Would you rather be intelligent or happy?

[tar]

Tri,

 

I forgot to tell you that I couldn't reach your links in my area. Perhaps I am not on the right continent.

 

Could be a nice analogy for the current vote.

 

I was looking at the intelligence bell curve after our recent drifts. My concern was whether I was applying myself to reality in an appropriate manner. Was my higher than normal intelligence a gift that I have squandered, or a blessing that I have used appropriately.

 

My dad is a psychologist, so he administered intellegence tests, and three times he did so, with his own child, me. I scored 142 early on (IQ being measured agaist others of your age), scored low 130s the second time and don't recall the exact numbers, or the results of the third because I think it showed a "falling back into the pack" and a move toward normal, rather than exceptional. Happiness wise, I was unhappy to realize I was not amazing, but just smarter than normal. It was not till yesterday I began to consider that i was inappropriately looking at the situation backward. I really do have higher intelligence than most and should look at the situation more as being of higher than average intelligencee, than as being unhappy that I can never reach 160 and look over IOTAs wall, or view Tri's link.

 

I am assuming here, that everybody reading this is above average, or of high or very high and even perhaps some of exceptional intelligence. Though we might be happy or sad to be a little closer to or farther away from 160, we unfortunately are also happy or sad to be separated our deviation from the norm. Happy that we can see certain things more clearly, and sad we cannot be content with the beer and dougnuts.

 

So I have some advice, that I am giving myself this morning. "SLOW DOWN". Everybody else can not keep up, and its not their fault. There is NOTHING they can do to get as intelligent as you.

And at the same time "keep moving" because you are smart and we need our leaters to pull us all along.

 

Thing is we can learn a lot from geese. The leader pulls the others along in their slip stream, and when he/she tires, he falls back into a position in someone elses slip stream, and the flight continues. And when a goose can no longer fly for some reason, another goose goes down and stays with the fallen, 'til they both can continue.

 

Saw a cover of a book at my Dad's house with James Joyce on the cover. He looked profoundly sad. Perhaps he flew to far ahead and was sad he had left the flight behind. Or maybe he was sad that he did not go down and stay with the fallen goose.

 

Either way its important to remember you are not the only goose that can fly.

 

Regards, TAR

 

PS I voted happy just to tie it up.

[turionx2]

I would rather be intelligent than happy because I do not want to be a salmon.

 

TAR and I were discussing this recently in a different context so my apologies for the wholesale paste:

 

The unexamined life: those who follow their biological urges and have children then slumber their way through the rest of their life, finding ways to pass the time in comfort or in a shallow pleasure that will dull the senses and stunt personal development. A life lived in only watching garbage TV programmes, shopping in an unconscious attempt to fill the void created by the questions that they are not asking of themselves, the challenges that they allow to go unmet. It is well known that salmon hatch in freshwater streams before developing to sexual maturity in the open ocean before making an epic journey back to their original freshwater streams in order to reproduce – they then die. To me, all of the people living unconsidered lives are just following the same blind unconscious biologically programmed desires, without even realising the natural forces that coerce then into so doing, and then pass on without having once used their brain to achieve something magnificent. These people are no better than salmon. I do not want to be a salmon. This state of unconscious comfort and subjugation to the will of natural selection is most obvious in the domesticity of suburbia – although it is not exclusive to suburbia. In this sense, some hardship is actually a hallmark of the pursuit of objectives worth pursuing.

 

You may recognise in these statements the intellectual positions of Socrates and Nietzsche - I have recently been watching ‘Philosophy: A Guide to Happiness’:

 

http://www.channel4....o-happiness/4od

 

Being unintelligent would necessitate living the unexamined life. Besides which, even if intelligence does not necessarily confer happiness (and definitely would not in the proposed hypothetical), it does at least allow for a modicum of self-respect, which is, I think, more important.

 

Since when are the salmons happy though? I see the salmons as individuals prone to addiction and this addiction masquerade's as happiness. An example would be that drinking does relax us, and the letting loose is an illusion of happiness.

 

If everyone was intelligent across the animal kingdom, who would be the food for the carnivores? Who would do the shit jobs in society? I for one am glad that salmons exist.

 

My definition of happiness, from my personal experience, is a strong internal stimulation that drives an individual to live life and a strong aversion to materialistic objects that serve absolutely no survival requirement. I would love to hear someone elses definition of happiness.

