Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Crown Buddhist Monk the World's Happiest Man
concealment writes in with a story about a man who has been crowned the world's happiest. "Tibetan monk and molecular geneticist Matthieu Ricard is the happiest man in the world according to researchers at the University of Wisconsin. The 66-year-old's brain produces a level of gamma waves — those linked to consciousness, attention, learning and memory — never before reported in neuroscience. The scans showed that when meditating on compassion, Ricard's brain produces a level of gamma waves — those linked to consciousness, attention, learning and memory — 'never reported before in the neuroscience literature,' Davidson said. The scans also showed excessive activity in his brain's left pre-frontal cortex compared to its right counterpart, giving him an abnormally large capacity for happiness and a reduced propensity towards negativity, researchers believe."
when reading this, my brain produces a level of gamma waves — those linked to consciousness, attention, learning and memory — never before reported in neuroscience!
...but the complete opposite. On a more serious note, this is the kind of story that will make me take a second look into meditation. Cant wait to enjoy massive gamma waves myself!
Tomorrow is another day...
I rather be an unhappy Socrates rather then a happy pig.
Can one not be happy during the process of helping others?
Maybe we can try to cut into much less useful things first, like "PETA Condemns Pokemon For Promoting Animal Abuse". If meditation can help someone have a positive attitude, this alone can help shape the life of less fortunate. Cause happiness have nothing to do with material possessions.
Tomorrow is another day...
Nobody should be overly happy, not when there are so many sad things happening in the world. Instead of being happy, why not help those who aren't. Instead of feeling compassion why not make the sacrifice to act on it? If you are happy, you are probably at least a little selfish. Of course what I have said will anger many people, but it's truth. There are many things you can do to help others in your neighborhood, in your state, country, or planet that you aren't doing.
But the (horribly selfish, but nevertheless realistic) question is "why should I?"
I'm a nice guy in general. People seem to like me. But, I don't do it for the sake of it - I do it because being a nice guy is the best way to get those around me to be nice back, which makes me happy.
I contest that every human being is either inherently ENTIRELY selfish, or have something wrong with them (i.e. insanity). Even those ultra-religious types that beat themselves violently in repentance for sins are doing it on the promise of eternal happiness in heaven. If they truly believed that there was no afterlife, or that they'd suffer for all eternity; they wouldn't do it.
I've yet to see a convincing argument otherwise, including from the "I help others selflessly" crowd - they do it because the act of helping others makes them happy. If helping others made them miserable, they'd stop.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Yeah, I know some bad programmers like that. They are always happy and positive . . . but never think about error cases . . . so they never code for them. After all, the world is a bright and happy place, isn't it? Why would a user hit the delete key, when the program asked him to press 'y' or 'n' ?
They are also the folks who say that they "tested" their program, when they really mean it ran once, in a simple scenario.
So that's grand that some folks can be happy while surfing their gamma waves. Some other folks can worry and deal with the problems of the real world.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
They do say, "ignorance is bliss."
Most people prefer being surrounded by happy people instead of being surrounded by suffering unhappy people. Thus working to create more happiness in your surroundings is entirely rational even for a perfectly selfish person.
This research has practical uses. It's a shame it was filed under "idle".
Understanding how happiness in the human brain works could lead to new ways to treat depression and other mental illnesses. It could also lead to the development of a tasp like device.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I find pretty much all religion abhorrent. Buddhism however, while still abhorrent for believing in mystical ideas that go against the simplest (and therefore best) definitions of reality, is definitely less abhorrent than the others. I've seen a lot of quotes from the Dalai Lama that I really appreciate and can agree wholeheartedly with. This is something I can't often say for religious leaders of any other faiths.
What I'd really like to see is some good scientific research put in to this sort of thing, stripping away the associated mysticism and getting right to the core of it. Based on the rather limited article, it appears this might not be too difficult as he may already be keeping the mysticism to a minimum.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Well yes but my point is that nobody is at that point. Happiness comes about from satisfaction and being content, why get satisfaction and feel content if you have failed in helping others?
16 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" 17 "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." 18 "Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.' " 20 "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?" 21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." 22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Most people prefer being surrounded by happy people instead of being surrounded by suffering unhappy people. Thus working to create more happiness in your surroundings is entirely rational even for a perfectly selfish person.
Absolutely, and that's essentially my reasoning for "being a nice guy" as stated. It's also one of the reasons I'm more "left" leaning politically - I want society to take care of the lesser fortunate people so I don't have to deal with as much poverty (and associated crime) in my surroundings.
However, I was arguing against the "don't be happy, because you're not helping people" angle that the OP seemed to be going for. To me, that's senseless.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
I know when I can get Enlightenment to compile I am very happy, too.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2569 ... :-)
If you had read TFA:
He addressed the World Economic Forum in Davos at the height of the financial crisis in 2009 to tell gathered heads of state and business leaders it was time to give up greed in favor of "enlightened altruism."
His other works include "Happiness: A Guide to Developing Life's Most Important Skill" and several collections of photographs of the landscape, people and spiritual masters of the Himalayas.
Ricard donates all proceeds of his books to 110 humanitarian projects which have built schools for 21,000 children and provide healthcare for 100,000 patients a year.
I think this guy has done far, far more than his fair share to bring happiness to others, much more than what 99.99 % of the rest of humankind will ever do.
The nice thing about Buddhism is that the most philosophical branches are almost devoid of religious thought but full useful guidelines for life. Amazingly, for example, for applying Zen concepts to popular electronics is that at the Zen Rinzai school Steve Jobs is considered a Zen master.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
Helping others can in fact make you feel miserable and often does. For example try helping refugees who have been raped and been through hell. Trust me you will feel miserable. Or go to a camp where there are thousands of people and you can hardly make a difference. You will feel like shit. Yet people do it. Even atheists do it.
You are assuming that people are motivated by the same things as you. There are many serial killers by the way, who believe in God and "know" they are going to suffer in hell, but they still keep their behavior .. maybe it's a selfishness against their future self. But anyway I know for a fact there are people who believe they are going to hell but don't care.
Happiness is the natural result of not identifying with a self that is separate from others. Selfishness is the antithesis of happiness.
In Buddhist terminology, true compassion is the sense of you-are-the-same-as-me that automatically moves one to act alleviate the suffering of another (because it hurts the helper almost the same). It's not the same as pity, which may not be sufficient to motivate helping. Paradoxically (to people unaccustomed to practicing compassion), feeling the suffering of others who are sick, dying, aging, in war, etc. actually increases one's happiness as it diminishes one's feelings of alienation.
Helping others can in fact make you feel miserable and often does. For example try helping refugees who have been raped and been through hell. Trust me you will feel miserable. Or go to a camp where there are thousands of people and you can hardly make a difference. You will feel like shit. Yet people do it. Even atheists do it.
I disagree that the (majority of) people doing such things feel "completely" bad about it if they continue doing it. They may feel bad for the people and even cry themselves to sleep every night; become depressed; or otherwise be miserable - but then they either stop doing it (i.e. they realised it doesn't make them happy) or continue doing it (because they also get positive feelings from helping; OR are batshit insane (as I already mentioned as an option))
For the "insane" ones, I really simply mean to say that I don't see how their behaviour can be reconciled as rational in any way whatsoever. I'm just not dressing it up in nice words.
You are assuming that people are motivated by the same things as you.
In a way, yes. I'm assuming that people are motivated to "feel good" - a very large part of which is "being happy". I'd argue that "feeling good" exists purely because without it, we wouldn't have motivation to do stuff. It's the trait that has allowed us, as a species, to not have died out before we really even began. In simpler creatures (insects, simple fish, coral, etc) I doubt there's enough consciousness to have a concept of happiness, so they're "motivated to do stuff" purely by instinct. We, along with most other larger creatures, have emotion and feelings as a layer on top of that and use them to justify our actions (humans probably more so than most other animals due to our reliance on our brains as our differentiator). Therefore "feeling good" / "being happy" is the only logical motivator of any kind. We can justify doing things that make us temporarily unhappy only by looking forward to more happiness in the future.
I could of course be wrong - but this is how I reason it and see it. I'm open to people trying to convince me otherwise, but it'll take a pretty strong argument I think.
There are many serial killers by the way, who believe in God and "know" they are going to suffer in hell, but they still keep their behavior .. maybe it's a selfishness against their future self. But anyway I know for a fact there are people who believe they are going to hell but don't care.
In most cases, I'm pretty certain these fall in to the "insane" grouping if they really do believe what they're doing is 100% wrong in every way shape and form. In my understanding, most serial killers believe they're doing the "right" thing in some way (even those who realise they're doing wrong justify it with some kind of belief that it has a long-term or more overreaching "right").
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Either you misunderstand the message or you are confusing Asceticism with Happiness.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Nobody? It sounds like the subject of the article is. He is happy, and devotes the product of his work to helping those less fortunate.
The monk didn't need this extra crowning, he was happy enough without. The scientists should have shown some moral responsibility, and bestow that crown to someone less happy, for whom it would have made much more difference.
5. All the bullshit gun restrictions crap redacted, all records destroyed, open carry, concealed carry is granted by god not man
Move to Somalia, it's just the gun owner's paradise of freedom and liberty you're dreaming of.
