663: Still looking for happiness...

In the previous lecture we saw an  example of an objective conception of happiness as formulated by Aristotle’s. 

      

According to Aristotle (384–322 BC), eudaimonia (happiness)  consists in the excellent functioning of the soul, thus the exercise of virtue. 

    

While Aristotle allowed, as does common sense, that a person’s happiness could also be affected by external goods and circumstances, 

   

the stronger view that virtue is not only necessary for happiness but also sufficient was affirmed by the Stoics. 

   

Both views, however, have seemed counterintuitive to many. If virtue is necessary for happiness, 

   

how is it possible, as it seems to be, for vicious people to be happy? And if virtue is sufficient, 

   

then would we not be compelled to call the virtuous happy even if they are consumed by torment and suffering? 

  

Epicurus (341–270 BC), the most famous advocate of happiness as a goal of life, was not the great pleasure seeker people usually thinks he was.

  

For the Epicurists was looking for happiness a serious matter, and they thought that the best way 

   

to achieve it was a sober and rather ascetic way of life according to our standard of a good life.

    

The epicurean happiness is the calm satisfaction and freedom of disturbing influences and not primarily enjoyment.    

   

Like Aristotle the Epicureans regard happiness as a kind of objective state. However, this objective approach, ends up in a paradox, 

   

because there exist vicious people who don’t care about any virtue at all and say that they are happy.

   

This objective concept of happiness was adopted and adapted by Christianity and happiness wasn’t a philosophical topic for centuries.

    

Happiness as the goal in life simply meant arriving in Heaven after a ious life on earth. 

   

When the dominance of Christianity dwindled, beginning during the Enlightenment,  the search for happiness found its master in John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873).

   

Mill believed that happiness  or pleasure, which he equated with happiness, was the only thing humans do and should desire for its own sake. 

   

Since happiness is the only intrinsic good, and since more happiness is preferable to less, the goal of the ethical life is to maximize happiness. 

   

This is what  Mill call "the principle of utility" or "the greatest-happiness principle." 

  

Mill offers his famous quasi-proof of the greatest-happiness principle. The core of his argument is this:

   

1 - Everyone desires happiness.

   

2 - The only proof that something is desirable is that people do actually desire it.

   

3 - So, each person's happiness is a good to that person.  

    

4 - Therefore, the general happiness is a good to the aggregate of all persons.

    

There is one difficulty here. This argument relies on a dubious assumption about how individual happiness is related to the general happiness.

    

Maybe you remember the problem we had with these abstract terms like family,  country and so on.

    

We’ll save that for another lecture. Now we are left with the question: Was Mill right - Can you equalise happiness with pleasure?

    

Thank you for your attention again :-)

     

The Discussion

  

[13:18] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): I guess I could but also guess there is much more to it then equlizing

[13:19] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but i Like Mills idea there the only thing i can find is there are some things making some happy that don’t make others happy

[13:19] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and then there are things that i guess everyone could get happy of

[13:20] herman Bergson: The problem is how to deal with happiness as a concept....

[13:20] CB Axel: I heard a quote once, and I can't remember it exactly or who said it, about how people look for happiness when they should settle for contentment.

[13:20] herman Bergson: is it some objective thing or is it a subjective state

[13:20] CB Axel: Or something like that.

[13:21] CB Axel: I've given up on happiness and will settle for contentment.

[13:21] herman Bergson: WHich refutes Epicurus idea of happiness CB

[13:22] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): what is happiness?

[13:22] herman Bergson: Contentment will make you feel happy, CB :-)

[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes

[13:22] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): is it pleasure?

[13:22] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): or much more?

[13:22] herman Bergson: IN the short term happiness is a mental stae....

[13:22] herman Bergson: state....

[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): pleasure vs happiness whats the difference

[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): its almost 2 words for the same thing

[13:22] herman Bergson: in the long term happiness refers to a good life you live

[13:23] CB Axel: Not really. To me contentment is being satisfied with what I have even if I'm not overjoyed with happiness.

[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): when you are happy you feel pleasyer and feeling pleasyre make you happy

[13:23] CB Axel: It's lack of unhappiness.

[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and i cant type cause have coded too much again

[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): lol

[13:23] herman Bergson: Here you see the two meanings of happiness mixed up CB...

