Because the foundational areas are taken care of by the A.I. would we be spending our time focusing on art? physics problems? love & social life? — intrapersona

I don't know about where anybody else lives, but what I observe in my social environment is people spending almost all of their free time and energy being consumers.

They do not spend a lot of that free time on personal relationships. They do not spend it on civic activities. They do not spend it on constructive things like writing, woodworking, reading philosophy, etc.

Instead they spend almost all of that time shopping for items that will collect dust in their homes or end up in a landfill; on TV, movies, ball games, concerts, video games, and other products of the entertainment industrial complex; eating out all of the time; visiting​ a gym and a GNC to spend money and time trying to sculpt the perfect physique; travelling to every tourist destination that the tourism industry has manufactured and aggressively marketed; etc.

Expect that consumer lifestyle to dominate even more if AI takes over a lot of the work we do.

I think that I will move to Pluto if I am alive to be part of that.

My position is that perennialism, irrespective of whether it's true or not, is a fruitless position to hold. That is to say, it has no implications with respect to the life, and its quality, one leads. Before I explain further, let me try and say what I mean by perennialism. Consider the following two questions:

1) Is there any truth in religion?

2) Is any religion true?

The perennialist is someone who answers the first question in the affirmative and the second in the negative. Religions glimpse a single truth exclusive to none of them. They each merely point to this truth with words like God, Brahman, Nirvana, Tao, etc. — Thorongil

Here's a statement: "Chicago is the capital of Illinois".

One person could say that the statement is true and must be accepted by everybody as true.

Another person could say that the statement is false and must be accepted by everybody as false.

Another person could say "I did not know that there is such a thing as Illinois. You learn something new every day!"

Another person could say "This inspires me to visit Chicago! Secretary, book a flight for me!"

Another person could say "Capital?! I use "capitol". Where can I associate with like-minded people?"

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

The number of possible responses could rival the number that represents the human population.

Different people have different goals, needs, desires, etc.

I would argue that if anything is fruitless it is trying to prove that only one response is appropriate for all people. That's not an appeal to pluralism. It is recognizing that personalities and character vary greatly and that there is nothing that every single individual is going to fit into.

Alas, that diversity of personalities and character means that there are, and probably always will be, some people--atheists, theists, "spiritual but not religious"sts--who try to make everybody fit into something.

The best example of financial success in the intellectual market is probably the self-help section of the book store, where authors peddle their life hacks to interested individuals... — CasKev

I doubt that 1,000 years from now Dr. Phil will be considered part of the same class as Spinoza, Hume, Nietzsche, Chomsky, etc.

Your sociology is generally right, I think, but how right depends on what you mean by the collective intellectual life and income and wealth. — Bitter Crank

An intellectual: One who greatly contributes to collective intellectual life and is concerned about the truth so much that 1,000 years from now his/her work will continue to be preserved and/or will be considered part of some canon, or who is trying to produce work of that magnitude at least.

Income and wealth: Surplus assets that are expected to grow / yield financial dividends and give the owner a lot of freedom, including the freedom to not have to live paycheck to paycheck working for somebody else.


I don't see the life of the former offering any of the latter.

Anyway, I'm basically asking for anyone to recommend me some books or writings that can help me deal with not being overwhelemed by resentment or frustation, and staying positive and focused on my goals while not being bothered by anything external. — Jempire

Please Understand Me: Character and Temperament Types, by David Keirsey and Marilyn Bates.

The earth is flat, last I heard. — Nils Loc

I heard that if somebody on Earth walks in a straight line he will end up back at the point he started.

I thought that if you were to walk in a straight line you would go into outer space.

Shows how much I know!

If only 99% of the population WERE actually familiar with political maps... — Bitter Crank

Right now may be the best opportunity ever that people have had to think geograpically.

The internet is full of tons of geographic material/resources and as far as I know anybody living near a public library has free internet access.

Did you know that only Texas and Georgia have more counties than Kentucky? Did you know that Philadelphia has the largest downtown in the U.S.? Did you know that Houston, TX has no zoning laws? Did you know that the Texas state constitution prohibits city and county governments​ from merging? Did you know that Kentucky has more farms than any other state? Did you know that the tallest building in Mobile, AL is taller than any building in Kentucky, while the tallest building in Kentucky is taller than any building in Arkansas? Did you know that a federal building straddles​ the AR/TX state line at Texarkana? I learned all of that (assuming my memory is correct) from Wikipedia.