I already had my Cobalt-60 gamma ray source, now I have to put it close to my left pre-frontal cortex and I will be a happy man.
This article was brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department.
Enjoy.
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
Happiness = Perceived Life / Expected Life
Perceived Life = Actual Life x Perception
Therefore, to be happy, either a) improve your life, b) reduce your expectations or c) change your perception. Looks like this guy went for a mix of (b) and (c). At least that's my take on it.
Not everyone enjoys sex the same way, and not everyone wants a family life. Not even if they live to see 100, or have dozens of grandchildren. Happiness is a personal thing.
What they're saying in the article, is that the guy is happier meditating, than someone having sex.
Happiness, is just a bunch of chemicals running at different levels, activated by some software(psychological triggers), society, family they all help program you. That's it.
Life is full of ups and downs, and the hard times make the happy times even better. If it never rains, can you truly appreciate a sunny day?
No thanks, when I see a friend lose a someone in a carcrash, I don't need to experience the same to appreciate what I have.
Nobody should be overly happy, not when there are so many sad things happening in the world. Instead of being happy, why not help those who aren't. Instead of feeling compassion why not make the sacrifice to act on it? If you are happy, you are probably at least a little selfish. Of course what I have said will anger many people, but it's truth. There are many things you can do to help others in your neighborhood, in your state, country, or planet that you aren't doing.
But the (horribly selfish, but nevertheless realistic) question is "why should I?"
I'm a nice guy in general. People seem to like me. But, I don't do it for the sake of it - I do it because being a nice guy is the best way to get those around me to be nice back, which makes me happy.
I contest that every human being is either inherently ENTIRELY selfish, or have something wrong with them (i.e. insanity). Even those ultra-religious types that beat themselves violently in repentance for sins are doing it on the promise of eternal happiness in heaven. If they truly believed that there was no afterlife, or that they'd suffer for all eternity; they wouldn't do it.
I've yet to see a convincing argument otherwise, including from the "I help others selflessly" crowd - they do it because the act of helping others makes them happy. If helping others made them miserable, they'd stop.
Bacterial colonies, when exposed to antibiotics, will occasionally develop an outer layer of dead cells that sacrifice themselves for the good of the colony. When they die, they share dna with inner cells which develop a tolerance. Essentially, they give up their genetic lineage for the benefit of the group. If they didn't, the whole would be eradicated.
Some humans are inherently selfish. It could be argued that most are, but there isn't too much evidence one way or another that I'm familiar with. But some humans are self-sacrificing, because they recognize that it is better that some people do well and they don't, rather than everyone suffering. It doesn't make a lot of sense at an individual level, but when you look at the big picture, sometimes such sacrifices are necessary. We celebrate the idea in our culture. It is one of the things that defines heroes and saints.
The fact that you think that a person who would give up their life to protect yours is being selfish or insane makes you an asshole. But at least your genes would have a chance to continue.
Feeling bad about the sad things happening in the world solves nothing.
"Ricard donates all proceeds of his books to 110 humanitarian projects which have built schools for 21,000 children and provide healthcare for 100,000 patients a year."
Given this (taken from the article), it sounds to me like he certainly sympathizes with those in unfortunate situations and does what he can to help make their lives better.
www.gaiageek.com
I contest that every human being is either inherently ENTIRELY selfish, or have something wrong with them (i.e. insanity).
It's actually the people who are really ENTIRELY selfish that are insane. Humans have evolved as social animals and many behaviors that benefit the groups you live in / identify with will be rewarded by the brain in exactly the same manner as selfish behavior is.
Actually some time ago I read about a study that said basically that a person feels happier if he was performing (in some respect) better than another person. This form of happiness comes with the UNhappiness of other people. The happiest man alive is doing way better than his peers, while his peers must be feeling very unhappy.
This actually contradicts with the idea of feeling compassion leading to happiness, thus I can only conclude that happiness is something which is totally not understood yet.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
> Happiness comes about from satisfaction and being content, why get satisfaction and feel content if you have failed in helping others?
You're starting off on the wrong foot, there. If you accept your first statement, you won't find happiness.
Happiness is its own reward, it's its own before-and-after. There's no prerequisite for it other than consciousness.
Knowledge that shit happens in the world and you can have very little effect on that is part of it - acceptance of your part as a small piece of all reality. Attempting to rationalise what doesn't have prerequisites or conditions will always lead you down a path away from it.
So - be happy. trust. let go of a set of rules someone taught you (through words or actions or whatever) and you'll find that discovering your own happiness without putting caveats on your experience of it ("I must help people a certain amount" to "I must earn so much" or whatever) will make you all the more useful as a help to others.
It comes naturally, effortlessly, and is kinda surprising when it does - and it's oddly inexplicable too. But there it is
(fwiw I used to be like you - unconsciously I thought the same way. Then I noticed how I thought, then I made some changes, and then they accelerated to the point I found happiness and contentment and it never left me. 38 years of hell, followed by four years and counting of bliss - and being just plain happy has a profoundly positive effect on people I come in contact with, and makes me all the more responsive to their needs.)
Well, actually, every human being that is inherently entirely selfish is utterly insane because people, as social creatures, are normally hardwired for being selfless at least to a point.
What you write is basically reiterating an old joke about a driver who listens to the radio announce: "attention, there is a wrong way driver on the highway" and mutters: "a wrong way driver? more like hundreds of them".
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
> Nobody should be overly happy, not when there are so many sad things happening in the world.
So the solution to sad things happening is... to not be happy?
How about treat the sadness with happiness. Drag it up. Fix it. Hell yeah be a positive change, for any amount of change you can do.
The article says that this monk was eschewing intimate relationships and a career. This means that he basically (for a long time) had no peers, which could solve this apparent contradiction.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
It's actually the people who are really ENTIRELY selfish that are insane. Humans have evolved as social animals and many behaviors that benefit the groups you live in / identify with will be rewarded by the brain in exactly the same manner as selfish behavior is.
Do you have any evidence for this? Searching around, I found a few hits that tend to point in this direction, but nothing definitive.
I think it's entirely possible to explain altruism and other positive social behaviour through selfishness. As I said in my post above; I'm a nice guy - I'm just not under the illusion that I'm not getting anything out of it. And the moment society stops rewarding me for being nice is the moment I stop being nice (I don't expect that moment to ever come to pass, simply because it'd require that every other human being all of a sudden stops acting human - it's natural to reward niceness (for the exact same reason - reciprocation)).
So, I don't doubt that the reward pathways in the brain get lit up like christmas trees through altruism, but I do doubt that the act itself is the underlying cause, but rather the (learned, and perhaps subconscious) realisation that helping the group also helps yourself. If a person were raised where EVERY altruistic act they performed or saw had ONLY negative effects, I would expect the reward pathways to remain dim on future acts (although getting such a person to actually do so might be tricky)
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
I will address the serial killer angle since that is easier to expand .. no they are not insane. They know what they are doing is wrong, they even believe there will be consequences .. they just don't care. Its not just serial killers/child molesters etc. by the way, plenty of common criminals think that way too. I'd venture to guess up to 10% of violent criminals or even drug addicts think this way.
Like a lot of people who smoke cigarettes knowing they might get cancer ... or the people who like the thrill of exposing themselves to HIV (google bug chasers) they don't care about the consequence they only care about the immediate benefit. Let me stress that, it's not that they think they will escape the consequence .. they know the consequence is coming but simply don't care. Like I said, maybe they are selfish even towards their "future self" as opposed to someone who is unconcerned/selfless about their current self and cares about their future self (a religious nut who beats himself for example).
So, if we can be clearly intrinsically selfish or selfless towards our own selves, it is surely possible to be intrinsically selfless towards others.
Nobody should be overly happy, not when there are so many sad things happening in the world. [...] Of course what I have said will anger many people, but it's truth.
"Angry" doesn't even begin to describe it. I've seen people I loved so down that they tried to kill themselves. Do you want to know what I think about people who deny others happiness? They should be taken out back and shot. Twice. Right now.
You are making a dramatic, serious and inexcusible mistake there. You confuse happiness with apathy. You think that people who are happy have no desire of helping others. You think that compassion means feeling horrible because someone else does. You think that people who are happy don't care about others.
And nothing could be further from the truth. People who are unhappy are the ones who stop caring about others. People who are depressed are more likely to fall into apathy than people who are in joy. People who share the feelings of others too much are less likely to be able to help them and more likely to drag them down even further.
Now you will probably argue that you said "overly", but that's a strawman. Who is going to decide on what level of happiness is fine and which is too much? You?
If everyone would be as happy as this dude, the world would be a much better place. Sure, we'd still have hurricanes, but we'd have a lot less war, poverty and inequality.
Now, please take yourself out back and put you out of your misery. We have way too many people like you on this planet, who begrudge other people's happiness.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Cause happiness have nothing to do with material possessions.
Bullshit.
Try living without clothes, food, and a place to sleep - all of which are material possessions. See just how happy you are.
Buddhism is not about ignorance. To make a computing analogy, Buddhism is about a method of programing to allow supercomputing while never using more than 0% of the CPU.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
First let me say I really don't want to argue - I actually am very interested in what you're trying to say, but I don't quite get it yet.
Like a lot of people who smoke cigarettes knowing they might get cancer ... or the people who like the thrill of exposing themselves to HIV (google bug chasers) they don't care about the consequence they only care about the immediate benefit. Let me stress that, it's not that they think they will escape the consequence .. they know the consequence is coming but simply don't care.
I'm a smoker, who quit and re-started several times - including restarting just yesterday after 5 weeks without.
I also know I won't escape the consequences. These things will probably kill me. But that doesn't go against the idea that I'm striving for happiness above all else; and doing it in an entirely selfish way. I enjoy smoking. I love the way it feels; I love the taste; I love the social aspects it brings with my friends. I also hate that it's going to take me away from my family; and I hate that it's got such a hold over me that when I quit I fall in to a deep depression (I started again yesterday because my wife couldn't handle me being that way - not me).
I chose to smoke again, knowing that the consequences are coming, and I DO care, but right now, the pleasure I get from it (and lack of "negative" feelings I had while not smoking) are something I calculated to be worth it. I'll re-evaluate that sometime and hopefully quit again (permanently); but not right now.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Happiness = Perceived Life / Expected Life
Perceived Life = Actual Life x Perception
Therefore, to be happy, either a) improve your life, b) reduce your expectations or c) change your perception. Looks like this guy went for a mix of (b) and (c). At least that's my take on it.
I think you're probably right. It'd be interesting to see if it's possible to get the same results with (a) and (c); which is what I generally strive to do. I think perhaps (b) is significantly easier than (a); but since I enjoy a challenge, I may as well get the most out of that little boost of happiness there than taking the easier path.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
like they talked to every man to know who is the happiest
I am happier.
It's because he's not married :).
I contest that every human being is either inherently ENTIRELY selfish, or have something wrong with them (i.e. insanity). Even those ultra-religious types that beat themselves violently in repentance for sins are doing it on the promise of eternal happiness in heaven. If they truly believed that there was no afterlife, or that they'd suffer for all eternity; they wouldn't do it.
This is the sort of libertarian nonsense that leads philosophers and psychologists to utterly detest randoids.
The problem with egotism, is it rests almost entirely on tautology. When almost any action can be "explained" by a circular reference to "because its in my self interest" (Why? Because I want to? Why do I want to? Because its in my self interest, ad nauseum) its a theory with no predictive powers, and frankly it runs completely at odds with everything we know about psychology and neuro-biology.
We know we have other drives other than self interest, and they are not underwritten by "self interest" either, just biology and if you explain biology by motive, you end up with mystical reification of processes. Just because we have evolved in our reproductive interests that is not the same as the claim of *intentions*. A mother throwing herself in front of a car to save her child might be acting in her species self interest, but she's not under any circumstances acting INTENTIONALLY in her OWN percieved self interest .
We have extensive networks of mirror neurons that give us the ability to empathise with others.
We have deeply wired structures in our brain that cause us to give up comfort for our children.
We are succeptable to ideological configurations that lead us to place the national interest over our own, and no dying in a kamikase attack in no way advances our personal wellbeing, because our brain design (for want of a better word) allows us to decide that the interest of the nation is more important to our personal interest.
And no, claiming that this is "irrational" doesn't help us here, because if rationality can only be defined (by the egotist creed) as self interested behavior, and self interested behavior is that, according to the randian, which is rational (by the same creed) then we are back into tautology territory again.
I could go on.
So we are stuck with a situation of a thesis about human behavior that can't be justified philosophically without committing fundamental logical errors. We can't justify it psychologically without engaging in fundamental ignorance of over a century of psychological research. We can't justify it scientifically because the evidence directly contradicts the thesis.
And to be honest, the hardest task, is to justify it politically because it seems to demand behaviors that go against everything we know about the proper running of a civil society.
Why do people persist in believing such hogwash? Its mystical solipsist randian nonsense.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Absolutely. God (Song of Solomon) wants intimacy between the sexes; abstinence is an abomination.
This is a sort of Ayn Rand-ish argument. The problem with this sort of argument is it sort of dissolves the whole concept of selfishness and altruism. Just because being altruistic can have selfish rewards, does not mean altruism does not exist and everything is selfishness.
Yes, the world is a rather selfish place and most people are rather selfish. That doesn't mean they are ENTIRELY selfish. Non-selfish acts do occur. People help others expecting nothing in return and sometimes getting nothing in return as well.
So, because this occurs, people are not entirely selfish.
Secondly, just because you get something in return for being non-selfish at points does not mean you were being secretly selfish. For example, you can give someone a present and get in return a good feeling. The good feeling is selfish, but the giving of the present was altruistic. They don't cancel each other out and leave only selfishness. Both exist.
__
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
In Christianism too, monks choose to live in celibacy.
And to practice buddhism, you don't need to live as a monk, there are a lot of other ways.
Did you ever hear about Tantra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantra) or more exactly Vajrayana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrayana) ?
>I disagree that the (majority of) people doing such things feel "completely" bad about it if they continue doing it. They may feel bad for the people and even cry themselves to sleep every night; become depressed; or otherwise be miserable - but then they either stop doing it (i.e. they realised it doesn't make them happy) or continue doing it (because they also get positive feelings from helping; OR are batshit insane (as I already mentioned as an option))
False dichotomy - which excludes the obvious third possibility (the one most of us who do such thing will give): they have a sense of responsibility toward other people.
That is a perfectly reasonable explanation - which lacks any major flaws and is well supported by "lower down" harder science (there is a strong theory that human acts of heroism - including sacrificing of lives to save non-related lives - is a result of what biologists call "overcommitment" - which itself is simply an extension "descendent privileging").
The hard sciences actively SUPPORT the conclusion that many (perhaps most) people have an innate sense of responsibility toward other people (though the degree of that sense varies and it's probably not universal to ALL people) and at least sometimes act in certain ways because they believe they are SUPPOSED to act this way - they feel COMPELLED to do do so. They may explain this compunction through the eyes of religion or morality but it's quite possibly much more base than that- those may well be rationalizations of what is effectively an instinctive drive to TAKE responsibility.
This is common across all social species. Rats adopt the babies of other rat mothers that die - just like we do - but not just childless ones, they add them to their existing litters - thus possibly reducing their own gene's chances of survival to increase those of the species.
Many humans extend this instinct even across the boundaries of species (animal and pet lovers - in their most extreme form you get PETA level thinking which takes this to an insane degree).
So why do people go and help at refugee camps even though it makes them feel absolutely horrible and has ZERO satisfaction to offer in most cases (and no recognition either usually).
Because we are compelled by our very nature as a social being, to take responsibility for the welfare of those in need. It's a defining attribute of all social species and we are decidedly social.
While there are solid and rational reasons for it, it's the the rational of evolution "the species survives better if it's members act this way" - not the rational of "I have personally made a logical choice about this".
You're looking for the rationality in the wrong PLACE. It exists, but you are checking the wrong source. If you look in the right place, it's perfectly obvious - many of those who do this see that rationality, see WHY the evolutionary path works, and sees that as a reinforcement that what their "gutt" tells them is the right thing to do really IS right.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Windows 8 was just released.
This is not to criticize the Buddhist monk at all, because I have no idea what he does or does not do in the world. But it is a criticism of the idea that happiness can be scientifically quantified merely on the basis of brain activity. Can we really assume that emotional, chemical happiness is what is sought for when human beings desire true fulfillment? If so, then if we can invent a drug that merely makes us feel happy and waste away, then by all means we should take it. But if we don't want to simply feel happy as the result of a drug, then might not there be some deeper kind of happiness that can be found even in the face of immense suffering and service for others?
Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
He does help others. That is what makes him happy and it is actually what makes a lot of people happy. Humans are wired to release happy brain chemicals and energy release when we help others. That is why they have him meditate on compassion during the measurements. They already know that compassion to other human beings will increase the happiness that he feels.
The psychological research on this is pretty clear (sorry no refs to hand). Below a threshold of income, happiness & material wealth are pretty tightly correlated. Above that threshold, however, the correlation drops rapidly to zero. What that threshold is is open to question - I believe some posit that the threshold is at subsistence level, others maintain its higher, perhaps higher even than median income levels. And of course, Matthieu Ricard, while he is provided with clothing & food, as a monk probably has no income or possessions (other than, traditionally, robes, begging bowls & a few ritual items).
I contest that every human being is either inherently ENTIRELY selfish
You are wrong, every human is inherently entirely selfish. For example, if you have children, you probably think that you are not selfish, but WHY did you want to have children ?
I've yet to see a convincing argument otherwise, including from the "I help others selflessly" crowd - they do it because the act of helping others makes them happy. If helping others made them miserable, they'd stop.
If you help other to make yourself happy, you are selfish.
In fact, as long as you expect something from your actions, you are selfish.
The correct way is to practice disinterested action, and of course, you don't have to force yourself to help everybody, just people that need your help (and money is not the solution !).
The best text I read about selfless action is the description about Karma Yoga: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/hby/hby07.htm
Do you have any evidence for this? Searching around, I found a few hits that tend to point in this direction, but nothing definitive.