[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): working on my games as usual

[13:24] herman Bergson: the short term feeling vs the long term condition of life, you live

[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): that goes well and that also make me happy

[13:24] CB Axel: So happiness is short term and contentment is long term?

[13:24] herman Bergson: yes

[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ok

[13:25] herman Bergson: the philosophers balance between these two interpretations....

[13:25] herman Bergson: it means that happiness isnt ONE thing but this combination

[13:25] CB Axel: But can you have contentment without happiness?

[13:26] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): I guess you could say that cause happiness is definitley more then one thing it seems

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): like that pleasure happy combo, if these are 2 separate things they always come together id say

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): never separate

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): or?

[13:27] herman Bergson: Contentment....thinking about your life and seeing how content you are with the overall result induces a good feeling....which I'd call a happy feeling

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): can you be happy without pleasure

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ?

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): agree

[13:27] herman Bergson: Happy without pleasure???

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): also come together those 2

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes i don’t think that is possible

[13:28] herman Bergson: If you take happiness as a kind of container concept, I'd say pleasure is a part of it...

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): so are they the same things or 2 different things always combined?

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaaa id say that could be one definition

[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): happiness wold then contain both pleasure and contentment

[13:29] herman Bergson: yes

[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): that seems a logical definition id say

[13:30] herman Bergson: SO happinesss makes life worth living  :-)

[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yep

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): id say that

[13:31] herman Bergson: As a desirable thing in itself it certainly is part of the meaning of life then

[13:32] herman Bergson: Happiness is a central concept in ethics....

[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): if we take the children concept used in many of my game engines and programming in general it would look like: Contentment and pleasure are both childern to happiness and happiness in turn among some other things are children to meaning of like

[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): life

[13:33] herman Bergson: Still the Aristotelian idea that a morally good life is a happy life

[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and that is on top of it all

[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): or is it?

[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): is there something more above that that meaning of life is child to

[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): our body maybe

[13:35] herman Bergson: you regard happiness as a Class Bejiita?

[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess, but the concept is solid in general and easy to visualize

[13:36] herman Bergson: Classes look like container concepts

[13:37] herman Bergson: Wittgenstein dealt with this issue....

[13:37] herman Bergson: Take the term "GAME"

[13:38] herman Bergson: there are a lot of games but you cant find an overall and universal feature that makes an individual game a member of the family "GAME"

[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): one thing with parent children concepts however is that a parent will affect all children below but if that parent in turn is child to something above it will not affect this parent

[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): in Unity for ex if i put a camera as children to my main character the camera will always move with the character but the camera will in turn not move the character but be moveable by itself if grabbed in the editor

[13:39] herman Bergson: THis is becoming to esotetic Bejiita :-)

[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and also telling the camera in script to move wil not move the main character

[13:39] herman Bergson: esoteric :-)

[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but is this concept true for the meaning of life parent child concept

[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i don’t think so, i think that no matter where in the chain they will al affect each other

[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): pleasure, contentment happiness ect

[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): its more like a chain, if one link breaks everything is affected in negative way

[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): all have to be there

[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): to be complet

[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): complete

[13:41] herman Bergson: ok :-)

[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and for the meaning of life to be at 100%

[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): its tricky to try describe it in this way but the best way i can try visualize my ideas

[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): since im familiar with these concepts

[13:43] herman Bergson: ANd the question was is happiness equal to pleasure....

[13:43] herman Bergson: That was MIll's problem....

[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): what i can say for sure is that this is indeed more complex then it first seem because we dont think normally of happiness like this, instead we think, i have fun , im happy, tomorrow il go out have a beer ( i will actually do that) - Im happy and so on

[13:44] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): i think pleasure is for a short time, happiness last longer

[13:44] herman Bergson: Take the proud martyr...totally happy standing on his stake while the fire starts....

[13:45] herman Bergson: He may be happy but you can harly say he experiences pleasure there

[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa there we have happiness without pleasure i guess

[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but that case is rare

[13:45] herman Bergson: Yes indeed

[13:46] CB Axel: Is the martyr truly happy or just smug?

[13:46] herman Bergson: one case is enough to proof that happiness and pleasure are different states of mind or conditions of life

[13:46] herman Bergson: Take these religious groups and their collective suicides.....

[13:47] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): can one feel pleasure and be unhappy in the same time?