I have learned a lot of other stuff from maps, aerial photographs, etc. on the World Wide Web.

Thirty years ago you probably had to flip through atlases, almanacs, encyclopedias, etc. and go to libraries with map collections.

a large number of people can not find their state on a map, let alone finding Edinburgh, Beijing, or Cape Town... — Bitter Crank

Complete illiteracy, in other words.

And using GPS all the time leaves people unable to find their way without it... — Bitter Crank

Funny how technology means intellectual empowerment for some people (see my first several paragraphs above) and increased helplessness for others.

It isn't stupidity, it's a lack of map instruction (and instruction in arithmetic, civics, and every so many other topics)... — Bitter Crank

It does not help that at the pre-college level geography is presented as trivia to be memorized rather than as a science.

Here's a picture of the loess hills of western Iowa. Loess is soil that blew off the receding glaciers, piled up, hardened, and there they are. It's kind of a yellowish soil. One learns about such things on geology field trips. In flat Iowa a hill this high has to be experienced to be believed. — Bitter Crank

It would be interesting to study it on a topographic map.

How could a simulation or part of a simulation know that it is a simulation or part of a simulation?

Posty McPostface — Posty McPostface

I think that you are framing the whole situation the wrong way.

Comparing people hundreds of years ago denying the facts of geometry and people today not heeding ecological and meteorological reality is comparing apples and oranges.

An apples to apples comparison can be found in books like Ronald Wright's A Short History of Progress. Wright shows how people in earlier civilizations such as Easter Island and the Maya saw the red flags of impending ecological collapse but​ were no match for the powerful in their societies who had a vested interest in the status quo (sound familiar?).

The problem, Wright says, is that unlike earlier civilizations our ecological crisis is global in scope.

Therefore, future generations may not live to judge our response to our present ecological crisis. If humans and civilization do survive they will likely repeat the cycle of building a progress trap and then collapsing ecologically. Or civilization may become an archaeological footnote and some new form of social organization may emerge.

Do you think the soul exists as a separate entity from our body, do you think personality has to do with the soul, do you think some souls shine brighter than others or can our existence and disposition be chalked down to environment and biology?

I am personally on the fence and will be happy to expand on my thoughts later on. — Locks

What has ruled out the existence of souls?

Some people say that the existence of deities can never be proven true or false. Theism and atheism are therefore irrational, and only agnosticism is rational, the thinking goes.

The same could probably be said about the question of the existence of souls.

But there’s another issue. The value of an individual grain of sand is noticeably larger between the two red marks. Our intuition is that one grain of sand more or less is always a small and uniform change. And similarly for observations supporting an inductive inference or a theory. — Srap Tasmaner

Evidence does not just tell us what is true/real, it tells us that everything else is not true/real.

In a murder investigation if it is known that the cause of death​ was stabbing then it is known that it was not strangling, a gunshot, poisoning, etc. If it is later determined that the stab wounds are from a kitchen knife then it is known that they are not from a pocket knife, scissors, etc. Each instance of such differentiating increasingly rules out suspects, scenarios, etc.--each new grain of sand tells us more than any previous individual grain of sand did.

But can't you imagine a point of diminishing marginal returns where new evidence only confirms previous evidence? If you know that the killer was at least 7 feet tall, and you know that no woman in your small community is that tall, are DNA lab results showing that the killer was a man going to make you feel like you are even closer to handing the case off to the DA's office or are they going to turn your attention in a different direction where doubts (do we have the right man?) are likely to be entertained? See how new grains of sand might suddenly start to be worth less?

What caused you to plan and deliberate to jump in the air? — darthbarracuda

It wasn't really planned, but after I reported that I read that plants can sense gravity someone insisted that he can sense gravity. You are sensing the floor, not gravity, I said. I can jump in the air, I said, (I then did so) and deduce with my reasoning ability that something called gravity pulled me to the ground, but I am not sensing gravity.

The graph could reflect the process of evidence gathering rather than observers' marginal confidence in the evidence.

Kind of like assembling a jigsaw puzzle. As more pieces are placed in their home the process of identifying the home of pieces accelerates and then peaks.

Could the peak at the right red mark and the leveling to its right be the soil where a Kuhnian paradigm shift is planted?

Isn't it obvious that, even from our own point of view, our choices are deterministic?

You choose based on your preferences, how you feel, and on the set of alternatives.