There are some game experiments where people will punish other players even if they thereby harm their own self interest (e.g. player one is first to take as much as he wants from a pool of money, player two can take the rest (which is always better than nothing) or say that neither player gets anything). I've also heard an interview with a researcher who said he can see the brains joy centers getting active when people take choices that conform with their group.
but I do doubt that the act itself is the underlying cause, but rather the (learned, and perhaps subconscious) realisation that helping the group also helps yourself.
I highly doubt this. There would be a lot of learning, arguing and planning involved before you can even start to form groups. You can't expect such sophisticated high-level thinking to emerge in various individuals at the same time, all that in a rough environment where people struggle to survive. Other groups to whom this comes natural would be at an advantage.
Also, you see similar kinds of altruism in apes and other animals. I don't believe they form groups because of their higher level thinking skills telling them it is in their best interest.
Yeah, blah blah, we all know that pure happiness is never good without the opposite.
They never said the guy was turbo-happy, he can just attain levels higher than most people in terms of happiness.
Things like anger and sadness can drive people towards goals that attain said happiness.
Substituting happiness in doing a goal compared to outright anger in a goal is a much more productive venture, and leads to far better results most times.
And people can feel mixed emotions quite easily, we aren't a one-state emotion machine despite external views.
For example try helping refugees who have been raped and been through hell. Trust me you will feel miserable. Or go to a camp where there are thousands of people and you can hardly make a difference. You will feel like shit.
If you feel miserable, it's probably because you expect something, like saving their souls or some other magic thinking.
Helping others is not about helping them materially, but helping them to change their point of view.
When somebody has been raped, the task is not to deny the rape, but stop their feeling of being a victim, or more exactly accept the past and continue their life.
It's a difficult task, because everybody identifies himself with his body, so a physical rape is considered as a rape of the whole being.
When you start to realize that your body is only a small part of you (no, I don't believe in God), rape becomes just an event in your life.
Some recent techniques, like EMDR, work well on PTSD.
People are not motivated entirely by self interest. People do not reason through every decision and categorize things as things that will make them happy or not happy. A lot is going on in the subconscious mind that we are not even aware of and the primary function is not to increase happiness but to increase the likelihood of survival and procreation.
This is the sort of libertarian nonsense that leads philosophers and psychologists to utterly detest randoids.
I find it interesting how often you use the words "randian" and "randroid" in your reply. I, for reference, think that most Libertarians are far too anarchistic for my tastes. I'm more or less liberal leaning, although against government interference in my personal affairs (tightly defined: the moment it starts impacting others, it's no longer my personal affairs and I do think the society should have a say)
A mother throwing herself in front of a car to save her child might be acting in her species self interest, but she's not under any circumstances acting INTENTIONALLY in her OWN percieved self interest .
But here you're twisting what I was saying.
I believe the mother IS acting in her own interest - completely selfishly. She derives happiness from the safety and wellbeing of her child. She knows she'd be devastated if the child were killed. If SHE dies, she dies with the knowledge she's saved the kid; and since there'll be no more "happiness" or "sadness" (assuming no belief in an afterlife); it was a net positive for her in the end. Even if we assume an afterlife, she's probably going to heaven for doing that (depending on one's exact beliefs) and so it's still all good anyway.
We have extensive networks of mirror neurons that give us the ability to empathise with others.
We have deeply wired structures in our brain that cause us to give up comfort for our children.
I don't dispute any of that. However I don't see how it negates what I'm saying...
We can't justify it psychologically without engaging in fundamental ignorance of over a century of psychological research. We can't justify it scientifically because the evidence directly contradicts the thesis.
While it may not be a deliberate strawman, that's a strawman argument nevertheless. You're arguing against something I never said.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Why don't we base a country's prosperity on some kind of 'happiness index' (long-term), rather than things like GDP, unemployment rate, or life expectancy?
Whatever you want to call it - 'happiness', 'wellbeing', or 'contentment', I would think this metric takes into account GDP, unemployment rate, health, and many more. It's what we all ultimately need after all, so why do we never seem to bother with it? Even if a 'level of happiness' is a scientifically vague concept, we could at least make a rough attempt to measure it (ask for a rating out of 10 would be a start).
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
More gamma rays.
"I am the serenest!". Apologies for archive.org link but the page has disappeared from their website.
Sorry... we agree with each other entirely. I think you misunderstood my meaning of "contest" (English can be a PITA like that). I was essentially saying that YES, every human is entirely selfish.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
People are not motivated entirely by self interest. People do not reason through every decision and categorize things as things that will make them happy or not happy. A lot is going on in the subconscious mind that we are not even aware of and the primary function is not to increase happiness but to increase the likelihood of survival and procreation.
Absolutely... but what I was arguing is that we're "wired" to derive happiness (in general) from the things that increase the likelihood of survival and procreation. By being wired as such, we WANT to do those things, because they make us happy.
I never meant to imply reasoning on a conscious level for these things (that of course also happens; but for the most part, not).
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Meditation is a poor substitute for sex.
Hmmm, has anyone run this brain scan on Hugh Hefner?
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
University professor? Of course there is no stress, go out and get a real job.
No good deed goes unpunished.
> Helping others can in fact make you feel miserable and often does.
"Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil." - Robert A. Heinlein
Bark less. Wag more.
Cause happiness have nothing to do with material possessions.
Wrong. Happiness is different for everyone. And some people are perfectly happy with their little toys. Others are unhappy no matter how many trinkets they have. Some people are happy making others miserable. Others are happy making others happy. You can't just pick something and call it happiness and expect everyone to abide by it.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Quote: I've yet to see a convincing argument otherwise, including from the "I help others selflessly" crowd - they do it because the act of helping others makes them happy. If helping others made them miserable, they'd stop.
I worked at a church sponsored food bank for a few years. I filled the role most others didn't want to, the interviewer. I asked existing customers how they were doing, and signed new people up. I asked everyone the same question, "How is it going?" Keep in mind most would have been waiting at least an hour in exchange for $10 worth of food. For some, time is food, not money.
Very often it wasn't going well. I would try and console and offer to pray, which I did many times (I'm a "devout" atheist...). Holding someone hands and pleading for a kid to get off drugs or survive a medical situation, or for the heat to stay on in February, would bring tears to both of our eyes.
Was it fun? No, it was hard, tiring, and depressing. No one "wanted" to interview and it took me a couple of months to both get comfortable doing it and to appreciate it.
What did I get out of it, why did I do it for several years? Because it gave me an incredible sense of humility and a true understanding of what I have in life. And it felt good to, on some minimal level, help someone feel a bit better.
Why did I stop? My wife had twins. We no longer have time to even keep the house very clean.
BlameBillCosby.com
is something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DJblHzEdLw
Attain happiness by modding this comment up.
What did I get out of it, why did I do it for several years? Because it gave me an incredible sense of humility and a true understanding of what I have in life. And it felt good to, on some minimal level, help someone feel a bit better.
And this is exactly the point I was making...
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
He must be one happy dude if he's happier than this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnvvLM-dHSs
That is the most succinct, no-bullshit explanation of how happiness is derived I have ever seen. I like that a lot. Have a mod point.
...as just this last weekend I was an attendee of the first internet based PSYCH-K conference in which brain mapping was a good amount of the talks. Also was mentioned of relevant articles published and yet to be published on brain mapping and PSYCH-K.
Have you looked into electronic cigarettes?
I was a pack a day smoker, and switched to electronic cigarettes. Was off the cigs totally in a week and have been away from Tobacco (Electronic cigs the way alot of people use them, are a substitute not a method of quitting) and from all of the evidence are not a cancer or emphysema risk. You probably still take the cardio risk but that's something inherent to Nicotine that's never going to be resolved.
They don't have the same 'feeling on cloud nine' feeling you can get with cigs, but they can permanently postpone withdrawal and keep many of the stimulant and mood boosting properties of cigarettes, without messing with your brain chemistry as much as the MAOIs in tobacco tend to do.
If not for christians, I wouldn't know the suffering I've known. Why did you take my foreskin, and why didn't you at least tell me about it so that I could have sought medical care sooner when things went wrong? I mean, what else is there besides brain activity? You christians are insensitive jerks who only want to hurt others. You define life through misery, and you destroy things just to make people suffer. All I needed was a simple, medical procedure, and yet I spent years in PHYSICAL pain because of you christians. You can go fuck yourself.
Captcha: yeasts
Yes, unless creating that happiness involves giving them something they need. It's much, much more fun I've learned for others to just go around screwing things up for someone. It makes more entertainment and more happiness to watch someone else suffer and scramble to put things back together.
Captcha: plummet
I wonder if this award could possibly make him happier?
I'm going to hell because I'm gay. I don't care, because there's nothing I can do about it. I'm saving up so I can go to Windsor before my 30th birthday to hopefully lose my virginity with women, but I'm not sure I'll succeed. I've only slept with one person, but that's good enough for god. God doesn't care that females sleep around and go from boyfriend to boyfriend to boyfriend. God cheers you on if you can get laid by two different chicks in the same night, even the same week. Not me, though. I'm a faggot. How can I care whether I go to hell or not when it's certain? Why shouldn't I just watch the world burn and get a good laugh out of it? I wish I could just snap my fingers and not be gay anymore, hell, I wish I could be a lesbian once I get done with gender transition and start living as a woman, but I can't even be that, because I'm attracted to men whether I like it or not, no matter how much alcohol I drink or drugs I do to make it go away, and that's how it is. Does that help? Does that explain it? If you're going to hell no matter what you choose or do, why not make it an interesting ride? I know that god hates me and wants to burn me forever. I don't know why he made me gay, except that he wanted somebody to burn. That's my function: to burn so all you straight fuckers can have a good ol time in heaven. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.
