(no subject)
I am a member of an online community. In this community I had a private conversation with this one man about our philosophies and philosophy. Because I thought it was extremely meaningful and perhaps insightful, I'm going to share it with you all. Nothing has been edited aside from a single name.
Note: This is a LOT of reading.
giuseppeDrinksHemlock [private] : So, the idea of metaphysical reflection appeals to you? Well then, there's no time for formal introductions. Do you think happiness is the supreme goal in life? And that for as long as one follows a set of honorable values throughout life, one should do whatever one thinks necessary to reach it? To my opinion life losses meaning if not, but recently i have been considering different approaches to this question that doesnt seem wrong at all, and perhaps this concept may need some corrections. What do you think about it?
Zelvital [private] : Happiness is indeed the supreme goal in life (not to be confused with meaning, life has but one meaning, and that is to continue). Everything from politics to religion, after all of the hierarchies and politics, boils down to how can I, the average Joe, be happy and feel fulfilled in life. How one obtains such satisfactions can vary from person to person, as everyone has different wants and needs. I don't think you can tell people as one group what they need to do to be happy. Figuring out what yours is and applying it is what, I feel, is everyone's ultimate goal.
giuseppeDrinksHemlock [private] : Tell me, what do you think about this: "To inquire after the meaning or object of one's own existence or of creation
generally has always seemed to me absurd from an objective point of view. And yet everybody has certain ideals which determine the direction of his endeavours and his judgments. In this sense I have never looked upon ease
and happiness as ends in themselves--such an ethical basis I call more proper for a herd of swine. The ideals which have lighted me on my way and time after time given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have been Truth,
Goodness, and Beauty. Without the sense of fellowship with men of like mind, of preoccupation with the objective, the eternally unattainable in the field of art and scientific research, life would have seemed to me empty. The ordinary objects of human endeavour--property, outward success, luxury--have always seemed to me contemptible." --Excerpt from Einstein's "The World as I See It"
Happiness not as an end in itself? Perhaps...What do you think?
giuseppeDrinksHemlock [private] : So, the idea of metaphysical reflection appeals to you? Well then, there's no time for formal introductions. Do you think happiness is the supreme goal in life? And that for as long as one follows a set of honorable values throughout life, one should do whatever one thinks necessary to reach it? To my opinion life losses meaning if not, but recently i have been considering different approaches to this question that doesnt seem wrong at all, and perhaps this concept may need some corrections. What do you think about it?
Zelvital [private] : Before I comment on that excerpt, I want to make sure I understand what he's trying to say. Is he inferring that because people have different ideals and experiences, thinking of happiness as an ultimate accomplishment in life is absurd?
giuseppeDrinksHemlock [private] : Alexander, I think Einstein is just saying that everyone has different opinions as to what to get out of life, and that in his personal case ("In this sense I...") he has never considered happiness to be the supreme goal in life ("such an ethical basis I call more proper for a herd of swine..."), he considers it something additional. He also says that his goals were "Truth, Goodness and Beauty" (I suppose Einstein's long-time goal was his Unified Field Theory, i.e. his work. You might argue that his work provided him happiness, and the answer is yes, but at the last his ultimate goal was, his work; he was rather unconcerned about his emotional state.), and to discover new things about the universe; money was of no interest to him. Thats my own interpretation. I think it's interesting that he considers happiness as something additional, his supreme goal must lie in the sphere of reason and thought; Happiness, is closer to the nature of animals. We must note, however, that this is by no means an "absolute truth" - this is just HIS personal case. But, for now i follow (i changed my mind) his example, happiness is something additional to my life - and it is welcome, but it isnt my supreme goal. My supreme goal is deeply related to my own idea about the meaning of my life (That makes sense? for me it does...). I should be happy for as long as i exert my idea about the meaning of my existence. Huh! I guess we should debate about whether happiness could really be something additional in anybody's life or not.
Zelvital [private] : I would argue that completing such goals brings about a sense of accomplishment and happiness. Thus, happiness really IS the ultimate goal.
giuseppeDrinksHemlock [private] : I agree with you; that would certainly bring to him some sort of happiness, but thats not the point. He was rather unconcerned about his emotional state - the happiness is welcome, but at the very, very last, the objective was to continue his work. I think its quite possible to separate those concepts; I could be outright wrong! Of course, if you can prove it...
