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

[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?

 

[katelynndevere]

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

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

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.

[of Alphas] 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".

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.

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

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?

I amended my response to answer your question about the treatment of bi-polar disorder, I expect we were both composing our posts at the same time - it happens when conversation is as lively as this one (you are so much fun to debate with ). Of course they should have treatment, if they want it. I say if they want it, because some people affected by the condition prefer not to take their lithium, at least occasionally, they like the euphoric highs and are prepared to suffer the lows to experience them. Heroin users should and are (the law aside) free to take it if they wish, what I object to is conditioning people so that such drug use offers their only respite from negative emotions. What I object to more, is conditioning people to believe that negative emtions are necessarily something to be feared. In fact, I'm not completely comfortable with the term negtive; to grieve for a lost loved one is not necessarily negative.

It is indeed a sad and terrible fact that people are being tortured and that unique, thinking, feeling human beings die in pain and squalor. In some respects, this is due to the maintenance of the staus quo, but when did I say that I am in favour of maintaining the staus quo? I simply do not want to live in a BNW-like world. We may be at cross-purposes here, I am all for a society in which everyone is happy and I have no problem with using psychotropic drugs as a tool to establish it; I take mirtazapine, myself. What is significantly different is that I am free to experience misery, should I perversely choose to. This important to me, because I want to make up my own mind about what makes me happy, about what happiness is.

I don't agree with the electric shock torture of infants being less terrible than events in the real world. Pain is terrible. Fear is terrible. Torture is terrible. Always, in every instance, for whatever end it is practised.

What the Alphas have that, say, the Epsilons do not, is a certain amount of intellectual freedom, at the very least. The lower castes are purposely stunted and frightened away from reading, by loud noises in their nursery dorms. There is also the prospect of exile for those high-ranking members of society who, because of the higher degree of intellectual freedom afforded them, are unable to assimilate the norms of mass consumption of obstacle golf. The bloke who writes the feelies (what's his name?) is pissed off, because he is frustrated and feels himself capable of greater things, but has no possible outlet for them. He is, at least free enough in his mind, to entertain such thoughts; the Deltas are not, because their brains have been deliberately poisoned. If you were a Delta, you would be incapable of this discussion. To say that you would not miss what you never had (I am anticipating your response here) is a fallacy. I've never been able to do quadratic equations, but I wish I could.

I cannot believe that you are serious when you say that you would allow your children to be tortured with electric shocks, if that meant avoiding a certain amount of misery in later life. I know you don't have any now, but you might have, one day, and you must know some one with children, or remember being one. I would die to prevent my children experiencing that. I expect a lot of other people would, too.

Finally, a virtual experience is just that. it is real in one sense, but only in the sense that a picture of an apple is real. The picture is real, but I can't eat it.

Kate.

 

[katelynndevere]

Hi learningphysics,

I just came across a site with an essay about BNW:

BRAVE NEW WORLD ?
A Defence Of Paradise-Engineering

http://www.huxley.net/

I haven't read it yet (it's a very long essay) but I will. Perhaps we could discuss it?

Kate. :>

 

[learningphysics]

Hi learningphysics,

I just came across a site with an essay about BNW:

BRAVE NEW WORLD ?
A Defence Of Paradise-Engineering

http://www.huxley.net/

I haven't read it yet (it's a very long essay) but I will. Perhaps we could discuss it?

Kate. :>

Hi Kate. I'll try to read that soon.

No, you're right. I wouldn't let my children go through that. I re-read the page in the book, and yes, it is probably the most horrible thing imaginable. I don't think whatever happiness is had later during their life compensates for the torture that they go through. I hope I didn't come across as a brute. I guess I was just overly agitated about the suffering in the real world.

Anyway, I'm enjoying the debate too. Hope I don't come off seeming antagonistic.

 

[katelynndevere]

Hi learningphysics,

No, you didn't come across as a brute; I didn't believe you meant it, after all. You don't seem antagonistic, just passionate, which I believe is a good thing (you probably wouldn't be so passionate if you were a new-worlder, though, would you? he-he-he). I don't want to seem antagonistic either, which is most of the reason I edited my earlier post: your comparison wasnot 'beneath contempt', whether I agree with it or not, it is a valid opinion if that's the way it looks to from where you are.
Nice talking to you,
Kate.

 

[BicycleTree]

If happiness is the only goal, what would be wrong with killing everyone in the world except one person, if that one person is irrepressibly happy?

 

[Enos]

The perfect person would be the only person.

 

[BicycleTree]

If happiness is the only goal, what's wrong with that?

 

[Enos]

The only goal? I wasn't aware of this :P

 

[BicycleTree]

The only goal? I wasn't aware of this :P

That's the point!

 

[Enos]

good point.