Captcha: unionize
I did try an e-cig as a substitute (as you say, not quit method) for awhile some time back before I quit. I think the lack of the MAOIs is actually why I couldn't stick with it permanently.
I have however been considering experimenting with a combination of the e-cig and supplements that assist with dopamine and serotonin (natural MAOIs like turmeric and nutmeg, plus a serotonin/dopamine/noradrenaline re-uptake inhibitor such as St John's Wort and top it all off with fish-oil tablets. Theoretically, that should allow me to avoid plummeting dopamine and serotonin levels and thereby avoid the depression that really hit me last time. Of course, it would be an experiment - brain chemistry is far too individual and complex for it to be sure-fire; but I think it's worth a shot and is unlikely to be harmful.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
1. You may not ever be able to help everyone. You should still be happy.
2. We are not discussing getting into some heaven, we are discussing happiness.
Remember, Buddhist monks can't have sex with a woman or even touch a woman. If this is the only way to get gamma waves for him, I'll pass...I've found a better way to get the same results than just dreaming and my wife agrees.
jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
If you're a troll, or just incredibly stupid.
Did he sleep with a hot chick last night who was dressed as Wonder Woman? Sorry buddy, you're #2.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Why drag that into this?
Why are you so unhappy that you wish to make others unhappy?
Measuring something does not cheapen it, only those who have frail faith think so. Everything is chemical, deal with it. Even the feelings you get from discussing and practicing your religion. Again, that does not cheapen it anyway.
No there a measurable threshold. Below some level of poverty pretty much everyone will be very unhappy. Above that level the correlation starts to fall apart quite quickly.
No one is happy making others miserable, that is a different feeling that can be pleasant but is not the happiness these scientists measured. We have chosen something and called it happiness and measured it, deal with it. That ship has sailed.
So you should let things that you cannot change control what you feel?
r u stoopeed?
Beware of people who quote bad authors, they are often unhappy sods who just want company.
Self deception, however might be the problem here. The GP is not miserable because he tried to help others, he is miserable because of his expectations about helping others.
No I think the GP's argument makes sense even if the words he uses make it sound horrible. The person who would give up their life to protect others is doing it because they would rather protect others than live to see them die. At a lower level, they're doing what pleases themselves - "selfish" isn't really the right word.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
There is no god. It really is that simple.
Being happy and a good person are both their own reward. We have one shot at this, for that reason we must try to make our own and others lives better. Your preference in sexual partners has no impact on that.
Why should it bother you that you are attracted to men?
I sincerely hope you are making this up, if not I hope you come to find what does make you happy.
Happiness is its own reward, it's its own before-and-after. There's no prerequisite for it other than consciousness.
Indeed. "Happiness independent of condition" as it's often called....
This sig has exceed its monthly bandwidth allotment.
Of course what I have said will anger many people
Nope, I'm too busy being happy!
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
Mr Jobs said: "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."
He is also quoted as saying: "I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion [£25bn] in the bank, to right this wrong."
That sound very Zen to you? Sound like man who is happy?
You are unable to see the obvious selfishness in your claimed selfless actions. Suffering for future gain, be it on earth or the afterlife, is banking on future gratification and is thus selfish.
Donating money to a cause, and getting no direct benefit from it, is probably motivated by the idea of having done good, so giving begets gratification. Even people doing long term detrimental stuff are chasing short term gratification.
Fulfilling a want or desire is the human motivator. I don't think it matters when the sought gratification comes to pass. Now or in the future or even after death. The motivator is getting the gratification.
In the extreme case of flaggelants, they are seeking religious fulfillment. Even if the Deities would have said they liked the flaggelants actions, but despite doing good, flaggelants were to go to Hades, I suspect flaggelants would still do it, because they receive gratification from knowing they please the Deities.
# touch universe # chmod +rwx universe #
This is a man who has never had to hand jam xorg.conf.
After a couple of decades of not being happy with anything, you have to start to realize that perhaps the cause of the problem... is you.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Not everyone chooses to be happy, but a mastery of the empirical neurocognitive techniques that induce it at least give you a choice in the matter. Neither wallowing in depression or being constantly euphoric is particularly desirable.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
It's also one of the reasons I'm more "left" leaning politically - I want "society" (with other peoples money) to take care of the lesser fortunate people so I don't have to...
Now it says what you actually mean.
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
then we must find out how this guy makes these gamma waves — those linked to consciousness, attention, learning and memory — never before reported in neuroscience, and all that left pre-frontal cortex activity and force everyone to do that. And somebody needs to change Wikipedia's definition to "Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes overall left pre-frontal cortex activity."
Bit of Trivia: I read somewhere just recently that in the line "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle", the word being translated as "camel" should actually refer to a type of rope - which makes more sense logically I think. Thus its easier for a large piece of rope to be passed through the eye of a needle (as you would pass a piece of thread) than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God...
The word used for Camel and this specific type of rope were identical apparently, and the common translation is somewhat suspect I think. Wish I could remember the reference though...
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Quite simply, he must not be on the Internet and sitting around reading negative people's posts all day long.
Oh, and getting laid like there's no tomorrow.
Once you start thinking that improving your life is the key to happiness, you'll never be happy. Anything can always be improved, whether it's your annual salary or how much your kids love you.
This is irrespective of the assumption that it is either possible or desirable to be happy in the first place.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Cause happiness have nothing to do with material possessions.
Bullshit.
Try living without clothes, food, and a place to sleep - all of which are material possessions. See just how happy you are.
The point is that most people (and certainly anyone reading slashdot) will already have clothes, food and a place to sleep anyway, it is the pursuit of material possessions over and above the minimum that is useless in terms of increasing happiness.
Not starving to death doesn't mean you're happy, it just means you're not dreadfully unhappy.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I know that god hates me and wants to burn me forever.
You could of course stop believing God hates you. Your notion of God hating you stems from giving credence to an ancient "holy book". (Nevermind the religious fundamentalists pounding leviticus, all the while treading these laws with their feet themselves.) Truth is that that book is an odd mix of historical facts, plain old fantasy and selective editing over multiple centuries. Most of all, that book is a product of man. It didn't fall out of the sky in its final form.
God doesn't hate you. People do because of their own small minded fears/insecurities and their desire to be better than the rest in the hope to get a spot in heaven (whatever and where ever that may be). Stop hating yourself, start loving yourself and start listening. God tells you a lot, but you need to listen and you need to get used to his/her humor.
# touch universe # chmod +rwx universe #
And some people are perfectly happy with their little toys.
Being happy with something is not the same as being happy in yourself.
No one is denying that toys can provide pleasure. It's just that having a bit of pleasure doesn't in itself make you happy overall.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
How do you define Actual Life? You seem to imply happiness can be improved by improving this magic variable called Actual Life, but how are you going to do that? Get more money? Get more wifes or children? Work less? (See, there's already a conflict with the first suggestion) Live healthier? Have more friends?
If we are to stick to your formula, I think given the ambiguousnous and vagueness of the definition of Actual Life, working on (b) and (c) is the only sensible choice.
I contest that every human being is either inherently ENTIRELY selfish, or have something wrong with them (i.e. insanity)
Enter the Randroids.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Any person who feels better from seeing others be happy, or at least other's not suffering, could be considered selfish if they act with the purpose to make others feel this way. While a psychopath who do not gain anything from others joy, could be considered unselfish if he acts the same way.
Somehow I still feel there could be a more useful definition of the word, even though I'm sure this thought is horribly selfish in it's own.
Absolutely, and that's essentially my reasoning for "being a nice guy" as stated. It's also one of the reasons I'm more "left" leaning politically - I want society to take care of the lesser fortunate people so I don't have to deal with as much poverty (and associated crime) in my surroundings.
"The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping."
Because there's no selfish reason to help.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Buddhism's great, you just need to kill the Buddha (lose the hero-worship and the mysticism).
They don't have the same 'feeling on cloud nine' feeling you can get with cigs
I'm a keen smoker, but I've never got that feeling from smoking tobacco.
It's more of a calming, relaxing feeling than a high.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Apparently it depends on the serial killer. Gary Ridgeway, the Green River Killer, thought that killing prostitutes was 'doing the right thing'. He openly said that he was doing the work that he felt the police should be doing but weren't allowed to. He felt that the police owed him a debt of gratitude, at the least, and IIRC speculated that this may be why they didn't catch him for so long.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
It's also one of the reasons I'm more "left" leaning politically - I want "society" (with my and other peoples money) to take care of the lesser fortunate people so I don't have to...
Now it says what you actually mean.
Nope... NOW it says what I actually mean.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
> Helping others can in fact make you feel miserable and often does. "Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil." - Robert A. Heinlein
That just proves that Heinlein is as much of a twat as Ayn Rand, albeit his children's books are marginally more readable than her bilge.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
At least it wasn't Ayn Rand.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
No I think the GP's argument makes sense even if the words he uses make it sound horrible. The person who would give up their life to protect others is doing it because they would rather protect others than live to see them die. At a lower level, they're doing what pleases themselves - "selfish" isn't really the right word.
You can twist any action to make it sound "selfish" if that is your world view and you insist on pigeonholing everyone in the same mean little slot as yourself.
A soldier throws himself on a grenade to save his comrades? He's just doing it for the posthumous glory.
A father donates a kidney to his child at the risk of diminishing his own life quality and expectancy? He's just following evolution to give his DNA the chance to reproduce via the kid.
Someone volunteers to teach disadvantaged youths after work hours? They just want a chance to hook up with insecure young people to sexually exploit them. Etc. etc. etc.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
A mother throwing herself in front of a car to save her child might be acting in her species self interest, but she's not under any circumstances acting INTENTIONALLY in her OWN percieved self interest .
But here you're twisting what I was saying. I believe the mother IS acting in her own interest - completely selfishly. She derives happiness from the safety and wellbeing of her child. She knows she'd be devastated if the child were killed.
But deriving happiness from the safety and wellbeing of others is, by definition, not selfish.
You are making a fundamental error in assuming that because something somehow relates back to your self that it is selfish.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
That's not what I meant at all and I don't think that's what the GP meant either. Twisting any action to make it sound selfish is exactly what I was saying this is not.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The best argument I heard to that is that if you define someone who feels good when they help other people as selfish, then we need a lot more selfish people in the world.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
altruism and selfishness are the same thing. all you have to do is change the definition of self to include family/ clan/ tribe/ nation/ humanity
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If you're doing support I'd say yes, you won't be happy while helping others...
This is a UDP joke, I don't care if you get it or not...
When you say you want the US constitution restored, are you referring to the entire constitution, or the second sentence of the second ammendment. Given point 5, it seems you don't agree with the first half of the second ammendment, so could you give us an annotated copy of the constitution with the bits you'd like us to follow highlighted?
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Scientists at the University of Lubbock, TX, reported that Richard Small, a Microsoft sales engineer, to be the world's angriest man. When he was shown Nate Silver's projections of Romney's chances for victory, while thinking about his name and how it matches his employers name his brain emitted Delta waves at levels never reported in neuroscience before. The delta waves are said to measure the level of anger.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I am not :) these days. :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
What did I get out of it, why did I do it for several years? Because it gave me an incredible sense of humility and a true understanding of what I have in life. And it felt good to, on some minimal level, help someone feel a bit better.
And this is exactly the point I was making...
But he could have got that same feeling by posting off a cheque to a homeless charity if that's all it was about. On a level which you seem unable to comprehend, he wanted to share in other people's suffering directly in order to understand it, and, yes, I suppose you could say that he was "selfishly" making himself a better person, more rounded and self-actualized person by doing so.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
money naturally gravitates to money. the best and easiest way to make more money is to already have it. without any interference, money naturally gravitates in a market system to preexisting stores of money
so to have a fair society, we HAVE to "redistribute" wealth. or we have a society of a few ultrarich and a sea of poor after a generation to, no middle class. this happens completely naturally in market systems. the lie of free market fundamentalists is that a market left to itself will somehow balance itself. no, you need government regulation to keep a market actually free and fair, or the largest players in a market collude and crush the smaller players
in a market based society and the legal and cultural structures associated with that, the force of money to accumulate with itself is a pretty amazing force. it's almost this natural gravity of money then, to find a new way to fight the regulation: corrupt the regulators, by weakening popular support for regulation, against the population's best interests. how? with bad memes, propaganda: ayn rand's bullshit
ayn rand's stroke of propaganda magic is that it convinces the poor idiot to sympathize with the rich asshole. wish fulfillment and denial of reality
if you could convince the poor to think they are amongst the chosen few captains of industry, and holding him back are all the other poor assholes around them and their "socialist" needs to eat and breathe and have shelter, you can convince a poor person to act against their own self-interest and weaken their own standard of living by convincing them they are not who they actually are
rand's bullshit it's basically the psychology of self-hatred, projected on those around you, and imaging you are meant to be rich and powerful, and transporting you away from your misery. it's an opiate of the masses, a form of fundamentalist religion in a capitalist society. and it's a cancerous belief that will destroy the middle class
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I think I see where you're coming from, but I think most of the reaction to your post revolves around the word "entirely". I think you may be exaggerating a bit. Perhaps you meant is "selfish behavior is always a factor in decisions". There is a subtle difference between that and "entirely".
I use the concepts of primary and secondary motivators to describe how people make decisions. A primary motivator is one that, in and of itself, provides sufficient justification for a decision. In contrast, a secondary motivator is not quite sufficient to make a decision. However, secondary motivators can help improve the justifications of primary motivators by being so called "icing on the cake". In the absence of a primary motivator, multiple secondary motivators can combine to create sufficient justification. (potential "tertiary motivators", while positive, could not create sufficient justification in the absence of primary/secondary motivators)
Now, if you're an "ends justify the means" type of guy, all this primary/secondary motivator stuff is just a rant. But I like to look at what a person's primary and secondary motivations are, because I think it reveals something about someone's character.
Therein lies the subtle difference between "entirely" and "always a factor". "Entirely" implies that every decision is provided sufficient justification by a primary motivator composed of selfishness, and there are no secondary motivators. However, "always a factor" implies that selfishness may be either a primary or secondary motivator, depending on the person, and that other motivators may be present and may even be stronger than selfishness.
:(){
Actually some time ago I read about a study that said basically that a person feels happier if he was performing (in some respect) better than another person. This form of happiness comes with the UNhappiness of other people. The happiest man alive is doing way better than his peers, while his peers must be feeling very unhappy.
No, SOME people think that happiness is a dog-eat-dog competition. They are generally the ones who are unhappiest, as there always bigger and fiercer dogs around somewhere, even if only in the future when you are old, shrunken and toothless.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The article says that this monk was eschewing intimate relationships and a career. This means that he basically (for a long time) had no peers, which could solve this apparent contradiction.
Your peers aren't limited to people you're fucking or working with, genius.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
"The unlucky are nothing more than a frame of reference for the lucky. You are unlucky, so I may know that I am not. Unfortunately the lucky never realizes they are lucky until it's too late. Take yourself for instance; yesterday you were better off than you are off today but it took today for you to realize it. But today has arrived and it's too late. You see?"
- The Rabbi, "Lucky Number Slevin"
:(){
Even those ultra-religious types that beat themselves violently in repentance for sins are doing it on the promise of eternal happiness in heaven. If they truly believed that there was no afterlife, or that they'd suffer for all eternity; they wouldn't do it.
I'm not sure a self-professed atheist is the best source on this topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortification_of_the_flesh
Some people do things because they're looking for something; be it greater understanding of themselves or others, insight into something that is bugging them, or other wisdoms. Reducing it all to "they're doing it because they fear punishment if they don't." is not accurate.
Reading that post gave me an almost religious feeling of calm and detachment from mundane reality; I felt as though I were outside the universe looking down into the soul of the insanely misguided adman who thought slashdot was a good place to spam for ladies high heeled shoes. It was as though a great Zen master were asking me to contemplate the essential meaninglessness of physical reality.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You're not going to cheer anyone up if you're unhappy yourself, dumbass.
Free Martian Whores!
Even atheists do it.
Replace atheists with whatever you are. "Even fags do it", "Even women do it", or "Even unknowingly bigotted slashdot readers do it" and you will understand how that statement sounds to an atheist. Also, you might want to explore humanism and the possibility that if your only helping others to get a golden ticket to heaven, then perhaps you have no morals at all.
Absolutely, and that's essentially my reasoning for "being a nice guy" as stated. It's also one of the reasons I'm more "left" leaning politically - I want society to take care of the lesser fortunate people so I don't have to deal with as much poverty (and associated crime) in my surroundings.
"The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping."
Because there's no selfish reason to help.
If I were to rephrase your statements slightly"
"The lion inches towards the hapless innocent doe, just about to pounce, while the doe cowers in fear trying to escape, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping."
"Because there's no selfish reason to help."
Your line of thinking has destroyed our world because it is based on hubris - our collective notion that it is our moral or "human" duty to interfere, to rescue, to meddle, and we sleep well at night thinking that "we have made it right" and have "made a difference". Very often, we are just meddlers, and only sleep well at night because we just ended up fueling our egos with our self-righteous acts.
Why don't we just stop judging everything around us and just try to lead a life in which we are honest and true to ourselves - for a change? I argue the world will be a better place for all of us.
> Well yes but my point is that nobody is at that point.
And you've interviewed ALL 6 billion+ people on this planet ... ??
Some assuming.
"even atheists do it"
WTF?
Funny, I always thought that it referred to the cigarette. That made perfect sense.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
But he could have got that same feeling by posting off a cheque to a homeless charity if that's all it was about.
But perhaps that wouldn't bring him as much personal "good feelings"... he wanted more, so he did more.
On a level which you seem unable to comprehend, he wanted to share in other people's suffering directly in order to understand it, and, yes, I suppose you could say that he was "selfishly" making himself a better person, more rounded and self-actualized person by doing so.
Well, yeah, that's exactly what I'd say.
I think a lot of the responses to my post are gut reactions of "hey, he called me selfish! What a dick!". At no point did I say selfishness was bad or wrong. It just is what it is.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Reducing it all to "they're doing it because they fear punishment if they don't." is not accurate.
Agreed, which is why I didn't reduce it all to that...
Some people do things because they're looking for something; be it greater understanding of themselves or others, insight into something that is bugging them, or other wisdoms.
But now ask why they want to do that... Perhaps because it makes them feel better to have these insights, wisdom or so forth?
The quest for knowledge is a noble thing indeed, and something I eagerly participate in (often to the point of minor self-harm, such as forgetting to eat for a few days while researching stuff (WAY less often since I got married and my wife started taking care for that sort of thing though)); but I make no illusions as to the REASON I do it... that being, that I enjoy both the activity and the results.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Speaking as a parent, I'd say that chiuldren were a poor substitute for sex.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
"Even" atheists???
If you just want to feel happy, you can take drugs. I don't see how meditation is any better, other than that it doesn't damage your health as much and is self-limiting.
"Measuring something does not cheapen it, only those who have frail faith think so. "
Measuring is not the problem, comparing yourself to others, the past, the future, all these will lure you away from happiness.
You can still measure and compare, but doing it with awareness is necessary to avoid the old programming leading to unhappiness.
"Everything is chemical, deal with it.
No, most of the universe is not. Deal with it.
"Even the feelings you get from discussing and practicing your religion. Again, that does not cheapen it anyway."
No it does cheapen it because you cannot condense complexity into a single number without losing most of the "juice" in it.
What may be dirt to one, is truly gold to another. Judging other people also lure you into thinking you know better, and leads to unhappiness too.
However, society is functioning on Alternating Current, not Direct Current. We need negativity. Dialectic, argument, karma, resistance to oppression, corrective action, all work a little better when you can harness a little negativity.
Gently reply
Thanks, will have a look at this when I'm off work...
I don't buy into the a most of the dogma and spirituality of meditation, but IMHO, transcendental meditation does seem a lot like overclocking your brain... a systems maintenance task I think most Slashdotters would enjoy.
For the most part, MRI scans have shown that we barely use more than 10-20% of our brains at a time based on blood flow. And we typically don't use more than 20% of our lung capacity while at rest either. Through this "mindful" deep, slow breathing, we can maximize the utilization of our lung capacity, increasing the oxygen flow in our circulatory system, and give our brains more energy than it knows what to do with. Simultaneously, you try to clear out all of your TSR processes that clog up your thoughts, and kind of let your neural network grow unconstrained, focused yet without thinking about anything in particular. A lot of people have trouble with not thinking in particular... I think most of the practices have you focus on your breathing or repeating a keyword, but I think that's kind of a crutch.
The other part is learning how to relax _all_ of your muscles, zero-ing out all of your neural outputs, which is actually much harder to do than you would imagine, but this helps you recalibrate and reduce oxygen consumption by the rest of your body, leaving more for your brain (the brain typically uses up 20% of your oxygen supply, even though it only accounts for about 10% of the body weight by mass). I typically go through all of my muscle pairs in multiple passes, and am usually able to bring them to a slightly lower 'zero' in each pass.
Finally, and perhaps the most difficult task... you kind of have to open up all of your 6 senses -- all of the inputs to your neural network -- and simultaneously acknowledge all of them, yet basically ignore/dismiss them (at least consciously). Unblock all of your filters and allow your subconscious neural network process everything.
Anyway, fun times, but let me know if there are other good reads about the physiology of meditation... I think relatively simple, straightforward body-hacks like this are somewhat underappreciated these days because of all of the spiritual hype (which I kinda just see as clever marketing... there's no way I could convince my 10-year-old or anyone for that matter to sit still long enough to try all of this unless he believed it would help him levitate eventually).
We can't justify it psychologically without engaging in fundamental ignorance of over a century of psychological research. We can't justify it scientifically because the evidence directly contradicts the thesis.
Sorry to disappoint you but psychology as a science has 50 years at most, before that it was nothing but old man ramblings.
The real irony here is the self-pleasure you gain from believing you know the answer to it all.
You are not far off though, try replacing "selfishness" with "programming", and see what you then get. The world is more complex than mere "selfishness" (a truly useless definition).
Captcha: superset
Yes because we all know that psychology is a science, go play with your theories and lack of statistical knowledge.
The real irony here is the self-pleasure you gain from believing you know the answer to it all.
I'm so glad that's NOT a pleasure I have. Knowing the answer to it all would be extremely dull.
I present here only my humble opinion and sincerely hope for someone to come out of the woodwork and convince me I'm wrong.
There's nothing more fun than learning something new; especially when it goes against what I already thought. That doesn't mean however that I'll blindly accept being wrong just because someone jumps up and down yelling "you're wrong" - I need convincing arguments that I can't fault the logic, reasoning or premises of. If I disagree with a premise, I'll ask for that to be explained also.
You are not far off though, try replacing "selfishness" with "programming", and see what you then get.
Unfortunately, meaningless gibberish... I'm afraid you've lost me there. Care to explain?
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Do you want to know what I think about people who deny others happiness? They should be taken out back and shot. Twice. Right now.
Your bloodthirstiness makes me unhappy.
Now what?
I would agree about the selfishness thing is insanity if you define insanity as 'outside the norm' (which I believe is the actual definition). But I would ask why should this be the norm, and if that is the case why would you want to be normal. If the majority of people were psychopaths wouldn't you prefer to be the insane person and go against the grain? I agree with you whole heartedly in your proposition that if there was no personal benefit then no one would be altruism. Now that may seem counterintuitive, but I'm pretty sure people would not donate money to causes if it on some level did not make the donator feel good about themselves, or at least less shitty about themselves (which is still an overall net gain in the 'feel good' equation). But just because this is true doesn't necessarily mean people can not also be 'selfless' when it comes to giving because I believe giving is not a zero sum equation. Ie. you may lose physical possessions someone else gains when u donate, but you do get something in return, a feel good factor or goodwill (of the accounting kind) or a better economy or what have you.
But getting back to the topic I find this article that alludes that humans are predisposed to cooperation and generosity, and only become selfish when they take time to think about the situation. interesting. How I would interpret the article is that a person would normally be cooperative but rationally acting in light of social pressures and realities we tend to arrive at a 'we got ours screw everyone else' attitude. (I personally find this a very predominate theme in most social structures such as politics for example).
Now my question to you is why should this be so. Why should we cultivate our society in a way that everyone is only looking out for themselves and not care about their neighbors. How I would describe the current societal system is that it's similar to an endothermic chemical reaction. Everyone grabs whatever they need and the reaction stops. How I would idealize society to be would be similar to an exothermic reaction. Everyone looks out for everyone else, I produce something they need they can have it, because I know in turn someone else will have my back when I need something, everyone is more productive and produces more, those who can't produce as much will still be taken care off.
Now people will start to think about problems such as if such a system is even logistically viable etcetera and I wont pretend I even have an ounce of knowledge in relation to answering that question, but my thoughts will turn to robotics and automation. When you introduce robots into the work force, people will be up in arms because they are out of the job and can no longer 'get theirs'. Why is this the case? If a small human work force can maintain a large robotic work force sufficient to produce the societies needs in terms of goods and similar services why do we need to be up in arms about losing our jobs. It's because of what I feel is an endothermic society where 'I got mine' is the norm and there is no other way to survive hence cultivating selfishness. Not because people a selfish per se, but because in order to survive the current structure of society demands it.
I guess what I am getting at is the idea is I acknowledge humans being selfish for whatever reasons is because of reality. However I question does reality need to be this way. I would guess people are going to bring up communist and socialist arguments etcetera and I do think those arguments will be valid (though what I'm suggestion doesn't really have to land exactly on either or both, I'm just acknowledging it has similar themes). However I would also suggest clarifying to yourself if you truly understand the concepts (I wont pretend I do) and if what you're arguing is whether it wont work because the system suggested is flawed, or if it won't work because while the system fundamentally sound, but humans are shitty a
Gamma wave scanner. Apply directly to the forehead. Gamma wave scanner. Apply directly to the forehead.
I'd argue that "feeling good" exists purely because without it, we wouldn't have motivation to do stuff... In simpler creatures (insects, simple fish, coral, etc) I doubt there's enough consciousness to have a concept of happiness
I think you have that backwards. All thought is simply chemical processes, and the simplest thoughts of all are those of pain and pleasure. I would posit that happiness and sadness came along way before sentience. As to insects, why do they fly away when you try to swat flies? because they're conscious of the fact that they'll die if you squash them, or simply afraid without understanding why?
Free Martian Whores!
Rational behavior isn't defined as self interested behavior, at least not in Ayn Rand's nonfiction. That would be a senseless definition, considering one has to then determine what is in their own best interest, which presumably requires some version of rationality to achieve.
Don't judge the ideas on random internet folks, because they're usually wrong and/or stupid, attacking them is attacking the worst strawman in many cases. Read an essay or two.
People act to remove felt uneasiness.
Isn't that why you posted just now?
