Of course generalisations are not impossible. But they may have different degrees of validity, which depend on context, including context of purpose.

Anyway, it's a frustratingly vague OP. Please say more about what you're trying to get at specifically.

The Northern Ireland assembly is currently suspended, but even if it hadn't been, it's a Westminster issue. Complicating matters, Sinn Fein, who are the major opposition to the DUP, boycott Westminster and so don't participate in any votes that could influence Brexit.

You link to the right wing propaganda / con artist Jay Sekulow:

"Sekulow "approved plans to push poor and jobless people to donate money to his Christian nonprofit, which since 2000 has steered more than $60m to Sekulow, his family and their businesses", and that attorneys general in New York and North Carolina opened investigations of Jay Sekulow's group Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism (CASE) for possibly using pressure tactics in telemarketer calls to raise money which was allegedly misdirected to Sekulow and his family."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Sekulow

Maybe that's why you're so outraged compared to others. It's his job to make people outraged and then make money from it. (I'm not taking a position on the law here but just pointing out that your source is a con artist.)

:lol:

May already blinked and gave in on the backstop. There are no new negotiations only a charade by the British PM to please the crazy-wing of her party while highlighting their craziness as a precursor to her giving in and accepting the soft Brexit she's always wanted.

Well, as you've reached the limits of your ability to say anything worthwhile here, we're done I guess.

If I hadn't a bank account with a significant amount of sterling in it, I'd probably be more sanguine about the whole thing. Anyway, I'm also less optimistic than yesterday but still betting on non-craziness to take hold in time.

The idea that Ireland would agree to something that transgresses the good Friday agreement is fanciful at best. And Ireland has a veto. And the EU rather than make them use it and alienate one of the most willing members of its club will stand by and watch Britain flush itself down the toilet if that's what Britain would rather do than drop the red lines that got them into their present pickle.

EU: The backstop is non-negotiable.
UK: So, how about we renegotiate the backstop?
EU: The backstop is non-negotiable.
UK: I get it. We'll renogotiate the backstop.
EU: The backstop is non-negotiable.
UK: Ok, I suppose the only solution left then is to renegotiate the backstop. We'll make that clear in Parliament and take it from there.
EU: The backstop is non-negotiable.
UK: Right, well let's deal with that as soon as we're finished renegotiating the backstop.

I'm not going ever abandon Rand... If I ever disagree with her, it will be on very minor details. I agree with her fundamentally though and that will never change. — AppLeo

In other words, as an individual thinker, you are surplus to requirements, now and forever. Rand has done your thinking for you. All that's left is to spread the gospel and congregate with your fellow Randian "individuals" whose sole ideological purpose is to sing from the same hymnsheet.

Whereas the reality is that an individual is made of social relations. — unenlightened

:100: Which point should be a bedrock principle for any sensible conversation on identity. Yet the romantic myth of the pure asocial individual will trundle on. As if the very medium of thought weren't social, or the medium of emotion not socially embedded. Or that the vectors of the myth didn't so often club together for the sole purpose of repeating said myth like herds of seals clapping in unison. (Could just as well post this in the Objectivism discussion re Randians...)

I feel like you're arguing more with yourself than me here. I'm not trying to prevent anyone starting this discussion. But every discussion is subject to moderation and discussions that show more effort are more likely to make the cut. Originality will help with that, but to be fair most philosophical topics have been covered here somewhere, so the scope for that may be limited.

Well, the originality required is just that you don't repeat a topic that's already active. And there are none active on this topic. In fact, I have yet to see a particularly impressive OP on happiness.

(Except maybe this https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1568/discarding-the-ego-as-a-way-to-happiness from two years ago, which was promising but only led to a short discussion).

This may be because we think what it is is all too obvious, see @S, or it may be that the concept has been hijacked and degraded by the bulldozer of (post)modern culture to the extent that it has become indistinguishable to us from pleasure, see @Sir2u. Or both. Or I may be deluded.

I've also noticed a similar refusal of acceptance in my relationships. When people show me real affection, I feel a confusing mix of anger and sadness. It feels like an unbreakable barrier. Love can't get in, and I can't let it out.

