Philosophy of Happiness
Philosophy of Happiness 1.Learning Happiness ‘Young’ beings have to learn by trial and error how to become ‘happy’. Intelligence is about experience, creativity is not born out of understanding. Because that would mean that general truth is limited. Only local truth exist (and then still personal), meaning that you grasp your personal version of the local model of unlimited truth (a model like: dark sky predicts rain). Intuition (ethics archived in our bodies) is a great help. But in case intuition is not yet built, then Philosophy should at least give hints about how to become ‘happy’. The tool abstract thinking should return to being useful in social affairs by explaining the complexity of dayly life, that trait made philosophizing survive in evolution. If it’s lost than also philosophy will never be more than the science of abstract models. Our mind became brilliant in evaluating moods, ‘emotions’ or ‘feelings’ are much more than only side-products of logic as is the hidden explanation in rationalism. An action that produces a Good mood in one person, may cause Evil feelings in another. I’m not going to discus Good and Bad, but a philosophy that neglects emotions is mainly a useles tool. That doesn’t mean that philosophy has to become (short term) political. For this reason we’ve got sociology. But is does mean that philosophy should have use in everyday life. By philosophizing and debating about this daily life, to eventually come to a slight change of the basics. Sociology should only apply existing philosophy in short term politics. Long term politics should be steered by stable sound principles. To find out which ones the perfectly suited study is philosophy. Students who prefer both traits should combine the 2 studies. —- 2.Philosophy and Daily Life For becoming happy in relative thinking there are no general rules. But it helps to realize what system of thought you are using (have been ‘indoctrinated’ with). In the ‘First world’ feeling ‘happy’ became more and more being wealthy and having a job. But if people in the Third World would use this definition, they would lead bitter lives. Luckily their definition of happiness is quite different, or in other words ‘being wealthy’ has a different meaning for them. This emotion for them is related to having friends, being respected and having fun. Every thought-structure consist of rules and some kind of logic. Together such ethics will help you realizing happiness. It is time for a new generation of thinkers, who’ll return to the basic values that made using our brain (meta-sense) useful in the struggle of life. Accompanied by new leaders who restore authority out of respect. I.e. explaining everyday life to everybody, and lead the way. People like Socrates, Plato etc. where interesting, BECAUSE they used their authority to say a lot about daily life. After several ages that resulted in a science as religion where quasi leading philosophers behaved like farisees without beards, or in Iran with beards. And on top of that the majority of the articles that they produce are only readable for insiders. Studying ‘philosophy’ became a purpose in itself (a religion), neglecting the goal of all human tools to serve mankind. And useless to say but anyway, mankind consists of MUCH more than only the mind-priests ‘philosophers’. 3.Creativity and Freedom Realizing happiness (or creativity, freedom, or unpredictibility) of the total environment is the driving force in evolution. For some that means sex, for others love, etc. I saw in interesting episode of the science fiction series Babylon 5. In it there appeared a race that found happiness by being preys in a hunt of beings of another race. Their main feeling of happiness was acquired by dying with honor. They certainly were not as in Western Christianity afraid of death. Further this race showed many moral values that we know as humans. The inherent message in this episode was: Every view has in its own surroundings a right of existence. I repeat that this doesn’t mean that philosophy has to become political. On the contrary, but it must not be afraid to address important problems of life. Finding short term solutions for these remains a political affair. In the 20th century Critical Theory showed the dangers of totalitarianism by just analyzing. Many people in the First World are religious (a dominant part of them Christians). They don’t realize it, but believing in a god is not different from believing in absolute truth. That’s why they believe in exporting the basic values of this religion, because these are a part of such a truth. Strange enough in the past that often resulted in wars, while their religion claims to be peaceful. When you think of wars try to imagine people being inhumanly tortured, being burned or shot to death, all the time on the run, developing hatred. But than surely other religious long-term values must be served. —- 4.Relativity and Logic Around 1940 Ludwig Wittgenstein introduced relativity in logic in his Philosophical Investigations . His most famous proponent was Karl Popper. Wittgenstein had a relative view of knowledge and Popper an absolute. Popper believed that there were general unchanging laws of nature for every being. Wittgenstein considered laws to be relative to the used system of thought (closed circle of knowledge). Those circles could partly overlap (like Olympic rings) or be completely apart. Later Thomas Kuhn around 1960 developed this idea into the concept of paradigm shifts. He supposed that to get from one circle of knowledge into another (not enclosed) one, you needed a kind of short circuit in thought. That doesn’t mean that Popper only had absolutist thoughts. But if you study his work closely you come to realize that his notion of truth is an absolute one. Just as Kuhn he was brilliant, only in essence he had a different view on truth (see Popper-Kuhn controversy). Not a wrong one, but one that according to Nietzsche is a dead end, and is essentially opposed to