The Existence of "Happiness"

[riboflavinbob]

Is happiness simply the fulfillment of desires?

If one has no desire, can one ever achieve happiness?

Is sadness the failure to achieve desires?

EDIT: Is sadness the lack of success in the circumstantial or personal attainment of that which is desired?

Can happiness exist without sadness?

 

[aeghrur]

Isn't happiness simply the release of a rush of dopamine and/or endorphins?
Besides, are you sad when your parents die? Yes. Did you fail to meet a desire? No.

 

[Atsu]

If you're going to relate "Happiness" and "Sadness", you're basically talking about Yin and Yang. You can't experience happiness without experiencing sadness. Otherwise, there's no such thing as either since you have to have one to have another (I guess there are some 'special' cases, but I'd rather not go into deformailties/mental illnesses).

But there's a reason why in the Declaration of Independence it says "...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So I guess Happiness can exist without sadness. You're just going to be so miserable that I would think you would end your life, or so happy that you'd be mentally ill. (Or just haven't experienced one of the two emotions)

Happiness and Sadness can't be directly linked to desire, since in many cases "desire" has nothing to do with it. As aeghrur said:

Besides, are you sad when your parents die? Yes. Did you fail to meet a desire? No.

Hope is more of a belief that something will happen. You're hoping for happiness, and in some cases sadness I suppose. So I guess desire would just increase the happiness since it'd be the near equivalent of a dream depending on what it is or something simple.

I desire [insert material object here]
I dream for [insert some unrealistic that you know won't happen, but you desire it]

So basically, it's yes... and no depending on your perception.

 

[cmpr94x]

Isn't happiness simply the release of a rush of dopamine and/or endorphins?
Besides, are you sad when your parents die? Yes. Did you fail to meet a desire? No.

You don't want your parents to live?

 

[Mewter]

You can't really compare them until you've experienced both, but "happiness" just caused by a rush of whatever is happiness... but you wouldn't know of it.

Isn't happiness simply the release of a rush of dopamine and/or endorphins?
Besides, are you sad when your parents die? Yes. Did you fail to meet a desire? No.

You failed to meet the desire of living a longer life with your parents.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

I would say there are tiers of happiness. I enjoy smash. It's fun. I laugh sometimes when I play it. It makes me happy, I guess.

But to me, the best type of happiness is the happiness of fulfilling your true potential, or putting a talent to good use. I associate this with God in a way, but that's just me. Sometimes when I just think about all the things we've put into this world and how complex we've made it, I'm thrilled just because I'm alive to see it all.

Interesting question though about desire. I'm really not quite sure. "Content" is having sufficiently attained what you desire for, yes? I guess then, you could classify two different types of happiness:

Desire, the happiness achieved even while you have not yet attained it.

And Contentedness, having achieved it and finding it what you had hoped for. This type is more rare, I believe, since we can always hope and desire, but things don't always live up to your expectations. In fact, I think some people don't believe this type of happiness exists.

 

[DonQuixote]

I agree that happiness is fulfilling a desire, but i disagree that sadness is failing to fulfill a desire.

For example lets say i know this person. I do not know this person very well on a personal level. Now this person's parent dies. I feel sadness for this person even though i have no personal feelings for them. Did i fail to fulfill a desire? i dont think so.

 

[Eor]

I'd say this is pretty simple. We're happy when we get what we want and sad when we don't get what we want (or getting what we don't want)

 

[riboflavinbob]

I agree that happiness is fulfilling a desire, but i disagree that sadness is failing to fulfill a desire.

For example lets say i know this person. I do not know this person very well on a personal level. Now this person's parent dies. I feel sadness for this person even though i have no personal feelings for them. Did i fail to fulfill a desire? i dont think so.

Well, you did desire or want this person's parents to live did you not? Otherwise you would not be sad. You did not fail to fulfill a desire, but the circumstancecs did.

 

[BFDD]

There is more to happiness than just fulfilling a desire.

If you have an itch, then you desire to scratch it. Is scratching an itch happiness? If you spend your entire life scratching do you really think you will live a happy life?

If happiness is just desire or the release of chemicals in the brain then why bother banning drugs. Heroine supposedly feels better than sex, so I would think that being on heroine would make you feel really good. Yet addicts are looked down upon, people see it as a sad life, not a happy one.

 

[Overload]

There is more to happiness than just fulfilling a desire.

If you have an itch, then you desire to scratch it. Is scratching an itch happiness? If you spend your entire life scratching do you really think you will live a happy life?

If happiness is just desire or the release of chemicals in the brain then why bother banning drugs. Heroine supposedly feels better than sex, so I would think that being on heroine would make you feel really good. Yet addicts are looked down upon, people see it as a sad life, not a happy one.

For heroine addicts the happiness is temporary. It feels good then but as they look at what's become of them they may or may not realize they are living a sad life. So could you say sadness can result from some forms of happiness?

I wouldn't say all happiness comes from a desire being fulfilled. I wouldn't say your desire is met if a little boy is rescued from kidnappers and you feel happy if you hear the news after the kid is found. I don't think you could say your desire of wanting the boy to be found was fulfilled if you just found out he was found.

 

[RDK]

Sad is like happy for deep people.

 

[Pr0phetic]

I think you can experience Happiness without sadness, but both must coexist because they're opposite.

Otherwise happiness would be of norm, just an average.

 

[Darxmarth23]

I belive it is based on only thing Chemicals .

Any thing that happens to you can realease a certain chemical hormone into you. The balance of homones is pretty much your definition of happiness, thus your definition of happiness is different for everyone.

Some ppl are happy when a desire is met. Some just brush it off their shoulders.
Some ppl are happy for others. some don't really care.
Some ppl are happy when they see physical things. Flashing light on a tv screen, or sound from an mp3.

We all have a combinations of these types of happiness. There are endless things that make us happy.

Sadness is the opposite. same circumstances but opposite.

this is what i think

 

[zrky]

I think the word 'happiness' has been taken to many different meanings. I just think that happiness is a feeling you get when something makes you smile is one way to put it. Usually we don't smile when we are sad do we? Sadness is just the opposite, a feeling that makes you feel lost or forsaken and makes you frown.

 

[Hive]

I don't think happiness is based solely on chemicals, this implies a material structure to the world
which is scientifically accurate, but also completely pointless to believe in imo....
if such a state were true, how could meaning be attained and how could you ever be correct in believing this??
-If you believe you are only chemicals: and the world is also that way, what you believe in is pointless
and the world is not that way, then you are wrong
-If you believe you are more than chemicals: and the world is that way, you are correct
and the world isn't that way, no matter what you believe is
pointless
its a pascal's gambit, only in believing happiness is more than material can you ever be meaningfully correct.
Yes, its true, neuroscience theory shows we have no free will, the basic cause effect nature of most of the universe supports this as well,
but do scientists go around and treat people like volitionless chunks of matter? no.
do they use ppl for a sense of hedonism w/o any sense of empathy or hope that something higher exists?
No matter what you believe you are forced to be illogical... there is no point believing in a nihilistic state of things, but neither can you believe fully in logic and get something besides that....
Sometimes you have to believe things like this to put value in the world no matter how illogical it is...
and let's face it...
its much funner to go the graveyard with someone that believes in ghosts ^^

and even if you did believe that happiness is just chemicals and that it is meaningful i see these problems:
-It doesn't address how stimulating one group of atoms somehow is meaningful, and at least more meaningful than any other combination of atoms
-What is happiness in a material world? most ppl forget to realize this means the best way to approach life is by stimulating these happiness centers the most that they possibly can... in this sense even being in a drugged coma is an optimal way to live...
the quest for reason/intelligence is worthless in comparison
the quest for experiences is worthless in comparison
how long you live is never said to be relevant (a baby who lived 1 sec in supreme happiness then would be moreso to a person who lived 100 years with meh happiness.... with average happiness.... even if longetivity somewhat mattered taken into the infinite nature of times, all values would be pushed to zero)
-and lastly science can't address why consciousness arises.... which.... is miraculous really...


so to me at least... happiness is undefinable....

sorry for the long post @.@
also this is my first debat hall post ^^ i hope it was ok

 

[RDK]

You should give meaning to things, not the other way around. Yes, we are completely materialistic. Anything supernatural is essentially not part of the natural world.

And how is realizing that chemical reactions fuel our emotions nihilistic? It only sounds bad because you view it that way from the get go. I find many religious views to be far more sadistic and unmeaningful than a completely natural viewpoint.

 

[Hive]

a completely "natural viewpoint" though gives no meaning to empathy, or creates no differences between actions other than what makes you happy @.@
just bc someone believes in something supernatural doesn't mean they are more sadistic.. in fact technically sadism, is mainly a result of believing your meaning is the only one that matters
or that no one's meaning matters... which is more (but not all of course ^^) indicative of ppl who don't believe in anything supernatural....
The idea that you give things meaning simply by wanting them too though is just as illogical as any religion imo
is a rock meaningful bc a certain string of atoms decide triggers a response that makes it "think" it wants that? how do you differentiate between what atoms (since basically in a material world everything is just atoms....) can create meaning and which ones can't? and what is thinking exactly in a material world...? and why are you "you" to say... or does your identity cover everything? identity will never be explained i don't think by science, believing this already means you believe in something supernatural...
usually ppl believe in supernatural things withought noticing they do...

also ppl really misuse the idea of science all the time... the only real thing science advocates by itself is nihilisim- no difference between actions, no free will, no reason to exist, and no way to differentiate the conciousness of a rock or a person... if you believe other than this than you DO BELIEVE in something supernatural... like it or not.



edit: you... can't always be cynical of everything.... you have to accept some things to be able to contest others...
ppl can never escape all measures of faith...

ps also... you should try to hate the specific actions of a person rather than generalizing them to a larger group as well imo.... if i seem to be attacking atheism in this case i'm not... i'm attacking the idea that empathy (respect for others existence, free will, so on...) doesn't matter... (straight hedonism does this..)
if you believe in empathy i really don't mind what you belief group you belong to...
i can't contest one belief with another since all beliefs are at least somewhat illogical to me imo even though i'm theist... and truthfully, i like this diversity.

 

[Darxmarth23]

srry. I don't think i got my point accross well enough.

Scientifically SOOOOO many things trigger happiness. Each versoin of happiness is unique.

When there is so much then happiness is undefinable.

And i don't just believe in chemicals. I meant technically. sorry about that.

 

[The 5th Horseman]

Happiness and sadness go hand in hand, they can't exist without the other.

How could you classify happiness if you've never felt sadness? In order to do so you must experience the opposite.

Same goes for all elements of feeling.

 

[Hive]

srry. I don't think i got my point accross well enough.

Scientifically SOOOOO many things trigger happiness. Each versoin of happiness is unique.

When there is so much then happiness is undefinable.

And i don't just believe in chemicals. I meant technically. sorry about that.

i see ^^ sorry i guess i misuderstood that then :D lol
not that i was addressing only you though.....


edit" also... as simple as zrky's answer is... ^^ in many ways i kinda like it lol ^^

 

[aeghrur]

Well, consciousness isn't such a mystery. Sunflowers can think too. They always face the sun because of chemical processes. What's to say that our consciousness isn't just caused by much more complex reactions that have the ability to change? Anyhow, point is, chemistry, at a very complex level, can probably create thought and intelligence.

Now, what separates identity? I suppose that's more in the realm of philosophy. =/ There are many ideals, such as Locke's, Descartes's, and Hume's.

 

[Hive]

i meant consciousness in terms of identity ^^ not in terms of cognitive processes which of course as u said are explainable ^^
The meaning is interchangeable ^^

 

[Darxmarth23]

i meant consciousness in terms of identity ^^ not in terms of cognitive processes which of course as u said are explainable ^^
The meaning is interchangeable ^^

Exactly.

Im guessing that happiness is sooooo broad that its almost, or is undefinable.

Yet we know its there.

 

[Hive]

Exactly.

Im guessing that happiness is sooooo broad that its almost, or is undefinable.

Yet we know its there.

yea ^^ but you know, i'm really glad its undefinable :D
if it were... i don't think it would be as meaningful ^^

edit: ps your writing look really badass when quoted lol

 

[PaintedGhost]

I do believe that happiness is based on “the fulfillment of desires,” however there are variations of happiness. One example is this is Christmas (since it is coming up). Before Christmas I always get incredibly cheerful, and I’m “in the holiday mood.” I did not fulfill any desire, but I’m still happy.

 

[Darxmarth23]

yea ^^ but you know, i'm really glad its undefinable :D
if it were... i don't think it would be as meaningful ^^

edit: ps your writing look really badass when quoted lol

Thanx. and you are right. if it did have a definition then we would have to do more to officially be happy.

 

[TheRazaman]

True Happiness exists alright and it is not undefinable or purely chemical (that form is simply pleasure, and not as important).

Happiness is the ultimate goal for humanity. It is the highest good a person can achieve. You achieve happiness through virtuous activity.

That is what happiness is, and clearly, it exists.

 

[mc4]

I feel that emotions are tricky, yes there are all sorts of fancy and cute chemical processes to explain the reaction, but I think there is more to the cause. A careful choice of words is also necessary in this argument. As for whether or not we only experience happiness as a result of desire is beyond me (the term desire also has the connotations of humans being selfish to me and yet we can be happy for non selfish reasons...) If our desire is pure selfishness, our own wants and wishes, then yes we can be happy without it being a result of our own desires, but yet we could desire non selfish things (seeing others succeed etc, unless it is only to fulfill our own wish for happiness). I think this discussion could only go in circles, just like my above reasoning lol

 

[Pr0phetic]

I feel that emotions are tricky, yes there are all sorts of fancy and cute chemical processes to explain the reaction, but I think there is more to the cause.

You do know you control your metabolism with your brain? You release those chemicals by your feelings, which is your emotions. Your body is deep stuff.

A careful choice of words is also necessary in this argument. As for whether or not we only experience happiness as a result of desire is beyond me (the term desire also has the connotations of humans being selfish to me and yet we can be happy for non selfish reasons...)

I feel happiness come out of fufillment and accomplishment, whether that be gaining an item or going to a fun place. I honestly feel happy when others are happy, why i always have so many friends, and i stay cheering them up whenever(yes mostly girls ofcourse.)

If our desire is pure selfishness, our own wants and wishes, then yes we can be happy without it being a result of our own desires, but yet we could desire non selfish things (seeing others succeed etc, unless it is only to fulfill our own wish for happiness). I think this discussion could only go in circles, just like my above reasoning lol

You can surely wnat without selfish intentions. Its simply what you make it.

 

[marthanoob]

You can surely wnat without selfish intentions.

No. "Wanting" implies selfishness, tangible or not.

 

[RDK]

Essentially everything we do has some root of motivation based in selfishness.

We're selfish beings, and rightly so. Natural selection insures that members of our species strive to survive, and that spills over into our social life.

Think of it like this: is there anything that you've done in your life that you didn't do because it brought you some degree of pleasure, or simply because you deemed it a good or right thing to do? Then it was selfish.

I'm not saying that every single thing you do is motivated entirely by selfishness, but it does play a part in our everday actions.

 

[aeghrur]

Personally, I don't think selfishness is a part of human nature.
In fact, it's a part of human nurture. You see, adults want their offsprings to survive and thrive in a world with limited resources. This means we must be competitive to survive. They teach us to be competitive and in the process, to be selfish because these two things are a requirement for survival. Meanwhile, if you look at kids, they're not fighting over money or jobs or anything. When they have the resources they need supplied, they're not selfish because they don't need to be to survive. It's not our nature that causes us to be selfish, it's the environment and our nurture.

 

[mc4]

Essentially everything we do has some root of motivation based in selfishness.

We're selfish beings, and rightly so. Natural selection insures that members of our species strive to survive, and that spills over into our social life.

Think of it like this: is there anything that you've done in your life that you didn't do because it brought you some degree of pleasure, or simply because you deemed it a good or right thing to do? Then it was selfish.

I'm not saying that every single thing you do is motivated entirely by selfishness, but it does play a part in our everday actions.

geeze does everything have to turn into an argument about evolution. If it was the case that natural selection even spills into social life (the selfish survival of ones species or own seed) then what of altruism which is the unselfish concern for another, even if evolution were true(strictly my opinion we already had a who knows how many page discussion about it) i don't think by any means it would "spill" into social life.

 

[illinialex24]

geeze does everything have to turn into an argument about evolution. If it was the case that natural selection even spills into social life (the selfish survival of ones species or own seed) then what of altruism which is the unselfish concern for another, even if evolution were true(strictly my opinion we already had a who knows how many page discussion about it) i don't think by any means it would "spill" into social life.

Uhhhh... you really have no idea what you are saying. Altruism is very supported by evolution theory, because evolution has the survival of a gene which gets passed on, not necessarily the animal. Why do tadpoles release chemicals that warn other tadpoles when they get eaten by a dragonfly larvae? Because the other tadpoles are genetically similar to them and their survival is more important than the energy to create those chemicals.