Well, the Zen Rinzai was in the old times the Zen school that followed the Japanese Imperial Court, many samurai and the japanese state men, so I'm inclined to believe that they have a more permissive view of war than the other branches. One of the principles of Zen are simplicity, for Zen you can define the whole universe in terms of the shapes of a circle, a square and a triangle, you could say that they had an intuitive grasp of analytical geometry. We can agree or disagree about Jobs personal traits but clearly, in relation to consumer electronics, the simple design of Apple products certainly is loaded with Zen philosophy. I was told about Jobs by the Abbot of the Daisen-in temple in Kyoto last summer, Mr. Sooen Ozeki, and he again talks about Jobs in his last book, quoting Jobs speech at Stanford like an example of Zen thought.
Best Regards
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
Was his midi-chlorians level off the chart as well?
oldhack: "Security is a waste of money until shit hits the fan. 5 minutes later, it becomes waste of money again. "
Yes. One quote pulled completely out of context, proves he is "as much of a twat as Ayn Rand".
Beware of people who quote bad authors
You're calling Heinlein a bad author?? Sure, I don't care for his politics but his books and stories are mostly good reads (he had a few stinkers, like most authors). He's not as good as Asimov, but then, Asimov was a real scientist and wrote nonfiction as well as fiction. He's not as good as Niven, but Niven had some stinkers, too. If you want to read some bad sci-fi, have a look at Fred Pohl's latest book All the Lives He Led. I got about a third of the way through it and returned it to teh library in boredom. Which seemed strange because I remember I used to like his stuff.
Free Martian Whores!
Its mainly C. B is a subset of C. A is what leads you to be unhappy in the first place. The constant struggle to improve something that has no end!
Its all about being content with what you have and living in the moment!
I think you're right; my wording for the second sentence you quoted was sloppy - I stand by the first one though.
I definitely think a fly isn't aware of "I will die if I get swatted"; but I also don't think it's aware of "fear" either (and therefore also not "happiness" or "sadness"). At that level of creature, I don't think they're much more than living automatons with no real awareness of any kind that we'd recognise as such. The flying away when you swat at them is (in my opinion/understanding) purely instinct with no decision making going on at all. Move up to larger animals and I'll certainly concede that at the border before we'd call things "conscious" there are almost certainly feelings resembling happiness and sadness (where that border is however and how it's defined, is a very debatable topic that I'd rather not get in to - it raises a LOT of further discussion and gets in to things like "free will" rather rapidly)
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
I'm going to hell because I'm gay.
Dora? Is that you? I had this same conversation with a lesbian just last week. I pointed out that my having sex with a woman (despite the fact that I'm a man) was just as much a sin as her having sex with a woman, and that her sins were paid in blood.
So are yours. Being gay isn't a sin, acting on sinful impulse is. As long as you repent, you're forgiven. Just remember that every time you do, jesus gets hit with that cat-o-nine-tails again.
God doesn't care that females sleep around and go from boyfriend to boyfriend to boyfriend.
On the contrary, he does. Have you even read the bible? I suspect you haven't. Unless you're just trolling and if you really consider yourself a Christian, read it! Especially read the first four books of the new testament.
If you accept Christ as your savior, and that he gave his life in payment for YOUR sins, you're going to heaven, gay or straight. Because all of us sin. Every one of us. Even the Cathiolic's Pope is a sinner. The apostle Paul's job before he met Christ was persecuting and murdering Christians!
I also suspect that your one tryst with a man is by far not your worst sin. Too many people go to church on Sunday and evict someone the next day to make more money, I assure you God is a lot more pissed at them than he is at you. Mitt Romney is a good example, considering himself Christain when he really worships money above all else. If he worshiped God rather than money, he would have had nothing to do with Bain Capital. Or Obama -- have a read what jesus said about lawyers. God doesn't like lawyers one little bit!
"Take up your cross and follow me." We all have our weaknesses, yours is homosexuality. That's your cross. You can't fight being attracted to men any more than I can fight being attracted to women, but you need to at least make the effort.
I know that god hates me and wants to burn me forever.
No. God loves you so much that he came down himself to die in agony for what you do. As to why he made you gay, I have no idea... but then, I'm not the one smart enough and powerful enough to create an entire universe.
I'm glad my karma is excellent, because any athiests with mod points are going to rip me a new one.
PS: Yes, I confess I sinned with Dora, even though she's a lesbian (not the first lesbian to be attracted to me). We were drunk and I regret it.
Free Martian Whores!
The best I can do is give you a citation.
Free Martian Whores!
You may want to watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY
You should see a shrink. If the words of a stranger on the Internet make you unhappy, you are emotionally unstable. And that has nothing to do with the argument I made, which is about denying or begrudging someone else his happiness - which I don't do to you. For all I care, you can be as happy as you want.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Some people derive happiness from striving to get more of something, from improving their life, or themselves. Why does Carlos Slim still go around buying and turning companies around? Considering how he's probably the world's richest man, he obviously has no need to do so, so therefore he does it because he enjoys it. Basically, one can derive happiness from the journey, as opposed to just the destination.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xkmw6r_saturday-night-live-kevin-nealon-with-no-attention-span-news_fun
You've been on my foe list for years. Mostly that happens to people who are religious kooks of one sort or another.
I respect here both what you've said and how you've said it, and this is not an isolated instance. Whether or not we still have areas of disagreement, you have demonstrated a high level of rationality and compassion.
I have in some way, small perhaps, wronged you, and now apologize, and thank you for the lesson.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Unless you decide to shoot me based on your metric.
What of the friend and families of everyone you decide to execute? It's unlikely that those sort of "bad" people make everyone in their lives miserable. They may be cherished parents or siblings or children- so their death will harm somebody's happiness. And since you're the executioner, you'd be "denying happiness" to their surviving kin.
To get to my actual point - I doubt you'll improve the world by killing off people on that metric.
For what it's worth, i've heard a natural source of MAOIs is passion flower tea. It has harmine in it. (Harma alkaloids maybe? I forget)
Unless you decide to shoot me based on your metric.
I don't care if you die happy or unhappy.
And since you're the executioner, you'd be "denying happiness" to their surviving kin.
No, I'd be causing them anguish. That's not the same thing though there is a correlation.
To get to my actual point - I doubt you'll improve the world by killing off people on that metric.
True.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
No, happiness is just a state of mind, a phenomena. Buddhists teach that meditation and mindfulness will allow you to be happy as simply as you would walk or sit.
Pretty late for this, but what the hell, you'll likely read it. I think you're both making the same tragic error. Him from a misplaced sense of what empathy means (ergo not actually showing empathy, just feel good hubris), and you from illustrating the very emotional reasoning that those you condemn do. You can't empathize enough to realize that some people, at some points in their life, are so overwhelmed that it is quite literally beyond their ability to cope, and then dismiss those around them who care. Then, since YOU are hurt by that, you dismiss them. Both attitudes are selfish, condescending, and unempathic. Just because you think you wouldn't do it (and in your post you illustrate that you actually are doing it currently), you attack the value of people who are already utterly overwhelmed because you think YOU are better than that.
I'm not convinced of the quality of your thinking, to say the least.
Not the kind of bliss discussed here. Ignorance will not attain that.
I actually apply a lot of (b) (i.e. expectation management). Which reminded me that I forgot another relationship I noticed over time:
Expected Life = Needs + Wants
Wants ~ What you see other people have
I found that being deliberately oblivious to what others have or not comparing what you have or have achieved tends to normalize expectations to match what you actually want. Was it Will Smith who said "People spend money they don't have, to buy shit they don't need to impress people they don't like".
Indeed. It's the Hedonic treadmil. Research suggests that no matter how much (a) you do, your happiness (or lack thereof) will return to your baseline level over time. If you don't adjust that level, you'll forever be chasing improvement.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. People who meditate on a serious level can be married, and have children.
Perhaps because he's not actually happy and is trying to fill the void with another adventure.
It's not that they don't care, it's that they can't care. Physically cannot. That part of the brain is simply not involved in processing at all. They see no difference in the words table vs rape, for example. Most people will have a reaction in the brain that is different for the two words, the psychopath does not. They are simply incapable of seeing/feeling the difference that it makes to us "normies". You are right in that they know they are wrong, but I sincerely doubt that the thought of consequence even enters into the picture.
Suppose *I'm* the happiest man in the world?! I deserve to win!
*I* want to be tested for happiness, too, dammit!!!!! :-(
This is soooo unfair! And that monk guy is a total loser!
I'm glad my karma is excellent, because any athiests with mod points are going to rip me a new one.
I'm an atheist and wouldn't mod you down just for expressing your beliefs in a reasonable way: as people keep saying here, there is no "-1 disagree" option. Rather, I would reply to your post and argue about your assumptions and line of reasoning, however fruitless that would ultimately be.
Incidentally, you're at score: 5 as I post this, so I think you'll find there are plenty of Christians with mod points too.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I doubt the fly is aware he'll die if he's swatted, that the fear is strictly instinctive, but it stands to reason that sentience would have evolved from emotion, rather than the other way around.
Free Martian Whores!
That's one of the nicest deconstructions of the randian/libertardian self-justifications that I've seen. Thanks for that.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
"In Christianism too, monks choose to live in celibacy."
Obviously, they are idiots too. /G3ckoG33k