IDK, when I look at nature most animals reproduce via methods which if humans did would be rape, and they frequently fight deadly fights over things. They consume raw and dirty foodstuffs and die...
Exemplary
IDK, when I look at nature most animals reproduce via methods which if humans did would be rape, and they frequently fight deadly fights over things. They consume raw and dirty foodstuffs and die way earlier than they could've if their diet was not full of germs and viruses. They can't build tools, shelters, machines. They can't tell their feelings, they can't tell anything, we don't even really know if they "think" for a narrow definition of the term. In that light, I'd rather go with what reason suggests, than what nature dictates.
Also, the title hides a word that's more important than most of the rest that it does not: sustained. This is about sustained happiness, which is something everybody defines for themselves. Yes, we can't be happy all the time (or can we!), but that does not invalidate the pursuit of happines; just like the fact that we cannot constantly have an uninterrupted orgasm does not render sex an unnecessary futile thing.
Now, the article itself kinda comes to this conclusion too, so you'll ask me, why criticise? Well, that is actually the worst part of it: the title hints at a way more controversial argument, the first few paragraphs seem to support it, but then like Turkish soap operas that end too quickly because of funding failure, an early final concludes everything with a happy ending. And this all makes this rather clickbaity, if I'm honest.
Edit: I also want to touch that quote by Abd-al-Rahman III, Caliph of Cordoba: it is common among religious folk (especially those who became religious in the last years of their life) to look down upon their past and dislike it. Death imminent, hell scary, their ideals and mores change swiftly. They repent everything and commit to a pious lifestyle. All their past becomes a foolish youth to them...
All this to say, that's one of the worst quotes to support almost any argument, definitely this one included. Totally anecdotal, a millennium old, from a Caliph that is supposed to lead a religion of abstinence but yet lives enjoying the lavishest of luxuries and the worldliest of pleasures. I.e., hardly honest and/or consistent morally.
I pretty much agree, the article is pretty much just meaningless conjecture with absolutely zero evidence or even anecdotes. As a counterpoint personally, I've been generally happy/content with my...
I pretty much agree, the article is pretty much just meaningless conjecture with absolutely zero evidence or even anecdotes. As a counterpoint personally, I've been generally happy/content with my life for the past decade, so framing "sustained happiness" or "contentment" or whatever as an unachievable pipe dream for every person is just flat out wrong.
The rest of the article is a classic appeal to nature fallacy. It doesn't matter what humans are designed to do. More accurately, we shouldn't limit our aspiration to things that we think humans evolved for. Humans never evolved with flight in mind, yet millions of people fly from place to place each year. We never evolved to fight cancer, but chemotherapy and other cancer treatments are effective and provide real benefits to people. "We weren't designed to" is a stupid reason to not try to achieve something.
There also is a distinction between inner happiness and peace, and the momentary contentness. You might be angry or stressful or resentful for something at a given time, but that need not mean you...
There also is a distinction between inner happiness and peace, and the momentary contentness. You might be angry or stressful or resentful for something at a given time, but that need not mean you are not also happy and peaceful inside. The two are separate. Inner peace, inner happiness is about accepting oneself, loving oneself, being positive regarding future. To the extent you can keep this separate from what happens to you, you can be happy and peaceful no matter what, and that's what's to be conquered.
All modern research seems to suggest that humans thrive when we're in a state of flow, of barely overcoming difficult challenges. That form of success in the face of adversity leads to (you...
All modern research seems to suggest that humans thrive when we're in a state of flow, of barely overcoming difficult challenges.
That form of success in the face of adversity leads to (you guessed it) happiness. It's pretty irresponsible to suggest that since we can't be happy all the time, we shouldn't try to do what statistically leads us to feel fulfilled in our lives.
In my opinion, this is harmful thinking even if I think it's correct. If a person truly believes that they're working toward happiness, then that's the drive working as it should. Chasing after...
In my opinion, this is harmful thinking even if I think it's correct. If a person truly believes that they're working toward happiness, then that's the drive working as it should. Chasing after happiness with the hope it'll change everything forever is exactly how it pushes you to do, think, and act in the ways that it's supposed to. Shattering that seems wrong to me.
