4 ms·
Speaking of ancestors, I think it is unfortunate that so many are unaware of what they found to be true about happiness, and what happiness is, and what it isn'
by lo_zamoyski 3y ago
Speaking of ancestors, I think it is unfortunate that so many are unaware of what they found to be true about happiness, and what happiness is, and what it isn't. I am not impressed by evolutionary psychology and its superficial and half-baked just-so stories. Biology and psychology can give us hints and signs about things which are then folded into any sound account of the human person, but it is just that: information that enters into a fuller account. Very often, we don't even have that. We have unsophisticated intellectual dilettantism and amateur dabbling.
We must first determine what happiness is before it makes sense to talk about how to achieve it. Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and others in the Western tradition have much to say about it [0]. They also have much to say about how to attain it. It make sense to start there.
[0] https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/How-and-How-Not-to-Be-Happy/J-Budziszewski/9781684511075 https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/How-and-How-Not-to-Be...
- jncfhnb 3y agoWhy does it make sense to start there?
- CelticBard 3y agoWhy does what any of these people have to say about happiness matter today?
- nunuvit 3y agoWhy will any reply to your question matter tomorrow?
- squirtlebonflow 3y agoBecause it'll still be a good question
- CelticBard 3y agoWhy did you reply then?
- nunuvit 3y agoIt's a Socratic question ...
- Groxx 3y agoTo hopefully make things clear: their question was an attempt to lead you to your own answer, whatever it may be. Why do we care about what people said before? The same question applies to your own question now, why does it matter? It apparently does matter, so perhaps it did matter, so perhaps it still does. Else why even bother asking now.
- clhodapp 3y agoAristotle seems to have been insidiously wrong on just about every topic. Why should his views on happiness be any different?
- keiferski 3y agoWhy do you think Aristotle was wrong about drama/poetics?
- wisefoolkp 3y agoYou may be wrong a thousand times but right once... Benefit of doubt I guess
- joelmichael 3y agoHe was the first to develop formal logic which is a foundation of computer science.
- vlz 3y agoAristotle wrote very widely. From the first description of octopus mating behavior to the first stab at formal logic ever, there are probably a lot of topics where he was wrong, but also a lot of other ones where he was right, where debate is still open or where his position was refined. That his scripture was treated as canon by the christian church and not subjected to further scientific inquiry is one of the foundational stories of the modern science. That story is certainly not wrong though it lacks nuance. It is also where Aristotle’s bad rep is mostly from. Aristotle‘s position on many topics is simply the first one uttered as far as we know. It is interesting because it is the start of a conversation, not because it is right or wrong.
- testimonial18 3y agoGross. This guy is pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and deeply embedded in religion, yet identifies as a "philosopher". He's the opposite of what we should be listening to.
- mantas 3y agoThat’s a very bigoted way to define „philosopher“. Philosopher’s job is not to tell things that you want to hear. Philosopher’s job is to challenge you. Don’t get entrenched in your bubble, mate.
- testimonial18 3y ago[flagged]
- throwawaylinux 3y agoThe far bigger real world harm is new age snake oil peddlers telling people they are too fragile and weak to be happy so long as there are others out there thinking and saying mean things.
- mantas 3y agoDon't you dare read what contradicts the prophet! This line seems to be very common millennia after millennia. Human nature never changes :D
- mantas 3y agoSuggesting to read challenging stuff is „gaslighting“? It's not. Just in case - reading does not mean agreeing with what you read. I've no issues reading „harmful“ material. In fact, I specifically try to read stuff that is written either by people I don't approve or includes views I don't approve. Please don't go into „real world harm“ territory. Unless you want to discuss at which point fetus/newborn killing brings „real world harm“. Coming from a very different background, you guys have some crazy views that seem to clash with modern science. But that's fine, such is the price for cultural diversity :|