So, ummm, how does one go about dealing with this? — csalisbury

My amateurish attempt at an answer with the usual disclaimers:

Those who have little power over others (have difficulties embedding themselves socially) can fall back on asserting power over themselves through self-punishment. Sort of a minimal affirmation of identity (if I can at least feel contempt for my weaknesses, I exist in some sense beyond them). To allow affection in then would be to short-circuit that self-sustaining dynamic (if I'm accepting of affection from others, I'm worthy of it and need not punish myself) and leave oneself in a potential vacuum where one is now pushed to identify with one's "weak" self and the locus of power shifts to the unpredictable external (so now what if that affection gets pulled and I've no punisher to fall back on? I'm unified, but I'm nothing. No good). Kind of chicken and egg. You need a strong sense of identity to properly receive and reciprocate love, but what you most need to achieve that strong self is loving relationships or at least stable positively reciprocative relationships.

How to deal with it? I'd say turn it around. Be the one who gives affection first without any expectation of reciprocation. Be the one who helps. Be the one who gives/creates as much as possible for what that is worth in itself. Take everything else as a bonus. Likely positive relationships/interactions will then form naturally on which you can build an identity that doesn't require you-the-sinner as a foil to make it feel real. In that context acceptance of affection becomes less crucial and more organic.

Another thought: if you want something too much for the wrong reasons, you'll find a way to thwart yourself getting it and become reliant more on wanting it than the thing itself (whatever it is) so that it becomes you (in the sense that up until the point you actually get it you exist minimally, but if you get it, you are lost because there is nothing left of you, you were all want). In Dante's hell, as you pointed out, the sinners have become the sin, have achieved its logic and are reduced to a minimal level of identity within it (i.e. that necessary to suffer) from which there is no escape. There is nothing left of them, they were all want, yet they cannot ever achieve oblivion. The worst of all worlds in which forgiveness is impossible because the sinner embodies its obverse and so is beyond even seeing the other side of the coin.

I think you protest too much. I think you admire Baden's definition of Happiness in a sentence. — Amity

Yes, I suspect @S cried tears of recognition upon exposure to my prose as the sentiments resonated with that beautiful inner child his ogre of an ego keeps imprisoned.

Sing, little child, sing! And one day the ogre will sing with you and set you free... :sparkle:

I promise to put more effort into my OP's from now on, and stick to the guidelines. — Purple Pond

Cheers, PP. Appreciate that. :up:

Baden, I know you are too busy. However, would you have anyone else in mind ? Earlier you mentioned unenlightened... — Amity

I hesitate to mention anyone tbh, but would rather they put their own head above the parapet. Still think it's a good idea though and that there are plenty of posters around who could make valuable contributions, including un.

Even if the arguments are not your own, you should still describe at least some of the ideas surrounding the topic in some detail. We normally delete short OPs based on questions alone as it suggests the OP writer hasn't thought much about the issue and will hardly be able to contribute much less lead the conversation.

The moderators should have deleted or closed half my discussions. — Purple Pond

You probably shouldn't let us in on that... :eyes:

A true measure of intelligence is to take a moment's critical consideration of one's speculations before inflicting them on the world. — unenlightened

Or one may find their thread closed.

EDIT: Don't take this as a discouragement to start other discussions, @Occidendum, but this argument doesn't have enough fuel to get on the road.

Black like me—John Howard Griffin (Reread)
Deracination: Historicity, Hiroshima, and the Tragic Imperative—Walter A. Davis
Rabbit, Run—John Updike
The Conquest of Bread—Peter Kropotkin
Infinite Jest—David Foster Wallace

Would you be happy to be quoted in any OP ? — Amity

Sure.

However, if your definition was used to start an exploration in a very general sense, then hopefully that would inspire specific examples. Either from posters' life experience or particular philosophy/ philosophers.

What do you think ? — Amity

All for it. :up:

Now that made me happy. Reading something beautifully expressed and creatively philosophical that made me think, nod a little in the right way, and is clearly from a position of life experience. No references to a particular philosopher, book or encyclopedia but a distillation of many. Probably.
....
The title ?
'Baden's Happiness in a Sentence'. — Amity

We can probably leave me out of the title I think. But your comment is much appreciated. :smile:

Not only a promising topic but...an article, or a book, in waiting :wink:
However, it would have to include major philosophical, if not psychological, neurological professional thinkers and writers on the subject. No? — Amity

If it were a non-fiction book and intended to be comprehensive, yes. Fiction, not necessarily. Both could be equally effective imo. Sort of depends how much you want to show or tell.