Edited November 4, 2013 by turionx2

[Tridimity]

Philosophy: A Guide to Happiness

 

Presented by Alain De Botton

 

Episode 1: Seneca on Anger

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foKMGulaYcg

 

Episode 2: Schopenhauer on Love and Happiness

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQl-Pl4vBgE

 

Episode 3: Epicurus on Happiness

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfsl530zTeg

 

Episode 4: Montaigne on Self-Esteem

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuhYIhz2SA0

 

Episode 5: Socrates on Self-Confidence

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWWsiUSUYpo

 

Episode 6: Nietzsche on Hardship

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2ouGbHjVUs

 

YouTube versions for those living outside of the UK

Since when are the salmons happy though? I see the salmons as individuals prone to addiction and this addiction masquerade's as happiness. An example would be that drinking does relax us, and the letting loose is an illusion of happiness.

 

 

Well, that’s a very good point. The salmons may or may not be happy in the sense of experiencing the release of endorphins. However, it holds true that salmon (probably) live an unconsidered life. So, it very much depends on the definition of happiness by the OP; my references to the sedation of thought and feeling in relation to the unconsidered human life perhaps are more aligned with a kind of shallow pleasure than with happiness. Still, if the states of intelligence and happiness are to be mutually exclusive, then any happy life must necessarily also be an unconsidered one. It is for this reason that I maintain my preference for intelligence over happiness.

 

 

If everyone was intelligent across the animal kingdom, who would be the food for the carnivores? Who would do the shit jobs in society? I for one am glad that salmons exist.

 

 

Carnivores would presumably go extinct and so resulting in a far more peaceful (and potentially happy) animal kingdom? Most people actually require that those whom they love and care for personally, and by extension the rest of humanity, are happy before they are able to be happy. And sometimes the most intelligent people do not secure, what would be considered by the majority, to be the ‘best’ jobs. Think Einstein and the Bern Patent Office.

 

 

My definition of happiness, from my personal experience, is a strong internal stimulation that drives an individual to live life and a strong aversion to materialistic objects that serve absolutely no survival requirement. I would love to hear someone else's definition of happiness.

 

 

Happiness is a sustained feeling or emotion. As such, the stimulation and aversion that you describe are just that – a stimulus or aversion – they are not the actuality of the sensation itself. An equivalent but equally fallacious statement would be, ‘chocolate is happiness’. Chocolate is the stimulus, it is not happiness.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Tridimity

[michel123456]

Happiness is a fairy tale.

 

I choose intelligence.

 

Dumb and happy is a nightmare.

[turionx2]

Tri,

 

Weird, those links didn't work for me.

 

These did. http://www.youtube.com/user/spookybuk/search?query=A+Guide+to+Happiness

Happiness is a fairy tale.

 

I choose intelligence.

 

Dumb and happy is a nightmare.

 

If you don't know what happiness is, how can you say that it is a fairy tale?

[iNow]

If you don't know what happiness is, how can you say that it is a fairy tale?

What makes you think Michel doesn't know what happiness is based on the post he made?

[Tridimity]

Finding this very interesting - related to happiness in the sense of freeing oneself from the jurisdiction of others:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=127BR5b8Hm4

 

Mind Control - The Mechanics of Mind Control - Tools for the Awakening

 

Especially relevant to my circumstances is the learned helplessness phenomenon

 

Time to take back control

 

[Ed: Okay so there is some quack in this one but there is also some useful advice]

Edited November 4, 2013 by Tridimity

[turionx2]

Well, that’s a very good point. The salmons may or may not be happy in the sense of experiencing the release of endorphins. However, it holds true that salmon (probably) live an unconsidered life. So, it very much depends on the definition of happiness by the OP; my references to the sedation of thought and feeling in relation to the unconsidered human life perhaps are more aligned with a kind of shallow pleasure than with happiness. Still, if the states of intelligence and happiness are to be mutually exclusive, then any happy life must necessarily also be an unconsidered one. It is for this reason that I maintain my preference for intelligence over happiness.

 

Unconsidered life to whom? to oneself or to others?

 

Carnivores would presumably go extinct and so resulting in a far more peaceful (and potentially happy) animal kingdom? Most people actually require that those whom they love and care for personally, and by extension the rest of humanity, are happy before they are able to be happy. And sometimes the most intelligent people do not secure, what would be considered by the majority, to be the ‘best’ jobs. Think Einstein and the Bern Patent Office.

 

Well, there isn't carnivores hunting humans down in developed countries. How is our peacefulness and happiness going for us in our (domesticated?) society?

 

I have never seen Einstein as intelligent and for this, he will always be a salmon in my eyes or a blockhead as Montaigne puts it. His wife, mileva, will always be intelligent in my eyes.

 

Happiness is a sustained feeling or emotion. As such, the stimulation and aversion that you describe are just that – a stimulus or aversion – they are not the actuality of the sensation itself. An equivalent but equally fallacious statement would be, ‘chocolate is happiness’. Chocolate is the stimulus, it is not happiness.

 

Are you saying that happiness is the result of the internal mental stimuli?

Edited November 4, 2013 by turionx2

[tar]

turionx2,

 

Thanks for finding a route to Tri's links.

 

I looked at the Socrates one and the Chomsky one.

 

Closed my eyes and just listened after about a half hour into Chomsky's and fell into a blissful sleep.

 

Those long videos usually turn me away. Specially now, at 12 o'clock at night when I saw the mind control link was well over an hour. AND then to come back and finish reading the thread and learn Tridimity thought a quack was in it.

 

Intelligence v happiness might suggest that intelligent people only get their happiness from complicated things, and that therefore the simple pleasures are worthless. But this is not true. Intelligent people LIKE beer and doughnuts, for the most part, and are willing to pay for them, which shows they must be worth something.

 

Had an insight myself about endorphins and human enjoyment and happiness about a decade ago, after reading an article that mentioned the chemicals released in the brain of a gambler, when he wins, are similar to the chemicals in some euphoric drugs.

 

Winning gets a reward. Could be as simple as winning a game of solataire or completing a puzzle, or straigtening a crooked picture on the wall. Gamblers lose time after time, just to get the reward of one win. Drug addicts go directly to the reward, and wind up feeling on top of the world, penniless in the gutter.

 

I think people develop strategies to set up false wins, or easy wins, just for the reward.

 

Examinining my own life, at the time, I saw I had some of the real victories already won. Steady job to pay the bills, wife to share my life with, daughters to carry my genes into the future...and looked for the easy wins, that didn't cost too much money or time or hurt anybody elses chances at easy wins. Developed the philosphy that the purpose of life was to live, and to make it possible for others to do the same.

 

I was a philosophy major in college for a few years, so I already knew the unexamined life thing. Learned the lesson way too well, as I am often reprimanded by those around me, for overthinking things.

 

And in the 40 years since my college days, have also learned that others are perfectly capable of examining their own lifes, and making choices as to how they are going to get their wins.

 

My routes are no better than theirs, and together in society WE have developed many ways to allow each other easy wins and happiness.

 

Sure there are many that make the wrong choices and wind up powerless to control their own lives, and get dependent on others. I don't know what to do about that, other than to consider that people make their own beds. It breaks my heart to see people I love homeless at the shelter, but short of taking in the world, there is little I can do, about other people's lack of paying attention to the winning of the real victories first, that will ensure the bottom layers of Maslov's hierarchy of needs are met, before going after the wins at the higher level, or going after wins that leave you in the gutter

 

Perhaps James Joyce cannot be happy until the rest of the world is.

 

Personally I am content with sitting here, with my wife and daughter safe and warm upstairs, typing to you folk, trying to figure out the riddles of the world, smoking my cigarettes, and making my own choices, setting my own goals short and long term, and going after as many winable ones I can arrange. Some of the big ones, we already do together, and I do my part in them, but I think right now, I will go upstairs and get a peice of halloween candy for myself. A peanutbutter cup to be exact.

 

I think victorywise, in terms of human achievement, peanutbutter cups rank third after indoor plumbing and electricity.

 

Regards, TAR

I remember how wonderful it felt to see the lights come back on after Sandy. Eight days taking sponge baths and going down to the lake for buckets of water to flush the toilets. Got my dad's generator after his lights came back, and spent my time hunting gas and going out of state to get it for the generator.

 

Thanksgiving is coming up. Time of year when families get together, put out a great spread, and count their blessings. Take stock of the happiness we already have, that we have together put. The wins we rely on each other to constantly have at hand.

