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!"

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.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

i Think happines isn't a goal to achieve, or something to pursue. Ussualy when a person thinks of happiness you think that it is the meaning of life, what you are living for, and what syou should try to catch up with. many people think that, as I used to. But then, I realized that happines isn't that. It isn't a point were you get to in life, not even a place were you don't get to, happines is something that occurs, completely and absolutely unpredicibly, that happens maybe caused by you, but in-direclty, becuase you can't cause happines directly, you can help it to happen, but the last moment, what creates hapiness, is over our knawledge and powers. Happines is really what we use to describe moments, a special, very special kind of moments that can take for seconds, minutes, or maybe hours, but not much more. (days, if you are extremely happy). But many times when we think we are happy, we aren't.

Maybe the above paragraph doesn't seem to have relationship with this thread's theam, but now I will explain it.

What do we mean when we talk about a world were everybody is happy, in the most profound and precise way. We mean, that everybody is ok with everything and everybody. But, this leads my thinkings to a paradox...
What if someone leaving in the 100% happy world, isn't happy because that person doesn't agree with everybody being happy? Then, automatically, the world isn't completely happy. If the world we talk about, has everybody completely happy (not true happines, but the hapines that our own brain and mind creates in most of the ocasions we think that we are happy, and we don't notice the diference (nearly) becuase the brain reproduce the happy sensation really well ( it si a soort of happines cloning) then we would never notice, and there would be nobody that would be against of everybody being happy (the true one). But know, what would happened if a person in this new world was against everybody being happy (in the sense of mental happines)? That that person wouldn't be mentally happy, so the world wouldn't be completely happy.

and anyway, true happines , as I said in the beggining, is based in moments in which you have that feeling. So a world were everybody is happy could only be, for a moment. and for a moment to hap`pen, were nearly 6.5 billion people are happy at the same time, isn't very probable. you can ask in the probability forum.

Sumurising what I basically think, happines, if real, is based in moments, if happines is fake, it is a creation of our minds, and we don't notice, a world with true happiness or fake happiness is improbable, and it would only be a moment long.

 

[AKG]

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).

Agreed.

Regardless, most people would take an opportunity to further their influence

If power is handed to someone, most people will not reject it. But this is far from saying that power is the main focus of one's ideas of satisfaction. It doesn't take a real drive to accept something handed to you. What you need to show is that most people willingly strive to create opportunities to achieve power for themselves, and the people I know, by and large, do not do this, not with nearly enough fervency to say that power is anywhere close to the top of their lists.

...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.

I am sharing my views so that they can be improved by their criticism, I have no desire to "spread my influence." You can't just sneak that in there.

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.

They are unhappy with happiness? I suppose you mean that they are unsatisfied with happiness, where happiness means something else to you.

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.

These are some rather strong claims. Can you show that all or most people have an instinctual craving for power, and that those who do not act as if they do have this craving are suppressing it? I think all people naturally want to feel good. That's what feeling good is about. For some people, the path to feeling good is something that requires one to continually increase his power over others. For others, this means continually acquiring more luxury and wealth, for others, this means spending lots of time with friends and family, etc. It's not as though one way is the natural, instinctual way for all and the rest of us are suppressing ourselves.

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.

A person doesn't necessarily have to will himself to be happy with what he has. He might be satisfied with it. For some people, it requires an act of will to prevent oneself from getting caught up in endless materialism, for example. The will required depends on the person.

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).

No, they wouldn't. Why would they? Do people who become happy slowly become ignorant to the threats that are around them (and the threats are not as prevalent as you make them out to be, at least not in my world)?

They can try to fight off the outside factors, or just try to ensure contentment.

Wouldn't you have to fight outside factors 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.

You make it sound as though these people have lost their minds and are on drugs, i.e. that these happy people are incapable of doing the work required to secure their happiness.

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).

This is wrong. People will work to secure their happiness. This has little to do with power. I'm speaking based on real life. Securing happiness does not always require perpetually increasing one's influence over others. This is simply not the case. You would have us believe it is, but I can see no reason to believe it. Your advice may be good for members of the mafia. In such an unsecure world, one has to continually ensure his power increases, or he'll be passed by and crushed, or ratted on if he loses control of those under him. But this is simply not the case for all people, and I would suggest that it is not the case for most people.

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.

You make the world sound like a battlefield. As though my interests are always being threatened. They're not, and the same goes for my family. Sure, there are sometimes conflicts of interest and conflicts of power, but you make this seem to be the central focus of individual and social life. And if you do nothing but read the papers and watch the news all day, this may seem to be the case, but it's not.

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.

So? What's the problem with that?

 

[GeD]

Agreed.If power is handed to someone, most people will not reject it. But this is far from saying that power is the main focus of one's ideas of satisfaction. It doesn't take a real drive to accept something handed to you. What you need to show is that most people willingly strive to create opportunities to achieve power for themselves, and the people I know, by and large, do not do this, not with nearly enough fervency to say that power is anywhere close to the top of their lists.

If it is obvious that someone would take an opportunity for more power if it was present, when else would you take power? When there is no opportunity - when you can't take the power? It makes no sense to say that just because no one is seeking power in every single action, that it is no longer a fundamental drive. It would be like saying that since we do not need to choose survival or death in every decision, that it is not a fundamental drive.

I am sharing my views so that they can be improved by their criticism, I have no desire to "spread my influence." You can't just sneak that in there.

Why speak about your own views, if you think that it's worthless to do so, or you don't care about showing your view to anyone else? Just because people don't like to sound egoistic, doesn't mean that it's not happening.

They are unhappy with happiness? I suppose you mean that they are unsatisfied with happiness, where happiness means something else to you.

