Submitted by thelivingphilosophy t3_10pzgbi in philosophy
You can advocate the pursuit of a meaningful life without having to reframe the concept of happiness as a strawman. Happiness is low-hanging fruit for derision because it can be so silly and trivial but it is the antonym of suffering and the goal of much early philosophy, all of which is as compatible with the pursuit of higher ideals as much as it with the reduction of psychological despair. Imho this article uses "happiness" when it is really just talking about "hedonism."
Yeah this article fails where a lot of writers of philosophy fail: no clear definition of terms.
It feels like some terms are interchangeable with others, most notably the terms 'nihilism', and 'happiness' don't feel like they're actually referring to my understanding of these words.
This is written by someone who's clearly never actually suffered. Their highest suffering being the equivalent of a hang-nail, it's easy to come to these moronic conclusions about life.
Let me tell you, most of my suffering hasn't been great for character growth. And I've suffered way more than most. Chronic pain now for two years straight, five major surgeries with a total of over 30 hours under anesthesia (and countless months/years recovering), five major mental health diagnoses including bipolar disorder..
I currently live my life trying to maximize pleasure, comfort, and happiness because those are the only things that put a dent in all of my afflictions. This derision towards a pursuit of happiness as the cornerstone of a good life is absolutely borne of ignorance of what a bad life or what real suffering is.
Author is idiot.
As someone who has suffered greatly physically, your higher aim could be seeking hedonistic pleasure to offset your pain. Hedonistic pleasure is a tool for your higher aim, which is to overcome the unfortunate hand you were dealt.
It absolutely is. I tell everyone I meet that I'm interested in pursuits that lead to good feelings and that I do very little in the ways of pushing my body to extremes of discomfort (except maybe in a sexual capacity, where I'll eventually be rewarded with euphoria/bliss in the right environment) since I'm already constantly in a state of extreme discomfort (especially since the US refuses to administer opiates to chronic pain patients now, fuck all of the abuse surrounding the only drug that actually makes a dent in my pain).
Able bodied people look at me like I'm crazy because they simply do not understand how traumatic an experience like mine is. People don't want to look at their own privilege critically, just like the author. And it seems like a case of a severe lack of empathy, but that's nothing unusual for today's accepted discourse.
When talking about Frankl, the author says this:
Some prisoners regressed into a more animalistic state — losing touch with their humanity and becoming brutal survivalists. This is an understandable and perhaps the expected reaction to such an extreme situation.
I don't think the author would be critical of you for using pleasure to take the edge off incredible pain. I think what he is insinuating is that the harder the trial, sometimes, the harder it is to find higher meaning. Since I don't know you, I can't speak to your motivations, but I would assume that if you're willing to write about your pain on reddit, some part of your higher purpose involves sharing your experiences.
[deleted]
I wish more people were aware of how impossible it is to discuss philosophy without first agreeing upon the definitions of the terms you’re using. Philosophy of consciousness is one of my favorite niches to read about, but sooo many well educated thinkers on the subject neglect to parameterize what they mean by consciousness and end up going in circles defending their preconceived notions of the word instead of engaging with it in the way the speaker intended. Nothing more frustrating to me than two intelligent thinkers debating completely different topics using the same word.
Debate coach here. Often engage in philosophical resolutions. First part of any debate case is definitions. If you don't have them it's impossible to argue properly.
Is happiness really the antonym of suffering? I would think the antonym of suffering would be more like, “enjoyment” and/or “contentment”, or something like one of those.
The opposite of “happiness” would be, I think, “unhappiness”.
I forget which greek philosopher it was specifically, but their conception of Happiness was closer to that. The greek word “Eudonia” has been loosely translated to mean “happiness,” however it more closely translates to “fulfillment,” “contentment,” etc. So often when some of those greek philosophers were discussing Happiness, they really meant fulfillment, which is very different from what we understand happiness to mean.
It can kind of make sense because so many people interpret it that way. But the article is too vague, I much prefer the writings of people he quotes, like Frankl
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments