10 ms·

I find it somewhat interesting how often people profess that their key to happiness essentially boils down to living the sort of "good life" that in many ways i

by adriand 14y ago

I find it somewhat interesting how often people profess that their key to happiness essentially boils down to living the sort of "good life" that in many ways is the Christian ideal, regardless of whether or not they are personally religious. Although there are habits and rituals that can lead to a more positive outlook, such as exercising regularly, there are deeper aspects to this way of life. This includes helping others, which is featured in this article, but also includes dealing with others fairly and honestly (aka the Golden Rule), being willing to put others above yourself (at least part of the time), optimizing for long-term gain (the religious may be looking beyond death but there's also value in a somewhat shorter view), and so on. Add in hard work and self-betterment ("Learn new skills") and it's not just a Christian outlook, it's downright Protestant. But given the complexity of human nature, surely there are other ways to be happy. One option, generally only successfully exercised by the very rich, is to engage in constant luxurious pleasure. In spite of the fact that a majority of the planet's humans likely would be happy to adopt this way of life, we're told that the individuals who do are not actually happy and would be better off living like hard-working American Protestants. At the other extreme is asceticism, which supposedly can lead to a life of satisfaction and contentment, if not happiness, but it generally seems to be a case of extreme long-term optimization, with little if anything in the way of short-term rewards. In any case, it's not a realistic life choice for me, since I have a family and no desire to leave them behind to live in a desert monastery. So besides living the life of a monk, living the Protestant work ethic, and living the life of a dissolute jetsetter, what else is there that seems to offer a convincing chance at happiness?

vasco 14y ago
Well, its quite obvious isn't it? A holodeck. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodeck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodeck
dhimes 14y ago
Forgive me if I've said it here before, but I believe that there are "spiritual" geniuses in the same way there are literary, musical, and mathematical geniuses. I believe these folks (like Jesus and the Buddha) are exquisitely tuned in to what makes humans happy. I don't believe in God (or god, or the FSM), but I do believe that there are certain 'truths' that resonate with mentally healthy humans, and these folks have a keen insight into them. On that note, the Dalai Lama made a very interesting point that pertains to your 'jet-setter' observations: many people confuse happiness and pleasure. There are things that will give you pleasure but that can lead to unhappiness (like sex) and things that are unpleasant but can make you very happy (like charity work under miserable conditions).
- chii 14y ago
  but happiness and pleasure is intimately intertwined - they have to be, because stimulating the pleasure centre was one of the methods that the primitive part of the brain controls behaviour (e.g., you find eating fatty, high energy food pleasurable, because thats the kind of food that's valuable to eat back when this mechanic was evolved). Happiness is indeed simply a state of mind, but some people can't reach that state on a permanent basis, and require constant injections of pleasure as stimuli. I think drug addicts suffer a severe case of this, but normal functioning people do as well (only milder). Why do people binge eat, binge shop, etc, but to make themselves happier thru pleasure (despite the consequeinces)?
  - dhimes 14y ago
    I think you answered your own question: these things, although pleasurable, don't lead to happiness. The confusion of which you write is the cause of much unhappiness. Am I happy that I ate too much fatty, high energy food? No. Did I find them pleasurable? Yes. Are drunks happy? Usually not, as their lives become messes. Do they find getting drunk pleasurable? Yes. But it's the fact that they can't tell the difference between pleasure and happiness that ultimately leads to their pain (assuming they aren't genetically doomed to develop the disease). Those who forego responsibility to engage in sensual pleasures too often end up very unhappy. EDIT: Type to -> too in last sentence
eavc 14y ago
There has been research done on happiness as a subject of science. The How of Happiness is a nice book for a popular audience on the subject.
- ohashi 14y ago
  I just finished The Geography of Bliss, another wonderful book combining the science of happiness along with a fun travel story of a miserable reporter trying to find it.
shawnz 14y ago
> essentially boils down to [...] the Christian ideal Why is this unexpected? From my nonreligious standpoint, I see Christianity (and indeed, most religions) as a device created specifically for this reason -- to allow people to be content with themselves. To me, it makes perfect sense that any given life philosophy will align with the general tenets of most religions; they wouldn't have stuck around if they made people feel less satisfied!
- adriand 14y ago
  > Why is this unexpected? From my nonreligious standpoint, I see Christianity (and indeed, most religions) as a device created specifically for this reason -- to allow people to be content with themselves. I'd like to clarify that I see a difference between the so-called Christian "way of life" and the Christian "way of thinking". The activities and behaviours (e.g. hard work, fair dealing, etc.) of the Christian way of life may lead to happiness, but the thoughts and mindset of the Christian way of thinking may not (e.g. guilt over over normal sexual desires). In fact, I think that many religions, and this especially goes for more severe, "by the book" versions of Christianity, actually make people much less content with themselves, but they carry on spreading themselves in spite of (or because of) this anyway. What I think is interesting, though, is the effectiveness of certain behaviours as a means of achieving happiness, and what that means for the course of human civilization. Perhaps it is the case that (most) humans need to work in order to be happy. What does this mean when we arrive at a level of technological sophistication that makes work unnecessary? In fact, it is possible in Western societies not to work and to still enjoy a level of comfort that is higher than that achievable by someone who was working 12 hour days 150 years ago. However, doing this is frowned upon. Why? Is it because not working is fundamentally incompatible with the "good life" and by extension, happiness? And is it the case that treating others fairly and honestly is genuinely an integral part of achieving happiness, quite aside from the fact that not doing so might lead to negative consequences for oneself? Or is that just something learned? Is it actually impossible to live a happy, contented life that is characterized by indolence and a total disregard for the feelings and property of others, or is that just something we must all believe or civilization will just fall apart?
  - 14y ago
Ramario 14y ago
I can relate to this article. I've found that waking up at 6am and going for a jog was a great way to start the day. Also, as a programmer you can lose all sense of time whilst pounding away at a project. My way of disengaging from that is going to the gym, the cinema or just hanging out with friends. You must be sure to not get lost in the start-up race and do things that have nothing to do with your start-up every now and then at least. Great article!
Ixiaus 14y ago
Honestly, I think Aristotle said it before religion did; I'm sure someone did before him too... On the happiness bit - regardless of lifestyle I've noticed it's my mental disposition. Clear heads prevail...in everything (including programming).
holri 14y ago
You will find this kind of ethic also in old Greek philosophy: http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.1.one.html http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.1.one.html
ebiester 14y ago
First, this kind of lifestyle in no way guarantees happiness: http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/preview.aspx?id=253 http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/preview.aspx?... - I'd argue that, despite any faults she had (and I think it's wrong to cover those up), she would be an example of this lifestyle, yet she with through many periods that would not be considered "happy." -- It just turns out that many others for whom this prescription doesn't work often drift away from the protestant prescription. I would further argue that this derives from the Enlightenment -- see the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. Learn new things is not embedded in the Protestant lifestyle but rather was bolted on because of the tension between it and the enlightenment. The Protestants adapted to what I would consider a local maxima. That said, I'd argue that Shawn Achor's accumulation of research would be a better path to happiness for most of us. Meditation, gratefulness, regular exercise, keeping a strong social community, and performing conscious acts of kindness doesn't necessarily tie to the protestant work ethic but it seems to work pretty well.
zerostar07 14y ago
Consider that all the wonderful Christian ethics that you mention are a distillation of the ancient world's wisdom (all of theese guidelines had been stated by earlier philosophers). Where i see disagreement is in the notion that it all there has to be a reward (afterlife) and that there needs a deity to communicate them. I think it kind of turned the whole movement to utilitarianism.
johnchristopher 14y ago
Another likely explanation is that wether we like it or not, wether we are believer or not, christian values and expectations still permeate society to the point that it still influences our behaviour and reasonning.