No, I said happiness can be found insufficient or fleeting. Once someone reaches a certain level of happiness, somewant more, or that there's something else to be achieved - etc. So in a sense, yes, unsatisfied with happiness - some find that their requirements for happiness is changing (as we have talked about before) and is therefore fleeting.

These are some rather strong claims. Can you show that all or most people have an instinctual craving for power, and that those who do not act as if they do have this craving are suppressing it? I think all people naturally want to feel good. That's what feeling good is about. For some people, the path to feeling good is something that requires one to continually increase his power over others. For others, this means continually acquiring more luxury and wealth, for others, this means spending lots of time with friends and family, etc. It's not as though one way is the natural, instinctual way for all and the rest of us are suppressing ourselves.

I never said that all people crave power - as we've agreed already, some pursue happiness, some pursue power. If one suppresses the instinct for power, it is no longer an action of instinct - although it is still quite human. It's simply a matter of seeking power, or seeking contentment. If it will put your mind at ease, I'll just point out that very few people, if any, are complete focused on power or contentment. But for those who do, the two aims are shown clearly for all to see.

A person doesn't necessarily have to will himself to be happy with what he has. He might be satisfied with it. For some people, it requires an act of will to prevent oneself from getting caught up in endless materialism, for example. The will required depends on the person.

Who said anything about people necessarily willing themselves to be happy with what he has? As we've already agreed, some pursue power, some pursue contentment. That doesn't mean that those who pursue power NEVER feel happy and are always miserable.

No, they wouldn't. Why would they? Do people who become happy slowly become ignorant to the threats that are around them (and the threats are not as prevalent as you make them out to be, at least not in my world)?

Yes, they are slowly ignorant of the threats, but some people choose not to lower their standards just so they can stay content. Some people eventually feel the call of the competition posed by the threats and will victory over such threats.

Wouldn't you have to fight outside factors to ensure contentment?

They fight outside factors to ensure general satisfaction (your definition of happiness) - not contentment. Contentment is the static happiness, "I want things to stay the same." Even when you believe that you are trying to be content, you choose to fight for your values - over being content. Thus, you seek victory over things that threaten it, and you will power.

You make it sound as though these people have lost their minds and are on drugs, i.e. that these happy people are incapable of doing the work required to secure their happiness.

Only because you associate those who go for contentment with drug-addicted people. However, many people (including yourself), still follow the instinct for power (at least sometimes). But because you've focused it in your mind that your noblest goal is "happiness", you cannot see the fundamental drive for power.

This is wrong. People will work to secure their happiness. This has little to do with power. I'm speaking based on real life. Securing happiness does not always require perpetually increasing one's influence over others. This is simply not the case. You would have us believe it is, but I can see no reason to believe it. Your advice may be good for members of the mafia. In such an unsecure world, one has to continually ensure his power increases, or he'll be passed by and crushed, or ratted on if he loses control of those under him. But this is simply not the case for all people, and I would suggest that it is not the case for most people.

That's only because you continue to think of power as simple economic, political or physical strength. You don't understand that influence is something that most people deal with, trade with and attempt to endow upon others everyday. This doesn't mean that everyone is focused on influence, some are too preoccupied with finding contentment wherever they can find it.

You make the world sound like a battlefield. As though my interests are always being threatened. They're not, and the same goes for my family. Sure, there are sometimes conflicts of interest and conflicts of power, but you make this seem to be the central focus of individual and social life. And if you do nothing but read the papers and watch the news all day, this may seem to be the case, but it's not.

The world is not a battlefield, but its definitely based on competition and overcoming. Your interests are secure, yes, because you have the power to defend it.

So? What's the problem with that?

Slowly lowering one's standards and letting others dictate one's standards is not a problem...for those who seek contentment. If someone wishes to follow this line of thought, I say to them, "Feel free to do so, and watch as the things you value are forced to waste away for the sake of being content."

I know of many who follow this creed, and I must say - they are quite content.

 

[learningphysics]

Drive for power

Is the drive for power just for the sake of having power?

Is it rational to seek power even if it doesn't bring happiness?

It is undeniable that there is a desire for power, just as there is a desire to eat sleep or any other desire.

The question is should we satisfy this desire for power. Why? Why not?

We have many desires that we do not satisfy. What criteria do we use to decide which desires to satisfy and which not to?

What I've found is that few people pursue happiness as a goal. They try to satisfy their desires, and satisfaction of desires automatically brings pleasure. They are not intellectually thinking: if I do so and so then pleasure will arrive, so I will do it. The desires are simply there and people pursue them.

What many people don't see is that the object of desire has no value in itself... it is the pleasure that it brings that makes it good.

 

[AKG]

If it is obvious that someone would take an opportunity for more power if it was present, when else would you take power? When there is no opportunity - when you can't take the power? It makes no sense to say that just because no one is seeking power in every single action, that it is no longer a fundamental drive. It would be like saying that since we do not need to choose survival or death in every decision, that it is not a fundamental drive.

You missed the point. I wasn't showing that it wasn't a fundamental drive, I was showing that you didn't show that it was. You said that people, given the opportunity for power, will take it. This isn't the case, but even assuming it were (perhaps it is most of the time), that doesn't establish that there is a drive for power. All it establishes is that power is not like sewage or grass flavoured ice-cream, things that people would take if given the opportunity. I said specifically that you have not shown that people actually have a drive to create opportunities to achieve power, you have only shown that people will accept it when it's placed in their laps. In fact, just re-read what the paragraph you quoted.

Why speak about your own views, if you think that it's worthless to do so, or you don't care about showing your view to anyone else? Just because people don't like to sound egoistic, doesn't mean that it's not happening.

Who are you trying to gain power over by engaging in this discussion? I can honestly tell you I am not in this discussion to gain any sort of power. Even if I'm being egoistic, and am just in this to read my own words or show off or any other such egoistic thing, what has that to do with power? Who am I going to have power over?

