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:

Oh dear... — Sir2u

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

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.

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...

No matter what Wittgenstein says on the matter, not all human psychology boils down to ethics.
How does having psychotic symptoms or schizophrenia boil down to ethics.
If I have misunderstood the point being made, I look forward to clarification.

From the link I provided earlier which describes all the various branches of psychology, where clinical psychology is the first of ten :

Clinical psychologists, unlike psychiatrists, do not have a medical background, and for this reason they do not diagnose illnesses or prescribe medication. Instead, they try to understand people's difficulties in the context of their background, life events and the sense that they have made of their experiences.

On this basis, they work with clients and teams to develop psychological formulations for people in distress. A formulation is a concise summary of why a person has developed their difficulties, and draws on psychological theory and evidence. For example, a formulation may show that a client's low mood may be a response to having a critical or dominating parent, or to a period of unresolved grief following a major bereavement.

The formulation provides an agreed starting point for the psychologist and the client...

I think this OP boils down to something personal.

What is the real issue, Wallows ?

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...

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 ?

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...

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.

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 ?

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 ?

If it is Psychology you want to discuss, then I think rather than start with ethics it would make sense to say what Psychology is. Here is a start:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/articles/psychology/what_is_psychology.shtml

My mother pretty much wants me to stay put until I get my housing in the area. Until then I'm not sure what to do as the waiting list is pretty long. — Wallows

Your Mum sounds wise.
What to do ? Prepare yourself. In whatever way you can.
Best wishes.

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.

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

Should I move out or stay and live happily with my mother? — Wallows

What does your mother think ?
If you are both happy with current situation, there isn't a problem, is there?

If you can afford it, or can find the necessary help, you can perhaps find a place nearby. So that you have both support and can dip a toe into a new world. If you see it as a positive step forward, even if you are not confident ( and how many people are no matter their mental health) that will come with each little step of independence.

Can you cook ? Do you have basic house keeping knowledge. Budget. You can learn these skills while still living at home in preparation for moving out. Get the foundations sorted before any major move. It is a major stressor so you have to be in a good place first.

Just a few thoughts.

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

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.

You can't make people happy.
It is unhappiness that motivates philosophers.
You must Know Thyself before prescribing happiness for others.
A definition of happiness is not necessary to know what it is.
Happiness is not good for you.
Happiness, like Beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Happiness is a habit and can be learned.
Happiness can't buy you Love.

At this rate, we won't need to start a formal discussion in that other place !

peripatetic
— Amity

Fancy-shmancy. :wink: — S

Shwok-toc :razz:

Well, the originality required is just that you don't repeat a topic that's already active. And there are none active on this topic. In fact, I have yet to see a particularly impressive OP on happiness. — Baden

Not creating a similar ongoing discussion would seem to be common sense. Who would do that ?
How many times has it happened that it couldn't be adequately dealt with - without any need for the phrase 'original topic' in the guideline. If need be, why not say exactly what you said above:
So rather than:
d) Starting an original topic, i.e. a similar discussion is not already active.
You have the clearer:
d) Don't repeat a topic that's already active.

What would you consider to be 'a particularly impressive OP on Happiness ?

You see, the problem I have with this is:
If I had acted naturally in a more spontaneous manner rather than going through a lot of angst about structure and quality of OP, then I might have learned something a lot quicker and felt more motivated.
It would have been a real exploration, an adventure for an enquiring spirit.

Strolling in company, being peripatetic or chewing the fat - engaging with others - what could be more natural as a way to fulfil potential, process wellbeingness. Perhaps not impressive but who am I trying to please or make happy anyway ? The creation of a quality discussion is an ideal but not always practical.
Sometimes you just got to take a first step...and see where the walk/talk leads.

A promising topic imo. — Baden

I never did ask why you thought Happiness a promising topic.
I am beginning to think otherwise.
After all, isn't it enough that we have an idea of what it means ?
What would motivate an enquiry ?
It's all been said before. Where would we find the originality seemingly required by the guidelines ?

Having second thoughts.

Related to the ethical and meaningful aspect of Happiness. The notion of eudaemonia - flourishing and wellbeing.

( Sorry I've lost the reference/source - there are probably better ones elsewhere )

Aristotle

At his Lyceum in Athens, Aristotle developed a model for the maximisation of happiness that could be implemented by individuals and whole societies, and is still relevant today. It became known as ‘peripatetic philosophy’ because Aristotle conducted philosophical debates while strolling in company with his interlocutors.

The fundamental tenet of peripatetic philosophy is this: the goal of life is to maximise happiness by living virtuously, fulfilling your own potential as a human, and engaging with others – family, friends and fellow citizens – in mutually beneficial activities.

But did Aristotle ever give a definition of Eudaemonia ?