[13:47] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but they are brainwashed

[13:47] herman Bergson: They died happily

[13:47] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): they think they teleport to paradise

[13:47] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess

[13:48] herman Bergson: But when you say you are happy, Bejiita, arent YOU brainwashed parhaps?

[13:48] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i can only refer to my own personality mostly

[13:48] bergfrau Apfelbaum: i have to go ... thank you hermand & class <3 p="">

[13:48] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): goodnight bergie

[13:48] herman Bergson: Brainwashed by commercials and the like?

[13:48] CB Axel: Bye, Bergie.

[13:48] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): how I am and think as a person

[13:48] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ok Beertje

[13:48] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): goodnight

[13:49] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:49] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but i also see through commercials unless it is something i really need

[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but can agree coca cola is tasty but i also know its not healthy at all

[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i can see through stuff

[13:50] herman Bergson: This can become an endless discourse ...:-)

[13:50] herman Bergson: So let's save some gunpowder for a next time :-)

[13:51] CB Axel: °͜°

[13:51] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hehe true and time is running away

[13:51] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): :)

[13:51] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but been nice as usual

[13:51] herman Bergson: Tahnk you all for your participation :-)

[13:51] CB Axel: Thank you, Herman.

[13:51] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): now im gonna continue a bit on my Myst project

[13:51] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:51] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cu next time

[13:51] CB Axel: Bye, everyone. See you Thursday.

662: About Happiness...

In our quest  for the meaning of life we have made some progress. How do we make life worth living? Why are we here?

   

We have at least found two elements which can serve as partial answers. One is altruism: to care about the needs of others.

   

If we don’t like to live in hunger and pain, it is easy to imagine that others don’t like this too and that we can help them and believe in reciprocity.

   

A second element is related to those abstract concepts like country, family, society, democracy, freedom, which somehow transcend individual needs.

  

We can link our personal goals with those, like I can link my desire to be free to my country and participate in defending the freedom of my country.

   

But maybe you get the feeling that we are missing something in this picture. Apart from all those nice goals and so on, 

  

isn’t the ultimate goal of life to be happy, to live a happy life? Aren’t we all longing for happiness in our lives?

   

Happiness, feeling happy is very valuable to us, so somehow it has something to do with the goal of life, you might expect.

   

But we all know that it is pretty hard or even impossible to be 24 / 7/ 365 happy. We also know that life does not necessarily feel meaningless, when you feel unhappy.

    

Happiness is a confusing concept. We all are pursuing it, but can we tell exactly what we are after?

   

Schopenhauer said: : Happiness is the multiple repetition of pleasure”. Most other philosophers however

   

made a distinction between a temporary state of excitement and pleasure and happiness as a more lasting state.

   

To say “Here sleeps a happy child” sounds normal and meaningful, but to say “Here sleeps a child enjoying pleasure” is somewhat odd.

   

So, maybe happiness is some background state we are in, while pleasure is a transient experience in the foreground.

   

Aristotle (384–322 BC) thought that happiness was the ultimate goal of all human actions. Every act has a goal,

   

and this goals is something good in itself or it is leading to the next goal. Every series of acts must end in something that is desirable because of itself, as Aristotle said.

    

And he concluded, that happiness satisfies this description. Happiness is always chosen because of itself. Never for other reasons.

   

Take honor for instance , he says. It is reasonable to ask, why someone pursues honour.

   

He can do is because of his pride or because of the respect others will give him or because it opens doors for him.

   

Such a question makes little sense if it concerns happiness. We do not want to be happy in order that we can do anything else. Happiness is valuable in itself.

   

That  we  would want happiness because of itself, I can understand, but I am still far from understanding what happiness  actually is,    

    

although I dare say, that I feel happy……. :-)

     

Thank you for your attention…

    

The Discussion

   

[13:14] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:14] herman Bergson: .Happy now...? :-)

[13:14] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yep

[13:14] CB Axel: meh

[13:15] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cause everything works finally and is going in right direction, all have been good today

[13:15] herman Bergson: SO you feel happy Bejiita? :-)

[13:15] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): spring have arrived and on synday ill finally meet my dance rew again plus see a friend on Saturday

[13:15] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and have a beer after work tomorrow, so yes all is good here

[13:16] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and that make me really happy

[13:16] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:16] herman Bergson: And yet....Can you pinpoint your happiness...define it..?