No, I said happiness can be found insufficient or fleeting. Once someone reaches a certain level of happiness, somewant more, or that there's something else to be achieved - etc. So in a sense, yes, unsatisfied with happiness - some find that their requirements for happiness is changing (as we have talked about before) and is therefore fleeting.

Yes, when requirements keep increasing, that's called insatiability, a lack of satisfaction (happiness). This doesn't mean happiness is a fleeting or insufficient goal, it means that the sense of happiness is fleeting (temporary) because one is insatiable, one never has enough to be satisfied. There is nothing good about never feeling satisfied, it's like always feeling hungry. To say happiness is insufficient is to say that it's not enough to feel good about life. What else is there? To feel bad, or to feel indifferent? No, feeling good is enough. You make it sound as though there is an alternative that is just as good as happiness but doesn't require happiness, i.e. there is a better alternative to life aside from feeling good, that doesn't include feeling good.

I think you're confusing things like happiness with things like power. Power is what makes some people feel good. Family life is what makes others feel good. And there is material wealth, comfort, luxury, spirituality, good health, good friends, etc. These are all things that people value, and when they achieve them, they feel good, and this good feeling that you get from getting what you value is what I call happiness, or general satisfaction. For some, power is an alternative to intellectual pursuits, and for some, luxury is an alternative to spirituality. Some may value sensual pleasures, and find that after achieving them, the sense of happiness does not persist, and so their values change, and good health becomes a value, it becomes what one pursues to become happy.

Power makes some people happy. You make it sound as though happiness doesn't make people happy, so power is a better, instinctual alternative to this. Feeling good is why anyone does anything, mostly. Power, if it doesn't make you feel good, i.e. if it doesn't make you happy, is pointless. You haven't answered the question: why pursue power if you think it will make you miserable, or if you're indifferent to its effects? Naturally, there is absolutely no reason for this. It's only because you expect either power or the effects of having power to make you feel good that you bother pursuing it.

So, to claim that happiness is insufficient is to claim that one needs to choose a path in life that does not make you feel good, and this is absurd. Power is not an alternative to happiness, it's like saying apples are an alternative to good health. Power only comes into question when asking: what is it that makes me feel good?

Is it constant achievement and victory?
Is it power?
Is it an intimate relationship?
etc.

We then need to ask the practical questions:

Will achieving these things I value really make me happy, or, perhaps, is my belief that these things will make me happy a mistaken prediction?
Are these values sustainable, i.e. after achieving these things, will they suffice, or will the feeling of happiness that comes from these things be fleeting?
Are these values realistically achievable, or have I set my hopes so high that I can never feel good?

I never said that all people crave power - as we've agreed already, some pursue happiness, some pursue power.

I think all pursue happiness (all people want to feel good, as I said, that's what feeling good is about, it's that feeling you want to have), some choose to achieve it through power because they value power. Most people I know don't value power, i.e. it is not their main value, and hence not their main focus in their pursuit of happiness (general satisfaction, feeling good), but maybe you and others really are like this.

Who said anything about people necessarily willing themselves to be happy with what he has?

Well, you claimed that one either wills himself to power or wills himself to accept a static or lower standard. I claimed that some may not need to will themselves to a lower standard. For example, some may have to willingly force themselves to accept a life with limited luxuries, others might reach that stage of limited luxuries and naturally be happy, i.e. no will is required to force the desire for more luxuries down. As I said, it depends on the person.

Yes, they are slowly ignorant of the threats

Really? I don't believe it.

Only because you associate those who go for contentment with drug-addicted people. However, many people (including yourself), still follow the instinct for power (at least sometimes). But because you've focused it in your mind that your noblest goal is "happiness", you cannot see the fundamental drive for power.

I don't associate content people with drug-addicted people. You make them sound that way because you make it sound like they become too stupid to defend themselves. Content doesn't mean lazy, or constantly in a state of blissful stupor. It just means that they don't desire to have more power, money, friends, lovers, property, etc. And I don't say that happiness is the noblest goal, I simply say that people want to feel good, and that's more or less tautology. For some people, there is a drive for power, because it makes them feel good. Maybe it's in you, but how can you claim it's in other people? You claim that others supress it. I could also claim that all men want to rape their mothers, but they all just suppress it, and the ones that actually do it are the one's who are not suppressing this fundamental, instinctual drive. Your position is unfalsifiable.

That's only because you continue to think of power as simple economic, political or physical strength.

No, not in the slightest.

You don't understand that influence is something that most people deal with, trade with and attempt to endow upon others everyday. This doesn't mean that everyone is focused on influence, some are too preoccupied with finding contentment wherever they can find it.

It sounds as though you're equating power with any sort of action. If I make any sort of action to secure what I want, then this is based on a drive for power?

The world is not a battlefield, but its definitely based on competition and overcoming. Your interests are secure, yes, because you have the power to defend it.

Okay, what's the point?

 

[AKG]

Is the drive for power just for the sake of having power?

Is it rational to seek power even if it doesn't bring happiness?

It is undeniable that there is a desire for power, just as there is a desire to eat sleep or any other desire.

The question is should we satisfy this desire for power. Why? Why not?

We have many desires that we do not satisfy. What criteria do we use to decide which desires to satisfy and which not to?

What I've found is that few people pursue happiness as a goal. They try to satisfy their desires, and satisfaction of desires automatically brings pleasure. They are not intellectually thinking: if I do so and so then pleasure will arrive, so I will do it. The desires are simply there and people pursue them.

What many people don't see is that the object of desire has no value in itself... it is the pleasure that it brings that makes it good.

Well put, and I agree.

What criteria do we use to decide which desires to satisfy and which not to?

