Theory on happieness

[James_S_Saint]

James,

Can you give me some truth statements about happiness? Before you do, I need to know your idea of happiness, what makes it real for you and why.

Is happiness a need or a want?
Do all people desire or even expect to be happy and if so, how often?

Joy (aka happiness) is derived by the perception of progress.

When anyone, human or not, perceives that they are getting closer to something accepted as a “good thing”, a goal of any sort, they consciously sense joy/happiness.

Though it is true that many people have declared a great variety of things as “good” despite the actual benefits from them, there are fundamental needs that instigated all of those urges and declarations of good. The point to having morals is to let you know when certain things (not all) are too socially dangerous to accept as good regardless of why you thought they would be.

The ultimate joy is felt when all of the urges report that positive progress is being made. Assuming such a state wasn’t artificially created (drugs), it comes about when the disharmonious urges are eliminated. When all of your urges are in harmony, you can feel no disappointment, sadness, or misery of any kind. Such a state is innately healthy because most of the fundamental urges had to do with health in the first place.

All of the instinctive urges are aimed at producing a surrounding of harmony through very strategic means. The mind/heart just gets confused (do often to those same immoral acts).

Happiness is a resultant sensation. It is the result of a perception that created a “sensing of good” being present.

{I guess that is another “truth statement” about happiness}

The conscious mind does not decide on what happiness is or what brings it. The conscious mind must figure it out, discover it, and can then adjust its presence to a degree only. Drugs are a simple way for the conscious mind to cause it, temporarily.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Happiness is a resultant sensation. It is the result of a perception that created a “sensing of good” being present.

{I guess that is another “truth statement” about happiness}

The conscious mind does not decide on what happiness is or what brings it. The conscious mind must figure it out, discover it, and can then adjust its presence to a degree only. Drugs are a simple way for the conscious mind to cause it, temporarily.

Your evidence for the statements you make as truth statements please.

EDIT to add- there are nearly 6 to 7 hours on average a day my conscious mind is not aware of anything.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Your evidence for the statements you make as truth statements please.

EDIT to add- there are nearly 6 to 7 hours on average a day my conscious mind is not aware of anything.

Did you also ask for Newton’s evidence concerning gravity and mass attraction? Or did you just accept the signs of social authority? You can bet that a great many laymen argued at that time.

Many things require that you study the field to even ask intelligent questions and certainly to realize what is or isn’t actual evidence. I find it a bit interesting that atheists presume to argue with full confidence against theologians that have studied their field sometimes all of their lives whereas the atheist is basically an armchair critic.

Take a few courses in at least college level psychology and then get back to me, k.

…otherwise use actual logic, not opinions, just in case I erred.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Did you also ask for Newton’s evidence concerning gravity and mass attraction? Or did you just accept the signs of social authority? You can bet that a great many laymen argued at that time.

Many things require that you study the field to even ask intelligent questions and certainly to realize what is or isn’t actual evidence. I find it a bit interesting that atheists presume to argue with full confidence against theologians that have studied their field sometimes all of their lives whereas the atheist is basically an armchair critic.

Take a few courses in at least college level psychology and then get back to me, k.

…otherwise use actual logic, not opinions, just in case I erred.

What is or is not actual evidence can not be determined from the truth statements gone unsupported by you. You can not make truth statements without having a subject that is real. You have not debated me on that point yet, and only spoke of solutions to “the problem”. I still am not convinced there is a problem to solve.

I’m open to whatever you can provide to support your very bold claims. So far, you have provided me nothing to accept for evaluation.

EDIT to add: some people find suppressing what makes them “happy” to be their ultimate goal. How does this work into your position?

 

[James_S_Saint]

What is or is not actual evidence can not be determined from the truth statements gone unsupported by you. You can not make truth statements without having a subject that is real. You have not debated me on that point yet, and only spoke of solutions to “the problem”. I still am not convinced there is a problem to solve.

The “truth statements” were not about the evidence, they were the “truth statements”, the result of the evidence.

And you are welcome to read through the thread where I addressed your issue of it not being a problem;

It might not be a problem for you or in your eyes, but for many, happiness, especially ongoing, is a big issue, so much so that they can fall into depression, fear, anger, murder, sexual abuse, and even suicide. But presume that population control wasn’t the topic of this thread.