[13:16] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): a beer in Sweden?

[13:16] herman Bergson: THAT is th e big party Beertje ^_^

[13:16] Fluffy Ⓚαкяïкợ (dinoraptor101): I think Happiness is a state of mind a reaction to when our wants are met ?

[13:17] herman Bergson: Something like that indeed Fluffy

[13:17] herman Bergson: but what state of mind....

[13:18] herman Bergson: CB might say a highly endorphins induced state :-)

[13:18] CB Axel nods

[13:18] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): starwars party after this yay, ust got even happier

[13:18] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): just

[13:18] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:18] Fluffy Ⓚαкяïкợ (dinoraptor101): Good question, would you get endophines enjoying good music?

[13:19] CB Axel: Probably

[13:19] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes

[13:19] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): certainly

[13:19] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): i think happiness is more than that

[13:19] herman Bergson: but some music don’t cause the production of endorphines...

[13:19] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): it's pleasure that music gives me

[13:19] herman Bergson: at least by me :-)

[13:20] herman Bergson: Here we have  the same problem....

[13:20] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): I just eat chocolate cake....it gave me pleasure

[13:20] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): not happiness

[13:20] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): that is much more

[13:20] herman Bergson: endorphins is not synonymous with happiness....

[13:20] herman Bergson: it only correlates with my statement "I feel happy"

[13:22] herman Bergson: In the next lectures we'll try to get some more j hold on this concept of happiness

[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:23] herman Bergson: so dont feel unhappy now about us not having all answers now :-)

[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): sounds like a good idea

[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:23] herman Bergson: Maybe you could google on "happiness" :-))

[13:24] herman Bergson: Who knows what you'll find

[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:24] herman Bergson: ANy questions or remarks left?

[13:24] Fluffy Ⓚαкяïкợ (dinoraptor101): whatever it is O.O I'd think it would be in the right-side of the brain.

[13:25] herman Bergson: ohh...what makes you think that Fluffy?

[13:25] Fluffy Ⓚαкяïкợ (dinoraptor101): the picture "THE MIND"  on the wall

[13:25] herman Bergson smiles

[13:26] Fluffy Ⓚαкяïкợ (dinoraptor101): says the right-side is nonverbal, analogic. etc

[13:26] herman Bergson: Thought so :-)

[13:26] Ciska Riverstone: mavbe happiness is a concept and has different regions of the brain occupied ;)

[13:26] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): might be

[13:26] Fluffy Ⓚαкяïкợ (dinoraptor101): I know when things go right you get happy.

[13:26] herman Bergson: Are we our brain???

[13:27] CB Axel: Maybe happiness is when both sides of the brain are working together and not fighting each other. °͜°

[13:27] herman Bergson: We know that consciousness is generated by the brain.....

[13:27] herman Bergson: indeed CB :-)

[13:27] herman Bergson: But again this question....

[13:28] Fluffy Ⓚαкяïкợ (dinoraptor101): I think the brain is part of us, but we're not limited to our brain perse

[13:28] herman Bergson: when we have analysed really all details of the brain.....have we found consciousness then?

[13:29] herman Bergson: what is beyond that limit Fluffy?

[13:29] Fluffy Ⓚαкяïкợ (dinoraptor101): nope =]

[13:29] Fluffy Ⓚαкяïкợ (dinoraptor101): Our actions,

[13:29] bergfrau Apfelbaum: i think happy is the one who has reached his goal that makes him happy... everyone has different goals

[13:29] herman Bergson: You suggest free will here I suppose....

[13:29] Fluffy Ⓚαкяïкợ (dinoraptor101): hmm not really.

[13:30] Fluffy Ⓚαкяïкợ (dinoraptor101): I mean the roles we play in other's lives.

[13:30] Fluffy Ⓚαкяïкợ (dinoraptor101): accomplishments.

[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: experiences?

[13:30] herman Bergson: II just mention it because it is heavily debated by neuroscientists

[13:30] herman Bergson: Well interesting point.....

[13:30] herman Bergson: We are not our brain....we are our actions....