I think some of the questions I mentioned in the post above address this to some degree. We need to ask ourselves:

• Will achieving these things I value (desire) really make me happy, or, perhaps, is my belief that these things will make me happy a mistaken prediction?
• Are these values (desired things, relationships, states of being, etc.) sustainable, i.e. after achieving these things, will they suffice, or will the feeling of happiness that comes from these things be fleeting?
• Are these values (desires) realistically achievable (satisfiable), or have I set my hopes so high that I can never feel good?

What do you think?

 

[GeD]

You make it sound as though there is an alternative that is just as good as happiness but doesn't require happiness, i.e. there is a better alternative to life aside from feeling good, that doesn't include feeling good.

I'm not saying that there's an alternate to general satisfaction. I agree that we are seeking general satisfaction, but that for some people it is an attempt to work/fight for your values - that is willing power. Some people deal with feeling content with their situation as it is, then that is willing contentment.

I think you're confusing things like happiness with things like power. Power is what makes some people feel good. Family life is what makes others feel good. And there is material wealth, comfort, luxury, spirituality, good health, good friends, etc. These are all things that people value, and when they achieve them, they feel good, and this good feeling that you get from getting what you value is what I call happiness, or general satisfaction. For some, power is an alternative to intellectual pursuits, and for some, luxury is an alternative to spirituality. Some may value sensual pleasures, and find that after achieving them, the sense of happiness does not persist, and so their values change, and good health becomes a value, it becomes what one pursues to become happy.

My definition of power is not based on its pleasurable outcomes. You still don't understand what I'm saying. It's not power for the sake of pleasures. The seeking and then working for one's values IS willing power.

Power, if it doesn't make you feel good, i.e. if it doesn't make you happy, is pointless. You haven't answered the question: why pursue power if you think it will make you miserable, or if you're indifferent to its effects? Naturally, there is absolutely no reason for this. It's only because you expect either power or the effects of having power to make you feel good that you bother pursuing it.

Because you still haven't differentiated between what I'm attacking, and what you claim is happiness. Your happiness is general satisfaction - I am attacking contentment. Thus, when you say, "if power makes you miserable, why do it...etc", it just doesn't make sense. The reason you pursue certain forms of power IS the pursuit of a certain form of general satisfaction.
You keep thinking that I'm just "hiding" some idea that I really just want people to all be dictator-like and control people. You think of influence in such one-dimensional terms, that you mistake the whole concept. When you influence family and friends, are you CONTROLLING their lives? It seems like you think power must always be about making a puppet out of those who you influence. This does not mean that power is not about controlling, because power can still be about controlling.

So, to claim that happiness is insufficient is to claim that one needs to choose a path in life that does not make you feel good, and this is absurd. Power is not an alternative to happiness, it's like saying apples are an alternative to good health. Power only comes into question when asking: what is it that makes me feel good?

When I state happiness is insufficient, it is that since the definition of my general satisfaction is not static, the requirements must either change or increase. And thus general satisfaction is fleeting or insufficient, but it can and is being achieved. I've already told you COUNTLESS times, I don't attack general satisfaction as the mode of people. I attack what the other thing you still continue to defend - the will to contentment (even thought it is one kind of general satisfaction).

Will achieving these things I value really make me happy, or, perhaps, is my belief that these things will make me happy a mistaken prediction?
Are these values sustainable, i.e. after achieving these things, will they suffice, or will the feeling of happiness that comes from these things be fleeting?

Why does general satisfaction have to always "feel" satisfactory? General satisfaction is general - it involves satisfaction over the whole. But individual events may not feel satisfying - because it may physically or emotionally feel bad. But even those hurtful parts constitute one's life and thus all of it is part of the general satisfaction one has.

Most people I know don't value power, i.e. it is not their main value, and hence not their main focus in their pursuit of happiness (general satisfaction, feeling good), but maybe you and others really are like this.

Of course most people don't value power per se, because they associate it with thugs and dictators, and generally using understand the definition of power that is not what I've been talking about. What I claim is that their will to victory is the will to power (ie. for things that they value, which could include peace or helping sick children). If someone values and works for peace, they want victory for peace (they want victory for their cause/event/achievement) - thus they are willing power.

Well, you claimed that one either wills himself to power or wills himself to accept a static or lower standard. I claimed that some may not need to will themselves to a lower standard. For example, some may have to willingly force themselves to accept a life with limited luxuries, others might reach that stage of limited luxuries and naturally be happy, i.e. no will is required to force the desire for more luxuries down.

Thus that person first willed power, then willed contentment, once he had reached a certain level/achieved certain goals. And again, I state that it is then stagnation, until the time comes when something threatens that contentment.
When threatened, they must will power again to return back / maintain their position or they must lower their standards. Sure, they could will power until they reach the same state again - but the point is that they will power to return back UP to their level. So even if people are "generally satisfied" with where they are, they will power to move up or succeed where they do not have sufficient power.
For those who "work for their general satisfaction", they must will victory (and thus power), if they want to reach the level of their goals. And they will eventually be threatened by competition that is stronger than their "security" power. If they wish to keep that contentment, they must will power to increase his ability to secure that contentment. But all this involves willing power, when the competition is around. Not just willing power for the sake of power.
For those who are focused on feeling content only (and forego the values for the sake of contentment) they succumb to outside factors and drop their standards just so they will be content - they no longer want victory or power, just being content.



[/quote] You make them sound that way because you make it sound like they become too stupid to defend themselves. Content doesn't mean lazy, or constantly in a state of blissful stupor. It just means that they don't desire to have more power, money, friends, lovers, property, etc.[/quote] Once you are content, and things go awry, only a longing for victory (thus will to power), will get you to return to your "previous state". Either way, those who seek contentment will stagnate or decline.

