Sustainable long term happiness is *not* a solved problem, $40 pills being a particularly bad solution.
And I'm not actually saying you measure success in terms of happiness - happy and successful aren't linked. I'm suggesting you measure success in terms of sources of potential unhappiness and barriers to achievement of happiness that you have managed to overcome by your efforts.
So if you truly believe happiness can be found in the ingestion of $40 pills, then in your terms you will be successful if you are able to obtain a regular supply, afford $40 as often as needed, injest whenever you feel unhappy, and keep that lifestyle going long term.
As far as it being an axiomatic approach to the problem? Sure. But its a popular one. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" and all that. And happiness has, in general, been found to increase productivity.
Darwinian achievement opens up a can of worms, but suffice to say its a very poor substitute, starting with the implicit teleological fallacy that evolution has a direction. Should people with genetic defects consider themselves successful if they manage to stop breeding?
Sustainable long-term happiness is an oxymoron; happiness being either or both of an unstable neurochemical state and a subjective, comparative measure indexed against recent happiness.
However, given a model of an "ideal" cycle of happiness according to either of the above definitions, you can drive that cycle by means of $40 pills a good deal more easily than you can with any other method I can think of.
Happiness may have been found to increase average productivity, but does it correlate to frequency of genuinely ground-breaking progress? The tortured literary genius is cliched, but I find the idea that there is a genuine relationship in there somewhere quite appealing.
But then, I would.
I hardly see how anything can be a poor substitute for an arbitrary choice. That aside, I think that particularly unambitious people with genetic defects could well treat not breeding as a measure of success. In their position, I'd rather try to overachieve in some way instead - refer earlier opinion about correlation of achievement and discomfort.
Sustainable long-term happiness is an oxymoron; happiness being either or both of an unstable neurochemical state and a subjective, comparative measure indexed against recent happiness.
Its only an oxymoron if you define it that way. Happiness isn't unstable. Euphoria is, but not happiness. Its about as unstable as its opposite, depression, which can be an all too stable state.
However, given a model of an "ideal" cycle of happiness according to either of the above definitions, you can drive that cycle by means of $40 pills a good deal more easily than you can with any other method I can think of.
I'm far from arguing that chemical joy in general (lets not get sidetracked into specifics) isn't a valid part of a drive for happiness (I simply doubt that its sufficient for long term happiness in itself - though SSRIs certainly help some people). But we were arguing about definitions of success, not happiness. If you believe that $40 pills are the most effective driver of long term happiness, then your definition of success should include ready access to $40 pills, opportunity to consume thenm and money to afford them. Personally, I think the chemicals you are probably referring to are probably very poor drivers of long term happiness, but the pharmacological research is still inconclusive. They certainly work in the short term, though. Happiness may have been found to increase average productivity, but does it correlate to frequency of genuinely ground-breaking progress? The tortured literary genius is cliched, but I find the idea that there is a genuine relationship in there somewhere quite appealing.
For some people, long term happiness might mean from time to time experiencing unhappiness. From artists to aid workers, long term happiness is the goal, and that can come from a sense of achievement which comes from facing challenges, etc. I don't know all that much about true genius, but there are certainly enough examples of relatively cheerful geniuses that we know its not essential to be miserable. I hardly see how anything can be a poor substitute for an arbitrary choice.
Its an issue of logical consistency. You can choose your axioms, but some result in better systems - and poorly defined axioms (like the oxymoronic 'Darwinian progress') result in logically inconsistent systems.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
no subject
Date: 2004-07-01 12:34 am (UTC)From:And I'm not actually saying you measure success in terms of happiness - happy and successful aren't linked. I'm suggesting you measure success in terms of sources of potential unhappiness and barriers to achievement of happiness that you have managed to overcome by your efforts.
So if you truly believe happiness can be found in the ingestion of $40 pills, then in your terms you will be successful if you are able to obtain a regular supply, afford $40 as often as needed, injest whenever you feel unhappy, and keep that lifestyle going long term.
As far as it being an axiomatic approach to the problem? Sure. But its a popular one. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" and all that. And happiness has, in general, been found to increase productivity.
Darwinian achievement opens up a can of worms, but suffice to say its a very poor substitute, starting with the implicit teleological fallacy that evolution has a direction. Should people with genetic defects consider themselves successful if they manage to stop breeding?
no subject
Date: 2004-07-02 12:41 am (UTC)From:However, given a model of an "ideal" cycle of happiness according to either of the above definitions, you can drive that cycle by means of $40 pills a good deal more easily than you can with any other method I can think of.
Happiness may have been found to increase average productivity, but does it correlate to frequency of genuinely ground-breaking progress? The tortured literary genius is cliched, but I find the idea that there is a genuine relationship in there somewhere quite appealing.
But then, I would.
I hardly see how anything can be a poor substitute for an arbitrary choice. That aside, I think that particularly unambitious people with genetic defects could well treat not breeding as a measure of success. In their position, I'd rather try to overachieve in some way instead - refer earlier opinion about correlation of achievement and discomfort.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-02 03:20 am (UTC)From:Its only an oxymoron if you define it that way. Happiness isn't unstable. Euphoria is, but not happiness. Its about as unstable as its opposite, depression, which can be an all too stable state.
However, given a model of an "ideal" cycle of happiness according to either of the above definitions, you can drive that cycle by means of $40 pills a good deal more easily than you can with any other method I can think of.
I'm far from arguing that chemical joy in general (lets not get sidetracked into specifics) isn't a valid part of a drive for happiness (I simply doubt that its sufficient for long term happiness in itself - though SSRIs certainly help some people). But we were arguing about definitions of success, not happiness. If you believe that $40 pills are the most effective driver of long term happiness, then your definition of success should include ready access to $40 pills, opportunity to consume thenm and money to afford them. Personally, I think the chemicals you are probably referring to are probably very poor drivers of long term happiness, but the pharmacological research is still inconclusive. They certainly work in the short term, though.
Happiness may have been found to increase average productivity, but does it correlate to frequency of genuinely ground-breaking progress? The tortured literary genius is cliched, but I find the idea that there is a genuine relationship in there somewhere quite appealing.
For some people, long term happiness might mean from time to time experiencing unhappiness. From artists to aid workers, long term happiness is the goal, and that can come from a sense of achievement which comes from facing challenges, etc. I don't know all that much about true genius, but there are certainly enough examples of relatively cheerful geniuses that we know its not essential to be miserable.
I hardly see how anything can be a poor substitute for an arbitrary choice.
Its an issue of logical consistency. You can choose your axioms, but some result in better systems - and poorly defined axioms (like the oxymoronic 'Darwinian progress') result in logically inconsistent systems.