[13:31] Ciska Riverstone: remember what mr Dennet said: one neuron = neuroscience - two neurons = psychology

[13:31] herman Bergson: comes close to Aristotle as well as Sartre I would say

[13:31] Fluffy Ⓚαкяïкợ (dinoraptor101): *stares at "the individual" poster*

[13:32] herman Bergson: yes  Fluffy....we have done more than 14 projects here now....

[13:32] herman Bergson: the pictures are related to them

[13:33] Fluffy Ⓚαкяïкợ (dinoraptor101): I hope it's not against copyright to snapshot, sorry don't mean to get of track.

[13:33] herman Bergson: Take whatever you like form here....

[13:33] bergfrau Apfelbaum: the role we play ( in RL :-) is chosen by everyone himself. in any case, it should be so :-)

[13:33] herman Bergson: I myself steal whatever I can get hold of :-)))

[13:34] herman Bergson: DOnt you mean "the life we live" Bergie?

[13:35] herman Bergson: You can be forced into a role for instance....

[13:35] bergfrau Apfelbaum: yes sure i mean the RL :-)

[13:35] herman Bergson: like women are forced into a role by culture

[13:35] herman Bergson: feminists protest against that role and want a life to live

[13:36] bergfrau Apfelbaum: yes i just can talk from me, about my luck

[13:37] herman Bergson: Yes some of us can.....

[13:37] herman Bergson: May be related to our individualism

[13:38] herman Bergson: We have to think about that......

[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:39] herman Bergson: I was wondering if there is a relation between individualism and the chance to be(come) happy, live a happy life....

[13:39] herman Bergson: Like Bergie refers to herself...her individual situation...

[13:39] herman Bergson: We'll keep this in mind for next time

[13:39] bergfrau Apfelbaum: my big wish is happiness for all people without wars. Worldwide happiness. but then those who love the war would be sad :-)

[13:40] herman Bergson: That is a paradox indeed  Bergie...!

[13:40] Fluffy Ⓚαкяïкợ (dinoraptor101): I think equal happiness is possible only by denying freedom

[13:40] herman Bergson: We should keep that one in mind too for next lectures

[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hmm

[13:41] Fluffy Ⓚαкяïкợ (dinoraptor101): or more specifically unifying the common purposes that lead to everyone's serenity

[13:41] herman Bergson: What do you say there....Fluffy?

[13:41] Fluffy Ⓚαкяïкợ (dinoraptor101): the reason why everyone can't be happy in the world

[13:41] herman Bergson: denying freedom?

[13:41] Fluffy Ⓚαкяïкợ (dinoraptor101): is because everyone defines happiness differently. and wants different things

[13:42] herman Bergson: That is an issue for  a next lecture indeed

[13:42] bergfrau Apfelbaum: happiness is individual ... the murderer, the child, the musician, everyone is happy with his goal

[13:42] Fluffy Ⓚαкяïкợ (dinoraptor101): therefore it's not possible for everyone to be happy. because that's the same is granting everyone all their wishes ?

[13:42] herman Bergson: is there a happiness relativism or not? :-)

[13:43] Fluffy Ⓚαкяïкợ (dinoraptor101): hmm, can you rephrase Mr. Bergson?

[13:43] Fluffy Ⓚαкяïкợ (dinoraptor101): is happiness relative?

[13:43] herman Bergson: no....relativism means that there is no absolute standard

[13:43] bergfrau Apfelbaum: yes i think so

[13:44] herman Bergson: so...everyone his or her own happiness....regardless of....

[13:44] herman Bergson: but that leads to Bergie’s paradox

[13:44] herman Bergson: which we'll have to deal with

[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hmm this seem not as easy as first thought indeed

[13:45] herman Bergson smiles

[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): because what makes one happy might not make another or?

[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): depends on i guess

[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but some things must be able to make almost all  happy

[13:45] herman Bergson: Yes Bejiita...here we go again , isn’t it :-)

[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:45] herman Bergson: Well...let everyone brain come to rest for a short while..

[13:46] herman Bergson: and I'll be happy to see you next Tuesday again :-))

[13:46] herman Bergson: Thank you all again for your participation :-)

[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aa

[13:46] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ....

[13:46] CB Axel: Thank you, Herman.

[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman

[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): look forward to that

[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cu then

[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:46] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman

[13:46] bergfrau Apfelbaum: thank you Herman and Class

[13:47] bergfrau Apfelbaum: be happy :-)

[13:47] Ciska Riverstone: have a great time all

[13:47] CB Axel: Goodbye, everyone. See you Tuesday.

661: There has to more to life than.....

While we were discussing the idea if progress of mankind could be our purpose in life,

   

I showed you in two following lectures that you can find our present theme even in your newspaper.

  

We were working on the observation that a family is more than just its individual members, that mankind is not just the collection of individuals.

   

This was based on the observation that what can be true of for instance mankind,  is not necessarily true for individual members of mankind.

  

It would be good for mankind, if the number of new born children should be reduced, because we can not feed that many people,

   

but this does not necessarily mean that every individual woman should give birth to less children.

  

So, mankind is a real concept and it fulfils sometimes our desire for or need of the existence of this “There has to be more to life than…”

   

Religions offer, what we call this transcendental  world, a heaven, an afterlife. Others may offer us a utopia like the perfect proletarian society, where we all are equal.

  

Populists abuse our desire for the transcendental by declaring that they KNOW what THE PEOPLE wants and that e.g. individual journalists should shut up to contradict them, otherwise……….

   

All those refer to what you may call transcendental worlds: to something above, beyond or outside our physical world and even a source of higher values.

   

But that is not what I am looking for. I am looking for something that transcends. That seems to be that basic “more” we long for.

  

In relation to this, transcendence is simply the escape of the limitations of our own individual, subjective existence

   

and our experience of being part of and participating in something that is bigger than us.

  

The counterpart is that we live a life that isn’t compensated by anything. A life that just is, based on nothing more than just existing.

  

Knowledge and values are only the products of our brain and our actions. Man is the standard of all things.

   

This is for a lot of people a difficult to accept point of view, when we are trying to find a meaning of life. We already saw that altruism 

  

may not be the meaning of life, but yet adds something to life which makes it worth living.

  

A growing number of people do no longer believe  in heaven or a utopia or an afterlife as the ultimate meaning of life,

   

but makes this our apparent  desire for transcendence meaningless? 

   

We do some things not just for our neighbour or relative, but for mankind. We climb the barricades protesting against climate change.

   

We defend our freedom, democracy, our country.  Things that transcend our individuality.

  

We could conclude here, that linking our personal goals with these transcending concepts can be regarded as a way to transcend our nature of finite beings.

   

Do you uphold some belief in any transcendent concept?

    

Thank you for your attention again… ^_^

The Discussion

[13:17] Ciska Riverstone: ㋡

[13:17] herman Bergson smiles

[13:17] Ciska Riverstone: thanx herman

[13:18] Ciska Riverstone: is love a transcent concept? ;)

[13:18] herman Bergson: did it transcend your understanding perhaps>

[13:18] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:18] herman Bergson: difficult question, Ciska

[13:18] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): i don't understand the word transcedent, it has different meanings according transaltor

[13:19] Ciska Riverstone: yes  but basically thats what we are struggling with these days when we start to try to live in a not-transcendent way

[13:19] herman Bergson: The matter with transcend here is that the concept refers to more than its individual constituents

[13:19] Ciska Riverstone: its impossible somehow

[13:19] Ciska Riverstone: how so?

[13:19] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): can you translate the word in dutch please Herman?

[13:20] herman Bergson: ti is a difficult and abstract concept, Beertje....I agree...

[13:20] herman Bergson: overstijgend

[13:20] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): ok, dankjewel

[13:20] herman Bergson: it  is hard to grasp...

[13:20] herman Bergson: and it has a long history in philosophy...

[13:21] herman Bergson: as I said before.....

[13:21] herman Bergson: you for and me are the class....

[13:22] herman Bergson: But what really observable exists is just 5 avatars and the building....

[13:22] herman Bergson: so...where is the class?

[13:22] herman Bergson: and yet we regard it as existing...

[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the class is just a definition for all of us doing the same thing together

[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): a group

[13:23] herman Bergson: Is Love a transcendent  concept...

[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): its not an object but a concept, therein lies the difference

[13:23] herman Bergson: Maybe I have an answer to that....

[13:24] herman Bergson: we see actions of people.....people are nice to eachother and call this loving and caring actions...

[13:24] herman Bergson: that is..we see gestures, looks, and so on....

[13:24] herman Bergson: and then we ask...ok....and where is the LOVE?

[13:25] CB Axel: Love, like this class, is all in our minds.

[13:25] herman Bergson: it is a kind of container concept

[13:25] herman Bergson: yes CB

[13:26] herman Bergson: But not ONLY in our minds....

[13:26] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:26] herman Bergson: For instance.....

[13:26] herman Bergson: in sociology the do research on groups....on populations and come with explanations of social behavior...

[13:27] herman Bergson: but what the sociologists really see is just individuals....and their actions and behavior

[13:27] herman Bergson: Yet we regard the group as something real

[13:27] herman Bergson: iti i sthe way our mind works.....

[13:28] herman Bergson: Concepts that organize our sensory experiences

[13:28] herman Bergson: Statistics is also a good example....

[13:29] herman Bergson: It says for instance......80% of that group will buy X

[13:29] herman Bergson: and after research indeed 80% DID buy X....

[13:29] herman Bergson: but it is hard to say anything about the behavior of individual members of the group..

[13:30] herman Bergson: or maybe...there is 80% chance that he will buy X

[13:30] herman Bergson: which makes the statement a lottery

[13:30] herman Bergson: while the staement about the group can be predicted and true

[13:31] herman Bergson: Difficult issue ...I agree

[13:31] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): yes

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed

[13:31] herman Bergson: it is about the ontological status of abstract concepts....

[13:32] herman Bergson: no problem with "This chair exists"

[13:32] Ciska Riverstone: I think we miss a dimension there...

[13:32] herman Bergson: problem is "Love exists"

[13:33] herman Bergson: whuch dimension, Ciska?

[13:33] Ciska Riverstone: the dimension of experience

[13:33] herman Bergson: yes....

[13:33] Ciska Riverstone: its part of the group and the love concept

[13:33] Ciska Riverstone: so concepts seem to come to live with experience

[13:33] herman Bergson: the two verbs "exists" look the same but are different....

[13:33] Ciska Riverstone: and experience is something we cannot really  grasp yet

[13:34] Ciska Riverstone: they seem to relate to what we feel as a concept of quality

[13:34] herman Bergson: the first on means...you can sit in it, touch it, sell it....

[13:34] CB Axel: Can't we measure love by the number of endorphins released in our brains when we love someone?

[13:34] CB Axel: That's makes it real.

[13:34] herman Bergson: Unfortunately not CB.....

[13:35] Ciska Riverstone: that would pin love down to a love to a person - but we do have endorphins too with any kind of thing starting from a dog to a glass of wine

[13:35] Ciska Riverstone: love is a bigger concept

[13:35] herman Bergson: The only thing we measure there is that when I say I love someone it correlates with a quantity of endorphinsd in my brain

[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): I guess

[13:35] CB Axel: But that is love.

[13:35] herman Bergson: You can't say Love = endorphins in brain

[13:36] CB Axel: That's all love is.

[13:36] CB Axel: I can say that.

[13:36] Ciska Riverstone: u can define it like that

[13:36] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): abstract concepts like love family group, class can be really tricky

[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes Bekjiita....

[13:36] Ciska Riverstone: what does that do then? you can measure if someone loves or not ( endorphin)

[13:36] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): they seem first obvious but when you start to try defining them in this way it gets a little difficult

[13:37] herman Bergson: Suppose we define Love as the appearance of endorphins in the brain?

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): because they are not things but concepts

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and so much more

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): you can not touch or see them

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): they are just definitions

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): for something

[13:37] CB Axel: And seratonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine.

[13:38] CB Axel: That's all love is.

[13:38] herman Bergson: and we base our action on these concepts...

[13:38] Ciska Riverstone: is it ? or are those the body reaction to a situation  - an experience we make, cb?

[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): then you have managed to describe love as a thing or at least chemical substances

[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but describing it that way sounds a bit crude

[13:39] herman Bergson: but when I say I love Ciska....and then I love CB....what does that means?

[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but i guess that is what it is largely

[13:39] CB Axel: That you're lying? LOL

[13:39] herman Bergson: different quantities of these hormons in my brain?

[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: well it basically descirbes an experience u might have with cb in one room - no?

[13:40] herman Bergson: and if ti means different quantities...what causes the difference???