And I don't say that happiness is the noblest goal, I simply say that people want to feel good, and that's more or less tautology. For some people, there is a drive for power, because it makes them feel good. Maybe it's in you, but how can you claim it's in other people? You claim that others supress it. I could also claim that all men want to rape their mothers, but they all just suppress it, and the ones that actually do it are the one's who are not suppressing this fundamental, instinctual drive. Your position is unfalsifiable.

If that is the case, then the instinctual drive for survival is equally unfalsifiable. But it doesn't imply that it is false. The instinct for power is clearly felt and had, you simply don't understand the idea I'm trying to state, and continue to understand that seeking power that is used by controlling freaks who boss everyone around.

No, not in the slightest.It sounds as though you're equating power with any sort of action. If I make any sort of action to secure what I want, then this is based on a drive for power?

Yea, that's the whole point. If you want your value to succeed/be achieved, you will victory for such ventures. Thus, you will power to succeed/achieve that venture. It just so happens that the content will victory to their supreme value and reduce their power in the process (lowering standards, generally no improvement, etc).

Okay, what's the point?

If you read it as my response to your statement, you would see my point. If that's not clear, here's a clue.

AKG: You said that I was trying to make the world sound like a battlefield.
GeD: The world is not a battlefield, but its definitely based on competition and overcoming. Your interests are secure, yes, because you have the power to defend it.

 

[learningphysics]

We need to ask ourselves:

• Will achieving these things I value (desire) really make me happy, or, perhaps, is my belief that these things will make me happy a mistaken prediction?
• Are these values (desired things, relationships, states of being, etc.) sustainable, i.e. after achieving these things, will they suffice, or will the feeling of happiness that comes from these things be fleeting?
• Are these values (desires) realistically achievable (satisfiable), or have I set my hopes so high that I can never feel good?

What do you think?

Yes, essentially these are the types of questions I think we must ask. But I'd add one more thing... will satisfying my desire make others happy or unhappy. I'm not sure of the exact formula, but I believe that the happiness of all beings must be taken into account somehow.

 

[learningphysics]

Because you still haven't differentiated between what I'm attacking, and what you claim is happiness. Your happiness is general satisfaction - I am attacking contentment. Thus, when you say, "if power makes you miserable, why do it...etc", it just doesn't make sense. The reason you pursue certain forms of power IS the pursuit of a certain form of general satisfaction.

I don't see why it doesn't make sense. Are you saying it is impossible to pursue power without seeking "general satisfaction"?

I don't think it is obviously true that everyone pursues power for a form of "general satisfaction". If it is true, then I think there needs to be some explanation of this.

Do you agree that the "will to power" is worthless unless it leads to general satisfaction?

 

[AKG]

GeD

You seem to use power to refer to any type of action driven by one's will. If I work extra hours to afford enough money to pay for tuition, I've willed power in order to achieve this victory? So willing power is working to achieve what you value? So what's the point to all this? That this is better than willing contentment? What if you already have what you value? Should you force yourself to value more? Can you even do that? Of course, if you lose what you value for whatever reason, then again, you have to work if you want to get that back. If you don't want it back, you don't have to work, obviously. As far as I can tell, you have no point.

It seems you give two options : willing power (or working for what you value) and willing contenment (being happy with what you have). You claim that sometimes, what you have can come "under attack", and to remain happy, you either have to be content with less and less as your things come under attack, or you have to work to get back what you had (or more). You seem to suggest:

1) that one's valued-things (and things doesn't necessarily mean material possessions) will necessarily come under attack from those with conflicting interests
2) because of 1, unless one continues lowering their standards, they will not remain content, and their happiness will be fleeting
3) since willing contenment leads to a fleeting happiness/satisfaction, willing power is a better option.

This doesn't seem to make sense. It seems to suggest:

1) continue to fight for things you want, even when you don't want any more (which is impossible)
2) continue to want more (and then fight for it), but who the heck would want to will themselves to want more?
3) it seems to say that if you build a house, if you don't keep an eye on it, then someone might vandalise it, so even though you have this nice house, it's best to stay outside the whole time and keep watch for vandals, i.e. it seems to say that when one becomes content, the feeling doesn't necessarily stay, and in such a case, a person will have to work to get what they want, so therefore the best option is to constantly work for what you want. Why not work for what you want when necessary? It seems like you're giving an all-or-nothing option. Unless you can be content for your whole life without ever having to work for what you want, you may as well just always work for what you want.

learningphysics

Yes, essentially these are the types of questions I think we must ask. But I'd add one more thing... will satisfying my desire make others happy or unhappy. I'm not sure of the exact formula, but I believe that the happiness of all beings must be taken into account somehow.

I think we take the happiness of others into account because it is part of our value system, e.g. we might value money, friendship, family, and the general happiness of others. We then ask how to achieve these things, whether they can be achieved, whether some of these conflict with others (requiring us to only pursue some and reject others), whether these things will really make me happy (do I really want money, do I really care about others, etc.).

The happiness of others is not an external constraint on how we should live our lives, it is an internal one, one that we (maybe instinctually) place on ourselves in determining how we live our lives, just as we place the constraint that we should choose a lifestyle that ensures we survive and mate (also maybe - well "probably" in this case - instinctual).

 

[GeD]

You seem to use power to refer to any type of action driven by one's will. If I work extra hours to afford enough money to pay for tuition, I've willed power in order to achieve this victory? So willing power is working to achieve what you value? So what's the point to all this? That this is better than willing contentment? What if you already have what you value?
If you already have what you value, you already imply that there you have everything you want. Thus, you have contentment. And since you have everything you have, that is stagnation - unless threatened by outside competition.

I have already stated if you are content with what you value, it will eventually come under threat. In order to defend that value (or to further achieve other values you haven't accomplished), you need to will power. There's no "should" that forces you to value more things, I have reasoned out that it is just an instinct for power - for furthering one's influence/action (if you like, for valuing more). For those who do suppress this instinct, they no longer value anymore - more stagnation.
The other point is that one has a will to power when they feel the need to create/achieve, and that for those who no longer want to create/achieve, they will contentment.
If there is "no point" in all of this, then you haven't understood anything that I've been writing.

Of course, if you lose what you value for whatever reason, then again, you have to work if you want to get that back. If you don't want it back, you don't have to work, obviously. As far as I can tell, you have no point.

The point here is obvious! If you are content, you do not want things to change - thus you will stagnate and never increase your power. However, if your values were threatened by outside competition and wanted victory (ie. wanted to get back your values), then you will power. If you did not will victory, then you would leave things alone, and your standards are lowered.

It seems you give two options : willing power (or working for what you value) and willing contenment (being happy with what you have). You claim that sometimes, what you have can come "under attack", and to remain happy, you either have to be content with less and less as your things come under attack, or you have to work to get back what you had (or more). You seem to suggest:

1) that one's valued-things (and things doesn't necessarily mean material possessions) will necessarily come under attack from those with conflicting interests:

> Good so far, but I'd change the word necessarily, with inevitably. Because it's not necessary that competition will always arrive (especially when you get so much power, there are less chances to meet competition), but that the probability of encountering competition/resistance is super high. <

2) because of 1, unless one continues lowering their standards, they will not remain content, and their happiness will be fleeting

> Unless one continues lowering their standards, they remain content, but the conditions of that contentment will change, and they may even have general satisfaction.
Assuming that the do not take the road of contentment, one's happiness being fleeting is about the idea that if one has certain goals for happiness, it is not enough and there will be something more that they want (will to power for new values), or something that they want back (will to power for retaking lost values). <

3) since willing contenment leads to a fleeting happiness/satisfaction, willing power is a better option.

> This statement should actually say: Since willing contentment leads to stagnation or degradation (lowering standards) it is the way for those who seek contentment. Happiness is fleeting (because of statement #2). General satisfaction could be achieved (regardless of aim - contentment or power), because the adventure or journey may be all that is necessary. It's not that I consider the will to power as the option that everyone "should" take. The will to power is for those who want victory for their values. But for those who are instead focused on contentment, they will suppress the instinct for power and thus stagnate and degrade. <

This doesn't seem to make sense. It seems to suggest:

1) continue to fight for things you want, even when you don't want any more (which is impossible)

> Clear misunderstanding of everything I've written thus far. My statements were about fighting for what one values, not that we fight for every single value that could possibly be fought for. More of misunderstanding progress for the sake of progress and the instinct for power (extending influence and action).

2) continue to want more (and then fight for it), but who the heck would want to will themselves to want more?

> But I also stated that the instinct for power will want ourselves to extend the sphere of our influence and action. Thus, if one wills power, he will continue to want more and more - unless he chooses contentment instead (wherein he no longer WANTS). <

3) it seems to say that if you build a house, if you don't keep an eye on it, then someone might vandalise it, so even though you have this nice house, it's best to stay outside the whole time and keep watch for vandals, i.e. it seems to say that when one becomes content, the feeling doesn't necessarily stay, and in such a case, a person will have to work to get what they want, so therefore the best option is to constantly work for what you want.

> I thought we already agreed that constantly working is necessary just to preserve our happiness, let alone achieving other goals for happiness? <

Why not work for what you want when necessary?

The will to power tells you to work for what you want when necessary... :s

It seems like you're giving an all-or-nothing option. Unless you can be content for your whole life without ever having to work for what you want, you may as well just always work for what you want.

That is your own "idea", I have nothing to do with any of those statements.
I'm focused on the idea that if one wills contentment, it leads to stagnation and of wanting things to stay the same. But if you respond to competition/resistance, you choose victory, and you work for your values - that is a will to power.
I've already explained that some people may choose contentment for a certain period of time, and then back to power, or even back and forth between the two. But the base is that whenever you will contentment, it is choosing stagnation and possibly degradation.

 

[katelynndevere]

Hi Learningphysics,

Everyone is not happy in Brave New World. No one is happy, no one is really unhappy, that's the point. The savage, John, has a conversation about just this topic with Mustapha Mond. John is bemoaning the loss of real human emotions. Mond explains to John (I read this book a long time ago, so I'll paraphrase)
"You're confusing happiness with the over-compensations for misery",
in his defence of the state prescribed and enforced soma dream of happiness which is sold to the citizenry. The artificail happiness they experience is nothing more (and certainly nothing less) than the ultimate method of social control.
If you want or need to keep someone imprisoned for a very long time, you either need to have them under constant surveillance or to make them so comfortable they won't try too hard to escape. It's hard to keep an entire population under surveillance and it tends not to be effective - the peasants have a nasty habit of revolting. So, if you want to keep the proles in their place, you make their lives comfortable.
The Controller and his predecessors have gone further: they have engineered the populace to like their lives.
Remember the words of the hymn, 'the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate' that's what this is about - keeping people in their places. It's why John's mother says of getting pregnant with John "Imagine it - me, a Beta". It just isn't compatible with her station, and she can't accept it.
Did you see 'The Matrix'? It's the same thing - the machines first version of the matrix was a human utopia. Disegarding for the moment, the film's premise that it is innate in humankind to reject the ideal, consider the idea of living in a utopian matrix? Does that really sound like a good plan to you? It is exactly the same concept, at heart: a state (or ruling elite, power-class, pick your own label) prescribed and enforced dream of happiness, designed to keep people in their places, not for their own good, but for the good of the ruling elite. It also has parallels to keeping people in comfortable slavery - it's still slavery. I'd rather be free to pursue happiness, than forced to live out what someone else has decided is happiness, and if that means taking the lows with the highs, so be it.
This book is a warning about the smiling fascist. If you say you like this society, well, be careful what you wish for...

