Genuine Human Happiness

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Few Easy Questions:

Does buying new clothes make you happy?

Does wining a demanding chess game make you happy?

Does an excellent meal at a five star restaurant make you happy?

Does vacationing with your family make you happy?

Does the unparalled enjoyment of intimacy with your wife make you happy?

Of Course They Do!

[hidden]Do these variations of human happiness l a s t ? Hell, No.[/hidden][/b]

There is a difference between happiness, contentment and joy. Our true treasures lie in the relationships with have with othrs, both human and non-human "others". For some this might mean living flesh and blood humans or your beloved dog. I suppose such joy could also be found with a supernatural vision of God, Christ, Mary, etc. Happiness and contentment come from objects and so the feeling tends to die off. Joy is ever lasting. I believe it can even be found by loving yourself. Perhaps that is where real joy starts, self love. So many seem to be into self loathing.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Okay, that all sounds pretty logical. Then there's the case of habituated behaviour; suppose one were to condition one's self to behave in a generally altruistic manner, and let's suppose that this conditioning was initially undertaken for purely selfish reasons. In time, this behaviour could become second-nature, and the original motivations might well be forgotten. How selfish would you consider that?

I would say they are not selfish at all. The end result is action for which the underlying motivation is not selfish.

I would say this is largely how, for example, inculcation works. Consider, for example, a child who is in the earlier stages of moral development. Behaviors that are typically construed as prosocial are pressed into service by the child's authority figures, although the actual motivations on the part of the child are not prosocial at all (for example, the child's reasons may not even really be her own and just treated as inviolable rules handed down to her; or the motivations may be in fact selfish, e.g., to avoid punishment from one's authority figure). However, as the child mature's, those actions become more and more a result of her own autonomy, as the child comes to understand the actual prosocial reasons and underlying justifiers that recommend such behavior. The end result is prosocial action that flows from prosocial motivations and understanding. I wouldn't consider the end result selfish at all, even though it all got started with the pressing of those behaviors into service despite the lack of prosocial motivations (or even against the grain of selfish motivations). Hope my reasoning there makes sense to you. It's a good question you raise.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
No dancing going on around here. You've made assumptions that aren't true.

So you're not a Christian...ew!! what are you ?!?

Seriously dude, what else would I do than assume when you can't even tell me if you're a Christian? I'm quite entitled to assume you are a Christian, or a closet Christian, if you won't as so much as give me a hint.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Genuine Human Happiness

The Integrity of God's Character; and the Person and Work (Substitutionary Spiritual Death of Christ on Our Behalf) Define the Basis and Means of Genuine Human Happiness. Let's have a relaxed conversation. No repetitive interrogatories or ill tempered rants, please. All constuctive comments and opinions, welcome. If you ...[text shortened]... got an uncomfortable hair across your buttocks or brain, today, please stay home. Thank You.[/b]

I would say Joy and Hope rather than happiness. Happy has a materialistic ring to it. It comes and goes. But the inner joy is forever. Hope refers to the prized possession awaiting it's redemption...

Originally posted by LemonJello
I would say they are not selfish at all. The end result is action for which the underlying motivation is not selfish.

I would say this is largely how, for example, inculcation works. Consider, for example, a child who is in the earlier stages of moral development. Behaviors that are typically construed as prosocial are pressed into service by the ch ...[text shortened]... otivations). Hope my reasoning there makes sense to you. It's a good question you raise.

There must then come a time when, although their behaviour remains unchanged, their motivations pass from being self-centred to prosocial (I like that word). That's interesting.

All this is skating around my own experiences however. I strive quite hard to 'do the right thing' all the time - obviously I fail a lot - but my motives are really quite selfish. You see, unlike twhitehead, I never found in myself an instinctive desire to do good. As a young man, I was really something of a bad egg in many ways. This proved a pretty successful way to comport myself from an economic point of view, but despite this, I found myself becoming more and more dissatisfied with my life, and more unhappy. Eventually, after much searching and not-finding, I consciously decided to positively amend my behaviour in the hope that this would lead to increased self-satisfaction, happiness and contentment. I am well satisfied with the outcome, so continue in this vein. It feels selfish, but my actions are anything but.

Let's also consider those who follow a faith. Do not all faiths offer glittering rewards for prosocial behaviour? And as such, are not all who follow such guidelines basically following selfish motivations?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]oh dear, I didn't read ToO's repeated "playing the victim" comments before my last post.
He's weird in a bad way isn't he?

Hey ToO, you're really losing you're audience by repeatedly insulting them dude.

Actually one doesn't really need to know someone all that well to know that they are 'playing the victim'. Not sure why you think they do. ...[text shortened]... ge, I actually answer questions that are relevant to the topic at hand.[/b]

...For example, is it an 'insult' to say that someone is 'weird in a bad way'?

Oh do stop playing the victim.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
There must then come a time when, although their behaviour remains unchanged, their motivations pass from being self-centred to prosocial (I like that word). That's interesting.

All this is skating around my own experiences however. I strive quite hard to 'do the right thing' all the time - obviously I fail a lot - but my motives are really quite And as such, are not all who follow such guidelines basically following selfish motivations?

There must then come a time when, although their behaviour remains unchanged, their motivations pass from being self-centred to prosocial (I like that word). That's interesting.

I didn't mean to imply that all childish motivations are selfish; I only meant to imply that they are by and large non-prosocial. In terms of the maturation and developmental process, a better distinction would probably be something like heteronomous versus autonomous. If you find it interesting, you might like to look at the works of Piaget or Kolhberg, for examples. Young children typically display a heteronomous morality of restraint marked by adherence to rules handed down to them that they take as inviolable. They understand that a rule is to be followed but they fail to understand the broader purposes that a rule may serve; they fail to understand the justifications underlying a rule. The selfish motivation I mentioned before (that of avoiding punishment) need not be something that is endogenous to the child; it can also be heteronomously imposed on them by the authority figure through threat. This may be the only way the authority figure can successfully align the child's behavior for at least two reasons: (1) again, the child is not able to understand at this point the underlying justifications, so it will do the authority figure no good to offer those sorts of considerations to the child and (2) the child's cognitive structure is often referred to as egocentric rather than perspective-taking because the child is largely unable to account for the perspective of others; therefore, to be successful, the authority figure needs to appeal to this. As the child matures, however, she starts to think more critically about rules and starts to understand that they can be violated, amended, and otherwise only selectively applied in order to foster greater cooperation with others, especially where there is some contrariety in goals among different persons. With even more maturation, she understands that much of morality and right action cannot be codified into rules at all, and that these subjects are often highly textured and contexted. This gets the child more in touch with the underlying reasons and justification for and against actions, which fosters autonomy.

This is why, to my mind, the critical distinction is one of heteronomy versus autonomy. Early on in development, the child is not really in touch with the actual reasons that recommend prosocial behavior (largely, again, because the child lacks the ability of perspective-taking); they understand the letter of the law, and they understand the consequences of not following the law, but they do not understand the justifications underlying any of this. However, as they mature, they gain contact with the underlying justifications and thus the actions can have traction with their own evaluative commitments. Thus, no longer are their reasons for acting externally imposed on them (heteronomy) but rather align naturally with their own evaluative commitments (self-governance, or autonomy). In either case, the behavior may not change, but the underlying motivations and their relationship with those practical reasons that recommend the behavior have changed.

I consciously decided to positively amend my behaviour in the hope that this would lead to increased self-satisfaction, happiness and contentment. I am well satisfied with the outcome, so continue in this vein. It feels selfish, but my actions are anything but.

I applaud you for taking the effort at reform, and it sounds like you have been successful at it. Even if your motivations and actions feel selfish, this may be an illusion. One thing about a properly prosocially integrated person is that they derive a lot of satisfaction when they are successful in their prosocial actions. This satisfaction can often be internalized as the result of selfish enterprise. It is very natural to derive satisfaction when we are successful in what we pursue. That doesn't mean it was the thought of this satisfaction that consistently motivated the person. It's a perfectly consistent state of affairs that one may derive deep satisfaction that feels selfish from being successful in projects that were wholly non-selfish.

Do not all faiths offer glittering rewards for prosocial behaviour? And as such, are not all who follow such guidelines basically following selfish motivations?

It seems to be an interesting fact that faiths are more centrally conjoined in the offer of after-life than in god/gods (this is a point that is discussed by Stephen Batchelor in his book Buddhism Without Beliefs, for example, if I recall correctly). And I think there is possibly nothing more egocentric and self-centered than the craving for permanence of the self, as in some everlasting after-life. If a person were motivated in his dealings by the thought of after-life, I would find that to be profoundly selfish or self-centered. However, I am not at all convinced that even ardent followers of faith are motivated by such thoughts in their everyday dealings.

However, tying it back in with the above discussion, I am convinced that many ardent followers of faith are substantially morally stunted, not unlike Piaget's characterization of young children, in that they cling to a heteronomous morality of restraint often marked by doctrinal seriousness that mis-prioritizes the letter of the law above more pressing concerns. If you are interested, there is an interesting essay by Patrick Nowell-Smith called Morality: Religious and Secular where one of his basic theses is that religious morality (particularly divine command) is "infantile".

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]There must then come a time when, although their behaviour remains unchanged, their motivations pass from being self-centred to prosocial (I like that word). That's interesting.

I didn't mean to imply that all childish motivations are selfish; I only meant to imply that they are by and large non-prosocial. In terms of the maturation and develop ...[text shortened]... s basic theses is that religious morality (particularly divine command) is "infantile".[/b]

Good stuff.

In early life I thought that selflessness was the preferred way to be to make a better world, and there seemed to be several examples which backed up this notion. It was not until I matured a bit when I realized that this "selflessness" that was attributed to JC, other saints and even movie characters was virtually non-existent. Certainly my efforts to find such a person was only met with very unhappy, frustrated individuals who seemed stuck between a rock and a hard place when asked about their life or whatever.They seemed genuinely unhappy.
As my understanding of the "self" changed and I acknowledged the "deeper self", that was beyond the physical and indeed seemed to be impossible to define properly, my view of selflessness changed, where I saw the fundamental self to be excellent and awesome in every way. Whereas before I had a negative view of the self,brought about by seeing the self as physical and imperfect (even affected by the Christian idea of us being sinners), I now saw all people and myself as either totally awesome or potentially totally awesome.
I was convinced (and still am ) that every person I would meet in the future would be a reflection of the divine, no matter how unconcious they were of it. Sometimes I found it easy to see the reasons for someone's actions and thoughts, although I still met a funny fruit everynow and then which I found hard to reconcile my positive worldview with. Still, I told myself that everyone had their place in the world, and that my not understanding these weird arsed people (ToO comes to mind) was just my own shortcoming.
So now I see myself as the centre of the universe, totally selfish, but with a positive "direction" that removes all obstacles that seem insurmountable and leave me with a vitality and good health that seems totally magical at times.

So in your outline I guess I have come full circle , where I have started off a selfish child , developed into a more selfless young adult only to go back to being selfish again.
It's obviously more complex than that as the new selfishness has a new awareness with it that was absent during childhood.

As far as children's development is concerned, a parent or guardian should always be flexible with the child's rules as these need constant revision.
As you point out the child comes to where they realize that there aren't any rules BUT also why the rules were needed up until that point.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
[b]...For example, is it an 'insult' to say that someone is 'weird in a bad way'?

Oh do stop playing the victim.[/b]

lol. All you done by taking that sentence out of context is show that you either have a complete lack of integrity or have poor reading comprehension skills.

For the record this is the context within which it was said:

Actually one doesn't really need to know someone all that well to know that they are 'playing the victim'. Not sure why you think they do. Also, if ATC hadn't kept 'playing the victim', there would have been no reason to keep pointing it out.

You guys really confuse me with all this talk about 'insults'. What exactly constitutes an 'insult' in your mind? For example, is it an 'insult' to say that someone is 'weird in a bad way'? It'd be easy to point out similar things said to me by ATC. You boys are really too much.

Clearly it was only to point out KA's (and your) hypocrisy. And so it goes with those who 'play the victim'.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. All you done by taking that sentence out of context is show that you either have a complete lack of integrity or have poor reading comprehension skills.

For the record this is the context within which it was said:
[quote]Actually one doesn't really need to know someone all that well to know that they are 'playing the victim'. Not sure why you thi ...[text shortened]... ut KA's (and your) hypocrisy. And so it goes with those who 'play the victim'.

I see you have started another Christian thread.
I have made assumptions that you are Christian ,(without lumping you in with any organized religion, or without any determent inferred to your character), and you say that this is irrelevant and that my assumptions are untrue.

So, are you a Christian?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I see you have started another Christian thread.
I have made assumptions that you are Christian ,(without lumping you in with any organized religion, or without any determent inferred to your character), and you say that this is irrelevant and that my assumptions are untrue.

So, are you a Christian?

You've lost me here. What does this have to do with the post that you quoted?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Good stuff.

In early life I thought that selflessness was the preferred way to be to make a better world, and there seemed to be several examples which backed up this notion. It was not until I matured a bit when I realized that this "selflessness" that was attributed to JC, other saints and even movie characters was virtually non-existent. Certai that there aren't any rules BUT also why the rules were needed up until that point.

So in your outline I guess I have come full circle , where I have started off a selfish child , developed into a more selfless young adult only to go back to being selfish again.
It's obviously more complex than that as the new selfishness has a new awareness with it that was absent during childhood.

A much more likely scenario would be that you became selfish and remained selfish even through a short-lived attempt to appear less selfish (both to others and yourself) only to later fully embrace your selfishness.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. All you done by taking that sentence out of context is show that you either have a complete lack of integrity or have poor reading comprehension skills.

For the record this is the context within which it was said:
[quote]Actually one doesn't really need to know someone all that well to know that they are 'playing the victim'. Not sure why you thi ...[text shortened]... ut KA's (and your) hypocrisy. And so it goes with those who 'play the victim'.

Perhaps this might help:

[joke]...what I said...[/joke]?

I kind of gave up trying to have a serious conversation with you a week or so ago.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]There must then come a time when, although their behaviour remains unchanged, their motivations pass from being self-centred to prosocial (I like that word). That's interesting.

I didn't mean to imply that all childish motivations are selfish; I only meant to imply that they are by and large non-prosocial. In terms of the maturation and develop ...[text shortened]... s basic theses is that religious morality (particularly divine command) is "infantile".[/b]

Nice, thanks. Got some fairly hefty stuff on Piaget and Kohlberg to get through now - you're right, it is interesting.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Perhaps this might help:

[joke]...what I said...[/joke]?

I kind of gave up trying to have a serious conversation with you a week or so ago.

Once again instead of admitting his short-comings, ATC deflects. Classic. Hopefully someday ATC will gain some much needed maturity.