I'd like to see a discussion about happiness that deals with two main approaches, namely materialism vs meaning, with participants arguing which is better or is more likely to lead to happiness.
— praxis

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

Either way, you will still need to define what you mean by being or doing 'happy' or 'Happiness'.
I like the specific focus of your suggested discussion. Specifics, like that, could arise or spin off from unpacking the general definition of Baden:

Happiness: Something like the proper mixture of sensitivity, creativity and strength achieved through habit and self-reflection; a self-sustaining stability of not-wanting rather than the result of procuring something wanted; the satisfaction that comes with focusing outwards on a regular basis while recognizing choice and freedom in each moment in the context of a healthy and active imagination; originality in identity and character in a way that fosters same in others; consistent quality in thought and action.

The definitions were only to be there as a starter.
What do you think ?

Quadolotrib. In other words, I agree with that last paragraph. — S

Primodacro :sparkle:

Now that made me happy. Reading something beautifully expressed and creatively philosophical that made me think, nod a little in the right way, and is clearly from a position of life experience. No references to a particular philosopher, book or encyclopedia but a distillation of many. Probably. — Amity

I realise that I haven't offered up a definition of Happiness. Possibly because as a concept it is confusing and complex; difficult to pin down. A definition leaves out the sense of what happiness is.

Above, I responded to Baden's definition by saying it made me happy. This kind of happiness is temporary. It's a gladdening of the heart, as opposed to a constipation of the bowels.

However, there is a deeper, permanent kind of Happiness within. A kind of mental knowledge based on experience which might be termed Acceptance. It does not matter if I am happy or unhappy; pain free or suffering.
It is what it is. I think someone once said...

I can't distil my thoughts into one beautiful sentence but I am happy someone else can.

When did I first hear and use the word 'Happy' ? Or introduced to the concept as opposed to feeling it ?
What comes to mind is singing 'Happy Birthday'. But was I happy. I can't remember. It would probably be dependent on stuff and getting stuffed. Gifts, cake and candles; taking a deep breath and blowing them all out in one puff to make a secret wish...what for ? Happiness ? Nah. Too nebulous...

Some good thoughts regarding structure. Intro, main body, conclusion. But it sounds a bit like we are producing an essay for academic purposes. Perhaps that is what is required, but it's not what I was thinking of as an exploratory discussion. I need to think more about this. There would be no foregone conclusion. That might come at the end of the process.

I think the strength of an exploratory discussion which starts off with the few personal statements or definitions is that there is an immediate, closer, possibly more meaningful engagement. The weakness might be that it gets too personal with knee-jerk, careless responses.

We can perhaps try to unpack each view and discover how they match the main thoughts or influences in philosophy. Or even the psychological approach to 'Happiness' ? Wherever it leads...but perhaps not too far or we might end up in a field of barley.

I am enjoying this conversation - it is constructive and collaborative. Perhaps that is how the OP can be created. By the few not the one.

The outstanding problem for me would be who starts the thread.
Because that is usually the person who leads and maintains the conversation. I've already voiced my reservations about taking that role.

However, we could get creative with that too...
It could be one name but help might be offered by someone more experienced. Either during the discussion or via PM.

How does that sound?
To my ears it sounds like a severe case of overthinking. One thing I am good at it. Unfortunately it can lead to paralysis of action. Yeah, I should put Elvis on.... :cool: :starstruck:

I give up on women. :cry: — Purple Pond

Check your underlying assumptions and please don't generalise in my company. It brings me out in a rash; just like cut flowers :mask:

So following unenlightened's approach, a thread on Happiness could start with 2 or 3 contrasting views:

Purple Pond:
Happiness is a the mixture of positive emotions that include liveliness, euphoria, and satisfaction, and is mostly ineffable. It's what people experience at marriage and the birth of their first child. A kid feels happy at the water park. An adult is happy at the sight of her paycheck. What makes one person happy can put one person down, and happiness at expense of another is actually rather sad.

You ask what can we do to make people happy? Surely not something extremely contagious?


Baden:
Happiness: Something like the proper mixture of sensitivity, creativity and strength achieved through habit and self-reflection; a self-sustaining stability of not-wanting rather than the result of procuring something wanted; the satisfaction that comes with focusing outwards on a regular basis while recognizing choice and freedom in each moment in the context of a healthy and active imagination; originality in identity and character in a way that fosters same in others; consistent quality in thought and action.

S:
That's an easy one. Happiness is the feeling you get when you trample over other people's ideas.

Meh. I think I already know what happiness is, so I don't need other people telling me what they think it is. I don't even need to put it into words, least of all fancy-shmancy words.

----------

Some thing along these lines ?
What do you think ?

Edit to add unenlightened's contribution :

It's a cigar, I think, or a Shakespeare play.

So where can we find examples of a quality discussion - in terms of participation levels and how it is led and maintained ? Is the end as important as the beginning...does there need to be a conclusion or summary ?

