time meditating, doing yoga, discussing spirituality etc. with his friends and groups he finds on the internet, etc. He gave up quite a bit of power, prestige, income, etc. for simpler things. In fact, even some of the greediest people I know tell me that for them, an ideal life would consist of time spent alone with their spouse enjoying lots of luxury. Material comfort motivates some, spirituality and health motivates others, and the two groups are on opposite ends of the spectrum, but neither make any reference to power. To be honest, people whose satisfaction has any significant relation to their power over others are a special case amongst people I know. And it's not as though I'm surrounded by hippies or anything. I go to school at a large university, I work in retail in the mall, I go to the gym. Normal places where you meet normal people. If people really were as power hungry as you make them out to be, then I must conclude that I live in a Savage Reservation where all the non-power-hungry people are placed, and that the reality I live in is not representative of the real reality you live in.

Of course you don't need to be competition driven for such things. But you have again changed 'happiness' from general satisfaction, to the standard use of happiness (some static goal where you are "happy" and "content").

Happiness is general satisfaction. For some, this is more static, and implies contentment, for some who feel a constant craving for power, they (or anyone who feels a constant craving for anything) never have general satisfaction, by definition of satisfaction.

 

[GeD]

-Some pursue happiness, some pursue power. That's why I was saying that some pursue happiness as goals, while some pursue happiness as the general satisfaction (via power). Regardless, most people would take an opportunity to further their influence - the phenomenon is present right now, as we try to showcase our views. If we weren't trying to spread the influence of our ideas or sharing them with people so they can be improved by their criticism, then we'd just be writing to ourselves. Of course, I am not saying that we try to improve our influence in every single way - because there are some things we just ignore or don't have the time for. You mistake power or influence as simply an economic or political control. But one can have power over people for certain aspects, yet have little in others (ie. a marine biologist would have a lot of influence in the field of marine biology, but perhaps not that much influence in the field of philosophy or in F-1 racing).

-The instinct for power wants to expend one's strength to extend one's sphere of influence and action. Some who follow that instinct find that happiness either insufficient or fleeting. The reason some find that happiness to be insufficient is that the instinct for power calls on them again. Drawing them away from their reasonably well-established goals of happiness, and in return strive for new goals that are to be achieved to satisfy that craving for more power. On the other hand, others may suppress the instinct and pursue 'happiness' and contentment - specific end goals. Those who have suppressed their instinct for power choose to lower their standards so that they continue to feel content, without having to progress their methods.
Thus, a person either wills himself to more power - even if it is only at the level of increasing influence in his own "normal" environment, or a person wills himself to be content with what he has.



-The point is that once contentment is reached, people would do exactly the same things as before (eat, brush his teeth, mow the lawn, whatever), up to the point when their efforts become insufficient to deal with outside factors that threaten their contentment (ie. other people, other things, recent events, new ideas, etc).

-Once securing happiness has extra or different requirements that must be met, people react in one of two ways. They can try to fight off the outside factors, or just try to ensure contentment. If they were focused on happiness, and did not care about losing to the threats of the outside factors, then they would simply focus on lowering their standards to feel content. But some people react and work to secure their happiness, because they want to fight for what they value - they do not want to make concessions and lose. The principle of power is again invoked here - victory for the stronger (wherein one hopes to be the stronger). When they feel the outside factors attacking their interests, they seek more power to defeat such factors because they can no longer hold off the competition with the older methods. They need to progress their methods because they choose victory, not concessions. If the goal were simply to be content, then they would not fight or attempt to overcome the competition. They would simply lower their standards instead.

-Therefore, my focus as the real culprit here is that the need for contentment leads to stagnation (even the "power hungry" can feel content at times, but they do not stay there). I am not attacking people's attempts for general satisfaction. It's just that if happiness (contentment) were the main focus of the person in question, they would slowly lower their standards whenever the conditions for happiness changed or became tougher. But for those who fight for their 'happiness', it must come from the fundamental drive for power. Because they want their ventures to succeed (victory), they seek to extend their sphere of influence and action. Because of this, the will for power is not just an endless attempt at progress for the sake of progress, it is progress for the sake of victory.

...Happiness is general satisfaction. For some, this is more static, and implies contentment, for some who feel a constant craving for power, they (or anyone who feels a constant craving for anything) never have general satisfaction, by definition of satisfaction.

That is a contradiction in terms. If you reach a level of satisfaction and then want more, then you haven't really reached satisfaction, have you? You haven't been satiated, rather, you are in a sense, insatiable.

Only if satisfaction is strictly defined as a static goal or end state. But as you've said before, general satisfaction is not static. The "journey" or the "adventure" of having satisfaction with their ventures is itself "general satisfaction".

 

[learningphysics]

-Once securing happiness has extra or different requirements that must be met, people react in one of two ways. They can try to fight off the outside factors, or just try to ensure contentment. If they were focused on happiness, and did not care about losing to the threats of the outside factors, then they would simply focus on lowering their standards to feel content. But some people react and work to secure their happiness, because they want to fight for what they value - they do not want to make concessions and lose. The principle of power is again invoked here - victory for the stronger (wherein one hopes to be the stronger). When they feel the outside factors attacking their interests, they seek more power to defeat such factors because they can no longer hold off the competition with the older methods. They need to progress their methods because they choose victory, not concessions. If the goal were simply to be content, then they would not fight or attempt to overcome the competition. They would simply lower their standards instead.

But lowering your standards is not so easy. We have a conditioned set of desires and aversions. We desire food, shelter entertainment etc... We can overcome some of these desires and be content with our lot. But only to a certain degree. You'd need to be a buddha to lower your standards indefinitely. I'd love to be able to do this, but I can't. I know I won't be happy unless I have a particular standard of living, a particular set of possessions. The need for happiness is still primary. Power is just a subsidiary goal for the primary goal of happiness. A lot of people feel this way. Unfortunately they are not simply able to lower their standards because certain desires are so strong.