[Filone iniziato il 14 luglio 1993] May we begin a new thread about Jerry's assertion that human happiness is so dependent on abstract concepts? The objectives of the thread could be the following: 1. A data base of the abstract concepts necessary for human happiness. 2. Discussion about what the term "abstract" means. 3. Discussion about what human happiness is. The last point has, I would say, been being discussed for centuries, but it seems to me that in the last, say, fifty years, the question has been progressively abolished from the social conscious. The second point is interesting for any scientist in his work, and an intricate question is, how to distinguish between real abstract thinking and artificial abstractness which comes up only by scientific jargon, sometimes simply by the inability of clear writing, sometimes more deeply by the fact that thinking and writing are really different (as may be the case in a large part of mathematics). But also in Jerry's statement "abstract" can, in my opinion, have many facets of meaning. When I read that statement, I thought for a moment that there are so many people who are happy without any abstract concepts in mind at all. But may be, this is not true: The social values in a small town, those proposed by television, even the values in gun-handgrenade films are abstract values, and very effect-full ones, if also they usually are not created by the individual, but from outside. So these are difficult questions, and the examples I gave now may really demonstrate that some kinds of abstract concepts are necessary for human happiness. Or is it the timeslessness of these concepts? Because many people become unhappy, if the abstract concepts in their environment begin to change. --------------------------------------- [Randy to me] That's a heck of an undertaking, and has lots of potential for producing fascinating discussion. However, the nature of this medium makes it darned difficult to keep two people on track for three messages or more, much less a large group dealing with such a complex series of questions. --------------------------------------- [Alan to me] I would define happiness as being able to do the things you like. For most people, this relates to the idea of having control over your life; you want constancy when you feel the need for it, while being able to change your life' wehn this suits you more. Other definitions, anyone? -------------------------------------- [To Alan] "I would define happiness as being able to do the things you like," you say, and I think this is really at least a very large part of what one could call human happiness, especially if one understands it in the sense that the ability to control things should last a longer time. Life is controlled movement, action (and reaction) on the one side and constancy of this control on the other side (because only such a constancy can guarantee us the capability to new actions), and one of the things which make us happy is the feeling of being alive. Concerning this rather audacious thread I thought also about strategies of realizing the happiness we are discussing. Your answer shows that it should not be difficult to find a consense among "experts" on what happiness is, but it could be less easy to introduce the results of such learned conferences in the world. I think, intelligent people could take an active role in two aspects of the problem of realizing happiness: Usually people think that their own happiness can be realized only taking away something from other people. One could show that very often there are instead possibilities to combine the needs of all the involved parts. The second aspect is the numerical one. We all are accustomed (by phylogenetic disposition, by education, by personal experience) to base our behaviour on abstract concepts (the keyword at the beginning of this thread), concepts often related to affective categories, as home, love, loyalty, property, health, and we all learned (also, and sometimes especially, in primitive cultures) very much about them. But we did seldom learn of how important quantity is in the development and manifestation of quality. I think of course on overpopulation, but not only. Not to know about the danger which is latent in numerical evolution is one of the most serious lacks in human conscience and education. ------------------------------------------ [Paul to Alan] Some of your suggestions for 'happiness' could also provide 'satisfaction' which is a bit different. I'd like to distinguish between satisfaction [freedom from fear of death, hunger,...] and happiness, which includes joy, giddiness, ... ------------------------------------------ [Thomas to me] Happiness is relative. Your experiences, both good and bad, provide a standard with which you compare what could have happened to you in the past or might happen to you in the future. The resulting comparison results in a bell curve of lifes perceptions. If you're living in, say the right two thirds, of this curve, you're generally happy. Anything that happens on the extreme right or left of this curve will make you momentarily happy or unhappy. Young children tend to be generally happy because they have few experiences with which to compare to limited expectations. In short, they tend to naturally live in the middle of their personal curve. As they become young adults, their expectations outstrip their experiences and they trend to live on the left side of the curve, making it difficult to accept their lot in life; making it difficult to be happy. As people get older, they accumulate more life experiences that help to tone down their expectations such that the older one gets, the easier it is to be generally happy. Most people spend their lives trying to get further to the right on the curve. What they don't realize is that one can never stay there. The bell curve changes as you become acclimated to your current surroundings. As you become used to your surroundings, the middle of the curve shifts the norm of your day to day experiences. In extreme conditions, a warm bed and a hot meal may bring great pleasure. In the best of times it may take perfect service in the finest hotel to even make an impression. The trick then, is to live in the middle of your personal curve. If anyone is interested, I would be happy to share my thoughts on how to live there. ------------------------------------ [To Thomas] So, probably, those of us who began here to discuss human happiness, shall never be happy again? I thought more to try to understand the outside conditions necessary for happiness, while you bring in the inside aspect. It could be true that there is a sharp dividing line between those who are able to deliberately resign a part of their possible desires, of action and discoveries, of freedom and beauty, recognizing that trying to achieve such goals could lead them to a troublesome life instead of happiness, and the other ones, who cannot renounce, because those desires are to vivid in them, and they feel that they could achieve them with effort or luck. Do they ever achieve? Rarely, perhaps. But is it not true that if one could remove the obstacles opposed by nature and often by society, beauty, freedom and discovery could be achieved easily? What you wrote is a quiet, assuring philosophy, but sometimes for human happiness it would be enough that mankind learns to count its resources. ------------------------------------ [Alan to me] Certainly, the conditions that produce happiness are conditioned by culture. America is to my knowledge the only country that specifies happiness as a human right in its founding documents. This implies that we believe that there is an objective set of conditions that produces happiness in "normal" people. From what I have seen in my travels, in Germany the concept of community feeling (gemuetlichkeit) is fundamental to happiness there. Am I close? ------------------------------------ [To Alan] The German Gemuetlichkeit means to be at home, or among friends, in a calm atmosphere, without too much activity. The best translation of gemuetlich should be snug (for me a new word), which, according to the vocabulary, means comfortably warm and well protected. Not rarely gemuetlich stands for slow. So Gemuetlichkeit is one form of happiness, not all of it. If you want, it may be a measure of happiness, because, if there is something wrong, Gemuetlichkeit is not more possible. But one can be happy also without Gemuetlichkeit, but perhaps not without knowing that one can in any moment turn back to it. However, I think it is also true that Gemuetlichkeit alone can give a very satisfying feeling, which comes near to happiness. The relationship between happiness and Gemuetlichkeit probably depends also on the age of a person. Younger persons may even feel unhappy if it is too gemuetlich, and older ones usually say that something is ungemuetlich, meaning that it makes them unhappy. ------------------------------------ [Cindy to Alan] Happiness isn't specified as a human right; rather, the right is to be able to *pursue* the condition. Big difference, methinks. ------------------------------------ [Alan to me] Thanks for the amplification, Josef! This is how I understood it, too. ------------------------------------ [Alan to Cindy] Yes, that's a vital distinction, and I was remiss in not making the distinction in my citation. Let there be equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. ------------------------------------- [Thomas to me] The outside conditions that define happiness are inside the individual. If I say that a person needs to be health to be happy, does that mean that a cancer patient cannot be happy? That person may be in remission and quite happy. Hypochondriacs tend to be an unhappy lot. The point is, it's not outside conditions that define happiness, but rather how one perceives outside conditions. Perception is reality. If a person perceives that he or she is healthy, that can lend to a happy state of mind. Again, it's all relative and dependent on the individual, be it a single person, a society or mankind in general. There are no sharp dividing lines when it comes to trying to understand what causes emotions. There's no black and white, just shades of grey. It's all highly personal and dependent on the complex interactions of all forces involved, both real and perceived. Mankind has removed a great deal of obstacles imposed by nature and society over the ages. Is mankind any happier for it? I think not. In general, I could say that a feeling of wellbeing, a perception that events are progressing in a favorable and manageable fashion and the thought that others agree with your opinions are a few ingredients that promote happiness. ------------------------------------------------