If your feelings are subconscious, and you don't know their reasons,you're still going by an assessment of the situation..

Sometimes you make some sort of intuitive, rough "game-theory" (in quotes because it usually isn't explicit, mathematical, or even conscious) assessment of a situation. Whether that game-theory assessment is intuitive or mathematical doesn't matter. You're still acting based on your predisposition, feeling, and assessment of the situation.

Even from your own point-of view, your choices are deterministic.

Compatibility? Does it make any sense to quibble about whether deterministic responses, resulting from external situations, and our predispositions, are free-will? I'd call it a meaningless question, but if a Y/N answer is needed, isn't "No" the one that seems more reasonable?

Michael Ossipoff — Michael Ossipoff

Then your post itself is like a rock falling to the ground under the pull of gravity.

What I a writing right now is an effect of antecedent causes and was going to happen no matter what.

It makes it all meaningless, including your own words.

Yet, you expect your own words to be treated as something more than a rock falling to the ground under the pull of gravity.

Not consistent.

It is ironic how science begins to resemble religion once it decides to base its theories on supernatural forces such as Natural Selection, Natural Laws, Big Bangs, Illusions and such. It's like science is simply recreating mythology of the past simply to placate its faithful. Honestly, I can't tell the difference. — Rich

I would argue that ideas and systems of ideas--religions, for relating to the sacred/divine; intellectual traditions such as philosophy and science, for asking and answering questions--by themselves are harmless.

They become oppressive/repressive, harmful, etc. when people co-opt them for purposes, goals, intentions, agendas, etc. that have little or nothing to do with their inherent purpose and meaning.

I doubt that the earliest scientists intended for their practice to be used to subjugate and/or dominate people and nature in the name of "progress".

I doubt that the founders of any religion intended for their tradition to be used turn people into pawns in political chess matches.

Or maybe I am naïve.

I don't know. I suspect that the majority of people of the world's various religious faiths/traditions and the majority of the world's intellectuals practicing various traditions such as philosophy and science quietly disapprove of the dumbed-down popularization and politicization by people like Jerry Falwell and Sam Harris of what has taken millennia of sacrifice and hard work to develop, refine and preserve.

What would you count as evidence for and against misanthropy?

For could be: War, inequality, greed, sexism, shallowness, animal abuse and so on.

Against could be: Types of altruism, charity work, campaigning, welfare and so on. — Andrew4Handel

Evidence for or against misanthropy would have to be things universally found in Homo sapiens sapiens.

Therefore, hierarchies, sexism, inequality, etc. could not be evidence either way because there have been cultures that were egalitarian.

I'm wondering if there are any psych majors here that could chime in about their experience in the field? I think I've found some vocation that I could do well in and bring about positive change. I was an econ major; but, money doesn't interest me (due to depression and the nature of the job also).

What should I expect being a psych major? What are my options going into psychology as a major? I hope to help people in need of help despite knowing that the majority of my help will be in the form of the placebo effect.

Any thoughts and experiences welcome.

Thanks. — Posty McPostface

Unless you have a specific career path in mind, such as practicing clinical psychology, you should study what interests you intellectually and what you are passionate about.

There are other ways to help people--urban planning; being a social entrepreneur; public administration; education; economic development.

Figure out specifically what type of work you would be good at and enjoy--working with your hands; investigating things; organizing things; etc.--and your preference patterns in your personality (Myers-Briggs), and go from there.

Whatever you do, don't let anybody tell you "You can't do anything with a degree in that field/discipline". Build whatever bridge you like to whatever destination you like with whatever material you like.

What are some arguments against/for it?... — MonfortS26

Against:

1.) That it is not universally desired or desirable. Read Grassroots Post-Modernism: Remaking the Soil of Cultures, by Gustavo Esteva and Madhu Suri-Prakash. The edition that I read was the 1998 edition.

2.) It undermines local communities' ability to meet their needs. "The Idea of a Local Economy", by Wendell Berry, effectively makes that point.

I believe that it should be one of the goals of human society. To be able to coexist peacefully with one another. Any thoughts? — MonfortS26

But can anything that has been done to advance global capitalism be considered peaceful?

A lean budget or good financial health do not in themselves express good leadership or a healthy populace... — praxis

That is why I said that I would look for ways. I did not say that anything is fundamentally the right way to lead or govern. I said that I would be looking for opportunities to make budgets healthier, like government at every level is supposed to do. Here are my exact words:

I would be looking for ways to cut costs, cut waste, cut spending, reduce debt, etc., so I doubt that any conservative would play the "unregulated free market" card against me. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Things like a city or state's credit score must be maintained. A bad credit score could mean higher interest rates and less money to spend on things like education. Therefore, if money spent on copier paper that never gets used could instead be spent on loan payments, that would probably be a good idea.

I suppose my general point is that these issues are not straightforward or even particularly rational because people are not particularly rational... — praxis

Therefore, putting oneself in a "conservative" or "progressive" box severely limits what can be accomplished.

I believe the U.S. is currently far too polarized but that's no reason to ignore our own values, even if that were possible. — praxis

From the United States Constitution:

"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Notice that it does not say anything about "conservative", "moderate", "progressive", etc.

There's a difference between a leader and a facilitator. A leader may have a vision and a plan for a better future and have the capacity to rally support for that future. A facilitator might merely facilitate whatever vision or plan the emergent leader (in the absence of one a leader always emerges) provides. That plan could be great and lead to a better future for the people, or it could simply be the clandestine acquisition of personal wealth and power. — praxis

In other words, the leader could delegate facilitating to other people in his administration or do the facilitating himself. The latter would be my leadership style.

It seems there are two separate issues here. The first is whether God exists. But the second is that supposing he does exist, is it possible for him to categorically not exist. And to this I say no, since existence is an essential property of God, in the same sense, perhaps, that "having a horn" is the essential property of a unicorn.

Of course one could say that if God doesn't exist, then it is possible for him to categorically not exist, but that would be a tautology.

In the end, if God really does exist, then my view is that it is not possible for him to categorically cease existing, for the above reason. — Brian A

Existing is an essential property of God, or existing at all times is an essential property of God, which is it?

Perhaps were talking past each other. I think what youre trying to say is that in reality, politicians many times dont make any moral considerations when carrying out political actions. I dont disagree with that. It is certainly possible to pass a law or a policy without considering whatsoever what the ethical consequences might be. What Im trying to say, however, is that whether or not you make the moral considerations behind each act, all political acts are inherently moral. Given a hypothetical situation where a righteous group of individuals truly wants to create the best society, they have no way of doing it because the structure of a correct political system relies on the objectivity of the moral claims that sustain it. Sure, you could say "fuck morality" and just go ahead and disregardedly carry out policies and pass laws, but this wouldnt be the correct political system. — rickyk95

1.) What makes an act a political act is that it is done through the institutions, procedures, people, etc. where authority has been placed in a society.

2.) There are only two alternatives: A.] A society in which no authority has been placed anywhere B.] A society in which authority has been placed somewhere such as institutions, procedures, people, etc.

3.) I have never heard of any example of A.]. Maybe it would be anarchy.

4.) There is no such thing as a "correct political system". Just like there is no such thing as a "correct" system of kinship, a "correct" economy, a "correct" form of food security, etc. Political systems--where authority is placed--vary with culture. Constitutional democracy may at this time suit the occupants of the land now called the United States of America, but it may not have suited the inhabitants of Easter Island thousands of years ago.


What you are doing is taking cultural adaptations and making them teleological. Biological and cultural evolution do not work that way. Culture, including political institutions and behavior, is an adaptation to an environment. Saying that political systems are a moral matter is like saying that bipedalism is a moral matter. No, bipedalism is an adaptation to the environment through natural selection. Political systems are no different.

Politics is simply the way that resources are authoritatively allocated within groups and in the relations between groups. Some people say that economics and politics are the same thing, other people say that economics is outside of politics. Either way, it is about marshaling and distributing resources, not about creating a perfect or "correct" system.

It seems to me that this business of creating the "correct" system is simply an Enlightenment project and to characterize that as the business of all political behavior past and present is extremely ethnocentric.

No, that doesn't seem right. Even if happiness can, in part, be the result of ignorance and/or denial, it is not happiness that's the problem, it's ignorance and/or denial. Happiness might be said to be a problem, if it's impossible without ignorance and/or denial (assuming that ignorance and/or denial is always a problem)... — Πετροκότσυφας

I said that it can be a form of ignorance and/or denial.

Therefore, that would be a reason to not want it.

If a culture puts happiness on a pedestal and pathologizes unhappiness, and if knowing and accepting reality can threaten happiness, then good cultural actors are probably, if not definitely, going to avoid some or many parts of reality.

