Being happy and being struggle-free are not synonymous. Some people can manage to keep their spirits up amidst struggle and that's great for them. That doesn't mean they're not struggling.

I've probably got some unique insights in this area from being psychologically tortured during an unjust jailing for many months with a high level of isolation, and I wasn't in very good condition to begin with. It could always be worse. At least I've got my mind. I've got nothing to do but survive and nurture my sanity, so no peripheral pressure. You're a lot less likely to explode or implode if you've got company, but my mood still hasn't recovered and its been almost two years. Even if you're a person that tends towards optimism, the unrelenting stress changes the chemistry of your brain and your whole sense of reality begins to warp. Many Americans don't even know what constantly perceiving immediate, imminent danger is like. I'd agree that most first-world citizens are happier than they think they are, at least their brains aren't being rotted. We usually take that for granted. Without some ideally timed interventions, I probably would've been destroyed.

My sympathies. I haven't been through anything nearly as objectively bad as that, but I think the past five years or so of constant family and work crises leaving me "constantly perceiving immediate, imminent danger" (even if that perception was an overreaction on my part, I still felt it) is possibly behind the existential breakdown I've been having for the past year or so, where most things in my life have gotten a lot more stable at last but I still wake up feeling like it's the end of the world (because "the unrelenting stress changes the chemistry of your brain and your whole sense of reality begins to warp") and then spend all day just trying to feel normal again before I need to sleep so that the anxiety isn't keeping me up all night fearing the next morning. It's probably post-traumatic stress, but I haven't seen a therapist since it started, just my MD because I initially thought it was physical in origin.

One of the most pernicious techniques of social control is manipulating relationships, mentalities and general behavior with pain. Pain can change a worldview, it can efface humanity, it can make humans submit to abuse and even complete irrationality. Everyone dislikes this socially induced pain so much that we seem to be somewhat compulsively moving towards institutions of desensitization, but this tampers with the cognitive contribution to motivation so much that many become nihilistic and hardened until unresponsive to even serious practical concerns. If we lose our conceptually emotional commitment to cultural prospects, innovative idealism evaporates and then our constructive pragmatism also.

I think social engineering is to some degree reinforcing an unconsciously limiting "maintain/fight/panic/spontaneously combust" mindset, and that's why we're regressing on issues of conscience. Abuse is phasing citizens less and less, and we discharge affect in ways that do not align with a desire for progressiveness in belief systems. Reformist movements don't usually happen anymore. Maybe naturally empathetic demographics still exist somewhere, but I haven't experienced this in many years.

And jail is atrocious, the penal system should be reformed. It would be a great deterrent if culture didn't force citizens into it regardless.

Ever heard of Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl? It was a big seller in the 1960's, one of my mother's favourites. Frankl was a psychiatrist who had been interned in the Nazi death camps and noticed that some individuals adapted much better than others to these dreadful environments, which he attributed to their ability to find meaning. 'Frankl believed that people are primarily driven by a "striving to find meaning in one's life," and that it is this sense of meaning that enables people to overcome painful experiences. — Wayfarer

Damn. No (at least not more than a quick mention), but it sounds like I need to check it out. Seems like he is trying to answer my question :smile:

After enduring the suffering in these camps, Frankl concluded that even in the most absurd, painful, and dehumanized situation, life has potential meaning and that, therefore, even suffering is meaningful. This conclusion served as a basis for his logotherapy and existential analysis, which Frankl had described before World War II. He said, "What is to give light must endure burning." — Wayfarer

This reminds me of "Night" by Ellie Wiesel. However, within that story it highlighted that this "purpose" you refer to, worked for some of the Jews, but not for others. Would Frankl be suggesting that those who suffered heavily (versus those who adapted "well") did not have a strong faith to begin with? Or that faith is not "purpose"? And if you ask why I bring up "faith" when you are talking "purpose"...to find a "purpose" to the holocaust would require gobs of faith...wouldn't it?

Or is he referring to "purpose" as things like..."I can't wait to see the sun on Tuesday?" or "I look forward to lunch on Monday"?? I understand that much better than some overarching objective purpose for my life. A purpose for this minute, day, week, etc makes more sense (for me) than a purpose for my existence (I guess I am making all sorts of assumption that you and Frankl meant the big life purpose vs the small daily purposes?).

As the person in this thread arguing that more people should be able to find contentment in life...I certainly believe in no objective purpose. So what allows me to shrug off "struggles" that others take seriously? (besides me being an un-caring ass - that is at most half the reason for my care-free demeanor :grimace:) Maybe my subjective purposes are enough? I should probably read the book and stop bugging you, haha.

Being happy and being struggle-free are not synonymous. — Pfhorrest

Agreed. But most people who identify as happy are unlikely to say their life is full of struggles. For some people completing a math problem is a struggle (whether they are good at it or not). Notice that I would NOT tell @Enrique to buck up and get over it...it was only a little torture. That is a struggle. There is no frame of mind that makes it not a struggle. Similarly, @Wayfarer's example of the holocaust...A positive mindset may help you survive, but there is no mindset that allows the holocaust to become a pleasant situation.

However, if I make 25k a year, and that means that my only affordable living situation is renting a room, and I will never afford a vacation, and will likely not be attracting a life partner, and may die at 62 instead of 82 due to reduced health care,...I can still view that as a largely struggle free life...unless I lament all the things I don't have/can't do.

And I do not mean to suggest that people who complain about their difficult paycheck-to-paycheck lives are not struggling. They are if they say they are. What I am saying is that if they changed their mindset...then they might not have to struggle (or could at least have their struggles reduced).

I think Frankl is worth knowing about. Another from a similar period is Erich Fromm, 'Man for himself'. Neither are overtly religious, although religious themes do figure in their thinking; I think they're both probably better classed as existentialist. They both have interesting things to say about finding purpose against the background of modern culture, which tends to throw ideas of purpose into doubt.

— Enrique

I've got "self-control, free will and rationality" but I'm me and you're you and that's not a bridge that can be gapped. There's no unconditional "us". — Judaka

This is the reality of the situation. There might have been an “ us” at some stage, a village, a town, maybe a small country, but that changed with the growth of populations, migration, technology and a global economy. Nothing is that simple anymore. Nothing is stable. Multiculturalism, diversity, identity politics put an end to the idea of “us”. Everyone has objectives so different there’s not even a middle ground. There’s not even an “us” on this small philosophy site.

If there’s going to be an “us” then it has to be imposed from above. That’s the pragmatic solution. But we resist that idea because it imposes itself on our perception of who we are.

Can human beings have enough free will and rationality to make widespread self-control based on sizable commitment to reflective decision-making even conceivably attainable?

It’s not lack of reflective decision-making that’s the problem. Haven’t we been doing that? Of course we have, but not all of us. That’s not going to change.

It’s the paradox about who we are; we want order and we want individual freedom. Can you have both? How is it possible?

Cultural and sub-cultural divergent evolution happens unconsciously and rapidly, almost to the point of creating totally discrepant worlds, so dealing with that issue is paramount if we want a multiculturally stable society.

A multi-branched government distributes authority so that single organizations cannot achieve the absolute control that tends towards corruption, but this is being usurped in the U.S. by a system of non-transparent departments.

Representation allows citizens to have some control of policy-making by influence on the professional fate of government officials, but participation is inadequate, and exorbitantly costly campaign funding means that candidates for the most prestigious offices are always extremely rich, thus not dependent on a particular constituency of typical citizens for their livelihoods or cultural security, though this could easily change with activism.

Media is creating a confused chaos of information from such a plethora of covert agendas that most citizens imbibe facts and beliefs with no real cognizance of whether they are true, valid or justifiable.

In the U.S., the economy is becoming gradually more oppressive and job markets more unreliable, so that the attention of citizens is completely absorbed in merely protecting themselves and their families from poverty.

Like you said, larger populations are more impersonal, with a strong sense of community lacking in nearly every neighborhood.

These are some of the divisive sociological dynamics, the extremely obvious ones, not even touching upon the more psychological factors. All these problems are in principle easy enough to solve. All that is required is deliberate organizing efforts, a simple enough source of purpose and meaning for the modern world. The psychological barriers are probably much more difficult to handle. I wish I had the knowledge, competency, and especially the resources to find solutions, but no one in actuality cares much what I think anyway I would imagine lol Interesting to think about though.