Wittgenstein’s relative view on knowledge. When humans invade space they’ll meet intelligence not ‘made on earth’. Their system of thought (ethics) might be essentially different. We might not even see them. To communicate we would need an interpretator. Someone who’s circle of knowledge (partly) overlaps that of the unknown beings and also ours. 5.Creativity and Happiness Now back to the interpretation of happiness. This feeling completely depends on what is considered by happy in your circle of thought (local ethics). In the rational logic moods are considered purely as expression of rational thought, and are living an ever more marginal life. If you were educated religiously that might be keeping your god, the pope, or your pastor happy. This way you can be filthy rich and happy, but also extremely poor and happy. Also you can be wealthy and unhappy, while your jobless neighbors are satisfied with their life. Relative thinking learns that every system of thought has a right and a reason to be there. As such is has no use to connect religion and social help. Real social help obeys the local rules, and comes with locally working solutions. It stimulates local people in expressing their local intelligence in creativity and solve their own problems. But in general you could say that keeping others happy is considered more and more not the image of happiness. This could be said to start mid 19th century with the famous philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche who tried to scatter believe in gods and religions. In wealthy capitalist countries happiness started to be personal. So you’re only happy if you yourself feel happy. But be sure that happiness in many cultures used to be for a large part a group feeling. In the 19th century a famous philosopher connected genuine happiness with creativity. He was convinced that gods/dogma’s prevented change. That philosopher was the controversial Friedrich Nietzsche. It certainly doesn’t mean that he hated religion, but that he hated the implicit mind addiction (behaving like zombies: slavery of mind). 6.Words … Don’t take the word ‘happiness’ to strict. And possibly ‘creativity’ is a better word than happiness (than think of the feeling of content in an artist after finishing a work). Happiness means nothing more than feeling well as result of an action. Not the hedonistic feeling of wine lovers, but the deep experience of something being alright. Group-happiness used to be much more important than it is became since Enlightenment in rationalism. Evolution doesn’t care about local happiness. Stronger even evolution doesn’t care about human happiness. In the eyes of evolution ants can be as important as a humans, it’s in essence arrogant to presume different. Evolution aims at the improving general ‘happiness’, ‘maximum freedom’ etc. in the shape of ever more unpredictability of the totality. How this is achieved doesn’t matter. Evolution doesn’t seek to avoid suffering. Any solution to finally reach growing unpredictability will do. It’s a complete mistake to thinks that evolution aims for chaos. Unpredictability is realized by simplicity THROUGH growing complexity. It also helps in this case to forget ideas about Good and Bad. These are only human-made concepts, often created by religion. That’s why for a long time sharks were considered the image of being bad. That doesn’t mean it’s not a fine idea to get rid of pain, but evolution as a process totally ddoesn’t about it as a main goal. But it’s only a nice sub-goal. Plants, bacteria and viruses are in many ways far more creative than humans (in many other ways humans appear superior). So if within the scheme here pictured by me you’re looking for a goal, than go for maximum creativity of all beings (without bothering others). This can be translated in limitless goals. 7.Growth of Happiness Finally let’s connect happiness with evolution. Evolution aiming for ‘happiness’ for all life equipped every shape of life with DNA and common sense (prephase of DNA). DNA and common sense produce ‘intuition’. Tiny parts of ‘intuition’ might be ‘helped’ towards consistency by the logical tool ‘understanding’. But using ‘understanding’ (science) as replacement of MUCH MUCH more subtile intuition is pitiful arrogance (and extremely dangerous). Western World arrogance resulted in slavery, industrialism, capitalism, 2 world wars, poverty outside western world of ‘understanding’, fascism. As finish another idea to think about. Happiness could very well be the same as being creative. It can’t be a coincidence that creative persons often are happy with their life. Then the goal of evolution is realizing maximum creativity (or say freedom) for all living creatures. Creativity is MUCH MUCH more than what in the Roman era was called ’scientia’ (technology). It is eye opening to review the history of Roman Christianity and the Mohammadan variant of Islam War = Wasting Energy in Selfdesigned Conflict, agressive egoist/ individualist behavior that aims at destroying the happiness of others. Realize that both ‘capitalism’ and ‘communism’ are products of Enlightenment rationalism. ‘Rationalism’ is the totally dominant dual world-view of the Western World, that suppressed common sense and PER DEFINITION sees conflict everywhere (’analysis’ is cutting into the ‘differentials’ ‘good’ and ‘bad’, TRUE and FALSE, 0 AND 1, ….). Evil, FALSE, 0,.., terrorism (’conflicts’ inherent in ‘rationalism’) are finally fought with ‘war on terrorism’ and genocide. Growth of happiness. Near to the sorrow of the world, and often upon its volcanic earth, man has laid out his little gardens of happiness; whether he approaches life as one who wants only knowledge from existence, or as one who yields and resigns himself, or as one who rejoices in a difficulty overcome - everywhere we will find some happiness sprouting up next to the trouble. The more volcanic the earth, the greater the happiness will be - but it would be ludicrous to say that this happiness justified suffering per se."