In that kind of social environment unhappiness may sometimes or a lot of the time be the only rational choice if a person values knowledge of reality.

Of course, even if that's the case, it still does not answer the original question which was "why would being unhappy be a desirable state?". — Πετροκότσυφας

See above.

Do any religions really say that anything causes anything, or is causation an extra-religious concept that people are projecting onto religious beliefs and ideas in order to support their theistic apologetics or agnosticism, atheism, anti-theism, etc.?

I guess my question is, why would being unhappy be a desirable state?... — Brian

Among other potential problems, happiness can be a form of ignorance and/or denial.

And if isn't one, why would you bother worrying about having this kind of unenforceable requirement for happiness. — Brian

Being scapegoated for problems that people are denying or cloaking is not good.

Thanks, I read the article. But the view that causation does not exist contradicts common intuition to such a degree that the view is rendered suspect. We can "trace back" easily, though I am not sure about the technical aspects of how. For instance, I exist due to the coming together of my parents, they exist for a likewise reason, the human species exists because of some original lifeforms in the ocean, the elements supporting life exist because of some exploding star, etc. The "tracing back" is obvious and convincing, in my view. It is true that if causality does not exist, my entire argument collapses. But I confidently assume that causality does exist, because such a view corresponds with experience and intuition. — Brian A

You are doing what Tallis says here: "At any rate, physical reality is seamless and law-governed, (possibly) unfolding over time, not a chain or network of discrete events that have somehow to be connected by causal cement. Causes, far from being a constitutive stuff of the physical world, are things we postulate to re-connect that which has been teased apart..."

You are taking things that have been "teased apart" and injecting causation in between them.

If Hume and Tallis are right, it is all in our minds--causes are not, as Tallis puts it, "constitutive stuff of the physical world".

You started out by saying that everything in the world has a cause. But it seems that all of the evidence says that causes do not even exist.

It is going to take more than your subjective experience or anybody's intuition to rescue causes as something that really exists. It is going to take metaphysical evidence or objectively verifiable empirical evidence.

If someone strives to maintain a lean budget then clearly their ideal is a lean budget... — praxis

It would be a means to an end, not an ideal to be realized or maintained.

The desired end is what matters and what dictates the appropriate action.

If ideals are to be found anywhere it would be in the desired ends, such as good financial health.

If you're still not sure where you sit on the liberal/conservative spectrum you might try a test like this one.

Judging by the things you've said in this topic I'd guess that you're a bit left of center. — praxis

I try to not even think in terms of the binaries that things like that test do.

To me governing would be about identifying problems that can be solved and then using my authority to marshal and mobilize resources to find and implement solutions to those problems. I would be a facilitator living on the same level as the people I am serving and working with them on practical matters, not someone with privilege overseeing his subjects from above and producing top-down policy in conformity with theoretical language embedded in some ideology.

I guess a word that would characterize my approach to leading and governing would be non-conformist.

Person A: Did you hear about the man who named his cat Aristotle?

Person B: No.

Person A: Somebody asked him why he would name his cat Aristotle. "Because it sounds better than David Hume!", he said.

— Brian A

"At any rate, physical reality is seamless and law-governed, (possibly) unfolding over time, not a chain or network of discrete events that have somehow to be connected by causal cement. Causes, far from being a constitutive stuff of the physical world, are things we postulate to re-connect that which has been teased apart...", Tallis continues.

— Brian A

Two points:

1.) We do not observe causation.

2.) The existence of causation is in doubt:

"It is easy to sympathise with those philosophers who have come to regard causes as, well, a lost cause. The venerable idea that everything that happens is caused to happen by other, distinct and separate, previous happenings – going right back to the First Cause, the mysterious Uncaused Cause (God or the Big Bang according to taste) that got happening to happen – has been under increasing attack for nearly quarter of a millennium. While it has fought back valiantly (mainly by re-defining itself), things are looking pretty bad for the idea of causation..." -- "Causes As (Local) Oomph"; Raymond Tallis; Philosophy Now, Issue 100

How is this "tracing back" of something that we do not observe done?

If causation does not exist--if there is no chain of causes and effects--then what other way would you describe reality?

For several years now I have not understood why God "must" exist.

There is no evidence for the existence of God, some people assert. Well, even if it is true that with respect to the existence of God nothing presently meets their standard for evidence the fact that God could exist when nobody is looking for evidence of his existence, not exist when everybody is looking for evidence of his existence, exist when only one person is looking for evidence of his existence, etc. is not accounted for.

Some theists might object that God existing one second, not existing the next, then existing again the next second is inconsistent with the omnipresent nature of God. Well, Dictionary.com defines omnipresent as "Present everywhere at the same time". Notice that it does not say present at all times.

Again, "Does God exist at this present moment" seems to be the only appropriate question.

Off topic, but why the hell do you always have several lines worth of space before you begin your comment? Is that part of the wisdom of pomo or something? It's bizarre. — Thorongil

I only do it when I quote somebody.

I like my words clearly separated​ from others' words. "Clearly" is subjective, but I guess for my eyes it means a lot of space.

I believe it's debatable what constitutes necessary and unnecessary, and that the determining factors center around personal and cultural values. Norwegians, for example, apparently believe that universal healthcare and free higher education is necessary... — praxis

Fortunately, if city government offices are spending money on printer paper that is not necessary for doing business that expense could be eliminated and taxpayers of all personal and cultural values would approve.

Since your ideal of a lean budget first sprang to life, I imagine. — praxis

You mean eliminating from budgets unnecessary expense like useless printer paper is my original idea?

Didn't I read that line in another post, recentlly? — Bitter Crank

The thread that this thread is a spin-off of.

Maybe we should stop worrying about the "purpose of life" or "the meaning of life", but we won't. We can't. It's in our nature to seek meaning, and when we can't find it already made, to create it. Man the meaning maker. There are not exactly an infinity of possibilities, but there are quite a few, enough to suit every taste. — Bitter Crank

Luc Ferry says in A Brief History of Thought: A Philosophical Guide to Living that it is all because, unlike other life forms, humans are conscious of our mortality. In other words, things like seeking meaning are not due to having brains wired to be curious, having a lot of free time, etc. Rather, they are due to us knowing that we are going to die.

It is coping with the knowledge we have of our mortality.

ThinkingMatt — ThinkingMatt

Therefore, serial killers, rapists, child molesters, genocidal regimes, polluters, etc. are acting according to the purpose of life, and they should be respected for that?

There is a faulty premise here, namely that it is possible for God not to exist. This is a contradiction in terms, according to Aquinas' definition of God: ipsum esse subistens, or the subsistent act of being itself. Therefore since God is the essential act of existence, and since God exists inner-mostly in all things (another Aquinian def.), it is both (1) objectively impossible that God does not exist and (2) subjectively impossible to imagine it, for the very subject who affirms the so-called nonexistence of God is herself grounded in God according to the above definition. — Brian A

The question is if categorical non-existence is possible.

If it is possible, and if omnipotence is the ability to do all things possible, and if God is omnipotent, then God could possibly categorically​ not exist.

But then if is possible to categorically not exist one second, come into existence the next second, and then later categorically not exist, then God could be at any of those steps at any moment and repeat all of the steps perpetually.

It makes the question "Does God exist?" useless. The appropriate question would be "Does God exist at this present moment?"

It's not like that around here and what you write seems really weird to me. What's the non-existent disease... — Πετροκότσυφας

I think that it is well-documented that in the U.S. at least it is big business to manufacture, prescribe and dispense prescription anti-depressants to people who are merely unhappy--our stressful, competitive, dog-eat-dog way of life can do that to people--and do not really have any biological abnormality.

which are the social sanctions that force people to homelessness, incarceration or suicide?... — Πετροκότσυφας

Social isolation. Little or no support network. People busy being "happy"--tailgating at college football games, vacationing in Hawaii, binge watching TV, etc.--are too busy to be emotionally available to the unhappy people in their environment. Employers deciding that it is more cost-effective to get rid of an employee who is struggling emotionally than to get help for him/her.

I don't have a PhD in Psychology or Sociology. I don't have data/sources to back me up. But am I really going out on a limb by suggesting that those factors lead to homelessness, incarceration and suicide?

That's really weird. I've never come across this view. Are you sure you're not projecting unto others your own interpretation of what it means that people generally want to have a happy life?... — Πετροκότσυφας

"The Community Church of Mill Valley conversation series “Who Is My Neighbor?” hosts Ruth Whippman on Feb. 5 to discuss her journey into the American obsession with happiness. When Whippman, a British documentary filmmaker for the BBC, moved to America, she began to hear from her new neighbors an almost obsessive preoccupation with one word: “happiness.” When she began to explore the topic, what she found was a paradox: despite the fact that Americans spend more time and money in search of happiness than any other nation on earth, research shows that the United States is one of the least contented, most anxious countries in the developed world.
 
So Whippman undertook a journey to investigate how this national obsession infiltrates all areas of life, from religion to parenting, the workplace to academia. She attended a controversial self-help course that promised total transformation, where she learned that all her problems were all her own fault; visited a “happiness city” in the Nevada desert to see why it has one of the highest suicide rates in America; dug into the darker truths behind the influential academic “positive psychology movement”; and ventured to Utah to spend time with the Mormons, officially America’s happiest people. Out of this came the new bestseller, America the Anxious: How Our Pursuit of Happiness Is Creating a Nation of Nervous Wrecks..." (emphasis mine). Source: 'America the Anxious' Author Dives Into Our Obsession With Happiness @ Feb. 5th Community Church Event 

Yes, that's usually the case. That's why people who don't respect the pain of others are usually seen as jerks.


But this takes as a given that the view you present is a universal and accurate one. But it is not. It might be an accurate description of your social circle.


Yes, that's why most people are not the way you describe. They're not that irrational, illogical and inconsistent when it comes to the pain and sadness of others. — Πετροκότσυφας

I think that I have already covered all of that.

TheMadFool — TheMadFool

I have been a death penalty opponent as far back as I can remember.

The reasons that people give for opposing the death penalty are numerous, ranging from how it goes against their religious beliefs to how a black person is more likely to get the death penalty for killing a white person than for killing a black person and more likely to get the death penalty than a white person who is convicted.

That whole range contains strong reasons to oppose the death penalty.

But I think that subconsciously, and only in recent years consciously, the biggest reason I have always opposed the death penalty is the act itself. I don't mean the method such as lethal injection--the methods have varied--or the pain that the condemned person experiences, although that is also a concern. I mean the nature of and behavior within the whole institution of capital punishment. I will never forget the picture I saw of people outside of the facility during Ted Bundy's execution carrying signs saying "Roast In Peace" and "It's Fryday". That kind of behavior and almost all other behavior in the process, such as victims being present to witness the execution, the news media coverage of it, etc. is abominable.

If the death penalty was reformed so that executions are not a long, drawn-out spectacle of a mob (society) getting the revenge that it thirsts for, I might be able to support the death penalty. It would mean wholesale changes in the institution and practice of capital punishment. The public would not know in advance the date, let alone the time, of an execution. The public would not know in advance the place of an execution. There would be no witnesses other than those needed to confirm that everything was done according to the law and confirm the death. There would be no media coverage leading up to or during an execution. The public would be informed afterwards that the condemned had been executed. And other changes that make the penalty mere death rather than a long, drawn-out, choreographed public humiliation and murder by a mob.

↪WISDOMfromPO-MO People have a right to be who they are. Some people are resilient, happy (or at least cheerful), calm, at peace, whether the details of their lives justify such happiness or not. For a lot of happy people, little personal credit is due: they were born with a lucky potential for happy emotions.

Many other people receive a strong tendency for agitation, fear, anger, jealousy, and so on. Their lives may not justify wretchedness, but that is what they feel, none the less--and they are no more responsible for this than the lucky happy people. I wouldn't call them depressed; they are just plain unhappy.

That said, we could go out of our way once in a while to lend a hand to the unhappy, or at least not tell them to just pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

the source of the problem will be found at the system/group level. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
We all do things that affect the happiness of other people. Maybe we didn't intend to ruin someone's life by firing them for incompetence, but maybe that was the upshot. Maybe they needed more help to succeed -- and had they succeeded, would have been a great asset.

Maybe parents' pushing their child to constantly excel above all other students set the stage for that child's success, or perhaps set the child up for a lifetime of unhappiness - or disappointment, or some sort of distress. — Bitter Crank

Until a person can recognize that he/she is unhappy, own it, and look for the causes, probably nothing can be changed.

Heaping guilt, shame, economic hardship, etc. on him/her just adds to his/her load and distracts from addressing root causes.

Where does this leave happy people? If it ain't broke don't examine it, let alone fix it?

I don't know. Maybe it used to be that religion would "afflict the comforted" in great numbers and nothing else has taken religion's place in that role. Or the mass media has taken religion's place in that role, but people simply change channels, close a browser window, etc. I doubt that there has ever been a rational thinker who believes that it is wise to live in a perpetual state of happiness.