by adriand 14y ago

vasco 14y ago

Well, its quite obvious isn't it? A holodeck. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodeck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodeck

dhimes 14y ago

Forgive me if I've said it here before, but I believe that there are "spiritual" geniuses in the same way there are literary, musical, and mathematical geniuses. I believe these folks (like Jesus and the Buddha) are exquisitely tuned in to what makes humans happy. I don't believe in God (or god, or the FSM), but I do believe that there are certain 'truths' that resonate with mentally healthy humans, and these folks have a keen insight into them. On that note, the Dalai Lama made a very interesting point that pertains to your 'jet-setter' observations: many people confuse happiness and pleasure. There are things that will give you pleasure but that can lead to unhappiness (like sex) and things that are unpleasant but can make you very happy (like charity work under miserable conditions).

chii 14y ago
but happiness and pleasure is intimately intertwined - they have to be, because stimulating the pleasure centre was one of the methods that the primitive part of the brain controls behaviour (e.g., you find eating fatty, high energy food pleasurable, because thats the kind of food that's valuable to eat back when this mechanic was evolved). Happiness is indeed simply a state of mind, but some people can't reach that state on a permanent basis, and require constant injections of pleasure as stimuli. I think drug addicts suffer a severe case of this, but normal functioning people do as well (only milder). Why do people binge eat, binge shop, etc, but to make themselves happier thru pleasure (despite the consequeinces)?
- dhimes 14y ago
  I think you answered your own question: these things, although pleasurable, don't lead to happiness. The confusion of which you write is the cause of much unhappiness. Am I happy that I ate too much fatty, high energy food? No. Did I find them pleasurable? Yes. Are drunks happy? Usually not, as their lives become messes. Do they find getting drunk pleasurable? Yes. But it's the fact that they can't tell the difference between pleasure and happiness that ultimately leads to their pain (assuming they aren't genetically doomed to develop the disease). Those who forego responsibility to engage in sensual pleasures too often end up very unhappy. EDIT: Type to -> too in last sentence

eavc 14y ago

There has been research done on happiness as a subject of science. The How of Happiness is a nice book for a popular audience on the subject.