I’m open to whatever you can provide to support your very bold claims. So far, you have provided me nothing to accept for evaluation.

WHAT “very bold claims”??

He had asked what it is and how to obtain it. I answered what it is and how to obtain it from the analytical standpoint.

Did you want to argue about what it is or how to obtain it?

EDIT to add: some people find suppressing what makes them “happy” to be their ultimate goal. How does this work into your position?

They deduce that “suppressing…” is their ultimate goal. The fact that people deduce silly things has nothing to do with the reality of what actually causes happiness.

 

[StrawberryJam]

The “truth statements” were not about the evidence, they were the “truth statements”, the result of the evidence.

And you are welcome to read through the thread where I addressed your issue of it not being a problem;

WHAT “very bold claims”??

He had asked what it is and how to obtain it. I answered what it is and how to obtain it from the analytical standpoint.

Did you want to argue about what it is or how to obtain it?

They deduce that “suppressing…” is their ultimate goal. The fact that people deduce silly things has nothing to do with the reality of what actually causes happiness.

So, the monastics who suppressed their natural desire to be social, and the various other religious individuals of many different religions who practice varying degrees of suppression of happiness for what they heartily believe will result in a greater good for all humankind, or minimally themselves are “deducing silly things”?

 

[James_S_Saint]

So, the monastics who suppressed their natural desire to be social, and the various other religious individuals of many different religions who practice varying degrees of suppression of happiness for what they heartily believe will result in a greater good for all humankind, or minimally themselves are “deducing silly things”?

Is it working??

If not, obviously what they deduced wasn’t good enough and if it can’t be obtained as Don insisted, then what they deduced is still silly, isn’t it.

 

[I_Seek_2]

So, the monastics who suppressed their natural desire to be social, and the various other religious individuals of many different religions who practice varying degrees of suppression of happiness for what they heartily believe will result in a greater good for all humankind, or minimally themselves are “deducing silly things”?

No they themselves are doing what they feel makes them happy, suppressing desires.

Now what are we arguing about? Im gone a day and wont bother trying to catch up. If you guys are trying to see who can fill up this server the quickest, your doing a good job.

 

[donsnow]

So your are sort of a cross between Jewish and Secular. That explains a lot.

As far as “perceiving” someone as being insane merely because they are constantly happy; first, I have a very precise definition for insanity and second, I would be thrilled for them as long as I couldn’t see any harm they were doing to themselves or others. And even if they were endangering themselves, I would look to see if there was a way to maintain their joy but prevent their danger.

Sleep well.

Good morning, James,

I slept well, thank you.

Your leading statement, here, again jumps to a conclusion about me. Because, sir, you forget that I, not you, determine and say what I am. I am Christian, Roman Catholic, a Soldier of Christ who is a repentant sinner.
You address me as such, and we can communicate. You presume that I’m something else, then we have a failure to communicate. OK?

Do you have any identifiers about yourself, that you want me to know?

I see that you have a compassionate and liberal view towards those that the world labels ‘insane’. That speaks well of you.

You earlier wrote that my statement, “People do choose not to follow any of them. That’s why there’s there’s no one key, to everyone’s happiness: people choose not to follow.”, was, “…a non-sequiter. The fact that people do not put on their safety belt has nothing to do with whether safety belts work.”
James, I’m not going to allow you to brush off the fact of my statement, by labeling it a “non-sequiter”. Regardless of what you think of my statement, it stands as an accurate obersvation of human nature; which human nature has everything to do with both individual and social happiness. My statement remains crucial to my viewpoint and I will not allow you to turn my viewpoint aside, regardless of your education. I have my own education.
Now, to your statement about seat (safety) belts. James, they don’t work unless you put them on. That is a factual statement of truth.
Just like my statement’s meaning, they aren’t happy unless they follow, remains a factual statement of truth.
And, that, sir, is not a non-sequiter.

May you have a peaceful New Year.

Don

 

[James_S_Saint]

Good morning Don.

What you call yourself and what you are is a matter of choice. You seem to deny certain relevant aspects of Jesus’ teachings, specifically, “Seek and ye shall find” and “faith can move mountains”, then latter “every knee shall bow”.