Given Baden's earlier mention of unenlightenment, I searched through his Discussion history until I hit on one I could relate to:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/605/an-analysis-of-emotion/p1

I like the way it started with reference to a previous discussion, providing context:

It's emotional responses to crime that generate harmful actions that make us all worse off.
— andrewk

Emotional responses are the problem? Um.. no. It takes a hardening of the heart to be able to chop somebody's head off. The vileness actually starts with a lack of natural emotion.— Mongrel


Context.

The word 'Context' in blue * linked to:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/587/are-there-hidden-psychological-causes-of-political-correctness#Item_192

And then the OP continued with unenlightened's take:

The dispute above is speedily resolved with a simple proviso: "It depends what emotion."

Followed by a list...1 to 6.

I really admire the way this was done. And I am sure that there are others who have started and led quality discussions. In their own way but still within the guidelines.

Quite inspirational. Really. The level of knowledge, experience and engagement with firm but light touch.
Not sure about the ending...

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

* how is that done ? The easy word link. Cos I usually go all round the houses. Tiresome for all concerned.

Sing, little child, sing! And one day the ogre will sing with you and set you free... — Baden

...and they all lived happily ever after :smile:

Or not :sad:

Depending on the song they are singing.
If it's Ken Dodd's version of Happiness...

Happiness, happiness, the greatest gift that I possess
I thank the Lord that I've been blessed
With more than my share of happiness

Debatable.

My apologize, once again. A female here on this forum is like finding a needle in a haystack. Dear lady, please accept these :flower:
Good night. — Purple Pond

:flower: return to sender
The ratio of females to males is irrelevant.
On a forum, what matters is how you think and write. What ideas or problems are worth taking your time over. Stuff like that. Not making wrong assumptions is a good start.

What do others think?
— Amity

Meh. I think I already know what happiness is, so I don't need other people telling me what they think it is. I don't even need to put it into words, least of all fancy-shmancy words. — S

I think you protest too much. I think you admire Baden's definition of Happiness in a sentence.
I think you would love the chance to get right in there and rip it up.
But I could be wrong :wink:

I don't think S likes your question: What is happiness? He even created a whole discussion about his dislike of such questions. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3231/the-charade/p1
— Purple Pond

Yeah. The easiest way to answer those kind of questions is to consult a dictionary or an encyclopaedia. My meaning rarely conflicts or differs drastically with what can be found there. — S

Of course you know why that is, don't you ?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/how-does-a-word-get-into-the-dictionary

Dictionaries or encyclopedias are useful as a first point for clarification. Often you find more meanings than you first thought. A definition which mirrors your intended meaning in a discussion is a great way to lessen any misunderstandings.

What is wonderful about our thinking and language is that it can change. It is not static.
New words like 'meme' or - Daniel Dennett's 'deepity'.

And sometimes that is what philosophy is too good at. With some making up their own words for same meaning. It can be a bit of a pain in the neck...

Don't get any ideas. I only flirt with females. :broken: — Purple Pond

There ya go with your ass umptions again.
Good night.

:yawn:

Look, I'm sorry about calling you lazy. I shouldn't have. It looks like now you're resenting me. Oh, well. — Purple Pond

See now you're flirting with me :kiss:

You wanted someone else to run with your idea; take up the challenge and create a good discussion ?
— Amity
Yeah, except that they can't do, too busy, or are uninterested. — Purple Pond

So it wasn't a case of you being too lazy to do it for yourself, or to do the research...as per your accusatory reaction to me when I stated my preference.
Never mind.

Maybe you practice what you preach? — Purple Pond

Funny. That was my message to you.
Look back at your earlier suggestions to me, and then take them on board for your own topic/thread.
Or not.

Peace out.

Indeed, perhaps this discussion can be re-titled as 'The Laziness Thread'. Have an idea, but too lazy to write it out, and start a new discussion? You have come to the right place! Blah blah blah. — Purple Pond

Aw, don't give up on your good idea so soon. After all:

All you have to do is present your idea for discussion, and hopefully someone else will take up the challenge and create a good discussion.

I'll start, and this will serve as a template of how a type discussion could be requested:

I would like to see a discussion with the title: What is love? — Purple Pond

You wanted someone else to run with your idea; take up the challenge and create a good discussion ?

What is it Elvis sang ?

Don't procrastinate, don't articulate 
Girl, it's getting late, gettin' upset waitin' around 
A little less conversation, a little more action, please 
All this aggravation ain't satisfactioning me…


Just do it.
Or not.
No pressure...
:love:

Maybe you can be a little less lazy and do research? No pressure. Perhaps a good starting point would be to learn what other philosophers have said about happiness. Then you might have more confidence to create your own discussion. — Purple Pond

Yes. You are right. I am lazy.
So, sue me :roll:

Yeah, I probably should learn to keep my mouth shut. :chin: — Purple Pond

Nah, where would be the joy and happiness in learning if all we did was right ?
:wink: