While Baden's definition is sort of fitting for some discussion, it is rather first person. It is about how one becomes happy, not how one makes others happy. — Sir2u

It is fitting as one of several to start the discussion. It can be argued that we need to know how one becomes happy before you can make others happy, even if that is possible.

Something Baden wrote earlier about why there hasn't been a recent, quality discussion about happiness:

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. — Baden

A section of Baden's Definition, bringing in others, values and character of consistent quality.

originality in identity and character in a way that fosters same in others; consistent quality in thought and action. — Amity

Could you please give us a workable definition of "shmancy", I cannot find it anywhere. And I know that you really like to provide people with the definition of words that are not in common use. Where can I find that dictionary you use?
7 hours ago — Sir2u

Really ? :roll:

Who is this 'us' ? You mean yourself as in acting a bit of a schmuck.
Shmancy works just fine in context.

From :https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shm-reduplication

-----------

Shm-reduplication is a form of reduplication in which the original word or its first syllable (the base) is repeated with the copy (the reduplicant) beginning with shm- (sometimes schm-), pronounced /ʃm/. The construction is generally used to indicate irony, sarcasm, derision, skepticism, or lack of interest with respect to comments about the discussed object:

He's just a baby!"Baby-shmaby".[1] He's already 5 years old!

The speaker is being skeptical. They do not think their kid is a baby or babyish.

What a sale!"Sale, schmale".[2] I'm waiting for a larger discount.

The speaker is showing lack of interest. They do not care about the sale.

The original word can be a noun, but also an adjective:

"Whenever we go to a fancy-schmancy restaurant, we feel like James Bond."

In this case, it is being used to intensify the meaning of "fancy", implying that it's really fancy. [3] In general, the new combination is used as an interjection. In the case of adjectives, the reduplicated combination can belong to the same syntactical category as the original.

------------

We can have our cake and eat it too! It can be partly exploratory, and partly a thesis — Purple Pond

Indeed. So I've put forward a few initial thoughts on a thesis or statement ( see earlier post ).
What are your thoughts so far ?

If we are discussing theories of Happiness then what is it that they are supposed to do. What is your practical interest in the matter ? Is it related to virtue; leading a better life, as in Aristotle. Or what ? Is it about dealing with personal psychological unhappiness or depression ? If so, we need to visit psychology and perhaps more...seems to be larger than philosophy alone. What causes unhappiness ? Why do we feel we need to make people happy ? Why do we say 'Happy New Year' ? And what do we think when we say it ?

Other than simply an attempt at creating an interesting and quality (whatever that is ? ) discussion, we need to ask ourselves : Why are we doing this ?

Where can I find that dictionary you use? — Sir2u

I keep it in my shrine.

We can have our cake and eat it too! It can be partly exploratory, and partly a thesis. I mean we can make conclusions on what we know about happiness, and leave some wiggle room for some exploratory content, for example, the part of happiness that we are not sure about. — Purple Pond

:up:

From: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/happiness/

There are roughly two philosophical literatures on “happiness,” each corresponding to a different sense of the term. One uses ‘happiness’ as a value term, roughly synonymous with well-being or flourishing. The other body of work uses the word as a purely descriptive psychological term, akin to ‘depression’ or ‘tranquility’. An important project in the philosophy of happiness is simply getting clear on what various writers are talking about: what are the important meanings of the term and how do they connect?

----------

I was thinking about Baden's earlier post, which mentioned views at different ends of the spectrum:

'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.'

----------

So, we could perhaps describe these views, along with the ? middle view of Baden. Examine arguments which support them and come to a conclusion as what is more convincing or helpful ?

Can philosophy alone provide answers or to be comprehensive, do we need to include other fields ?

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.
a day ago — Baden

Hi again. Just wondering about the different theories along the 'What is Happiness' spectrum.
I am not sure whether the views above are at opposite ends. And yours is the middle way?

I really don't know about the (post) modern culture - is there a specific philosopher I can read about ?
If the views are time dependent, is it worthwhile then to compare the traditional with the modern, or post- modern ( whatever that means ).

Any advice appreciated, thanks.

Hi again. Just wondering about the different theories along the 'What is Happiness' spectrum.
I am not sure whether the views above are at opposite ends. And yours is the middle way? — Amity

I can't lay claim to the middle way...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Way

I really don't know about the (post) modern culture - is there a specific philosopher I can read about? — Amity

There are many and they might not make sense without context. Best probably to get a general overview and then follow up on the philosophers mentioned.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/#2

Also, there's an accessible series of vids of Rick Roderick lectures on YouTube: e.g.

I can't lay claim to the middle way...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Way — Baden

And what is that Middle Path... It is the Noble Eightfold path, and nothing else, namely: right understanding, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration.[3]

And why ever not ? Your definition would seem right enough. You might have got there via another track but still...
I think I would characterise it as right good quality :wink:
As well as being moderate...

The postmodern way as per Stanford seems too dense, or it could very well be me.
I was looking more for the specific angle on Happiness as per your previous thoughts on Sir2u.
Probably best going to the horse's mouth...

Rick Roderick. Never heard of him. But seems to have produced a fair amount of lectures in his time.
Videos and transcripts.
http://rickroderick.org/100-guide-philosophy-and-human-values-1990/

I like the Outline provided for Lecture 1 on Socrates and the Life of Inquiry.
Also, lecture 2: Epicureans, Stoics, Skeptics
Conflicting ideals of excellence in Roman Society.

Ah, those conflicting ideals - 'twas ever thus...

That is closer to my original idea about what makes people happy than trying to find better ways to explain what exactly happiness is. We know already, thanks to "S", the definition of happiness so lets look at the good and bad of making people happy.

Example:
Is it correct(moral) to give a 16 year old a shotgun for his/her birthday if it makes her/him happy? — Sir2u

Hello again.
I wonder if you agree with Baden and his thought re your position on Happiness:

'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.'

If you had to give a definition or clarification on your theory of Happiness what might it be ?

Hi - read your post with interest. Thanks.

Do you have your own philosophy of Happiness?
If you had to give a definition of Happiness, what would you say ?
Do you see the various theories as being opposed, or just different...

137
Given the interest in the ethical and meaningful aspects of Happiness, together with the posters' definitions, here are a few thoughts about a thesis or statement. — Amity

You can't make people happy. Why?
It is unhappiness that motivates philosophers.See philosophical pessimism (Schopenhauer).
You must Know Thyself before prescribing happiness for others. Why?
A definition of happiness is not necessary to know what it is.What do you mean?
Happiness is not good for you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U88jj6PSD7w
Happiness, like Beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, happiness is subjective.
Happiness is a habit and can be learned. If you can unlearn fears, can you learn happiness?
Happiness can't buy you Love.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srwxJUXPHvE

The bold is what I think.

Thanks for response.

Which of the above, if any, do you think would make a good thesis for a discussion ?

Have you thought of one yourself which you are passionate about ? And could defend...

Of the examples you've provided, I can't see myself getting behind any of them. Maybe if you give me enough time I can think of a thesis statement worth arguing for. Until then, anybody else can jump in.

Of the examples you've provided, I can't see myself getting behind any of them. Maybe if you give me enough time I can think of a thesis statement worth arguing for. Until then, anybody else can jump in. — Purple Pond

Fair enough. It was only a brainstorming exercise. A real thesis would be better formulated.
Probably why I prefer not to make one, or take a position, until an exploratory discussion has taken place.

Who is this 'us' ? You mean yourself as in acting a bit of a schmuck. — Amity

Oh dear. You do not understand sarcasm at all do you. And irony also seems to be missing for your understanding abilities.

First of all it is customary around here to provide ones usage, definition, of words that are not necessarily standard. I have not found Shmancy in any of the philosophy books I have read so I asked for it to be explained. As you yourself said basic definitions are necessary to start a discussion. I don't go to Wikipedia for definitions either.

Second, calling someone a schmuck is not an example of Shm-reduplication, it is an insult.
schmuck - (Yiddish) a stupid, foolish or annoying person
Which would probably be more applicable to a person that uses "fancy schmancy" in what is supposed to be a serious discussion.

Shmancy works just fine in context. — Amity

The context is him making fun of the words you use, so I guess you should know whether it works fine or not. :smirk:

I keep it in my shrine. — S

The outhouse?

If you had to give a definition or clarification on your theory of Happiness what might it be ? — Amity

I don't really have a theory of happiness, just some personal thoughts about it.

They say that you cannot buy happiness, but your wife is probably unhappy when you forget to buy her a present.
Is unhappiness not buying stuff?

They say that happiness grows over time, why are there so many divorces then? Does marriage make people unhappy?

Bars have Happy Hours, is getting drunk going to make you happy.

Restaurants have Happy Meals so kids can get fat and die an early death from heart problems. Does giving your kids that shit make Mom and Dad happy? Of course it does if it makes the kiddies happy and keeps them quiet for ten minutes.

Who the hell knows what happiness is, except of course for "S" and he is keeping his dictionary in the shit house so no one can see it.

Is happiness something that we can expect to be only temporal or should we expect it to be long lasting?
How do you measure happiness, by quality, by length of time, by degrees?

...the part of happiness that we are not sure about. — Purple Pond

Which part would that be? :brow:

We know what it is. Meaning is use. We know what a game is. It's a similar thing going on here. So it can't be that. If you think that you don't know what happiness is, that's probably because you're being a typical philosophy schmuck, excessively questioning what he or she already knows. I guess I'm atypical.

First of all it is customary around here to provide ones usage, definition, of words that are not necessarily standard. I have not found Shmancy in any of the philosophy books I have read so I asked for it to be explained. — Sir2u

I am a professor in shmanciology. If you would like to learn more about it, I invite you to attend one of my upcoming lectures on the shmubject. There will of course be a shmall fee: shmomewhere in the ballpark of between £10,000 and £15,000.

Second, calling someone a schmuck is not an example of Shm-reduplication, it is an insult.
schmuck - (Yiddish) a stupid, foolish or annoying person
Which would probably be more applicable to a person that uses "fancy schmancy" in what is supposed to be a serious discussion. — Sir2u

Exhibit A:

Who the hell knows what happiness is... — Sir2u

Exhibit B:

It's the lounge, and it's okay if it's not a hundred percent serious. :up: — Purple Pond

I rest my case.

Oh dear... — Sir2u

:scream: :groan: :joke: :gasp: :cry: :roll:

I rest my case. — S

case-shmace :wink:

Dear Prof

Please take pity on a poor shtudent and give freely of your wisdom-shmisdom.

In the case of shmace would it be improved by the inclusion of a 'c', as in the case of schmuck, which as we all know is not an example of shm- reduplication as explained in good ole wiki.

Also, I am sipping a tone of Sean Connery here. But I am not sure that he would qualify...

I look forward to your reply

Yours sincerely-shmincerely :nerd:

PS Apple in post :heart:

PPS On Sabbatical leave as from midnight tonight.
Cheers to all for :100: :party:

On Sabbatical leave as from midnight tonight. — Amity

Is that what they say when they are going to the pub where you live?

I am a professor in shmanciology. If you would like to learn more about it, I invite you to attend one of my upcoming lectures on the shmubject. There will of course be a shmall fee: shmomewhere in the ballpark of between £10,000 and £15,000. — S

Maybe I could help with proofreading here.

I am a professor in shm-logy. The correct name of the subject.

If you would like to learn more about it, I invite you to attend one of my upcoming lectures on the subject shmubject.

There will of course be a small shmall fee:

somewhere shmomewhere in the ballpark of between £10,000 and £15,000.[/quote]

Remember that the use of shm is to duplicate a word already used in a way that does not use the exact same word. Fancy talking if you want a simple name. And you are allowed to use words that begin with a letter that is not S.

Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
I rest my case. — S

Err, and just what was your case?: It must have slipped my mind.

On Sabbatical leave as from midnight tonight.
— Amity

Is that what they say when they are going to the pub where you live? — Sir2u

Sussed out :gasp:
It is my way of saying I am breaking off from this discussion and yes, that might involve a drink or two.
Cheers !

Sabbatical-shmabbatical.