What is happiness?

[mhss1992]

Re: What is happiness?

To you maybe, but you show no proof, and I've already cited examples that weren't, which you simply slough off as not being true, or being incorrect, due to the fact that it doesn't fit your model. If you cannot accept that your model is equally valid in the opposite direction (seeing as you think there are as many separate negative emotions as there are positive ones), then you clearly are delusional, apparently because its obvious that merely existing is pleasurable.

The first line of that paragraph is exactly how I feel about you.

What are you talking about? You mentioned a bunch of negative feelings and I defined all of them within the scope of satisfaction/dissatisfaction. The different number of "feelings" is actually the different number of possible causes for dissatisfaction/satisfaction, which is innumerable for both sides.

Delusional?
I've shown so many examples about the model thing and how they do not work for negative things... But I just can't prove it for you. You have to try to apply the same logic for everything. or you'll never understand why it makes sense to me.

Umm....and how would you simply ignore comfort without having something else to take its place? I mean, even if we're on the same page here, we're clearly not, because you are saying that its NECESSARILY not focussing on comfort to reduce pain, which again, you do not prove in any way shape, or form, but rather just say that that's how the model works.

If you actually TRIED this instead of speculating, you'd know what I'm talking about. The fact that you have no satisfactory physical situation to compare the painful situation to automatically nullifies the dissatisfaction of the situation. I know that because I've experienced it. Simply focusing on something else doesn't have the same effect, it's much less effective.

If you had actually bothered to read what I said earlier, then you will see that I say when pain becomes pleasurable, the pain is still painful, and there's still pleasure. Like if you get turned on by being in pain. The pain is still painful, even if you are getting other satisfaction out of it. Also, PAIN is always painful. If its not, then ITS NOT PAIN.
Besides which, you are AGAIN ignoring what I'm saying and completely NOT PAYING ATTENTION to what I'm trying to refute here. I am not arguing that there's not a dichotomy to satisfaction and dissatisfaction, but rather that this dichotomy is not necessary for dissatisfaction to exist, and I'm using physical pain as the counterexample. 1 counterexample is all I need to prove you wrong.

I did bother to read what you've said earlier, and it doesn't change the fact that you said something incoherent.
Pain is obviously always painful, meaning it's always an intense physical feeling that is normally dissatisfactory. However, pain is not always DISSATISFACTORY. It's obvious, because I've been in many situations in which physical pain (only the physical feeling) was not unpleasant. That automatically disqualifies pain as a purely evil thing. Doesn't it? Especially when you consider my other paragraph above, where I repeat something that was supposed to have ended this pain issue long ago.

Right, well next time don't equate 'fetus that has yet to experience anything' to mean 'baby'. And again, you're simply saying how your model works, not proving anything. If you're allowed to ask such hypothetical questions 'if you can forget about everything, wouldn't you be in satisfaction?', then I'm allowed to ask 'what if a fetus were to experience pain first thing'.

Not everything we experience only has 1 side to something. My idea of how satisfaction and dissatisfaction work would be closer to something like how we see color rather than how we experience brightness. We possess a few receptors for seeing 3 different colors. From that, we get a whole multitude of colors. However there are still opposites in colors. Even though red and green are opposites, doesn't mean that yellow and blue don't exist. And although you could argue that perhaps you only need to see either yellow or blue in order for the other one to exist, its perposterous to claim that you see blue ONLY because you've seen yellow before, without saying that it might be that you see yellow ONLY because you've seen blue.

Fine, that's how you see it. However, the way I see it is more coherent with what I've experienced and thought about for many years: satisfaction and dissatisfaction are polar opposites like light and darkness. Even though it's possible to feel both at the same time, it's due to different causes. And I'm certainly not an idiot, delusional or whatever.

[Cavernio]

Re: What is happiness?

It just doesn't make any sense that all negative feelings are always clear lacks of something when we clearly have receptors in our bodies for somethings which are usually negative, like pain and bitterness. Those are something, they are not nothing. The fact that they can become pleasant is irrelevant to the fact that they are something.

And it also doesn't make sense that you're not considering what 'neutrality' is in all this. If you think it exists, then why do you not consider that we are using this as a comparison?

If they are polar opposites, then why is it even possible to feel more than 1 feeling at a time? We don't see light and dark at the same time.

Have you ever read anything about expectation being the cause of happiness and unhappiness?

[mhss1992]

Re: What is happiness?

It just doesn't make any sense that all negative feelings are always clear lacks of something when we clearly have receptors in our bodies for somethings which are usually negative, like pain and bitterness. Those are something, they are not nothing. The fact that they can become pleasant is irrelevant to the fact that they are something.

On the contrary. The fact that these somethings are generally bad but can be neutral or good is automatic proof that they are not inherently evil. Evil is an interpretation of these feelings, but not a part of them.

Do you understand? I'm not saying that dissatisfaction is something that comes with void. It's actually something that comes with feelings that deviate from the good ones. It doesn't mean that these feelings aren't something, only that dissatisfaction comes from contrast. These feelings are not dissatisfaction itself, they're only interpreted as dissatisfactory.

Just thought of another (real) example: yesterday I woke up with a really annoying pain in the left of my neck. the pain itself is not very strong, but it disturbs me when I move my neck forward and feel nothing on the right side. I'd rather feel pain on both sides or no pain at all than just feel pain in only one side. (yeah, I have this weird thing. I feel unbalanced when there's something in one side of my body but not the other)
The thing here is that the main dissatisfaction comes from something other than the pain. It's just purely a notion of comfort not being satisfied.

And it also doesn't make sense that you're not considering what 'neutrality' is in all this. If you think it exists, then why do you not consider that we are using this as a comparison?

Sorry... I didn't really understand what you meant here.

If they are polar opposites, then why is it even possible to feel more than 1 feeling at a time? We don't see light and dark at the same time.

You can still look at a lit room with shadows, so, yeah, we can see light and dark at the same time.

Similarly, it's possible to feel good and bad at the same time, but for different reasons.

Have you ever read anything about expectation being the cause of happiness and unhappiness?

Maybe.

[Cavernio]

Re: What is happiness?

Why can someone neither feel neither satisfaction or dissatisfaction with your theory? Explain how can someone ever feel neutral using your theory.
The biggest crux with your theory is that in order for it to be valid you must assume that the very first thing you experience will always be positive, and that mere existence is comfortable, something unprovable one way or the other. (I say that you say mere existence must be comfortable because to say so is the only way it invalidates the idea that pain is painful irrelevant of previous experiences of comfort.) If something like this is the case, then how would it be possible to ever reach a state of neutrality? If comfort just exists, like brightness existing, how do we ever reach neutral feelings, since neutral 'brightness' doesn't exist.