BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Sadness is happiness as sadnesss

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Charlus
10:58 / 11.01.08
It has been said over a long period of time that happiness is the ultimate aim of all things. Whether or not things are pursued for their own aim, they contribute still to a larger aim, that being happiness. But is happiness really sadness disguised??

Is this a fair claim?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:03 / 11.01.08
No.
 
 
Evil Scientist
11:15 / 11.01.08
It has been said over a long period of time that happiness is the ultimate aim of all things.

Does that include the Foot and Mouth virus?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:22 / 11.01.08
The virus wants to thrive, and thus be happy.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
11:44 / 11.01.08
When you say 'happines', Charlus, don't you perhaps mean 'a killing frenzy'?

If so, don't do it. It's bound to be a blot on anyone's CV, and you'll regret it, man, when you're older.
 
 
Jack Fear
12:00 / 11.01.08
More seriously—though it can't help sounding like another joke, and for that I apologize though it's NO FAULT OF MINE—can we define our terms, here?

What, in this context, is "happiness"? Contentment? An Epicurean conception of "pleasure" (i.e., fulfillment of bodily needs and lack of pain and/or distress)? Satiation? Excitement? Is it tied up with expectations, or is it a free-floating state? Is it relative, or absolute? Does it exist on a scale—are there degrees of happiness—or is it a binary, on-or-off, happy-or-sad proposition?

Ditto "sadness." Is it depression? Lassitude? Boredom? Discontent? Discomfort? Blind shrieking agony? Independent, scalar, relative, what?

Ditto, again, "disguise." Are you talking about a quality of the thing itself—i.e., the goal is illusory? Or are you talking about the human capacity for self-deception?

If we're gonna discuss this, we need a framework.
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
15:04 / 11.01.08
are you asking if a smile is a frown turned upside down?
 
 
*
16:29 / 11.01.08
What I'm hearing in this is an echo of the idea that the experience of happiness comes not from an external acquisition of some thing or experience that makes one happy, but from an internal recognition that the goods that one has are good enough. I would say either sadness or happiness are a matter of interpreting one's present experience as good or bad, but objective conditions really do contribute to that interpretation. A captive in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo is less likely, probably, than a lower-middle-income person in the US worrying about the potential foreclosure of their house to be able to interpret their present conditions as sufficient for happiness.

Because sadness and happiness are internal experiences and not external ones, a lot of factors collaborate to cause them. Some are experiences of external factors, like having a home, or being in prison. Some are internal factors out of one's direct control, like chemical balances in the brain. Others are internal factors that one has control over, such as eating healthily or getting enough exercise (although granted economics and ability can make these things more difficult to control). One of the factors that I've seen as most important to my own happiness has been changing habits of thinking, which is (I believe) the aim of psychological counseling.

So, to more directly answer your question: No, happiness is not the same as sadness, and it's not just a disguise for sadness. Happiness and sadness are two equally internal and subjective experiences, either (or both!) of which can exist in apparently the same external conditions.
 
 
TeN
06:33 / 12.01.08
This thread is all kinds of mixed up.
 
 
astrojax69
05:31 / 13.01.08
and happily, that's sad.


how can something happy be simultaneously sad? it can't.

so we are talking about transition, and i presume therefore some sort of necessary transition; ergo, if something can be described as possessing 'happiness' it will necessarily tend towards possessing more and more 'sadness', thus disaffecting 'happiness'.

where, then, does happiness go to die?
 
 
*
07:07 / 13.01.08
how can something happy be simultaneously sad? it can't.

Um, really? Are you sure? You can't think of even one situation that is simultaneously happy and sad?
 
 
*
07:07 / 13.01.08
Or rather, that you could be simultaneously happy and sad about, since I don't think happiness or sadness is a property of the situation but the person experiencing it?
 
 
Charlus
10:40 / 13.01.08
We thrive on sadness. We know sadness more than happiness. Sadness seems to be easier to articulate. This isn't to say that happiness should be thrust aside, or is without merit, but we perhaps embrace sadness more than happiness? So can we really be happy? We need sadness to be happy. Happiness with a captial H does seem to be unreachable. My own opinion is that we rely on sadness more than we rely on happiness. I am not necessarily talking morbidly, such as death, as it has been stated, but rather we find happiness in sadness, we pass through sadness to reach happiness. Our engagements with the world as well as movies, music, art, conversations, relationships, you name it. Perhaps this is superficial, but we do pass through sadness more often to reach happiness. This isn't again to denote happiness, but rather to ask the question:

We seem to experience sadness and to need it, more often than not. So is happiness really an existent? Is it something that we can aspire to or could ever obtain? Will we always sad?

If not, explain why you think this is not the case... the same for if you think this is the case.

This seems to be the case for me.
 
 
Jack Fear
15:20 / 13.01.08
We thrive on schmeerp. We know schmeerp more than blurve. Schmeerp seems to be easier to articulate. This isn't to say that blurve should be thrust aside, or is without merit, but we perhaps embrace schmeerp more than blurve? So can we really be blurvious? We need schmeerp to be blurvious. Blurve with a captial B does seem to be unreachable. My own opinion is that we rely on schmeerp more than we rely on blurve. I am not necessarily talking morbidly, such as death, as it has been stated, but rather we find blurve in schmeerp, we pass through schmeerp to reach blurve. Our engagements with the world as well as movies, music, art, conversations, relationships, you name it. Perhaps this is superficial, but we do pass through schmeerp more often to reach blurve.

Is that helpful?

No?

If not, then think about why that might be.
 
 
Haloquin
15:43 / 13.01.08
We thrive on sadness. I don't.

We know sadness more than happiness. Do we?

Sadness seems to be easier to articulate. Then please articulate it, I have great difficulty articulating sadness. In fact, I think happiness might be easier, but that tends to be in terms of colours and textures in my case. Assuming you meant the same thing I do by these terms, which it doesn't sound like you do.

This isn't to say that happiness should be thrust aside, or is without merit, but we perhaps embrace sadness more than happiness? Even if we feel it more often, which is contestable and context dependent, is that embracing it more often?

So can we really be happy? Yes. Why not? Being able to feel more than one thing doesn't stop you being able to feel any of them. Assuming being happy involves feeling happy?

We need sadness to be happy. Why?

Happiness with a captial H does seem to be unreachable. What gives it a capitalisation? Can any feeling be capitalised? If not, why bother saying Happiness particularly is impossible?

My own opinion is that we rely on sadness more than we rely on happiness. I am not necessarily talking morbidly, such as death, as it has been stated, but rather we find happiness in sadness, we pass through sadness to reach happiness. Our engagements with the world as well as movies, music, art, conversations, relationships, you name it. Perhaps this is superficial, but we do pass through sadness more often to reach happiness. So, because we can, in your eyes, pass through sadness to happiness, this means passing through sadness is the only way to be happy?

This isn't again to denote happiness, but rather to ask the question:

We seem to experience sadness and to need it, more often than not. So is happiness really an existent? Is it something that we can aspire to or could ever obtain? Will we always sad?
I don't understand the relationship you seem to be suggesting between being sad and not being able to be happy.

If not, explain why you think this is not the case... the same for if you think this is the case. If you explain your terms and limit them sufficiently, this might possibly work. Otherwise, I disagree because, to me, they are two states-of-mind, they are not mutually exclusive, but they also aren't the same, as indicated by the way we ascribe them to different things. I am often happy without feeling sad. As I am often happy, I don't think happiness is impossible.

This seems to be the case for me. But what does it actually mean? If you mean the same by those terms as I do, I feel very sorry for you.
 
 
astrojax69
01:04 / 14.01.08
no, i can't zippy. not truly happy and sad.

perhaps there are many occasions from which i draw sadness and happiness simultaneously, but the causes of those emotions are each differing aspects of that nebulous cluster of events so, when strictly delineated, would each constitute different things, so not the one thing...
 
 
*
05:42 / 14.01.08
Astro: Oh, okay. That probably covers all the examples I thought of, too.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
12:57 / 14.01.08
Charlus, I'm sorry to say this but: How old are you?
 
 
Charlus
10:05 / 15.01.08
What has age got to do with it???
 
 
Charlus
10:20 / 15.01.08
In all honesty, I am asking questions to things that I know nothing about, and I posed a very abstract? kind of post. What I see in the post is different to what you see. I did write it with great intrepidation. My initial thoughts were for myself, that everything is enveloped in some kind of sadness. But perhaps sadness is not the right word... or that happiness is the right word... This is hard to describe. Perhaps it is immaturity on my part, but putting it into words is in someways difficult. Then Again, I haven't raised a question regarding gender reassignment, death, heart surgery, ect, so you reap what you sow I suppose...
 
 
Spaniel
10:20 / 15.01.08
I suppose because we tend to associate angst with teenagers, and what you've written probably strikes Lady as rather angst ridden. It certainly strikes me that way.

Charlus, I've got to say, judging by what you've written here I am a little worried about you. Last time my thoughts resembled what you've written I was mired in a deep dark depression.
 
 
Charlus
10:54 / 15.01.08
No depression here I am afraid, or at least not that I know of. Life can be tiresome, but not to the point where I feel like I can't go on. Nor am I Emo. I think I should chalk it down to a consistent case of being misunderstood.

But then whose fault is that really???
 
 
Spaniel
11:00 / 15.01.08
Assuming you're not equivocating, that would depend. Looking over this thread, it would seem that the majority of people have failed to understand what you are saying. That being the case, I would suggest that the fault primarily lies with your attempts to communicate, rather than with your readers.