 

Our collective intelligence has already achieved much happiness.

What's the name of that Virgin Airlines guy? Was watching a peice on him on Bloomberg a few months ago. Struck me that he builds companies for a win. Then moves on and builds another one. I don't work on that level, for my wins. I play Civilization.

[Tridimity]

Unconsidered life to whom? to oneself or to others?

 

Well, there isn't carnivores hunting humans down in developed countries. How is our peacefulness and happiness going for us in our (domesticated?) society?

 

I have never seen Einstein as intelligent and for this, he will always be a salmon in my eyes or a blockhead as Montaigne puts it. His wife, mileva, will always be intelligent in my eyes.

 

Are you saying that happiness is the result of the internal mental stimuli?

 

To oneself.

 

Humans are not under threat of predation (for the most part), and I will grant that this is no guarantee of happiness, but I am failing to see what the presence or absence of the concept of carnivorousness has to do with the topic of the thread.

 

"I have never seen Einstein as intelligent" - Okay, I think you're on your own here

 

I'm saying that happiness is an emotion experienced upon release of certain neurotransmitters/hormones - including dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin and endorphins - and binding to their respective receptors on target cells. As such, the stimuli may initiate this physiological response - but they are not the physiological response in and of themselves.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Tridimity

[CaptainPanic]

Happiness is a fairy tale.

 

I choose intelligence.

 

Dumb and happy is a nightmare.

 

If you'd be dumb enough, you wouldn't know the difference.

 

You seem (I'm not sure) to assume that you'd be dumb and happy, but also ambitious with regards to your intelligence which in turn would make you unhappy (and then you'd be dumb and unhappy, which is a nightmare)? I imagine 'dumb and happy' to be something like a pet dog in a good family. I don't think it would be a bad life.

[Tridimity]

 

If you'd be dumb enough, you wouldn't know the difference.

 

You seem (I'm not sure) to assume that you'd be dumb and happy, but also ambitious with regards to your intelligence which in turn would make you unhappy (and then you'd be dumb and unhappy, which is a nightmare)? I imagine 'dumb and happy' to be something like a pet dog in a good family. I don't think it would be a bad life.

 

The point at which the decision is made, which of the two pills to swallow, will have a large impact on the outcome. For example, if the decision is made under our current circumstances, we are sufficiently intelligent to be able to imagine each of the scenarios and to compare and contrast them; we also each have had a measure of happiness and unhappiness, and are able to contemplate upon this. What now seems to be creeping into the discussion, is a consideration of the after-thoughts (hinsight) that a person living under their new conditions might think or feel - given their limitations of intelligence or emotional capacity respectively. For example, one argument that seems to be arising, is that 'you wouldn't care about being intelligent or unintelligent if you had chosen the happiness route.' Well, this might be true. But I choose to make the decision beforehand, using the sensibilities that I have now, rather than thinking with the perspective of the emotionally sedated and intellectually challenged version of myself that would result from choosing constant happiness. No other version of myself than the pre-pill version, if you will, is capable of making a reasoned and emotionally-balanced decision.

[Danijel Gorupec]

I always considered intelligence as a tool/resource that we use to achieve our goal - happines.

 

I am surpirsed so many of you preffer intelligence (a tool)... Are you then also the same type of people that enjoy working on a problem better than having the problem solved?

[CaptainPanic]

Tridimity, that is a very good argument. You explain the two different underlying assumptions that people based their choice on. Since these are different, we should probably never agree.

Perhaps our OP (turionx2) can explain which is the intended point of view?

 

Are you then also the same type of people that enjoy working on a problem better than having the problem solved?

 

It's the classic different betwee Scientists and Engineers

[StringJunky]

Danijel Gorupec, on 05 Nov 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:Danijel Gorupec, on 05 Nov 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

I always considered intelligence as a tool/resource that we use to achieve our goal - happines.

 

I am surpirsed so many of you preffer intelligence (a tool)... Are you then also the same type of people that enjoy working on a problem better than having the problem solved?

It's the journey that matters to some, not the arrival.

Edited November 5, 2013 by StringJunky

[Tridimity]

I always considered intelligence as a tool/resource that we use to achieve our goal - happiness

 

 

Intelligence can certainly be considered in this way, and this is the way in which, perhaps, most people aim to use their intelligence. The utility of intelligence definitely manifests as increases in an individual's knowledge and, if they communicate that knowledge and choose to contribute - then it will manifest as increases in humanity's collective knowledge. Knowledge is, of course, neither intrinsically benign nor malign but may be differentially exploited to either serve or to destroy aspects of the human endeavour - consider the atomic bomb versus antibiotics. However, the point that I wanted to make, is that the intelligent being is worth more than merely what they are able to contribute to society in a utilitarian sense; there is also an intrinsic beauty and profundity in that intelligence.

[CharonY]

I would prefer to be intelligent enough to pursue happiness rather than misery.

[turionx2]

What makes you think Michel doesn't know what happiness is based on the post he made?

Fairy tale is fiction. Happiness isn't fiction.

 

Since when are the salmons happy though? I see the salmons as individuals prone to addiction and this addiction masquerade's as happiness. An example would be that drinking does relax us, and the letting loose is an illusion of happiness.

Well, that’s a very good point. The salmons may or may not be happy in the sense of experiencing the release of endorphins. However, it holds true that salmon (probably) live an unconsidered life. So, it very much depends on the definition of happiness by the OP; my references to the sedation of thought and feeling in relation to the unconsidered human life perhaps are more aligned with a kind of shallow pleasure than with happiness. Still, if the states of intelligence and happiness are to be mutually exclusive, then any happy life must necessarily also be an unconsidered one. It is for this reason that I maintain my preference for intelligence over happiness.

Unconsidered life to whom? to oneself or to others?

To oneself.

 

 

 

Its impossible that "any happy life must necessarily also be an unconsidered one" to oneself since happiness encompasses self-love, self-esteem, joy and other positive attributes.

 

Have you ever heard that you have to love yourself first before you can love anyone else?

 

If everyone was intelligent across the animal kingdom, who would be the food for the carnivores? Who would do the shit jobs in society? I for one am glad that salmons exist.

Carnivores would presumably go extinct and so resulting in a far more peaceful (and potentially happy) animal kingdom? Most people actually require that those whom they love and care for personally, and by extension the rest of humanity, are happy before they are able to be happy. And sometimes the most intelligent people do not secure, what would be considered by the majority, to be the ‘best’ jobs. Think Einstein and the Bern Patent Office.

Well, there isn't carnivores hunting humans down in developed countries. How is our peacefulness and happiness going for us in our (domesticated?) society?

Humans are not under threat of predation (for the most part), and I will grant that this is no guarantee of happiness, but I am failing to see what the presence or absence of the concept of carnivorousness has to do with the topic of the thread.

 

 

 

 

I expressed my view that salmons are here to be food for carnivores and/or to do the shit jobs in our society, to be the worker bee's, because they lack intelligence and you expressed/questioned if not being under the threat of predation might lead to "a far more peaceful (and potentially happy) animal kingdom?" Since humans are animals, I then sarcastically asked "How is our peacefulness and happiness going for us in our (domesticated?) society?" Since we aren't under the threat of predation.

 

Bold part: We agree.

 

My definition of happiness, from my personal experience, is a strong internal stimulation that drives an individual to live life and a strong aversion to materialistic objects that serve absolutely no survival requirement. I would love to hear someone else's definition of happiness.

Happiness is a sustained feeling or emotion. As such, the stimulation and aversion that you describe are just that – a stimulus or aversion – they are not the actuality of the sensation itself. An equivalent but equally fallacious statement would be, ‘chocolate is happiness’. Chocolate is the stimulus, it is not happiness.

Are you saying that happiness is the result of the internal mental stimuli?

I'm saying that happiness is an emotion experienced upon release of certain neurotransmitters/hormones - including dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin and endorphins - and binding to their respective receptors on target cells. As such, the stimuli may initiate this physiological response - but they are not the physiological response in and of themselves.

 

 

 

 

I never said they were.

 

My vocabulary on happiness seems correct. I said, stimulation that drives an individual to live life.

 

stimulation

the act of arousing an organism to action

 

drive

an innate, biologically determined urge to attain a goal or satisfy a need.

 

My non-neurochemistry definition of happiness encompasses the initial binding of neurochemicals to their receptors in a controlled manner, however that may be, and the subsequent reactions that lead to the feeling to live life with a strong aversion to materialistic objects that serve absolutely no survival requirement.

 

The point of the natural instinct of aversion towards external stimuli is to my understanding so that the internally stimulated neurochemistry doesn't come to a halt. You have to feel "joy" and then go into a store where there is music playing to know what I mean. You'll come out of the store feeling drugged with the music stuck in your head.

 

Addiction can also produce the same neurochemical reaction(s) that you describe but temporarely until another short lived stimulation is required. The vicious cycle of addicion. It seems that a lot of people, especially those on youtube videos, are confusing addiction with happiness just like people confuse lust with love.

[Tridimity]

It's impossible that "any happy life must necessarily also be an unconsidered one" to oneself since happiness encompasses self-love, self-esteem, joy and other positive attributes.

 

 

In the context of the OP, any happy life must be led by an unintelligent person; one who is incapable of the deep reflection necessary in order to live a considered life. Hence, within these parameters, choosing happiness over intelligence would necessitate living the unconsidered life.

 

Here you are choosing to insert into the discussion your own definition of happiness, which is fine, but I wish that you had done so earlier so that we would all be on a level playing field. I, for one, would not define happiness in this way. Self-love and self-esteem require a good deal of self-reflection and that level of reflection would be lacking in a person who chose happiness rather than intelligence.

Have you ever heard that you have to love yourself first before you can love anyone else?

 

 

I was not born yesterday, so yes.

 

I expressed my view that salmons are here to be food for carnivores and/or to do the shit jobs in our society, to be the worker bee's, because they lack intelligence and you expressed/questioned if not being under the threat of predation might lead to "a far more peaceful (and potentially happy) animal kingdom?" Since humans are animals, I then sarcastically asked "How is our peacefulness and happiness going for us in our (domesticated?) society?" Since we aren't under the threat of predation

 

 

 

Sorry, I still don’t understand why you introduced the concept of predation into the thread.

 

 

[Tridimity: I'm saying that happiness is an emotion experienced upon release of certain neurotransmitters/hormones - including dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin and endorphins - and binding to their respective receptors on target cells. As such, the stimuli may initiate this physiological response - but they are not the physiological response in and of themselves.]

 

 

 

[Turion: I never said they were]

 

 

 

[Turion post 27: My definition of happiness, from my personal experience, is a strong internal stimulation that drives an individual to live life and a strong aversion to materialistic objects that serve absolutely no survival requirement. I would love to hear someone elses definition of happiness.]

 

 

“My definition of happiness… is a strong internal stimulation that drives an individual to life…”

 

It sounds to me like you equated happiness with the stimulus. In fact, if you strip out the adjectives, it reads “happiness is a stimulation”. You may have meant something else, but all I have to go on is the words you use, and you used the ones above.

 

just like people confuse lust with love

 

 

Love is a series of chemical reactions occurring in the body over time to encourage mating and fidelity; a mechanism that has evolved as a means to propagate genes. Lust is a large part of this biological process. I don't think there is any kind of romantic/sexual love that lacks self-interest; sexual attraction is driven by a desire to merge genomes with the person deemed most fit (in evolutionary terms), so that we may propagate our own genes. Other types of love may be disinterested; e.g. love between friends or strangers or extended family, but they are not the types of love that will be confused with lust. I know it is less picture postcard friendly this way - but that is reality and one ought not to pussyfoot around the truth.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Tridimity

[turionx2]

In the context of the OP, any happy life must be led by an unintelligent person; one who is incapable of the deep reflection necessary in order to live a considered life. Hence, within these parameters, choosing happiness over intelligence would necessitate living the unconsidered life.

 

Here you are choosing to insert into the discussion your own definition of happiness, which is fine, but I wish that you had done so earlier so that we would all be on a level playing field. I, for one, would not define happiness in this way. Self-love and self-esteem require a good deal of self-reflection and that level of reflection would be lacking in a person who chose happiness rather than intelligence.

I am the OP.

 

Then, by your way of thinking, any life led by an intelligent person must be led in total misery, one who is incapable of self-love, self-esteem and joy necessary in order to live a considered life.

 

Self-love and self-esteem don't require self-reflection at all since they are all 3 different attributes. I actually started self-reflecting after feeling happiness, then I moved to a polluted city and I let the air pollution mess with my neurochemistry and kill my happiness.

 

Self-love and self-esteem are encompassed with happiness. When an individual feels self-love and self-esteem, they don't care whether someone loves and respects them because they love and respect themselves internally.

 

It sounds to me like you equated happiness with the stimulus. In fact, if you strip out the adjectives, it reads “happiness is a stimulation”. You may have meant something else, but all I have to go on is the words you use, and you used the ones above.

I equated it with the end result of the stimulus. You forgot "that drives an individual to live life".

 

Love is a series of chemical reactions occurring in the body over time to encourage mating and fidelity; a mechanism that has evolved as a means to propagate genes. Lust is a large part of this biological process. I don't think there is any kind of romantic/sexual love that lacks self-interest; sexual attraction is driven by a desire to merge genomes with the person deemed most fit (in evolutionary terms), so that we may propagate our own genes. Other types of love may be disinterested; e.g. love between friends or strangers or extended family, but they are not the types of love that will be confused with lust. I know it is less picture postcard friendly this way - but that is reality and one ought not to pussyfoot around the truth.

It may be your truth but I don't agree with everything you wrote. My personal experience says that Lust is a short lived feeling that goes away after a couple connects deeply from kissing. If they don't connect, it is sex addiction, aka sex buddy or whatever you want to call sex without kissing.

 

Love involves a lot of kissing to continue the production of neurochemicals, Lust doesn't.

 

This is interesting: http://www.byz.org/~david/neuro/NGF%20and%20romantic%20love.pdf

Edited November 6, 2013 by turionx2

[tar]

Thread,

 

Perhaps I took the question wrong. I thought it was an either or question. As in if you could be happy without being intelligent, or intelligent without being happy, which would you chose.

 

I think the question is basically a no brainer.

 

Regards, TAR2

[iNow]

A "no-brainer" how, TAR? Different people will choose different answers to this question and both opinions are equally valid, yet implicit in your comment here is the suggestion that there is only one right answer available. Can you explain your meaning?

Edited November 6, 2013 by iNow

[Tridimity]

I am the OP.

 

 

I know

Then, by your way of thinking, any life led by an intelligent person must be led in total misery, one who is incapable of self-love, self-esteem and joy necessary in order to live a considered life.

 

 

 

No, that is not what I am saying. Ordinarily, an intelligent person’s life will involve periods of happiness and unhappiness. The hypothetical that you introduced in the OP was to choose between two mutually exclusive states (at least, that’s how I interpreted it, please correct if necessary): intelligence versus happiness. In this context, an intelligent person’s life would be filled with unhappiness, by definition. The reflective capabilities necessary in order to live a considered life are also necessary in order to achieve self-love and self-esteem.

 

Self-love and self-esteem don't require self-reflection at all since they are all 3 different attributes. I actually started self-reflecting after feeling happiness, then I moved to a polluted city and I let the air pollution mess with my neurochemistry and kill my happiness.

 

 

Self-reflection is possible under conditions of happiness or unhappiness but it is only possible under conditions of a degree of intelligence that will suffice in order to facilitate self-reflection. As far as I can tell, it is not possible to achieve self-esteem or self-love in the absence of self-reflection. In order to love and to respect ourselves as individuals, we must make a judgment that is predicated on reason. This may involve the acknowledgement of certain traits within the self that we deem worthy of veneration; it may involve recognition of the fact that most of the time the self has positive intentions and takes actions towards fulfilling those intentions – often in the context of the individual’s own moral framework. I suppose it is possible to achieve a kind of ‘self-love’ that is based on the opinions of people external to the self (society) however I do not think that this can really be considered bona fide ‘self-love’ because it is prone to fluctuate with the changing whims and judgment calls of the crowd, and because there is no substantial reasoning behind that self-judgment (other than ‘X approves of me. I must be worth something. Therefore I have a positive estimation of myself, on the condition that X approves of me.’) This kind of self-judgment would more aptly be described as vanity. I will add the caveat that, once a person has come to know themself and to judge themself according to their own standards and reasoning, then it is arguably not inappropriate for them to value the approval of those individuals whom they know deeply and whom they respect and/or love. The point is that they are still allowing themself to be judged according to standards or ideals with which they concur. Hence why it is possible to respect and/or love oneself and also to appreciate the respect and/or love of another.

 

Self-love and self-esteem are encompassed with happiness. When an individual feels self-love and self-esteem, they don't care whether someone loves and respects them because they love and respect themselves internally.

 

 

 

I will agree in that individuals experiencing self-love and self-esteem are more likely to be happy, all else being equal.

 

I equated it with the end result of the stimulus. You forgot "that drives an individual to live life"

 

I didn’t forget it, I just didn’t think that it was relevant.

 

To me, your definition seems to have the same error as this:

 

‘My definition of driving, from my personal experience, is a fuel-based stimulation that drives a vehicle to move.’

 

The stimulus (fuel) is necessary for driving, but it is not equivalent to the state of driving. However I am willing to let this semantics game go, if you like, because I think in actuality your intended definition of happiness is close to the mark, even if you did not express it clearly in writing.

 

It may be your truth but I don't agree with everything you wrote. My personal experience says that Lust is a short lived feeling that goes away after a couple connects deeply from kissing. If they don't connect, it is sex addiction, aka sex buddy or whatever you want to call sex without kissing.

 

 

It’s not exclusively ‘my truth’ (I never seek to claim absolute truth) – it is the scientific perspective on love; the biochemistry and physiological aspects of love are well documented. You may prefer not to consider the fundamental reasons why humans behave in the way that they do when mating and pair-bonding – or you may prefer to think of it in subjective rather than objective terms – and that is perfectly acceptable, but it does not change the fact that lust is a necessary component of love in the context of a romantic/sexual relationship.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Tridimity

[tar]

iNow,

 

"A "no-brainer" how, TAR? Different people will choose different answers to this question and both opinions are equally valid, yet implicit in your comment here is the suggestion that there is only one right answer available. Can you explain your meaning?"

 

It was a double or triple meaning joke.

 

My muses, influenced substantially by your "Religion hijacks neurocortical mechanisms" thread are leading me to believe that we must be fueled by some very basic principles, that start with simple drives, simple question/answer principles that build into the complex ideas of purpose and will, victory and defeat, power and oppression, love and hate, progress and self-destruction. The desire to love the world and make it right, and the inability to actually enforce ones internal order on the external world to the intended extent...and a whole bunch of other human considerations.

 

The "no brainer" joke was basically saying that if we didn't have a brain, we wouldn't be in this position of experiencing happiness (the endorphins or whatever), because the rewards we get, for finding the answer is probably why we search for them. We would have no need to find answers, if finding the answer did not make us feel good. If finding food did not answer hunger, we would not look for it. We wouldn't move. We would sit still and expire.

 

So my explanation for intelligence's role in evolution is bound tightly to reward and punishment, having a way to eliviate the bad feelings of hunger, pain, loneliness, fear, and such, and being "happy" when you eliviate those states. An internal drive to answer those questions that fits better and better with the ability of the organism to survive and pass on its pattern as the pattern works better and better at fitting with its environment.

 

Things "want" to live. If they are alive. And the alive things have found a way to answer all the questions they have to answer inorder to exist.

 

Built into this scheme, in the case of the human, is our ability to build an analog model of the outside world and navagate that world imaginarily, with little energy expenditure, searching out the correct combination of motor neuron fireings, before we actually fire the neurons to move our muscles toward our goal. (as evidenced by our predictive motor circuitry).

 

But why would we scratch, without an itch? Why would we eat without hunger? If answering these questions was not pleasurable, if we did not get a reward for eliviating discomfort? If we did not have a desire to "make it right", to win a victory, to complete something, to answer a question?

 

The answer is we would rather be happy, the question is how best to achieve that for the most, without raising unanswerable questions for others.

 

"no brainer" was a joke. We simply cannot be alive and human, without one. And we, of course, want to be happy, that's the motive force.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited November 6, 2013 by tar

[Tridimity]

TAR,

 

It is possible to experience a kind of happiness (in the sense of experiencing the binding of the aforementioned neurotransmitters and hormones to their respective receptors) in the absence of intelligent decision making – drug abusers do it all the time. No intelligence required. Happiness is the evolutionarily programmed motive for engaging in behaviours that favour survival and/or reproduction (think, orgasm) and so existing in a condition of constant (undeserved, in evolutionary terms) happiness would do more to harm propagation of the species than anything else. I maintain that I would choose intelligence over happiness. I am not sure if this is what you were getting at?

 

Tri

Amalgams of our aliases. RitRat.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Tridimity