Incestuous marriage? It begins

[inocente]

pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/aristotle/

The website says it’s about the science of happiness and is non-profit. So I did the quiz and it told me I’m mostly happy, and “We’ve got a whole plan for bringing your happiness level to 100% all the time! Here are the first steps … Enroll in our happiness course …”.

Which costs money. Easy answers. Happiness for cash.

All of which is to say that as they’ve got something to sell and I’ve not read Aristotle, don’t know whether that article is accurate .

 

[mikekle]

Im not sure about incestuous marriage, but in general, sin is progressive, it may begin with legally recognizing same sex marriages, but we can be sure it will not stop there, the further a world gets away from God, their morals are going to decline, I think thats pretty obvious in our world, comparing to years past, and we know sin does not ‘plateau’, so what was once considered evil will be seen as good and vice verse. We should expect more forms of sexual immoralities to be legally recognized and accepted

Desensitizing is the first step, the more it happens, the less shocking it is over time, then comes tolerance and finally acceptance.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

The website says it’s about the science of happiness and is non-profit. So I did the quiz and it told me I’m mostly happy, and “We’ve got a whole plan for bringing your happiness level to 100% all the time! Here are the first steps … Enroll in our happiness course …”.

Which costs money. Easy answers. Happiness for cash.

All of which is to say that as they’ve got something to sell and I’ve not read Aristotle, don’t know whether that article is accurate .

I don’t know about the quiz. What I was referring to was this quote:

“The main trouble is that happiness (especially in modern America) is often conceived of as a subjective state of mind, as when one says one is happy when one is enjoying a cool beer on a hot day, or is out “having fun” with one’s friends. **For Aristotle, however, happiness is a final end or goal that encompasses the totality of one’s life. **It is not something that can be gained or lost in a few hours, like pleasurable sensations. It is more like the ultimate value of your life as lived up to this moment, measuring how well you have lived up to your full potential as a human being. For this reason, one cannot really make any pronouncements about whether one has lived a happy life until it is over, just as we would not say of a football game that it was a “great game” at halftime (indeed we know of many such games that turn out to be blowouts or duds).”

In response to your post:

"And the Argentinian constitution apparently grants the right to the pursuit of happiness, a slippery slope started by Aristotle in the Eudemian Ethics, “For happiness, being the noblest and best of things…”.

Why would you quote Aristotle if you know nothing about him?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Im not sure about incestuous marriage, but in general, sin is progressive, it may begin with legally recognizing same sex marriages, but we can be sure it will not stop there, the further a world gets away from God, their morals are going to decline, I think thats pretty obvious in our world, comparing to years past, and we know sin does not ‘plateau’, so what was once considered evil will be seen as good and vice verse. We should expect more forms of sexual immoralities to be legally recognized and accepted

Desensitizing is the first step, the more it happens, the less shocking it is over time, then comes tolerance and finally acceptance.

For some people this is true. People are easily manipulated.

 

[inocente]

I don’t know about the quiz. What I was referring to was this quote:

“The main trouble is that happiness (especially in modern America) is often conceived of as a subjective state of mind, as when one says one is happy when one is enjoying a cool beer on a hot day, or is out “having fun” with one’s friends. **For Aristotle, however, happiness is a final end or goal that encompasses the totality of one’s life. **It is not something that can be gained or lost in a few hours, like pleasurable sensations. It is more like the ultimate value of your life as lived up to this moment, measuring how well you have lived up to your full potential as a human being. For this reason, one cannot really make any pronouncements about whether one has lived a happy life until it is over, just as we would not say of a football game that it was a “great game” at halftime (indeed we know of many such games that turn out to be blowouts or duds).”

There are 3,400 words on that web page, so I’m a bit puzzled why you originally linked the page without saying which 165 words you were referring to.

The notion that we can’t judge whether we lived a happy life until it is over was why I questioned the accuracy. The idea that the second-half of a football match can take away the greatness of the first-half, as if the journey doesn’t count and all that matters is some average measurement. To me that smells of karma rather than redemption.

Why would you quote Aristotle if you know nothing about him?

Some posters say Catholicism isn’t about either/or thinking. You proved them wrong .

I said “I’ve not read Aristotle”, meaning I’ve not formally studied his works. Perhaps Americans don’t say they’re reading ethics at university, meaning formally studying. So I’ve read swaths of his Physics and Metaphysics, and some other extracts, but can’t pretend to be an expert.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Some posters say Catholicism isn’t about either/or thinking. You proved them wrong .

.

And vice versa.