 

[RDK]

geeze does everything have to turn into an argument about evolution. If it was the case that natural selection even spills into social life (the selfish survival of ones species or own seed) then what of altruism which is the unselfish concern for another, even if evolution were true(strictly my opinion we already had a who knows how many page discussion about it) i don't think by any means it would "spill" into social life.

I'm not going to debate with you about whether or not evolution is true. It's not even up for debate.

And yes, selfishness is a product of natural selection. Orgnanims that present with a stronger will to survive are more strongly selected for in nature. We, being animals, are naturally selfish. That's just how life works.

And altruism isn't a big mystery. Organisms can't be completely selfish loners, or they wouldn't get chance to reproduce and pass on their genes. They have to be social, or at least mildly gregarious, to survive. Altruism is just that taken to the extreme.

There are handfuls of examples of animals in nature exhibiting altruism to benefit the group, colony, or species as a whole. Do some reading on the subject.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

 

[illinialex24]

I'm not going to debate with you about whether or not evolution is true. It's not even up for debate.

And yes, selfishness is a product of natural selection. Orgnanims that present with a stronger will to survive are more strongly selected for in nature. We, being animals, are naturally selfish. That's just how life works.

And altruism isn't a big mystery. Organisms can't be completely selfish loners, or they wouldn't get chance to reproduce and pass on their genes. They have to be social, or at least mildly gregarious, to survive. Altruism is just that taken to the extreme.

There are handfuls of examples of animals in nature exhibiting altruism to benefit the group, colony, or species as a whole. Do some reading on the subject.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

Yeah, if a creature is a more social creature, altruism is needed, and if animals are more solitary, selfishness is important. Humans are a mixture of course and so there is some greed but also some altruism.

 

[mc4]

evolutionary debaters assemble lol

Hmmm, so lets say that what you say about evolutionary biology is true, that all animals need altruism to survive (all tho it was my understanding that animals only care about reproduction of their own seed but hey you guys study it not me) there is also the complete opposite. What do we say of the large squid which is a cannibal does it care about it's species survival if it's eating them? And on the subject of reproduction do all humans desire to have children? Do all humans display an altruistic attitude toward others? Even if evolution were true humans are more than instinct and evolution seems like it only affects the instincts of animals and not the reasoning capabilities(seeing as how humans are the only animals that can reason), I seriously don't think that evolution would have anything to do with our social lives but hey thats just me.

 

[illinialex24]

evolutionary debaters assemble lol

Hmmm, so lets say that what you say about evolutionary biology is true, that all animals need altruism to survive (all tho it was my understanding that animals only care about reproduction of their own seed but hey you guys study it not me) there is also the complete opposite. What do we say of the large squid which is a cannibal does it care about it's species survival if it's eating them? And on the subject of reproduction do all humans desire to have children? Do all humans display an altruistic attitude toward others? Even if evolution were true humans are more than instinct and evolution seems like it only affects the instincts of animals and not the reasoning capabilities(seeing as how humans are the only animals that can reason), I seriously don't think that evolution would have anything to do with our social lives but hey thats just me.

No. It depends on the species. Its the survival of a gene.

I.e. There is a new gene that is created in one tadpole. He survives to have kids randomly. The gene allows him when he dies to warn other tadpoles with chemicals. Now, he has children. One dies but all the other survive because of the mutation, so he has more children in the next generation. This gene propagates throughout the population. However, for solitary creatures, a social altruistic gene is not useful. Selfish genes are useful then.

And evolution has everything to do with our social lives and we have evolved. That is a fact. However, we cannot prove that we will evolve in the future but every indicator says yes. But we cannot 100% prove it. And take a look at our intelligence. Its the result of sexual selection, women chose more intelligent men as an indicator of fitness and so our intelligence grew greatly. And take a look at how we help others. In a society, you need others to help you sometime or another, so if you help them, they are more likely to help you when you need it. That is why you are less likely to help someone if they hurt you.

 

[Pr0phetic]

No. "Wanting" implies selfishness, tangible or not.

Tangible or not? Lets define selfish:

Arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others

If you want good for others, its not self-implied, expellng the selfish act. Don't you think it sounds kind of weird if you say call me selfish when i want a friend to survive a fire?