 

[learningphysics]

Hi Learningphysics,

Everyone is not happy in Brave New World. No one is happy, no one is really unhappy, that's the point. The savage, John, has a conversation about just this topic with Mustapha Mond. John is bemoaning the loss of real human emotions. Mond explains to John (I read this book a long time ago, so I'll paraphrase)
"You're confusing happiness with the over-compensations for misery",
in his defence of the state prescribed and enforced soma dream of happiness which is sold to the citizenry. The artificail happiness they experience is nothing more (and certainly nothing less) than the ultimate method of social control.

Hi Kate. I believe you've misunderstood this part. Mustapha is calling the art that John values so much "over-compensations for misery". The people in the Brave New World ARE happy and the feelies provide real happiness. Here's the excerpt from the book (they're talking about the idiocy of the feelies as opposed to something like Othello):

"The savage shook his head. 'It all seems quite horrible.'

'Of course if does. Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the overcompensations for misery. And of course, stability isn't nearly so spectacular as instability.' "

So you see, the feelies are providing "actual happiness" (and appear really dull and horrible to John), whereas Othello provides "overcompensations for misery".

This is what really makes the novel so ridiculous. The very premise of the book is that everyone in the Brave New World is happy. And the author expects the reader to see this as something bad. This is not my interpretation, it is just the way the book is written. It's the premise of the book.

If you want or need to keep someone imprisoned for a very long time, you either need to have them under constant surveillance or to make them so comfortable they won't try too hard to escape. It's hard to keep an entire population under surveillance and it tends not to be effective - the peasants have a nasty habit of revolting. So, if you want to keep the proles in their place, you make their lives comfortable.
The Controller and his predecessors have gone further: they have engineered the populace to like their lives.

But they too are part of the system. They too take Soma. And I don't think it is any secret to the population of the Brave New World that they are being conditioned for stability. They are aware of the system, and agree with it.

Did you see 'The Matrix'? It's the same thing - the machines first version of the matrix was a human utopia. Disegarding for the moment, the film's premise that it is innate in humankind to reject the ideal, consider the idea of living in a utopian matrix? Does that really sound like a good plan to you? It is exactly the same concept, at heart: a state (or ruling elite, power-class, pick your own label) prescribed and enforced dream of happiness, designed to keep people in their places, not for their own good, but for the good of the ruling elite.

It sounds like an excellent plan if that's human's best hope for happiness. When I saw the movie, I kept asking myself the question, "Why do they want to leave the matrix?"

I enjoyed the Matrix, but Morpheus seemed more like the Fascist to me. Neo did not really make a choice about leaving the Matrix. Morpheus manipulated him. So what about Neo's freedom to choose?

But I think this situation is different from that in the Brave New World. In the book, everyone is part of the system. Everyone takes Soma and almost everyone agrees with the system: the Alpha-plus', the Alphas, the Betas etc... There isn't really a ruling elite. In the Matrix, the people aren't aware that they are in a system of control.

The "Controller" did not seem like he was power hungry or anything like that. Why do you think he was keeping the system in place? What do you think his motive was? It seems like he believed that people should be happy, and this was the way to do it. There was no conspiracy going on to manipulate people. The people knew what was going on and went along with it.

It also has parallels to keeping people in comfortable slavery - it's still slavery. I'd rather be free to pursue happiness, than forced to live out what someone else has decided is happiness, and if that means taking the lows with the highs, so be it.
This book is a warning about the smiling fascist. If you say you like this society, well, be careful what you wish for...

And what if someone did not want to experience the highs and the lows? Can they be free to live without them?

Should a person with bipolar disorder continue to experience the highs and the lows without getting treatment?

What is it about the Brave New World that makes them appear as slaves to you? In our own society we have rules to follow. If we don't, we are punished. The only difference is that everyone in the Brave New World was happy(almost everyone). The people aren't force-fed soma. They take it willingly.

We are all conditioned by our society. Again, the only difference I see between any human society(past or present) and the Brave New World, is that the Brave New world people are happy.

One thing about the Brave New World, is that we are not told how this society came into place. What if the people decided that this is how they wanted to live? Taking soma, having easy lives... Is that acceptable? Should they be forced to live without Soma?

The Brave New World society appears to me to be freer than our own. They have the ways and the means to satisfy any of their desires. And whatever they can't get, they don't want in the first place. Contrast this with our own world, where there are a myriad of things that we want but can't get. Which is more free?

 

[katelynndevere]

Hi Learningphysics,

Thanks for reminding me of the context of Mond's comment about the overcompensations for misery, I didn't recall where that was in the book because I read it over a decade ago. However, I did not misunderstand it.
BNW is a dystopia, if you find it an ideal world, you must have led a very sheltered life and be very young, or have rose coloured spectacles.
The book suggests that the price of such 'happiness' is the sacrifice of many things that we hold dear: motherhood, family, home, freedom and love. It is not a price I would be willing to pay.

The feelies do not provide actual happiness, they do not provide 'actual' anything, since they are a virtual experience. A person who goes to the feelies knows they are going to the feelies, it is not reality, although it is a state prescribed normality.

Do not mistake Mond for the revealer of truth: he is defending a system in which he is top dog. In fact, he himself obliquely admits the sterility and joylessness of the BNW society, when he talks about Bernard's reaction to being exiled in Iceland. I can't remember exactly what he says, but it's something like this:

"You'd think he was having his throat cut! If he had any sense, he'd appreciate that, far from being punished, he's being rewarded. He's going to an island filled with the most interesting people. Anyone worth talking to or with an ounce of independent thought will be there. Everyone who rejects orthodoxy, who has any individuality, is there."