Is it best to focus on only one or two aspects ? Hence the need for a focused title and OP.
How would you start? What were the influences which moved you to your destination ? — Amity

If I were to write the OP, I would probably set it up as an exploration of what happiness is in a very general sense first then focus in on specific examples or experience as they become relevant in the progress of the discussion. But I wouldn't want to make it about my biography. :monkey:

@Sir2u You're conflating pleasure with happiness. E.g. There's lots of pleasure to be got from heroin, but I don't consider heroin addicts to be happy people. But yes to the idea that there are relevant personality-specific differences.

May clouds of tobacco smoke sing that idea to its rest.

That's my two cents spent for now. Maybe @unenlightened will have something to add?

@Purple Pond
Happiness: Something like the proper mixture of sensitivity, creativity and strength achieved through habit and self-reflection; a self-sustaining stability of not-wanting rather than the result of procuring something wanted; the satisfaction that comes with focusing outwards on a regular basis while recognizing choice and freedom in each moment in the context of a healthy and active imagination; originality in identity and character in a way that fosters same in others; consistent quality in thought and action.

A promising topic imo.

I'd rather you'd done my father in, but whatever. Buy me a beer and we'll call it quits.

I moved some of the comments to the Shoutbox to keep us more on topic here. I can't guarantee the discussion will be taken seriously though. It's one of those that could go either way.

My comment regarded the false figure of $4 billion a year you stated as the DOD ad budget. The wall ad fantasy bit doesn't interest me.

It doesn't take a giant intellect to use Google and do basic math, so I don't feel like I'm exactly stretching my peacock feathers here. But OK. Let's move on.

I don't want to bang on about it as it's not very important, but it's irrelevant how many years the funds are requested for. The budget is not $4 billion a year as you claimed. It's about a tenth of that.

First line:

"The government has spent more than $16 billion over the last decade on outside advertising, marketing and public relations contractors"

So that's an average of $1.6billion per year for all departments including PR, making your claim impossible.

"According to DOD officials, advertising is one of several tools, which also includes recruiters, that the department uses to influence individuals to consider military service. DOD requested almost $575 million for fiscal year 2017 for its advertising programs."

https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/677062.pdf

(because it involves a name that was not given to the individual in a naming ceremony) — andrewk

That's the key distinction that came into my head when reading this. Of course, Richard Nixon might have been named John Nixon if his parents had decided differently... etc. But the same everyday counterfactual can't be applied in saying Nixon might not have been named "Nixon" (By who?). Which is what makes it something you're unlikely to hear and is likely to cause a double-take outside of an explicitly philosophical context.

Wow, you and Snakes Alive need to chill out against the name calling. Please stop. — Wallows

I'll second that. As an aside, I don't see why andrewk's comments, qualified as they are, should be a cause for such consternation.

Good to hear. :up:

Good to see you pop in @Paul. The audio drama stuff seems pretty cool. :up:

What @fdrake said. Plus, I didn't look at the post count of either poster that I remember although I suppose a veteran member who has shown that they understand the guidelines and navigated successfully through numerous OPs might be supposed to be more likely to fill in the gaps as they went along. Then again we've moderated @Wallows OPs extensively and he has more discussions than anyone else. Thankfully, he's very sanguine about the whole process.

It might be a good idea to try to be more sensitive with absolute newbies wrt exemplifying their poor OPs. I hadn't considered that when I was modding this one and was thinking more about all the OPs I had recently just deleted and wanting to get the message out there that we were looking for more effort.

Actually never mind. You're a better advertisement for the point of view you're in opposition to than I ever could be. Carry on.

No, that's not what that says. It says exports were 43% in 2016. We've been through this already:

You cherry-picked the statistics again. 44% represents exports only. 53% of all imports come from the EU. — Baden

You see total trade involves imports and exports. Do you understand that now? I don't think we can really make progress until you can wrap your head around the basics of what the words we're using mean.

I was using your figures. According to which you are wrong. Which is an odd position to be in.