3 ms·

The author did not do a good job of spelling out the differences in the two types of happiness. In fact, she didn't even address them by their proper names (hed

The author did not do a good job of spelling out the differences in the two types of happiness. In fact, she didn't even address them by their proper names (hedonic and eudaimonic). Identifying the two and really digging in on their differences would probably have made for a more interesting article - and certainly a more enlightening one. Just saying "people are unhappy, don't confuse unhappy with unjoyful" isn't enough. (Spoiler alert: people think they want hedonic when what they're really seeking is eudaimonic.) We're driven to hedonic happiness to which the article loosely alludes just by having stuff and labels that say to be happy. While short term satisfactory it does nothing for people long term. Eudaimonic happiness is a deeper, almost stoic-like approach to happiness. It involves being a part of something that has potential of outlasting the individual. From my experience it took a while to get to this point and understanding the real differences and putting into practices the ceremonies that go with it. One little trick that I learned a while back: never say "I have to" when you can say "I get to". For example it's not "I have to help a friend move" it's "I get to help a friend move". It turned from a chore to a treat - and it is a treat because I get to spend time with my friend. Yeah, it's hot, physically exhausting, and all you get at the end of the day is pizza and beer, but at the end of the day _you get pizza and beer_ which is better than 99% of the rest of the world. It may sound kitchy (spelling?) but it works.

themodelplumber 7y ago
Those seem more like tags for happiness. Or buckets into which happiness can be sorted. As an awkward not-so-great fit into two buckets example, think of someone who puts effort into putting together a collection of objects over a long period of time. Maybe it's art, or toys, or whatever. Over time, they show this collection to others. People hear about it and want to see it before they die. Awards may be won. But the person at the center doesn't necessarily need to decide on either type of happiness, and the philosophy barely even needs to exist. It's more of a journey of attention and energy directed both externally and internally. I think it's worth considering whether this bi-modal distribution of happiness may in fact be just another perspective among many in an N-dimensional space of perspectives. Sure, it has some leverage. But like any model it should probably be held lightly. A multiple model approach to something as important to humans as happiness would be hard to fault.
PavlovsCat 7y ago
> (spelling?) You were probably thinking of "kitschy", but "corny" would fit your intended meaning better. Though I agree that it's actually not corny at all.
- brodouevencode 7y ago
  Thanks! :)
voidhorse 7y ago
While I stand by your desire for more nuance in the discussion, I'd be wary of assuming one theorization of happiness, and it's attendant conceptual divisions, is the only theory of happiness. While the hedonistic and eudaemonic conceptions come down to us from tradition for good reason, it seems somewhat presumptuous to call these categorizations the "proper names" for the kinds of happiness. Since it's a humanistic concept, there are many ways to break it down and define it--some competing theories might not even agree with the hedonistic/eudaemonic split (some might find the division too simple, others unnecessary). There's a lot of different ways one can approach it. For instance, the discussion gets even more interesting when we consider, on the hedonistic side, the world of Sadism--as concepts that seems diametrically opposed (pleasure/pain) intermingle quite interestingly. I would not be surprised if a similar phenomena occurs on the level of hedonism/eudaemonia--the pursuit of one may also mix with some of the incentives and pleasures of the pursuit of the other.
- brodouevencode 7y ago
  > it seems somewhat presumptuous to call these categorizations the "proper names" for the kinds of happiness Maybe so, but all kinds generally fall into one or both of these kinds (there's grey area as there always is). My point though was to show that the author didn't even scratch the surface in examining what happiness is and because of that the article just seemed like filler.

themodelplumber 7y ago

Those seem more like tags for happiness. Or buckets into which happiness can be sorted. As an awkward not-so-great fit into two buckets example, think of someone who puts effort into putting together a collection of objects over a long period of time. Maybe it's art, or toys, or whatever. Over time, they show this collection to others. People hear about it and want to see it before they die. Awards may be won. But the person at the center doesn't necessarily need to decide on either type of happiness, and the philosophy barely even needs to exist. It's more of a journey of attention and energy directed both externally and internally. I think it's worth considering whether this bi-modal distribution of happiness may in fact be just another perspective among many in an N-dimensional space of perspectives. Sure, it has some leverage. But like any model it should probably be held lightly. A multiple model approach to something as important to humans as happiness would be hard to fault.

PavlovsCat 7y ago

> (spelling?) You were probably thinking of "kitschy", but "corny" would fit your intended meaning better. Though I agree that it's actually not corny at all.

brodouevencode 7y ago
Thanks! :)

voidhorse 7y ago

While I stand by your desire for more nuance in the discussion, I'd be wary of assuming one theorization of happiness, and it's attendant conceptual divisions, is the only theory of happiness. While the hedonistic and eudaemonic conceptions come down to us from tradition for good reason, it seems somewhat presumptuous to call these categorizations the "proper names" for the kinds of happiness. Since it's a humanistic concept, there are many ways to break it down and define it--some competing theories might not even agree with the hedonistic/eudaemonic split (some might find the division too simple, others unnecessary). There's a lot of different ways one can approach it. For instance, the discussion gets even more interesting when we consider, on the hedonistic side, the world of Sadism--as concepts that seems diametrically opposed (pleasure/pain) intermingle quite interestingly. I would not be surprised if a similar phenomena occurs on the level of hedonism/eudaemonia--the pursuit of one may also mix with some of the incentives and pleasures of the pursuit of the other.

brodouevencode 7y ago
> it seems somewhat presumptuous to call these categorizations the "proper names" for the kinds of happiness Maybe so, but all kinds generally fall into one or both of these kinds (there's grey area as there always is). My point though was to show that the author didn't even scratch the surface in examining what happiness is and because of that the article just seemed like filler.