To suggest that there is no ruling elite in the BNW is laughable: the Alphas are a deliberately engineered elite, who occupy all the positions of power and make all the decisions. They rule. To suggest that they are not a ruling elite because they are themselves a part of the system is plain daft. The MPs here in England are part of the system and are just as human as you or me, but they're still a ruling elite. The Alpha class perpetuate a system which inflicts deliberate brain damage upon the lowest caste of the BNW, just to keep them satisfied with drudgery. It is an horrific nightmare of a society!
Youngsters are terrorised and conditioned with electric shock torture, for pity's sake - is that a price worth paying for happiness, even 'true' happiness? I defy you to say it is, unless you're prepared to undergo it yourself, and put your own children through it.

The BNW folks do have negative thoughts and feelings, they just stuff 'em back down, with soma. Should we just start dishing out heroin, (having formulated a non-addictive version, perhaps) then? In the words of the Resident Controller of Western Europe: "No pains have been spared to make your lives emotionally easy - to preserve you, as far as that is possible, from having emotions at all." This tells us something about how this society came into being; it alludes to a blood-soaked past in which no pain was spared. Those who have no emotions certainly cannot be happy.

As for your comparing my position with the suggestion that people with bi-polar disorder should be denied treatment - that is either spurious or very naive. Of course they should be treated, if they want it, but real life is not smooth, it has ups and downs. This is not the same as the roller-coaster of bi-polar disorder. The tranquil calm of a summer evening owes some of it's appeal to the contrast between it and the harsh winter winds; both are beautiful in their own way. The joy of reunion is only possible after the sorrow of parting - that's life, a rich and varied tapestry, which is something the new worlders don't have, sadly.

You compare the BNW with our consumerist society. You have either missed the point, or need to read on, before making such comments. The BNW is the ultimate throw-away consumer state: "better to end than mend" is one of their mantras, after all.

Perhaps when you've read the whole book, you'll feel differently, but if you think living in the matrix is a good idea, perhaps you won't. In which case we must simply agree to differ.

Kate.

 

[learningphysics]

Hi Learningphysics,

Thanks for reminding me of the context of Mond's comment about the overcompensations for misery, I didn't recall where that was in the book because I read it over a decade ago. However, I did not misunderstand it.
BNW is a dystopia, if you find it an ideal world, you must have led a very sheltered life and be very young, or have rose coloured spectacles.
The book suggests that the price of such 'happiness' is the sacrifice of many things that we hold dear: motherhood, family, home, freedom and love. It is not a price I would be willing to pay.

I understand the price. Many religions also state that the price of happiness is the sacrifice of those same things.

The feelies do not provide actual happiness, they do not provide 'actual' anything, since they are a virtual experience. A person who goes to the feelies knows they are going to the feelies, it is not reality, although it is a state prescribed normality.

The experience is real whether or not there is some external reality where the events being seen and heard are actually happening.

Do not mistake Mond for the revealer of truth: he is defending a system in which he is top dog. In fact, he himself obliquely admits the sterility and joylessness of the BNW society, when he talks about Bernard's reaction to being exiled in Iceland. I can't remember exactly what he says, but it's something like this:

"You'd think he was having his throat cut! If he had any sense, he'd appreciate that, far from being punished, he's being rewarded. He's going to an island filled with the most interesting people. Anyone worth talking to or with an ounce of independent thought will be there. Everyone who rejects orthodoxy, who has any individuality, is there."

Mond does not admit joylessness. He does admit sterility. You are equating sterility with joylessness. Bernard is unhappy in the BNW society. Most of the people in BNW are happy.

To suggest that there is no ruling elite in the BNW is laughable: the Alphas are a deliberately engineered elite, who occupy all the positions of power and make all the decisions. They rule. To suggest that they are not a ruling elite because they are themselves a part of the system is plain daft. The MPs here in England are part of the system and are just as human as I am, but they're still a ruling elite. The Alpha class perpetutae a system which inflicts deliberate brain damage upon the lowest caste of the BW, just to keep them satisfied with drudgery. It is an horrific nightmare of a society!

Ok. They are a ruling elite. But there is a difference between the elite in BNW and in the real world. Firstly, quality of life. Usually elites are known to experience a better quality of life than the rest. The Alphas are no happier than anyone else. Also, usually the populace aspires to be in the elite. This is not the case in the BNW. Everyone is happy where they are.

My point with regards to the "ruling elite" was in response to what you said about the Alphas serving their own interests, and not what is good for the populace. This implies that the Alphas have something of importance that the others don't have? What do the Alphas have that nobody else does?

The Alphas have also lost "freedom, home, love, family".

Youngsters are terrorised and conditioned with electric shock torture, for pity's sake - is that a price worth paying for happiness, even 'true' happiness? I defy you to say it is, unless you're prepared to undergo it yourself, and put your own children through it.

I don't have any children. Personally I'd go through the electric torture, if it meant a lifetime of happiness. It is a short amount of pain for a lifetime of happiness. There is no comparison to the horrendous suffering that occurs in the real world.

But why are you so aversive towards the electric shock torture? It is a "low", and not nearly as bad as what happens in the real world. You are willing to accept the highs and lows in the "real world" but not in the BNW.

Right now in the real world, people are being tortured. This is a result of maintaining the status quo. This is "accepting the highs with the lows". Are you willing to take the place of someone that's being tortured? Somebody will go through it, if the world remains just as it is.

The BNW folks do have negative thoughts and feelings, they just stuff 'em back down, with soma. Should we just start dishing out heroin, then? In the words of the Resident Controller of Western Europe: "No pains have been spared to make your lives emotionally easy - to preserve you, as far as that is possible, from having emotions at all."

If you value freedom, then shouldn't the people be free to have their heroin if they so wish?

As for your comparing my position with the suggestion that people with bi-polar disorder should be denied treatment - that is beneath contempt.

You just avoided the question. Are highs and lows good or bad? Should someone experiencing extremes in emotion do anything to stabilize them or not?