ohashi 14y ago
I just finished The Geography of Bliss, another wonderful book combining the science of happiness along with a fun travel story of a miserable reporter trying to find it.

shawnz 14y ago

> essentially boils down to [...] the Christian ideal Why is this unexpected? From my nonreligious standpoint, I see Christianity (and indeed, most religions) as a device created specifically for this reason -- to allow people to be content with themselves. To me, it makes perfect sense that any given life philosophy will align with the general tenets of most religions; they wouldn't have stuck around if they made people feel less satisfied!

adriand 14y ago
> Why is this unexpected? From my nonreligious standpoint, I see Christianity (and indeed, most religions) as a device created specifically for this reason -- to allow people to be content with themselves. I'd like to clarify that I see a difference between the so-called Christian "way of life" and the Christian "way of thinking". The activities and behaviours (e.g. hard work, fair dealing, etc.) of the Christian way of life may lead to happiness, but the thoughts and mindset of the Christian way of thinking may not (e.g. guilt over over normal sexual desires). In fact, I think that many religions, and this especially goes for more severe, "by the book" versions of Christianity, actually make people much less content with themselves, but they carry on spreading themselves in spite of (or because of) this anyway. What I think is interesting, though, is the effectiveness of certain behaviours as a means of achieving happiness, and what that means for the course of human civilization. Perhaps it is the case that (most) humans need to work in order to be happy. What does this mean when we arrive at a level of technological sophistication that makes work unnecessary? In fact, it is possible in Western societies not to work and to still enjoy a level of comfort that is higher than that achievable by someone who was working 12 hour days 150 years ago. However, doing this is frowned upon. Why? Is it because not working is fundamentally incompatible with the "good life" and by extension, happiness? And is it the case that treating others fairly and honestly is genuinely an integral part of achieving happiness, quite aside from the fact that not doing so might lead to negative consequences for oneself? Or is that just something learned? Is it actually impossible to live a happy, contented life that is characterized by indolence and a total disregard for the feelings and property of others, or is that just something we must all believe or civilization will just fall apart?
- 14y ago

Ramario 14y ago

I can relate to this article. I've found that waking up at 6am and going for a jog was a great way to start the day. Also, as a programmer you can lose all sense of time whilst pounding away at a project. My way of disengaging from that is going to the gym, the cinema or just hanging out with friends. You must be sure to not get lost in the start-up race and do things that have nothing to do with your start-up every now and then at least. Great article!

Ixiaus 14y ago

Honestly, I think Aristotle said it before religion did; I'm sure someone did before him too... On the happiness bit - regardless of lifestyle I've noticed it's my mental disposition. Clear heads prevail...in everything (including programming).

holri 14y ago

You will find this kind of ethic also in old Greek philosophy: http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.1.one.html http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.1.one.html

ebiester 14y ago

First, this kind of lifestyle in no way guarantees happiness: http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/preview.aspx?id=253 http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/preview.aspx?... - I'd argue that, despite any faults she had (and I think it's wrong to cover those up), she would be an example of this lifestyle, yet she with through many periods that would not be considered "happy." -- It just turns out that many others for whom this prescription doesn't work often drift away from the protestant prescription. I would further argue that this derives from the Enlightenment -- see the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. Learn new things is not embedded in the Protestant lifestyle but rather was bolted on because of the tension between it and the enlightenment. The Protestants adapted to what I would consider a local maxima. That said, I'd argue that Shawn Achor's accumulation of research would be a better path to happiness for most of us. Meditation, gratefulness, regular exercise, keeping a strong social community, and performing conscious acts of kindness doesn't necessarily tie to the protestant work ethic but it seems to work pretty well.

zerostar07 14y ago

Consider that all the wonderful Christian ethics that you mention are a distillation of the ancient world's wisdom (all of theese guidelines had been stated by earlier philosophers). Where i see disagreement is in the notion that it all there has to be a reward (afterlife) and that there needs a deity to communicate them. I think it kind of turned the whole movement to utilitarianism.

johnchristopher 14y ago

Another likely explanation is that wether we like it or not, wether we are believer or not, christian values and expectations still permeate society to the point that it still influences our behaviour and reasonning.