Zelvital [private] : I ask you, why do you suppose he want to complete the Unified Field Theory so badly? I would argue that it is because it would make him very, very happy. Subconsciously, we strive to do things that make us happy. At least I believe so. If Einstein was completely indifferent towards his theory, he wouldn't have put so much time and effort into it. He loved working on the theory, and happiness was his reward for doing so. It is impossible to do anything you strive for without it making you happy. Thus, I belive that the only end in which everyone has in common is happiness. In my mind, that makes it an ultimate goal for people.
giuseppeDrinksHemlock [private] : Huh!, you have quite a point; I think you are right. But then, what is the best interpretation for the excerpt I sent you? Must we assume Einstein was wrong in saying he didnt see happiness as an end in itself?
Zelvital [private] : I think we should remember that Einstein was a physicist and not a Philosopher.
giuseppeDrinksHemlock [private] : Ok, now that we kinda came to a conclusion, with respect to my inquiry about happiness I suppose you could tell me something about how the meaning of life correlates with happiness - and also, to explain in deep detail the most particular characteristics about its nature, and that of happiness. Also, and possibly most important, what do you think of god? and the afterlife?
Zelvital [private] : This is where I throw a little bit of science in with my philosophy. Life exists in order to continue and evolve. That is the only thing all life has in common, so in my eyes it is the closest thing to meaning that life has as a whole. I feel the happiness is a way our body rewards us for satisfying our needs as a species. We're happy when we eat. We're happy after sex. We're happy when we communicate with friends... I see happiness as initiative to do things that promote the continuation and reproduction of the species.
As for a God or Gods, I have difficulty in believing in organized religions (western ones especially). Western religions don't make sense to me for the following reasons. "If there is a God, and only one God.... and you will be punished in some manner for either not following his/her/ word or prophets word... and he/she allows false religions to exist... and he/she wont give us any more proof as to know which word of his/hers is true than that of which is offered by false religions... If he/she exists, can we really be sure he/she wants all of us to follow him/her? He/she is making it much harder than it has to be. I find it much like putting your child up for adoption at birth, and finding three-four couples that look like you to go to the orphanage and having the child guess who his/her parents are. To me, that doesn't make any sense." (Taken from a post of mine in the [community] forums) I am open to the thought that the planet was made by someone or some people and that perhaps life was placed on the planet by them. But the idea of one all-powerful God makes little sense to me. I have more respect for Eastern religions. Buddhist like religions that don't deal with a God or Gods so much especially.
As for the afterlife, I find it impossible to comment on the afterlife. There isn't a way for anyone to gain any insight as to what happens after you die. We can't look at it from either a Historical or a Scientific position and thus I don't see a logical way to go about trying to decipher it.
Note: This is a LOT of reading.
giuseppeDrinksHemlock [private] : So, the idea of metaphysical reflection appeals to you? Well then, there's no time for formal introductions. Do you think happiness is the supreme goal in life? And that for as long as one follows a set of honorable values throughout life, one should do whatever one thinks necessary to reach it? To my opinion life losses meaning if not, but recently i have been considering different approaches to this question that doesnt seem wrong at all, and perhaps this concept may need some corrections. What do you think about it?
Zelvital [private] : Happiness is indeed the supreme goal in life (not to be confused with meaning, life has but one meaning, and that is to continue). Everything from politics to religion, after all of the hierarchies and politics, boils down to how can I, the average Joe, be happy and feel fulfilled in life. How one obtains such satisfactions can vary from person to person, as everyone has different wants and needs. I don't think you can tell people as one group what they need to do to be happy. Figuring out what yours is and applying it is what, I feel, is everyone's ultimate goal.
giuseppeDrinksHemlock [private] : Tell me, what do you think about this: "To inquire after the meaning or object of one's own existence or of creation
generally has always seemed to me absurd from an objective point of view. And yet everybody has certain ideals which determine the direction of his endeavours and his judgments. In this sense I have never looked upon ease
and happiness as ends in themselves--such an ethical basis I call more proper for a herd of swine. The ideals which have lighted me on my way and time after time given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have been Truth,
Goodness, and Beauty. Without the sense of fellowship with men of like mind, of preoccupation with the objective, the eternally unattainable in the field of art and scientific research, life would have seemed to me empty. The ordinary objects of human endeavour--property, outward success, luxury--have always seemed to me contemptible." --Excerpt from Einstein's "The World as I See It"
Happiness not as an end in itself? Perhaps...What do you think?
giuseppeDrinksHemlock [private] : So, the idea of metaphysical reflection appeals to you? Well then, there's no time for formal introductions. Do you think happiness is the supreme goal in life? And that for as long as one follows a set of honorable values throughout life, one should do whatever one thinks necessary to reach it? To my opinion life losses meaning if not, but recently i have been considering different approaches to this question that doesnt seem wrong at all, and perhaps this concept may need some corrections. What do you think about it?
Zelvital [private] : Before I comment on that excerpt, I want to make sure I understand what he's trying to say. Is he inferring that because people have different ideals and experiences, thinking of happiness as an ultimate accomplishment in life is absurd?
giuseppeDrinksHemlock [private] : Alexander, I think Einstein is just saying that everyone has different opinions as to what to get out of life, and that in his personal case ("In this sense I...") he has never considered happiness to be the supreme goal in life ("such an ethical basis I call more proper for a herd of swine..."), he considers it something additional. He also says that his goals were "Truth, Goodness and Beauty" (I suppose Einstein's long-time goal was his Unified Field Theory, i.e. his work. You might argue that his work provided him happiness, and the answer is yes, but at the last his ultimate goal was, his work; he was rather unconcerned about his emotional state.), and to discover new things about the universe; money was of no interest to him. Thats my own interpretation. I think it's interesting that he considers happiness as something additional, his supreme goal must lie in the sphere of reason and thought; Happiness, is closer to the nature of animals. We must note, however, that this is by no means an "absolute truth" - this is just HIS personal case. But, for now i follow (i changed my mind) his example, happiness is something additional to my life - and it is welcome, but it isnt my supreme goal. My supreme goal is deeply related to my own idea about the meaning of my life (That makes sense? for me it does...). I should be happy for as long as i exert my idea about the meaning of my existence. Huh! I guess we should debate about whether happiness could really be something additional in anybody's life or not.
Zelvital [private] : I would argue that completing such goals brings about a sense of accomplishment and happiness. Thus, happiness really IS the ultimate goal.
giuseppeDrinksHemlock [private] : I agree with you; that would certainly bring to him some sort of happiness, but thats not the point. He was rather unconcerned about his emotional state - the happiness is welcome, but at the very, very last, the objective was to continue his work. I think its quite possible to separate those concepts; I could be outright wrong! Of course, if you can prove it...
Zelvital [private] : I ask you, why do you suppose he want to complete the Unified Field Theory so badly? I would argue that it is because it would make him very, very happy. Subconsciously, we strive to do things that make us happy. At least I believe so. If Einstein was completely indifferent towards his theory, he wouldn't have put so much time and effort into it. He loved working on the theory, and happiness was his reward for doing so. It is impossible to do anything you strive for without it making you happy. Thus, I belive that the only end in which everyone has in common is happiness. In my mind, that makes it an ultimate goal for people.
giuseppeDrinksHemlock [private] : Huh!, you have quite a point; I think you are right. But then, what is the best interpretation for the excerpt I sent you? Must we assume Einstein was wrong in saying he didnt see happiness as an end in itself?
Zelvital [private] : I think we should remember that Einstein was a physicist and not a Philosopher.
giuseppeDrinksHemlock [private] : Ok, now that we kinda came to a conclusion, with respect to my inquiry about happiness I suppose you could tell me something about how the meaning of life correlates with happiness - and also, to explain in deep detail the most particular characteristics about its nature, and that of happiness. Also, and possibly most important, what do you think of god? and the afterlife?
Zelvital [private] : This is where I throw a little bit of science in with my philosophy. Life exists in order to continue and evolve. That is the only thing all life has in common, so in my eyes it is the closest thing to meaning that life has as a whole. I feel the happiness is a way our body rewards us for satisfying our needs as a species. We're happy when we eat. We're happy after sex. We're happy when we communicate with friends... I see happiness as initiative to do things that promote the continuation and reproduction of the species.
As for a God or Gods, I have difficulty in believing in organized religions (western ones especially). Western religions don't make sense to me for the following reasons. "If there is a God, and only one God.... and you will be punished in some manner for either not following his/her/ word or prophets word... and he/she allows false religions to exist... and he/she wont give us any more proof as to know which word of his/hers is true than that of which is offered by false religions... If he/she exists, can we really be sure he/she wants all of us to follow him/her? He/she is making it much harder than it has to be. I find it much like putting your child up for adoption at birth, and finding three-four couples that look like you to go to the orphanage and having the child guess who his/her parents are. To me, that doesn't make any sense." (Taken from a post of mine in the [community] forums) I am open to the thought that the planet was made by someone or some people and that perhaps life was placed on the planet by them. But the idea of one all-powerful God makes little sense to me. I have more respect for Eastern religions. Buddhist like religions that don't deal with a God or Gods so much especially.
As for the afterlife, I find it impossible to comment on the afterlife. There isn't a way for anyone to gain any insight as to what happens after you die. We can't look at it from either a Historical or a Scientific position and thus I don't see a logical way to go about trying to decipher it.