It's not all about you.

Can you justify that? Can we suppose that I'm self sufficient, live by myself on my own island?

I may never even know of another person's existence so why would other people need to play a role in optimal living?

I get that I don't actually live on an island by myself, but I could well in the future. The only constant in my life is me, so I would like a robust philosophy that would work even when other people aren't around.

There is more than truth and happiness. There is experience alone, of both good and bad that define the value of life itself. We always chase one over the other because happiness is more pleasurable, but sorrow can be enjoyable if you have the ability to see how.

Also worth a mention is buddhist monks and other ascetics who don't live for happiness but for contentment and altered states of consciousness.

If you ask me, I say it doesn't matter. It is all meaningless... at least at our level of consciousness. There may be a higher order or system of processes going on that we are apart of in the universe... but to us, it is mostly meaningless and this is somewhat of a massive burden in defining life as valuable (even though we somehow seem to do well at justifying life as "worthwhile", i suspect though that this has something to do with our fear of death, lol). We realize this unconsciously by early adulthood and learn to adopt societies (mass amounts of peoples actions) dogmatism in teaching that chasing happiness is pretty much the only worthwhile pursuing. What is pleasurable -> good... that is what all animals who can't think act on... you think... so don't you think you should think about that some more?

Is happiness everything, or is truth important independently from happiness? — Kenshin

Your question assumes that an element of happiness is not a greater knowledge of the truth. It's reasonable to argue that happiness is attained through knowledge, which would mean that happiness and truth are interrelated. Such a definition of happiness distinguishes it from simple pleasure.

As John Stuart Mill said when defining happiness, "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question."

get that I don't actually live on an island by myself, but I could well in the future. The only constant in my life is me, so I would like a robust philosophy that would work even when other people aren't around. — Kenshin

Solipsism is the philosophy for you, then. Or, perhaps, "Me-ism" (copyright Ciceronianus 2017), as you seem to acknowledge the existence of others, but would rather not bother with them. Me-ism is the philosophical view that "The only thing that is significant is me." You strike me as a Me-ist.

Can you justify that? Can we suppose that I'm self sufficient, live by myself on my own island? — Kenshin

I think both truth and happiness are products of transpersonal development -- expanding and evolving beyond the limited identity of the personal self and becoming a part of something greater. So it doesn't matter whether you're in society or living a self sufficient life of seclusion and isolation, in order to be happy and know truth you still have to get over yourself all the same.

It's not all about you. — unenlightened

Un, your pithy replies are gold.

Can we suppose that I'm self sufficient, live by myself on my own island? — Kenshin

Then it's about you and the island; you're still not self-sufficient.

But you have imaginatively killed off your parents, your teachers, the shipwright who enabled you to get to the island and all they people they depended on, and so on. Why?

The only constant in my life is me... — Kenshin

Not at all, that is a fantasy. Firstly you yourself are not constant but always growing, learning, developing, decaying, and secondly the only constant is that it is never just you, never has been and never will be.

But even to the extent that you can isolate yourself from other people, and I recommend that you try it for a short while as an experiment, you will find neither truth nor happiness therein, because existence is relationship - see Castaway for fictional example.

In trying to figure out how to live the best life, I arrived at the hypothesis that all actions are ultimately to achieve happiness.

I think your hypothesis is only partly correct. I think all actions are a mix of pleasure and knowledge and that the best life is the involves getting the mix right.

Thanks for your remark. Pleasure and knowledge where the things I had thought of, but could there be a third or even a fourth element too, or is this it?

I think they are the main components, but what comprises an act is also an issue. Are our actions series of independent events, some of which may be linked causally or perhaps acts are just correlated together, or are actions generations based on singular events which then evolve over time. I think how pleasure and knowledge blend may depend on the answer to whether or not actions are caused, or related to previous actions, or if they evolve from prior acts.

I would like a robust philosophy that would work even when other people aren't around. — Kenshin

I agree w/ others' comments that there is no truly atomic, self-contained self, but I also agree w/ this impulse of yours - and I don't believe they conflict. Modern ethics is preoccupied with the problem of making society work - and well it should. But, assuming you've complied w/ Kant's categorical imperative, and you've done your job as a good utilitarian (assuming some satiable theory of utilitarianism), and you've done justice to all special obligations (family, community, etc.), in other words all of your other-regarding duties have been met - how ought you to spend your Saturday afternoon? Modern thought has sadly little to say about that. But Greeks and Romans had a lot to say about that. I would contrast pleasure with virtue, rather than truth. There are things you could do on Saturday afternoon that are daring, novel, generous, etc. They might not be fun.

Edit: You should do the daring, novel, generous stuff.

Another thing worth noting is that "happiness" can be viewed in various ways:

- Direct pleasure, like eating ice cream.
- Flow, like when you're totally absorbed in a project, even though the project itself might not be intrinsically valuable.
- Fulfillment/meaning, like when you're a parent cleaning up a kid's vomit in the middle of the night; not at all pleasurable, but the *right kind* of unpleasant experience.

I think a diet of all three makes sense.

I DARE YOU to be truthful with yourself! So be genuine, even if you grow, learn, develop, decay remain the one you always were at your core because that's not really a choice anyway but you can still take pride in maintaining your basic perception of yourself and even derive satisfaction from restricting your relation with the world. Short: make sense.