Nothing to be ashamed of, communicating abstract ideas can be very difficult.
 
 
Charlus
11:07 / 15.01.08
That is what I was stating. It was entirely a fault at my end!

Regards,
 
 
Spaniel
11:08 / 15.01.08
So what are you trying to say? Perhaps folks around here can help you tease it out.
 
 
Charlus
11:15 / 15.01.08
I don't!

Thanks for responding.

Regards.
 
 
Jack Fear
12:23 / 15.01.08
You don't what?

Come on, don't be like that. If you think this is a worthwhile question—and you must, if you thought to ask it in the first place—then surely it's worth the time and effort to rephrase it in a way that's going to be clear to your interlocutors. It's the classic GI/GO equation: the better the quality of your question, the better an answer you can expect.

Does it seem like I'm mocking you, upthread? I am, a little; but mostly it's because I'm frustrated that you seem to be making so little effort to make yourself understood.

Listen: there's a principle that I picked up in the study of poetry that applies also to philosophical discussion. Ezra Pound said it: "Go in fear of abstractions." That is: Abstract nouns are inherently subjective. Love, hate, happiness, sadness—these are universal states, but with individual triggers and effects.

So: We both feel happiness, yes, but the way I experience happiness is unique to me, and yours unique to you. There may be factors in common, but my happiness and yours are inescapably separate phenomena. So whenever you make generalized statements about "happiness" tout court, those statements are so vague as to be meaningless unless you carefully define the factors, the visible (preferably quantifiable) effects related to the phenomenon. I've asked some q1uestions and given some suggestions here; you may find these helpful.

For what it's worth, I think you may be on to something if by "sadness" you mean something like desire, or unfulfilled ambition, and by "happiness" you mean attainment or achievement—the old idea that the more you have, the more you want. But if that's what you mean, then it would behoove you to say so. Otherwise, I'm just guessing blindly, and you're doing card tricks in the dark.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
21:45 / 15.01.08
by "sadness" you mean something like desire, or unfulfilled ambition, and by "happiness" you mean attainment or achievement—the old idea that the more you have, the more you want

...which, not to muddy an already muddy thread, would lead us onto the religious and philosophical ideas espoused most clearly by Buddhism:

1) Suffering exists.
2) It is caused by desire
3) Remove desire and suffering ceases.

(There is of course a fourth Noble Truth, but it isn't necessary here)

From there we should ask- is this the case or is suffering even more intrinsic than that? Is Noble Truth numero tres even feasible?

We could also take a look at the political side of happiness- depression is becoming increasingly common as the standard of living continues to rise yet there is no political will to tackle this and a politician who makes 'increasing happiness' or even 'decreasing clinical depression' part of their manifesto is unthinkable. Why?
 
 
bacon
22:18 / 15.01.08
i think i know what charlus meant in his original post, it's like eating a chocolate chip cookie, the cookie's inherent yumminess makes me happy, but the slow death of the cookie, the gradual disintegration of it's essence, that essence that causes my happiness, lost to my own happiness, never to exist again, the loss, the... the pain...
 
 
imaginary mice
11:23 / 16.01.08
Happiness according to Sam Gardiner:

a chemical imbalance in the
brain triggered by these tranquillity pills, tested
to destruction on laboratory rats, whose happiness
is quite depressing
 
 
Evil Scientist
11:35 / 16.01.08
Well if you've got to go, go with a smile.
 
 
Jack Fear
11:43 / 16.01.08
YOU'RE NOT HELPING
 
 
astrojax69
23:01 / 16.01.08
remove desire and all life's worth ceases, doesn't it?

the buddhist argument, whilst trying to be nice, is fallacious. there is no necessary link that desire is the necessary and sufficient cause of suffering, which it would need to establish. and it also assumes that desire is something that can be dispensed with, though the argument might go:

2: suffering is caused by breathing
3: dispense with breathing, no more suffering.


that at least has the advantage that 3 is pretty well necesarily true (leaving aside any arguments for emotional states in any afterlife)

don't get me wrong, am a big fan of buddhist ideals. just a shallow argument, but i'm doubtless missing the zing in the zen.
 
 
Jack Fear
00:20 / 17.01.08
To be fair, the concept that Phex is articulating as "desire" is more usually translated as "attachment"—and it's a far more complex and slippery notion than simple wanting.
 
 
astrojax69
04:29 / 17.01.08
point taken; i did say i was prob'ly missing something... but it is still to be grounded that 1 is necessarily caused by 2, such that removal of 2 necessarily entails the removal of 1, which is the problem.

and maybe suffering is good in itself but we miss the point, assuming only its negative qualities. maybe...
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply