1. Life is good over all.
2. Who is Jannet? :D
3. Thinking can make you happy or sad depending on subject matter and knowledge.

I think ‘happiness’ is a trivial thing tbh. Humans seem to excel when challenged rather than sitting in paradise idly playing with themselves.

The main item I’ve found to be the cause of ‘displeasure’ is fear. Fear stops us from trying. If we don’t try then the dark clouds form.

1. If we really think about the world, our world, we must necessarily be melancholic (the amount of evil, on balance, exceeds the amount of good). — Agent Smith

You need to make the case that this true. You seem to be appealing to a form of common sense - that this must be how people would feel about the world. Nevertheless I know plenty of people who have every reason to think all is hopeless and yet they are cheerful.

1. If we really think about the world, our world, we must necessarily be melancholic (the amount of evil, on balance, exceeds the amount of good). — Agent Smith

This describes moral judgement, which is a particularly affected, reductionist mode of thinking - among many other ways of thinking about the world.

Jannat->Fardaus->Pardis->Paradise->Paradise lost (current situation)

Melancholy appears. Longing back to paradise. Every sane person has to be depressed. Let's not fool ourselves.

Sorry René Descartes! — Agent Smith

Non cogito ergo sum

You need to make the case that this true. You seem to be appealing to a form of common sense - that this must be how people would feel about the world. Nevertheless I know plenty of people who have every reason to think all is hopeless and yet they are cheerful. — Tom Storm

Good call!

The average happiness score is 5.53 out of a maximum of 10 (see here). That's like scoring just a little above 50% in an an exam. That's an F in academics.Fail!

This describes moral judgement, which is a particularly affected, reductionist mode of thinking - among many other ways of thinking about the world. — Possibility

How so?

Just to be clear … ‘depression’ is actually an ‘illness’ of sorts. People are not depressed for a reason if they are clinically depressed.

Depression is feeling extremely low for no viable reason. It is a chemical imbalance (physical brain condition) rather than feeling sad/upset about something in your life.

Just to be clear … ‘depression’ is actually an ‘illness’ of sorts. People are not depressed for a reason if they are clinically depressed. — I like sushi

That's what they make you think. Lost paradise is the cause. I've had my part. All stuff tried. To no avail. I have very highs luckily too. Let me tell you, already in locked up in the school system when a small kid I longed to something that wasnt there. Despite being the best in class and girls walking behind my ass.

I cannot cure our ignorance. That is your job. Bye bye

I cannot cure our ignorance. That is your job. Bye bye — I like sushi

Our ignorance? About what?

sorry, ‘your ignorance’. About brain function and that physiology is not somehow separate from brain function.

If you are a dualist there is probably not a discussion worth having here, sorry.

This describes moral judgement, which is a particularly affected, reductionist mode of thinking - among many other ways of thinking about the world.
— Possibility

How so? — Agent Smith

“The amount of evil, on balance, exceeds the amount of good.”

This assertion is based on an assumption that ALL thinking about the world is reducible to either a positive or negative relation (of the thinker) to just one quantifiable quality of the world.

The average happiness score is 5.53 out of a maximum of 10 (see here). That's like scoring just a little above 50% in an an exam. That's an F in academics.Fail! — Agent Smith

This data you provided as ‘evidence’ would suggest the opposite to your premise - that our relation to the world is, on balance, more positive than negative. So, it seems you are contradicting yourself - despite your apologist-style attempt to reframe the data.

[quote="I like sushi;674163"]About brain function and that physiology is not somehow separate from brain function[/quote]

Physiology not separate from brain function? How can it be separate from brain function? The brain, the body, and he universe are tightly bound. Inseparably even. The physiology of the brain and its connections to body and universre determines your thoughts and feelings.

“The amount of evil, on balance, exceeds the amount of good.”

This assertion is based on an assumption that ALL thinking about the world is reducible to either a positive or negative relation (of the thinker) to just one quantifiable quality of the world. — Possibility

How would you go about dealing with the world if not in terms of opposites?