But the odd thing to me is your reason for disbelief in his teachings. Your reasoning is “well, if it could be done, it would have been already”. It seems odd to me that someone during this age could accept that because it hasn’t been done, it can’t be done.

For thousands of years, they had no cure for leprosy, but today, they do.

Until a few decades ago, the thought of talking real time to someone in China from Dallas, Texas without spending a fortune was absurd, yet it became doable and even common for a short while until they banned it.

Until a few decades ago man could not design a machine that could think not only for itself, but for its own sake, but now it has been done.

There are countless things that are being done that have never been done before. How can you justify the belief that not only denies your Lord, but also denies empirical evidence?

 

[StrawberryJam]

How can you say Don is denying teachings of Jesus?

You must not be a very happy person yourself to resort to repeated ad homs. Maybe that is why I reject your proposistion and find it faulty.

EDIT- catholics believe in CO-operating with grace by God

And, your comment about monastics was chilling by the way.

 

[James_S_Saint]

How can you say Don is denying teachings of Jesus?

You must not be a very happy person yourself to resort to repeated ad homs. Maybe that is why I reject your proposistion and find it faulty.

EDIT- catholics believe in CO-operating with grace by God

And, your comment about monastics was chilling by the way.

Perhaps if you would read the thread with less projected emotion?

…and emm… what comment about monastics??

 

[StrawberryJam]

Is it working??

If not, obviously what they deduced wasn’t good enough and if it can’t be obtained as Don insisted, then what they deduced is still silly, isn’t it.

If it is “working”, how does your theory “work”?

 

[James_S_Saint]

If it is “working”, how does your theory “work”?

Oh, that one.

Now I’m curious which meaning of “chilling” you intended.

But in the case of monastics, yogis, Buddhists, and the like who are learning something, they often try to dissolve their urges and sensations. Some try to do this by oppression or denial. It has the same effect as a government oppressing individuals (it really is the exact same thing). Often the result is rebellion from within. Sometimes they manage to dissolve the urges as those parts of their mind give up hope and learn to bow. It is an issue of one part of the mind exercising dominance over another.

Joy is the perception of progress toward a perceived goal. But different parts of the mind have different perceived goals. That is what makes them “different parts”. To achieve the maximum joy, all of the parts must become the same part, become one in unity. That is the goal of all such religions and philosophies - unity in purpose. Once that is achieved, if it is achieved, the maximum joy can be obtained by merely ensuring that any desire or urge that arises matches with reality and what is available. As long as that balance is kept, the joy will remain. Such is the ideal state of the enlightened. Such was the obvious state of Jesus. People who accomplish that have extraordinary abilities that most never manage.

 

[fhansen]

That’s true. However, since none of those guides cause happiness regardless of contrary efforts, then I submit, there is no known one key to everyone’s happiness.
Furthermore, if there were an unknown key to everyone’s happiness, it would have been found, and everybody on earth would be happy. Possibly, without being found, it would make everyone on earth happy; if the second possibility were the case, I can say, since everyone on earth is not happy, then, there is no unknown key to everyone’s happiness.

You may agree with this.
Christianity promises absolute, unending happiness. It would be totally worthless if it didn’t. It also promises suffering in this life, i.e. that there is no perfect, permanent happiness to be found here on earth. Knowing this fact actually is a component of having increased happiness now, relatively speaking, because we know to stop pursuing the promised land or some utopian ideal here, with all the disappointment that pursuit entails. That kind of happiness is reserved for the Beatific Vision-something we’re to strive towards.

If there’s no key to happiness in the ultimate sense-no genuine hope for it-then eternal life would be, well, not worth living eternally for. The teachings of the Church, together with the testimony of saints who’ve been blest to receive direct experiences of this beatitude, help us to understand this end that God has always desired for man.

 

[donsnow]

Good morning Don.

What you call yourself and what you are is a matter of choice. You seem to deny certain relevant aspects of Jesus’ teachings, specifically, “Seek and ye shall find” and “faith can move mountains”, then latter “every knee shall bow”.

But the odd thing to me is your reason for disbelief in his teachings. Your reasoning is “well, if it could be done, it would have been already”. It seems odd to me that someone during this age could accept that because it hasn’t been done, it can’t be done.

