A Lesson in Happiness

[xLUNCHxTIMEx]

First of all I would like it to be known that these are my theories and educated guesses on a subject that has plagued mankind for a long time.

If you have something to add or you disagree with something, please comment.

 

 

happiness is something we allow situations in our lives to change while we all have the mental ability to keep it alive at all times. this can also be used to define human nature lol. an example of this would be to say that you would never be happy unless you lived out your dream which is false, or to say that a relationship ending will cause you to go into depression. This is also false. You cause the emotions. The situations could be perceived as the devil or the trickster that tries to get you agitated. in teenage years emotions fluctuate until you get that deep IDGAF feeling, which is basically adulthood, or confidence gain. when you learn not to care in general is when you gain confidence. but confidence can obviously be taken too far and become arrogance or ignorance, which is what populates most of the confident world c; . the way to keep away from this path is to acknowledge and practice logic. (common sense) this is a common term that isnt commonly understood. the definition is basically to continuously practice an amateur understanding of everything and everyone (including yourself) which is where self awareness comes in. get to that on a different topic.

Id like to point out that this idea would trigger a thought in my mind that science and religion obviously have to work together if there is a god, and most religions try to teach people to be of a passive nature while maintaining confidence.

My main focus of this theory to explain that if happiness is used in conjunction with confidence and logic then you get a person of a passive nature that can achieve any goal they set out to achieve in an American lifestyle.

 

The great thing about this theory is that I have immense backup on the subject from various religions and science communities.

If it is already a credited idea dont hate, I am merely conversing.

Edited September 27, 2012 by xLUNCHxTIMEx

[Spyman]

The great thing about this theory is that I have immense backup on the subject from various religions...

Success, you made me smile.

[xLUNCHxTIMEx]

Success, you made me smile.

 

haha thanks, I just think this idea needs more credit, I know its been around forever, I mean look at Buddhism, or indian religions, but most people just dont get it. Its something that has to be taught unless you come to the conclusion

I am christian from birth and will remain in the belief that jesus is significant, but many christians these days have it all wrong about how to become happy.

[dimreepr]

Have a look at this thread you may find it interesting and possibly parallel, though, I have to warn you I am an atheist.

[zapatos]

happiness is something we allow situations in our lives to change while we all have the mental ability to keep it alive at all times. this can also be used to define human nature lol. an example of this would be to say that you would never be happy unless you lived out your dream which is false, or to say that a relationship ending will cause you to go into depression. This is also false. You cause the emotions.

I couldn't disagree with this more. Emotions are not something to call up on demand. They appear when they want to, not when I want them to. Emotions happen at a lower brain level, more similar to an automatic release of adrenaline than a conscious decision to sit down. We can consciously manage our response to emotions to some level, but we do not have the level of control over them that you suggest.

[xLUNCHxTIMEx]

I couldn't disagree with this more. Emotions are not something to call up on demand. They appear when they want to, not when I want them to. Emotions happen at a lower brain level, more similar to an automatic release of adrenaline than a conscious decision to sit down. We can consciously manage our response to emotions to some level, but we do not have the level of control over them that you suggest.

 

Im not suggesting anything supernatural here. Every negative emotion in the body can be calmed and soothed immediately after it takes place and even prevented. Its simply a matter of staying calm... The point (and this you cannot disagree with) is to limit the situations that have a grasp on ones emotions. Obviously there are situations in this world that have emotional effects which take time regardless, but these are not the same for everyone and its impossible to have it any other way.

 

oh and infact you can call up emotions on demand. its called referencing something that pisses you off.

 

Have a look at this thread you may find it interesting and possibly parallel, though, I have to warn you I am an atheist.

 

Props! great post thanks for the link

[zapatos]

Im not suggesting anything supernatural here. Every negative emotion in the body can be calmed and soothed immediately after it takes place and even prevented. Its simply a matter of staying calm... The point (and this you cannot disagree with) is to limit the situations that have a grasp on ones emotions. Obviously there are situations in this world that have emotional effects which take time regardless, but these are not the same for everyone and its impossible to have it any other way.

 

oh and infact you can call up emotions on demand. its called referencing something that pisses you off.

Can you provide evidence to support the claim that emotions can be prevented? As far as I can find, emotional responses can happen even before the conscious mind knows why. I'm particularly interested how you might be able to stop your glands from releasing hormones that are a part of emotions.

 

Most of what happens when an emotion is elicited happens nonconsciously. Often our body may already be in a state that represents anger before we know what is making us angry. The creation of this body state is automatic, largely preset by our genes to respond not to a particular thing but to certain categories of things.

 

For instance, when we generate states of fear or anger or disgust or happiness, we produce withdrawal behaviors or approach behaviors that have been preserved through evolution because they have proved advantageous to survival. We have inherited this system for sorting out what is good and what is bad, automatically, in order to preserve ourselves.

 

The power of such nonconscious processing is enormous. Many studies have shown that in normal individuals, the amygdala--a brain structure intimately involved in the fear response and in recognizing fear--will be activated even when a person is not consciously aware of having been presented with a fearful stimulus. The brain can pick up a signal that is well masked at the conscious level. Conversely, individuals with damage to the amygdala may lose the ability to detect negative stimuli, with unfortunate results in their lives.

 

http://www.loc.gov/loc/brain/emotion/Damasio.html

[xLUNCHxTIMEx]

I want to know why you are so determined to disprove this idea. I can easily give a real world example of opting out of an emotion and replacing it with another if you really want that, but your not disproving anything. You have to at least practice a passive nature to understand. If you do nothing but disagree its impossible because of the nature of the idea itself. Now I am done explaining this to someone who wouldnt try to understand it.

 

"The creation of this body state is automatic, largely preset by our genes to respond not to a particular thing but to certain categories of things." This only strengthens the theory.

Oh one more thing. The type of point you are trying to stress is meant for a different type of thread anyway.

Edited September 28, 2012 by xLUNCHxTIMEx

[zapatos]

I want to know why you are so determined to disprove this idea.

 

Sometimes I'm a little slow on the uptake. When in the OP you said...

 

If you have something to add or you disagree with something, please comment.

...I thought you meant if I disagree with something that I should comment.

 

If you just want responses from people who are in awe of your pronouncements, you should state that a little more clearly.

 

If you do nothing but disagree its impossible because of the nature of the idea itself.

Ah yes, the religion gambit. "To truly understand you must submit yourself completely. Accept without question. If you don't understand, the fault is with you for not trying hard enough."

 

Now I am done explaining this to someone who wouldnt try to understand it.

Nice. Rather than answer the question, simply attack the questioner.

Edited September 28, 2012 by zapatos

[xLUNCHxTIMEx]

First of all I answered your question with my second sentence.

 

Second of all, If you like an in depth explanation

Can you provide evidence to support the claim that emotions can be prevented?

like I suggested, then here you go. We as humans are habitual by nature. Correct? correct. We adapt and learn by taking in new ideas and storing them. We are information sponges if you will. How can you logically say that a person doesnt have the subconscious ability to memorize a feeling of a situation of anger or fear, along with memorizing what situations lead to it and simply changing the situation when the time comes. its trial and error all the way but there is an ending point where the situation just doesnt bother you anymore, it is called for lack of a better word habit. Heres the kicker. This explanation right here is something we all do every day and its how most people get through the day.

My thread discusses what to do on top of this to make any situation something that cant bother you or throw you off your balance of thoughts.

I would like to talk to some real people here who discuss "Philosophy", not biology.

And finally, who are you to say what the human mind can and cant do for sure, the mind is initially a sandbox for ideas.

 

Now please stay on topic or leave the thread.

[dimreepr]

Whilst I agree that we can learn to be 'happy', I have to side with zappatos on the point that emotions are part of our biological makeup and often, as suggested, hormones are produced without our conscious say so. My personal experience is, through conscious effort, this can reversed by eliminating our expectations and fears (except in, some, genuine cases of bi-polaror clinical depression) and as you suggest, practice.

 

If you're going to assert a position you have to be ready to back it up with evidence, you really can't decide, on a public forum, to dismiss genuine arguments or change the goal-posts to exclude them.

 

 

Edited September 28, 2012 by dimreepr

[xLUNCHxTIMEx]

Whilst I agree that we can learn to be 'happy', I have to side with zappatos on the point that emotions are part of our biological makeup and often, as suggested, hormones are produced without our conscious say so.

I never disagreed with this statement. in fact I explained my case the same way you are explaining this issue. I have NO CONCERN for this because its obvious that you can replace emotions EVEN IF you cant prevent them. My point here is to read the whole frickin post and not base your ideas off one word which could have multiple meanings.

I answered every question that was asked of me, but if you are in a philosophical forum and you are arguing something that has nothing to do with the idea itself (it doesn't disprove or build off any of the actual idea) then I will assume you have another means for replying to the forum and I will tell you to stay on topic. Please excuse me.

I explained with such stress in my first post about disagreeing because the nature of the idea tells people to change themselves and most will say fuck you given the chance. I wasn't trying to open this option up to the public.

Now if someone would like to re-read the first post and maybe "BUILD OFF OF IT" or disagree with something "PHILOSOPHICAL" then please reply. I have no interest in discussing technicalities which have no solid ground in the topic.

 

EDIT: hows this for evidence

Edited October 1, 2012 by xLUNCHxTIMEx

[zapatos]

I never disagreed with this statement. in fact I explained my case the same way you are explaining this issue. I have NO CONCERN for this because its obvious that you can replace emotions EVEN IF you cant prevent them. My point here is to read the whole frickin post and not base your ideas off one word which could have multiple meanings.

I answered every question that was asked of me, but if you are in a philosophical forum and you are arguing something that has nothing to do with the idea itself (it doesn't disprove or build off any of the actual idea) then I will assume you have another means for replying to the forum and I will tell you to stay on topic. Please excuse me.

I explained with such stress in my first post about disagreeing because the nature of the idea tells people to change themselves and most will say fuck you given the chance. I wasn't trying to open this option up to the public.

Now if someone would like to re-read the first post and maybe "BUILD OFF OF IT" or disagree with something "PHILOSOPHICAL" then please reply. I have no interest in discussing technicalities which have no solid ground in the topic.

 

EDIT: hows this for evidence

I am philosophically opposed to the idea that you can develop a sound argument prior to showing your premises to be true.

[imatfaal]

I am philosophically opposed to the idea that you can develop a sound argument prior to showing your premises to be true.

 

 

Surely if you show your premises to be true they are no longer your premises - those assertions of truth that you used as the basis of a logical argument to show that they were true have now become your premises. premises are assertions.

[zapatos]

Surely if you show your premises to be true they are no longer your premises - those assertions of truth that you used as the basis of a logical argument to show that they were true have now become your premises. premises are assertions.

I tried, but I couldn't find the point you were making. Are you saying I cannot request evidence of a premise in order to determine if an argument is sound? Maybe I'm using the terms incorrectly or am asking a recursive question?

 

The point I was trying to make was that the premise (a negative emotion can be prevented) is possibly not true. And until we know it is true, the argument cannot be considered sound.

 

Can you please restate your post?

[CharmingN]

I'm the marketing assistant for Robert Scheinfeld, a NY Times bestselling author who just wrote a new book on how to be happy. It's called "The Ultimate Key To Happiness." It offers a v-e-r-y different approach to defining what happiness really is, and a very different step-by-step path to experience it all the time, no matter what's going on around you. The Internet has gotten so complex. So many options. Can anyone here share ideas for how to get the word out there about this important new book? I'd love to hear your ideas. I'm sure there are tons of ideas I've never thought of before.

[xLUNCHxTIMEx]

lol.... no wonder he wants to disagree so much. Re-read the post you replied to lepton, then you'll understand primates post

Edited October 15, 2012 by xLUNCHxTIMEx

[N S]

Here are two really different points of view. Would not know what to believe until it is understood how much our emotions depend upon the biology of our body and how much on, well, outside the body, it might be called consciousness or something.

[Ceasium]

 

'Happiness is a word for a feeling, feelings are rarely understood in the moment, and are quikly forgotten and almost always misremembered, besides feelings are totally full of sh*t.'

 

I disagree with your point of view (if I misinterperted it, correct me). You are stating that you can strive towards a state of permanent happiness. The problem is, there is no such thing as permanent happiness. You can be permanently satisfied with your life, but this does not mean that you are happy. I am satisfied with my life, but I am occasionally happy (probably a few times per week). For instance if I'm with my friends chatting, fooling around etc. I am happy for a moment. Or if I understand a difficult mathematical equation/theorem after some time, I get happy for half an hour. And afterwards, all that I'm left with is satisfaction, not happiness.