This data you provided as ‘evidence’ would suggest the opposite to your premise - that our relation to the world is, on balance, more positive than negative. So, it seems you are contradicting yourself - despite your apologist-style attempt to reframe the data. — Possibility

Can you explain how an F on your paper is anything to smile about? :chin:

I cannot cure our ignorance. — I like sushi

Don't underestimate your own abilities. Let the enemy do that. :grin:

Depression is feeling extremely low for no viable reason. — I like sushi

PSR violated! Interesting! :chin:

Accepting ignorance is the first step towards wisdom

Accepting ignorance is the first step towards wisdom — I like sushi

You can say that again! :up:

Accepting ignorance is the first step towards wisdom.

Turns out you were correct!

Turns out you were correct! — I like sushi

Yeah, I've figured out a way to never be wrong, or positively, to be always right! :wink:

I’m always right because I know I must be partially wrong and knowing I’m partially wring means I’m right to know I am partially wrong, therefore everything I have said or will say must be right because I already know it contains something wrong within necessarily.

Am I right or am I right! Absolutely not. So I must be right :)

I'll have to agree with you! You're right!

Can you explain how an F on your paper is anything to smile about? — Agent Smith

This has nothing to do with an F on any imaginary paper - it has to do with your assertion that “the amount of evil, on balance, exceeds the amount of good”. According to this data, it doesn’t.

How would you go about dealing with the world if not in terms of opposites? — Agent Smith

In thinking about the world, I would recommend a triadic relation. It’s ultimately more stable and verifiable.

How would you go about dealing with the world if not in terms of opposites? — Agent Smith

Possibility does this by sidestepping the question and saying something that looks like it means something but then seems utterly incapable of offering any ‘verification’ for their pretend point … because there isn’t one.

They have probably read too much Heidegger, Foucault or Derrida. Or nothing other than one of those.

According to this data, it doesn’t — Possibility

The max score is 10. The average is 5.53. What am I missing here? Something surely! If you had a class of students sit for a test and the average score was 5.53, that means your class did badly, oui? I was trying to put things in perspective. Perhaps you'll fare better in doing that! Give it a go.

triadic relation — Possibility

Expand and elaborate, keep in mind that we're talking about happiness and sorrow, the in-between state most likely is contentment or thereabouts. The figures that I provided were measures of happiness.

Let's work this out togther if it is at all possible.

1. Happiness
2. Sorrow
3. ?

Possibility does this by sidestepping the question and saying something that looks like it means something but then seems utterly incapable of offering any ‘verification’ for their pretend point … because there isn’t one.

They have probably read too much Heidegger, Foucault or Derrida. Or nothing other than one of those. — I like sushi

No, no, I'd like to do some exploring, I hope Possibility doesn't mind a little "probing" :grin: I'm not a man and neither am I woman, something in the middle (triadic).

It's very complicated! :sad:

If doing like old Martin Heidegger, and try to explore the world by looking at the bits and pieces, and just use yorself as the guinea pig - is the OP true? For you? For me?
What really makes life suck is only partially brain ghosts I come up with, as well as seeing the bad stuff around me. Real shit that hits the fan hurts like hell. And hey, all stuff when you think about the world aint bad. You don’t run around doing that balance stuff. If I was to say if World is a good or bad place, I couldnt answer

And when I REALLY think hard, solving problems, write texts, reads and analyzes what i have read, I cannot be in a better place.

is the OP true? For you? For me? — Ansiktsburk

Either happiness is subjective or objective. No one, as per Wikipedia, wants to get hooked up to an experience machine. In other words...

The max score is 10. The average is 5.53. What am I missing here? Something surely! If you had a class of students sit for a test and the average score was 5.53, that means your class did badly, oui? I was trying to put things in perspective. Perhaps you'll fare better in doing that! Give it a go. — Agent Smith

They did ‘badly’ according to whom? An academic standard? What does that have to do with happiness? If the highest possible score was 10 (infinite happiness) and the lowest possible score was 0 (infinite sorrow), then anything above 5 would be, ON BALANCE, more happiness than sorrow. It’s not that complicated.

Expand and elaborate, keep in mind that we're talking about happiness and sorrow, the in-between state most likely is contentment or thereabouts. The figures that I provided were measures of happiness.

Let's work this out togther if it is at all possible.

1. Happiness
2. Sorrow
3. ? — Agent Smith

For any two distinct members of a linear continuum, there exists a third member that is strictly between these (Peirce). The third member in this case is the relative position of the thinker - closer to ‘happiness’ than to ‘sorrow’, according to your data.