For thousands of years, they had no cure for leprosy, but today, they do.

Until a few decades ago, the thought of talking real time to someone in China from Dallas, Texas without spending a fortune was absurd, yet it became doable and even common for a short while until they banned it.

Until a few decades ago man could not design a machine that could think not only for itself, but for its own sake, but now it has been done.

There are countless things that are being done that have never been done before. How can you justify the belief that not only denies your Lord, but also denies empirical evidence?

Hi, James,

I’m not saying that individuals won’t find happiness when they look for it. I’m saying there’s no one key to everyone’s happiness. The first is pragmatic and the other is a philosophical speculation. Those are two different things.
I think you’re putting words in my mouth, because I have seen wondrous things that faith can do, and kneel in church, with all the rest of the congregation. We just haven’t discussed faith and kneeling, so I haven’t mentioned it.
Where are you coming from?

My reasoning has not been about Jesus’ teachings; my reasoning is about your philosophical speculation that there’s one key to everyone’s happiness. That’s two different things, in my mind. If you’re discussing Jesus’ teachings, then say so instead of offering vauge statements about one key to everyone’s happiness, please. I’m not saying people can’t be happy. There’s lots of happy atheists, agnostics, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, philosophers, etc. I’m just saying there’s not one key for all their different happiness.
Again, you’re putting words in my mouth, when you claim that my reasoning is this or that. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I’m not saying that people can’t be happy. There’s lots of happy people. I’m focusing on your statement of one key for everyone’s happiness.

OK, James, if and only if there is one key for everyone’s happiness, will you tell me what it is? If you write what it is, I can either accept, discuss, or decline it. If you won’t tell me what it is, then what are we discussing this for?

Don

 

[donsnow]

You may agree with this.
Christianity promises absolute, unending happiness. It would be totally worthless if it didn’t. It also promises suffering in this life, i.e. that there is no perfect, permanent happiness to be found here on earth. Knowing this fact actually is a component of having increased happiness now, relatively speaking, because we know to stop pursuing the promised land or some utopian ideal here, with all the disappointment that pursuit entails. That kind of happiness is reserved for the Beatific Vision-something we’re to strive towards.

If there’s no key to happiness in the ultimate sense-no genuine hope for it-then eternal life would be, well, not worth living eternally for. The teachings of the Church, together with the testimony of saints who’ve been blest to receive direct experiences of this beatitude, help us to understand this end that God has always desired for man.

Yes.
That’s what I want.
But, not everyone wants happiness through Jesus.
Therefore, Jesus isn’t the key to everyone’s happiness. He can only be the happiness of those who love His Heavenly father and him and who love their neighbor.

Also, you have plainly stated your position. I have not received such a plain statement from Mr. Saint.

Don

 

[James_S_Saint]

I guess that was just a misquote, “Pray that it be done on Earth as it is in Heaven”.

He must have really meant, “Pray that we stay miserable so that when we die it won’t hurt so bad.”

I guess I forgive getting those confused in translation.

 

[donsnow]

I guess that was just a misquote, “Pray that it be done on Earth as it is in Heaven”.

He must have really meant, “Pray that we stay miserable so that when we die it won’t hurt so bad.”

I guess I forgive getting those confused in translation.

Hi, James,

For heaven’s sake, that’s among the few times you’ve been specific. No, he meant what he said, let it be on earth as in heaven.

Now.
I believe and have experienced that God the Holy Trinity is the source of happiness. The source is not the key. Jesus Christ says, “I am the way, the truth, the life and the resurrection.”

So, I have plainly stated the source and the way.
Please tell me, what do you mean, by ‘key’?

Don

 

[James_S_Saint]

I believe and have experienced that God the Holy Trinity is the source of happiness. The source is not the key. Jesus Christ says, “I am the way, the truth, the life and the resurrection.”

So, I have plainly stated the source and the way.
Please tell me, what do you mean, by ‘key’?

Don

No, you have stated the name of the source and way. You have not stated the source or the way.

What I mean by “key” is “the missing element to a locked door wished to be opened”.

Now how about you tell me what is meant by;

“Seek and ye shall find”