Are you happy?

[null]

In Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy, He claims that although man seeks after happiness, he doesn't just want temporary happiness. Happiness is the highest good in mens eyes. Most things we do are done to make us happier.

This got me to thinking about the Wiki entry for The Denial of Death. Of course, I have my doubts as to whether such a system can directly encompass all of mankind's imperatives. Though if, as shall be posited, culture is a result then this certainly suggests that any culturally influenced thinking is a meta effect:

"The basic premise of The Denial of Death is that human civilization is ultimately an elaborate, symbolic defense mechanism against the knowledge of our mortality, which in turn acts as the emotional and intellectual response to our basic survival mechanism. Becker argues that a basic duality in human life exists between the physical world of objects and a symbolic world of human meaning. Thus, since humanity has a dualistic nature consisting of a physical self and a symbolic self, we are able to transcend the dilemma of mortality through heroism, a concept involving our symbolic halves. By embarking on what Becker refers to as an "immortality project" (or causa sui), in which a people create or become part of something which they feel will last forever; people feel they have "become" heroic and, henceforth, part of something eternal; something that will never die, compared to their physical body that will one day die. This, in turn, gives people the feeling that their lives have meaning, a purpose, significance in the grand scheme of things."​

Boethius goes on to claim that God is the highest good. God is also the one being who is self-sufficient. God's essence is his existence and vice versa.

And what of concepts like God, or 'goodness?' I think, given the context of the above and what's to follow, your sentence is highly revealing: could one say that God's essence is self-sufficiency = immortality of existence? That would be hugely powerful to a species obsessed with its own mortality, since it portrays God as 'perfect.' Yet there are nasty implications:

"Becker argues that the conflict between immortality projects which contradict each other (particularly in religion) is the wellspring for the destruction and misery in our world caused by wars, bigotry, genocide, racism, nationalism, and so forth, since an immortality project which contradicts others indirectly suggests that the others are wrong."​

 

[PR3C1Z10N]

And what of concepts like God, or 'goodness?' I think, given the context of the above and what's to follow, your sentence is highly revealing: could one say that God's essence is self-sufficiency = immortality of existence?

Yes, God's essence does encompass self-sufficiency. St. Thomas Aquinas, (with whom I do not always agree, but do concerning this), said that God is the only being whose essence and existence are the same.

For example, the keyboard I am typing on is a keyboard that exists. Because it exists, I can conjure an image of the keyboard in my mind. That is in some way, the essence, or idea, of the keyboard. The same could be said of a flying pig. Although it doesn't exist, I can still imagine it. However, with a first cause (God), things change quite a bit. If God didn't exist, then there wouldn't be an essence of God. Why? Well, humanity would not exist, and would therefore not be able to acknowledge any essence.

 

[TheDude]

In my opinion,

One can not be happy all the time, and still live a good life.


We must regret our failures to the degree of utter dismay in order to truly appreciate ourselves and the world we live in.


One cannot be happy forever and be a good person.

 

[null]

The same could be said of a flying pig. Although it doesn't exist, I can still imagine it. However, with a first cause (God), things change quite a bit. If God didn't exist, then there wouldn't be an essence of God. Why? Well, humanity would not exist, and would therefore not be able to acknowledge any essence.

Caveat lector: I don't wish to turn this thread into a theistic discussion any further than we, and this reply, already have; so, if you'll admit me this response but wish to hold further discourse I invite you to send me a PM or - if a broader interest is the case - begin a new thread (unless that's already been done and decided as futile, in which case the PM seems right again). If this reply is out of line with the forum rules (let me know), I will delete it.

I see. This line of reasoning resembles a strange loop: "I exist because I have essence, I have essence because I exist." If one equates 'God' with either consciousness or something like pantheism, this might be taken as a rather elegant proof (I'm not sure precisely how you mean the term). Where we seem to have diverged is that, in the work I referenced, systems of eternity, i.e. 'God' or religion, are seen as existential inventions fixing human impermanence: where Aquinas might argue "Homo Ex Deus," I would counter "Deus Ex Homo."

For example, according to the argument you posted the power of mind to conjure the image, or essence, of a thing that is non-real is acknowledged. Yet the distinction is immediately made between the conjuring of this non-real thing versus 'God.' Ask the proponents of any religious system whether their 'God' is real, though, and they will absolutely answer "yes." Are the images conjured by a polytheistic system any less rich or real than those of a monotheistic system? No, they are likely not. There are very rich traditions around the world that seem, by measure of their fantastic elements, to defy human invention.

The problem is that one assumes truth to be purely non-relative; that is, absolute. Time and again, however, it has been proven that the human mind is exceptionally fallible and prone to localized experiences of truth. Further, when you consider something to be real, or true, for all intents and purposes it is - for you personally. Since truth has this kind of duality, it feels a little disingenuous to claim one truth as paramount over another unless there is some proof of that truth. And so begins the age old argument of faith versus proof...

The point is that, in my opinion, it is absolutely within the power of the mind to conceive of fantastic, personally true, images without that ability necessitating or proving a divine essence, and that there is a further impetus of the mind to construct these images to achieve its existential goals thereby ensuring happiness in the face of inconsequence.

 

[DamageINC]

Null is like The Dude on Mega Steroids.

I enjoyed your post quite a bit, thank you.

 

[NickHouston]

I'm happy.

I'm just stressed about my school's workload and don't get enough sleep.

 

[Sabali_2]

There are two kinds of happiness, mental happiness and outer happiness. Outer happiness comes through meeting with an external object, and is transitory. Mental happiness comes about through meditation and positive thought, it is stable and does not cause suffering.One cannot be happy if one does not have mental happiness, no matter how abundant the external sources of outer happiness are, but if one is truly happy in ones mind, then one is unaffected by outer problems.

Many people think of excitement as happiness. They are thinking of something, or expecting something that they consider to be happiness, and for them, that is already happiness. But when you are excited you are not peaceful. True happiness is based on peace.

Without understanding how your inner nature evolves, how can you possibly discover eternal happiness? Where is eternal happiness? It's not in the sky or in the jungle; you won't find it in the air or under the ground. Everlasting happiness is within you, within your psyche, your consciousness, your mind. That's why it's important that you investigate the nature of your own mind.

 

[TheDude]

He's way more organized, studied, and smart, and literate, and charismatic, and has a bigger diction, than I.

 

[null]

and has a bigger diction

Doctors hate him! (Learn this one weird trick)