[13:40] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): it mean she doesn’t love me :)

[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): you could use this definition maybee related to programming wich also involves classes

[13:40] CB Axel: Poor, Beertje. I'm sure he loves you, too. :_

[13:40] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): :)

[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and lets say i have a class called love and fill it with functons describing these things

[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): then the class will be abstract but full of concrete things that you can access one by one

[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): sort of like that

[13:41] herman Bergson: that is not how the brain works Bejiita....

[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well in the code world everything will be abstract but this was just a sort of analogy

[13:41] herman Bergson: We have these hormons that appear under given circumstances.....

[13:42] herman Bergson: what causes the differences?

[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): you stuff a collection of concrete things in an abstract container and call it family, love, group ect

[13:42] herman Bergson: yes indeed.....

[13:43] CB Axel: All kinds of things can make a difference.

[13:43] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): i think there is a big difference in loving a human being or loving a glas of wine

[13:43] CB Axel: I love wine, but I wouldn't want to marry a glass of it.

[13:43] CB Axel: Or maybe I would.

[13:43] CB Axel: It's always there for me.

[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): love = like a lot

[13:43] CB Axel: It makes me feel good.

[13:43] CB Axel: It always has the same effect on me.

[13:43] herman Bergson: Nice marriage CB :-)

[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:43] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): 2 glasses make me feel even better CB :)

[13:44] CB Axel: Well, it's reliable at any rate.

[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): (imagines seeing CB in church marrying a glass of wine)

[13:44] herman Bergson: polygamy

[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): lol

[13:44] CB Axel: Only if you count each glass as an individual. °͜°

[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:45] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): you said love = like a lot Bejiita, but is like a lot the same as love?

[13:45] herman Bergson: Otherwise you have to marry a bottle, CB :-)

[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess there is more but here it gets tricky again

[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): for example, when are you friends and when are you in love

[13:45] herman Bergson: and how much is "a lot" ?

[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): where goes that line between

[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): friendship and love

[13:46] herman Bergson: I think abstact concepts are nice toys to play with :-)

[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: the fascinating thing is...

[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): agree

[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: in general we all still "know" love when we meet it

[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: and thats totally independent from culture

[13:47] Ciska Riverstone: or where on earth we are

[13:47] herman Bergson: yes Ciska...we accept some ontological status of what these concepts refer to

[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: so much so that we think "we know" what it is

[13:48] herman Bergson: But what status that is, I don't dare to sday

[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: until we have to define it

[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: so that sounds familiar to me

[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: familiar from religion

[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: for example

[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: or whatever

[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: we think we "know" something

[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: and looking closer - we don't

[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: thats transcendence somehow

[13:49] herman Bergson: not exactly true, I'd say...

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: for me thats the difference between

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: experience

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: and rationality

[13:49] herman Bergson: CB did some research on love and came up with observable endocrin phenomena

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: the mind cannot grasp that.

[13:50] herman Bergson: But it is created by the mind nevertheless

[13:50] herman Bergson: and here comes the philosophical story....

[13:50] Ciska Riverstone: or  - due to cb - by the endorphins

[13:51] herman Bergson: Plato said....NO...not created by the mind......

[13:51] herman Bergson: we see the shadows of these concepts...

[13:51] Ciska Riverstone whispers: (me too ;) )

[13:51] herman Bergson: his famous story of the cave....

[13:51] herman Bergson: Take causality....

[13:52] herman Bergson: Hume says...we just see B after A....Kant says it is an organizing concept real in the mind

[13:53] herman Bergson: and we can point at the rationalism - empiricism controvery

[13:53] herman Bergson: all related to understanding these abstract concepts

[13:54] herman Bergson: But I think it is enough for today ^_^

[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: heheh

[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: thanx herman

[13:54] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): difficult lecture today Herman

[13:54] herman Bergson: Could do a whole project on "Abstract concepts explained"

[13:54] CB Axel: But very interesting.

[13:54] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa

[13:54] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:55] herman Bergson: Yes it is a difficult subject in philosophy....

[13:55] herman Bergson: But in daily life we can quite well handle these concepts....so don't worry :-)

[13:55] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:55] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): :)

[13:56] herman Bergson: Thank you all vor your participation again....:-))

[13:56] CB Axel: Thank you, Herman.

[13:56] herman Bergson: Class dismissed....