Accepting this is destructive. I don't really believe anything I do will bring me long term happiness, and that's the source of so many other problems. It's remarkably hard to chase that hard after something that you know will slip through your fingers and leave you in this same spot again. Chasing the highs and knowing that's what you're doing makes it much harder.
it's kinda bizarre to talk about what we're "designed" and "not designed" to do as a justification for not chasing happiness in a world where we can and have literally altered most of the human...
it's kinda bizarre to talk about what we're "designed" and "not designed" to do as a justification for not chasing happiness in a world where we can and have literally altered most of the human states of being (for better or for worse) through medicine and technology in ways people even 150 years ago could have never dreamed of, much less on the timescale of hundreds of thousands of years. frankly, we probably weren't explicitly "designed" by evolution to do a lot of the things we're now able to casually do. regardless, though, if we're now able to more consistently feel happiness because of medicine which corrects illness like depression or technology like television sets and mobile phones, why would we pass that up? there are some circumstances i suppose where "bucking" how human evolution has trended might be bad, but i'm going to guess feeling more happiness is not one of those circumstances.
This article reminded me of ACT, acceptance and commitment therapy. My therapist introduced me to ACT through a book titled The Happiness Trap, so you can see the connection. The idea is that...
This article reminded me of ACT, acceptance and commitment therapy. My therapist introduced me to ACT through a book titled The Happiness Trap, so you can see the connection. The idea is that happiness does not come as easily to us as things like worrying, and if your goal is to be happy all the time, you'll only be disappointed.
I still haven't finished the book (I'm good at procrastinating), but I actually found that helpful. Sometimes when you feel bad, you start getting frustrated with yourself, which makes everything worse. "I started meditating but I don't feel better yet, so I must be doing it wrong." Or "I didn't go for a walk today, and it's my fault I feel bad now." Or "I'm really anxious but it's stupid and I shouldn't feel this way."
A lot of advice for being happier involves doing something, so if it doesn't work, it feels like a personal failing.
It's not that I don't want to be happy or content, but I'm attempting to free myself from the self-judgement that stems from falling short of happiness. If that makes sense. Which, in turn, makes it more likely I'll actually find happiness, because I'm not beating myself up for failing to live up to societal ideas of "being happy."
This is very much what I took from the article. I don't see it as the author saying happiness is unobtainable, but that constantly pressuring yourself to "find happiness" and "be happy" is...
This is very much what I took from the article. I don't see it as the author saying happiness is unobtainable, but that constantly pressuring yourself to "find happiness" and "be happy" is counterproductive. Just live your life as best you can and savour the happiness you find along the way.
It's nothing to do with design. Any animal strives for contentment or however you wish to call it, a state of absence of needs. We became conscious, discovered boredom, and since then it's never...
It's nothing to do with design. Any animal strives for contentment or however you wish to call it, a state of absence of needs. We became conscious, discovered boredom, and since then it's never been enough.
I found too many things wrong with this article to sort out. However I did want to provide for anyone that is interested the bio of the author, Rafael Euba.
I found too many things wrong with this article to sort out. However I did want to provide for anyone that is interested the bio of the author, Rafael Euba.
I qualified in Medicine in and Spain and later trained in psychiatry in the UK (St Bartholomew’s training rotation), where I became a Member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
I have worked as a consultant in old age psychiatry in South London for over twenty years. I am also the Neuromodulation lead Consultant in Oxleas NHSFT (London) and at The London Psychiatry Centre in Harley Street, London.
I have a special interest in old age psychiatry, as well as in the treatment of affective disorders with brain modulation technologies, such as rTMS. We at the London Psychiatry Centre were the first to offer rTMS to the general public in the UK and have accumulated a wealth of clinical experience in this field.
I have thought in GKT Medical School and advised NICE on brain modulation issues. I have published two books and written numerous articles for the psychiatric and general press.
Experience
–present
Consultant and Senior Lecturer in Old Age Psychiatry, Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust
Education
1986
University of the Basque Country, Medicine and surgery
IDK, when I look at nature most animals reproduce via methods which if humans did would be rape, and they frequently fight deadly fights over things. They consume raw and dirty foodstuffs and die way earlier than they could've if their diet was not full of germs and viruses. They can't build tools, shelters, machines. They can't tell their feelings, they can't tell anything, we don't even really know if they "think" for a narrow definition of the term. In that light, I'd rather go with what reason suggests, than what nature dictates.
Also, the title hides a word that's more important than most of the rest that it does not: sustained. This is about sustained happiness, which is something everybody defines for themselves. Yes, we can't be happy all the time (or can we!), but that does not invalidate the pursuit of happines; just like the fact that we cannot constantly have an uninterrupted orgasm does not render sex an unnecessary futile thing.
Now, the article itself kinda comes to this conclusion too, so you'll ask me, why criticise? Well, that is actually the worst part of it: the title hints at a way more controversial argument, the first few paragraphs seem to support it, but then like Turkish soap operas that end too quickly because of funding failure, an early final concludes everything with a happy ending. And this all makes this rather clickbaity, if I'm honest.
Edit: I also want to touch that quote by Abd-al-Rahman III, Caliph of Cordoba: it is common among religious folk (especially those who became religious in the last years of their life) to look down upon their past and dislike it. Death imminent, hell scary, their ideals and mores change swiftly. They repent everything and commit to a pious lifestyle. All their past becomes a foolish youth to them...
All this to say, that's one of the worst quotes to support almost any argument, definitely this one included. Totally anecdotal, a millennium old, from a Caliph that is supposed to lead a religion of abstinence but yet lives enjoying the lavishest of luxuries and the worldliest of pleasures. I.e., hardly honest and/or consistent morally.
I pretty much agree, the article is pretty much just meaningless conjecture with absolutely zero evidence or even anecdotes. As a counterpoint personally, I've been generally happy/content with my life for the past decade, so framing "sustained happiness" or "contentment" or whatever as an unachievable pipe dream for every person is just flat out wrong.
The rest of the article is a classic appeal to nature fallacy. It doesn't matter what humans are designed to do. More accurately, we shouldn't limit our aspiration to things that we think humans evolved for. Humans never evolved with flight in mind, yet millions of people fly from place to place each year. We never evolved to fight cancer, but chemotherapy and other cancer treatments are effective and provide real benefits to people. "We weren't designed to" is a stupid reason to not try to achieve something.
There also is a distinction between inner happiness and peace, and the momentary contentness. You might be angry or stressful or resentful for something at a given time, but that need not mean you are not also happy and peaceful inside. The two are separate. Inner peace, inner happiness is about accepting oneself, loving oneself, being positive regarding future. To the extent you can keep this separate from what happens to you, you can be happy and peaceful no matter what, and that's what's to be conquered.
All modern research seems to suggest that humans thrive when we're in a state of flow, of barely overcoming difficult challenges.
That form of success in the face of adversity leads to (you guessed it) happiness. It's pretty irresponsible to suggest that since we can't be happy all the time, we shouldn't try to do what statistically leads us to feel fulfilled in our lives.
In my opinion, this is harmful thinking even if I think it's correct. If a person truly believes that they're working toward happiness, then that's the drive working as it should. Chasing after happiness with the hope it'll change everything forever is exactly how it pushes you to do, think, and act in the ways that it's supposed to. Shattering that seems wrong to me.
Accepting this is destructive. I don't really believe anything I do will bring me long term happiness, and that's the source of so many other problems. It's remarkably hard to chase that hard after something that you know will slip through your fingers and leave you in this same spot again. Chasing the highs and knowing that's what you're doing makes it much harder.
it's kinda bizarre to talk about what we're "designed" and "not designed" to do as a justification for not chasing happiness in a world where we can and have literally altered most of the human states of being (for better or for worse) through medicine and technology in ways people even 150 years ago could have never dreamed of, much less on the timescale of hundreds of thousands of years. frankly, we probably weren't explicitly "designed" by evolution to do a lot of the things we're now able to casually do. regardless, though, if we're now able to more consistently feel happiness because of medicine which corrects illness like depression or technology like television sets and mobile phones, why would we pass that up? there are some circumstances i suppose where "bucking" how human evolution has trended might be bad, but i'm going to guess feeling more happiness is not one of those circumstances.
related: There's More to Life Than Being Happy
This article reminded me of ACT, acceptance and commitment therapy. My therapist introduced me to ACT through a book titled The Happiness Trap, so you can see the connection. The idea is that happiness does not come as easily to us as things like worrying, and if your goal is to be happy all the time, you'll only be disappointed.
I still haven't finished the book (I'm good at procrastinating), but I actually found that helpful. Sometimes when you feel bad, you start getting frustrated with yourself, which makes everything worse. "I started meditating but I don't feel better yet, so I must be doing it wrong." Or "I didn't go for a walk today, and it's my fault I feel bad now." Or "I'm really anxious but it's stupid and I shouldn't feel this way."
A lot of advice for being happier involves doing something, so if it doesn't work, it feels like a personal failing.
It's not that I don't want to be happy or content, but I'm attempting to free myself from the self-judgement that stems from falling short of happiness. If that makes sense. Which, in turn, makes it more likely I'll actually find happiness, because I'm not beating myself up for failing to live up to societal ideas of "being happy."
This is very much what I took from the article. I don't see it as the author saying happiness is unobtainable, but that constantly pressuring yourself to "find happiness" and "be happy" is counterproductive. Just live your life as best you can and savour the happiness you find along the way.
It's nothing to do with design. Any animal strives for contentment or however you wish to call it, a state of absence of needs. We became conscious, discovered boredom, and since then it's never been enough.
I found too many things wrong with this article to sort out. However I did want to provide for anyone that is interested the bio of the author, Rafael Euba.