Some people say you can't know happiness until you know sadness. You can't know wealth until you've known poverty. I think there is some truth to it from my observation of rich people. Got big house, big car, women, lots of money, and still not happy liao.

I started thinking about it when I saw people playing video games. If someone took your game away, you will be mad. The question is why, Your real-life survival doesn't depend on the game. Some say it is a time-waster becoz you burn 40-50 hours and got nothing but red eyes but it is so important in your life that you cannot let it go. Shouldn't you be thanking the guy who takes it away because he's relieving you of a problem? No game, no need to worry about high score, right?

A video game is an imaginary challenge. So is skydiving, street racing, learning music, etc. We don't actually need to do these things to survive but we do it anyway. We actually spend a staggering the amount of energy and money trying to solve imaginary problems, to score an imaginary goal. If we succeed, we feel good about ourselves. We get self esteem and confidence, something to brag about. If we don't, we try again.

Everybody says they hate problems but guess what we do when we have no problems. We start looking for a problem to solve. A hobby, a sport, a project, something that can make us declare, "Yes!! I did it!!"

That's why I think we need our problems to be happy. What do you think?

This might help with the question.

In your opinion, what is happiness? Is it a) the absence of problems? or b) our ability to conquer them?

If (a) then techincally you are happiest when you are dead. If (b), if we could remove all the challenges in our lives, then we also remove any possibility for us to be happy because without challenges there is nothing more to conquer. This is another way of saying we need pain and problems to be happy. (Yup it sounds kinda s&m twisted but I don't know how else to put it.)

Next time you start wishing oh, if only all my problems would disappear, I would be so happy, be careful of your wish. Because if what I think is right, you'll be more miserable than happy if all your problems disappear.

What do you think?

I agree.
For joy is when problems are no longer problems.

solving problems one feels relief. while yes, feeling relief leads to feeling joy, feeling joy does not necessarily have to come from feeling reliefed.

---

Added on May 4, 2010, 10:53 pmhappiness is the absence of sadness. it does not mean that sadness has to be removed. it simply means sadness isnt there.

but we do not normally feel happiness unless first sadness/anguish is felt. but not being able to notice the feeling of happiness doesnt mean we are not happy.

Just like health. a person does not need to be sick to be healthy. but when one is healthy one does not notice it. we dont think too much about it. we just have it.



This post has been edited by teongpeng: May 4 2010, 10:53 PM

you get happy when you solve problems. The absence of problems is not happiness.

Its like, humans can't live without work. The satisfaction after solving a hard problem, the joy it brings - that is happiness

Thanks for your opinion guys.

teongpeng says happiness is the absence of sadness. Something Else says the absence of problems is not happiness.

Could happiness be defined by describing what it is than what its not? We do that in physics where cold is merely the absence of heat. There is no such thing as 'cold.' If happiness is the absence of sadness, then could it be that there is really no such thing as happiness?

It sounds trivial but I am trying to figure out what people really mean when they say they are looking for happiness. The other day a fren said she wanted to enjoy herself so she went shopping with her friends. Ended up with a $1,000 credit card bill. She will be working 6 months to pay that off, dealing with people she rather not deal with. So we find happiness by putting ourselves thru more torture? That's why my mind couldn't compute.

Consider this definition of happiness. Happiness is to find one's hearts desire. Would you look at happiness differently as oppose to taking the dialectic approach (absence of sadness)? Consider also this definition. Problems are obstacle ecounter. The challenge to tackle the problem is an attitude question.

I am seeing the happiness by the degree of level; whether the person has high / low level of happiness. Happiness level is fluctuating. A person is happy or not happy can be seen by cumulative scores of his / her happiness level.

Seeking the happiness is possible, thus for example some people go shopping to increase the happiness level. Then they will be happy with it. Here, shopping become one part for the cumulative scores in happiness. the other parts for example a good family, loyal friends etc...

The problem I have with defining happiness as satisfying one's desire is that it is a double edged sword. I buy the car of my dreams, I am satisfied & happy. But for that I have to pay back the loan for 5 years. I develop a fear of losing my job which will mean separating from the thing I love. Fear is the opposite of happiness.

Same thing if you have a beautiful girlfriend, the girl of your dreams. You are happy but the problem is, 20 other guys may also think she is beautiful. Sometimes that create problem for her and for you. You fear losing her. Fear is the opposite of happiness.

Wherever there is sunshine there is always a shadow. Not trying to be negative minded but just describing something obvious from my point of view.

Beastboy,

The PROBLEM is you get caught in DUALITY.

You BELIEVE that is GOOD and BAD. But, they are Ying and Yang. They co-exist. The GOOD and BAD is just from YOUR POV. It does not change the FACT that they are Ying and Yang. Neither good or bad. It just IS.

http://www.101zenstories.com/index.php?story=31

<< Everything is Best

When Banzan was walking through a market he overheard a conversation between a butcher and his customer.

"Give me the best piece of meat you have," said the customer.

"Everything in my shop is the best," replied the butcher. "You cannot find here any piece of meat that is not the best."

At these words Banzan became enlightened.>>

Everything is BEST.

To be enlightened, you have to TRANSCEND the DUALITY.

Dreamer

P.S.: It is VERY SIMPLE. If you want to be HAPPY, then, you are HAPPY. If not, you are NOT. It is ALL up to YOU. You DO NOT NEED anything else. It is ALL within YOU.

This post has been edited by dreamer101: May 9 2010, 08:53 AM

What u say is true, dreamer101.

If percpeptions make reality, I would say 99.99% of the world population is caught up in duality.

Beastboy,

There are NO REALITY. There are ALL ILLUSIONS.

Your eyes see something and YOUR BRAIN interpret it to be something. Everything that you SEE is an interpretation by YOU BRAIN. You have NO IDEA what that thing is anyhow. You just have AN ILLUSION or APPROXIMATION of what it IS.

Dreamer

next time a speeding car is heading towards you,remember don't evade and let it run over you,since it's an illusion anyhow...

But you see. The moment you think "remember don't evade and let it run over you", it's already making you submitting to the illusion, because you actually did believe there's a car coming for you. What dreamer101 meant was: "Nothing it's really what it seems to be".

this does not solve the problem either,the car is apparently heading towards you,if you believe it's an illusion then by all means you would not attempt to avoid it...
and let me ask you something,dare to apply this 'philosophy' in situations like this?

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 9 2010, 01:48 PM

The idea is to understand the philosophy, not to dare yourself to test it with situations. Because when you "attempt" to test it, that attempt already has a precognition that you actually believed that the illusion is real, hence it will be real, and hence the car heading towards you is about run you over.

interesting notion,so everything is illusion,including yourself?


This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 10 2010, 12:29 AM

You can't really see yourself until you look into a mirror, or let someone else sees you right? What you perceive may be an illusion, but how you perceive it, and what you do, whether in actions or inaction, that is actually real.

no. everything is REAL. only perceptions are illusions.

This post has been edited by teongpeng: May 9 2010, 03:24 PM

i understand what you're trying to say,it's just that at first i thought what dreamer101 said was 'EVERYTHING is illusion' so i went on to suggest the consequence if we were to instinctively assume everything happens around us is unreal,i hope this clarifies my stance...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 9 2010, 04:18 PM

The cup of water is an illusion.

But what if you take the cup, drink it, savor it, appreciate it, washing the cup diligently, keep the water in a safe place for future enjoyment?

All those experiences that came from just an illusion are real. However, you must not forget that the cup of water is only a cup of water until you react towards it, otherwise it is as good as NOTHING, nothing, but a mere cup of water, as if it just there as an image which can be ignored and be forgotten at that particular moment. Don't believe me? Give it a few more days or perhaps weeks. Not only you will forget about that specific cup of water, but you will behave AS IF it NEVER existed. I believe this may be a stance of how all things are really an illusion. It is our "will" and "whole-self" (be it spiritual or physical) that gives meaning to things around us, and consciously the way we react and interact with these "illusions, i.e. tangibility" also tells a lot about ourselves, and might just give a glimpse of what life is supposed to be.

The absence of problems removes the value of happiness, and I will have to say it's (b).

Happiness is such a revolting experience that it was created in such a way that it MUST include the lack/absence of it, i.e. sadness, so that you can be happy about it.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: May 9 2010, 04:36 PM

disagree.

as i had explained before...to be healthy one does not need to be unhealthy. To be happy one does not need to be unhappy beforehand.

If that's the case, what is the meaning of unhappiness when it's obviously an experience most will shun?

Deadlocks,

Experience is an event. It is UP to us to interpret whether it is HAPPY or UNHAPPY.

A) Most people are AFRAID to be HAPPY.

B) Most people are AFRAID to take responsibility of their feeling.

C) What is WRONG about being UNHAPPY anyhow?? It is just an emotion. It will pass too. Ditto on HAPPINESS.

Nothing is PERMANENT.

You may interpret an event as UNHAPPY. But, later on, you may interpret it differently. It shall pass too.

Event is just it IS. It is OUR Interpretation that gives it meaning.

http://sstc-online.org/2006/pdfs/JB1365Notes.pdf

If you are INTERESTED, the above URL is an article on Satir Interaction Model. Aka, how human being interpret and communicate.

Dreamer

Actually there is a lot of unhealthiness in a 'healthy' body. We have toxin buildup and germ warfare going on every second. 'Health' only means our healthy bits are stronger than our unhealthy bits.

A healthy body doesn't just happen. It needs to be conditioned. That conditioning involves the pain of exercise and often unhealthiness like immunization. When we immunize, they inject a germ (weak dose) into us that we wish to immunize against. Its like throwing us to a gang fight, a small one so we toughen up and are prepared for the big one. We usually feel unwell a day or two after the innoculation.

If we take all that away beforehand, we will be unhealthy. That is the causal link between unhealthiness and health that I see.

Not quite. taking effort and feeling the 'pain' of exercise are subjective to interpretation and does not make u unhealthy. uncomfortable yes, unhealthy? no.

---

Added on May 10, 2010, 10:55 pmsame can be asked of unhealthyness.

This post has been edited by teongpeng: May 10 2010, 10:56 PM

strictly speaking happiness is just a chemical process in the brain.....

in experiment we can constantly inject chemical or electro-stimulation of certain parts of the brain to produce sense of happiness

so in a way happiness without problems

I see where you're coming from and you have a good point. I do remember falling sick for a day after I got an innoculation, for smallpox I think. Would you say having fever as being in a healthy or unhealthy state? If not unhealthy, would we describe the people getting treatment at the clinic for cough, fever, etc. as not sick? (sick = unhealthy)

---

Added on May 11, 2010, 9:33 amDon't forget happy pills and other mood altering drugs.

Although I don't know if taking happy pills gives you the same feeling as winning a lottery. I never experienced either one before.


This post has been edited by Beastboy: May 11 2010, 09:33 AM

What the heck are u talking about?! having fever is sick is unhealthy laaaa

While you may be healthy after u've been sick....that doesnt mean u cant be healthy unless you're sick.

C'mon bro...i had such good impression about you.

This post has been edited by teongpeng: May 11 2010, 05:27 PM

To attain happiness is or can be easier than you might imagine. You can get it through anyone, you can have it anywhere, even in a war-torn country. Happiness is meme-like; contagious and infectious.

A hug, for example, from a beloved can bring you joy -- even if problems are still there to haunt your seemingly endless nights.

Happiness is a state of euphoria, as most would say. Whether or not it's momentarily or lasting, that is not crucial. Cos no matter how fleeting the feeling is, I would still safely say u have had experienced it.

I bet Steve Jobs thinks he is poor when compared to Warren Buffet. So is he poor?

I understand. But the issue here is about whether if "sadness" which I think it's usually described and stereotyped as "problems", are necessary for happines to take place. Teong peng insisted that we wouldn't need them, and I interjected by saying the exact opposite, as to give value and appreciation to a feeling that most people are irresponsible with like you said, and that feeling is of happiness itself.

But you see, the problem is that even unhealthy people are capable of being happy. But I'm trying to say is that that the description of the "good", intangible, "feeling" known as happiness cannot be gauged as a nice, acceptable, and embraced feeling until there's an exact opposite emotion that promotes the lack of that particular feeling.

WTF are u talking about dude.....ofcoz unhealthy ppl can be happy. thats not what i mean at all....

and im not going to repeat what i mean because its been made very clear in the first place.

Its annoying how many ppl here cant read and understand very basic and straight forward ideas and anologies.

Well in that case, pray explain. Because I don't think I can fully understand the analogy you've pointed out.

like i said, what the Fark, dude?

This is how we got started:

And so I pointed out, and so you asked me what the f**k. So explain, if I'm really missing something here.

you really dont understand that?!?!??!?!?!?!

im very very dissapointed in you, deadlocks.

This post has been edited by teongpeng: May 20 2010, 02:24 AM

Sorry if you felt that way, but I rather not pretend that I did understand.

Not siding anyone here but is it possible for people to have a mature discussion and not revert to name calling or being personal? Can we focus on the issue rather than attack the persons raising the issue? This is the PhD section, not kindergarten. If we cannot be civil, what's the point of enlightening discussions?

well, problems will always be around the corner, whether you are looking for it or not.

so are solutions.

anyway, fancy seeing u this side of the forum vivienne.

nice to see u too...lol

yup...solutions are there.
the issue is whether one wants to explore the different solutions given out there or he/she rather be a coward by not facing the problem.

after searching and studying all of this theory of happiness. what happens next? do we experience or encounter this after we die?

because in that case, we wont have much time to go through this once we're dead. the furthest we can go would be a 100. even so, death can come at any time.

This post has been edited by jasonbourne222: May 25 2010, 09:23 PM

so do u think we must first face problems before we be happy? In other words...is unhappiness a prequisite for happiness? the real topic of debate on this thread.

ok...hmmm
well, i dont think so.

---

Added on May 25, 2010, 9:28 pmmy POV- we will neither experience happiness or unhappiness because death is the end of it.

This post has been edited by vivienne85: May 25 2010, 09:28 PM

clever girl

happiness? is it by having all these material possession = cars,money,house,planes,boat,women ?

so therefore, if we dont have any of that, does that mean we wont be happy? Its just that we've been 'programmed' and told to believe that by having and consuming all of this that we will achieve "true" happiness. Yes, we see it everyday in the newspaper, television, internet, adverts and so on. Basically, we dont even know what we want.

You see, if one person can say, i dont need a luxurious house, a fancy car , a supermodel , or 10 million in the bank to be happy. What do you say to people like that? You would say "wow, youre missing a lot" or "Didnt you study finance in school?"

So, base on what TS have mentioned earlier, we tend to find "problems" or things to do to stimulate temporary happiness. Sports, activities, music, art, gaming, blogging, etc. What we dont realize that its just a substance. In fact, we do know lol. A "drug" to keep us moving forward.

So, what makes you happy? Which is your drug?

happiness is simply the absence of unhappiness. adi say so many times liau.

Sadness is not necessarily needed for happiness, but it sure helps you to understand and appreciate happiness than its original value, i.e. like how some call it: "thy true happiness".

Think about it. A world where sadness simply does not exist. Everyone's joyful and jumping around, and laughing and stuff.

But the problem is, with such a society where sadness is not possible, why will one even bother with the question: "Are you happy?"

And since no one bothers about such a question, why should one bother with the word: "happy", a term to describe a specific, human emotion?

And since no one bothers about this "happy" word, isn't the word "happy" simply just vestigial word? An emotion that is so common (since there aren't any sadness available in the world) that people are simply living their lives without knowing what being "happy" really means? Will that then, means, that a world without sadness will simply be a world that is simply voided of all emotions, simply "happiness" is simply valued as something "common", and "mundane"?

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: May 30 2010, 11:50 AM

anyone know anything bout bumi armada

What's that?

bumi armada berhad , yes
but what does it have to do with this thread ?

u think too much. the existence of sadness for happiness to make sense DOES NOT make the former a prerequisite to achieve the latter. He can merely choose to understand sadness once...and if he is wise enough...he would choose not to experience it again and live happily ever after.

and how would you understand sadness without experiencing it?

---

Added on May 30, 2010, 10:35 pmyou must not have known our RWI/PHDS resident ad-hominem troll very well.

This post has been edited by lin00b: May 30 2010, 10:35 PM

u dont have to jump off the building to know it will kill u.

yes, books tell me that, but i have yet to find a book that adequately explain feelings like sad, love, etc

as well as feelings are not such discrete and fixed properties that different people experience it the same way for the same event. heck the same people might have different feeling about the same event at different point of life.

bad analogy much?

poor understand much?

are books the only way u learn things? do u lack basic observatory skills? what about empathy? u can experience sadness without being really sad u know.

This post has been edited by teongpeng: May 30 2010, 11:42 PM

No I don't but if its like any forum I've been to, the place won't be complete without one.

Chemically there is a basis on which medication like prozac is made but beyond that, I don't think you ever will find an academic explanation on something so subjective.

uh huh, yeah right, please give some examples.

experience sadness = being sad.

yes. but without a real niggling reason to remain sad, one can quickly switch it off. its not real.

so sadness now is defined by the time period? sad is sad, stop twisting about.

no, silly. but there is a difference between emphatising sadness and actually going thru the actual debacle. for instance, you see some dungu feel sad because he lost his money in gambling. u feel his sadness. its not yours. u just contemplate and well...emphatised (how do u spell this anyway? lol ) with him. and then u choose not to go thru that kinda experience.

i can observe his reaction to his sadness, i cannot feel his sadness because i'm not him. and i avoid it because i dont want to have the same reaction. i have no idea what the experience is.

and even come back to you example. if i dont gamble and lose money, would i be happy? i would be in an emotionally neutral state because i will have no idea what is the emotionally negative state is

bodoh nye.....

having decided that u do not want to be sad...you would be happy that you're not sad.

to be in a neutral state would mean u are numbed emotionally when thats definately not the case. please dont argue like a child.

Have u ever been in a country at war? look at iraq and u're automatically happy you're not there. u dont even have to ever be there at all.

This post has been edited by teongpeng: May 31 2010, 07:35 AM

err, no, that dont happen to me. the absence of sadness is not happiness, neither is the absence of happiness sadness.

are you sad now? no? does that mean you are happy?

yes.

happiness is a degree. there is no neutral stage. u can be happier or delighted, and u can be less happier or less delighted, but you're still happy.

as long as u dont dropped down to the unhappiness level, u are deemed to be happy.

thus one can derived that, happiness is there when unhappiness is not.

at what point does your happiness scale slide to the unhappy side? and at that exact boundary point, are you happy, or unhappy?

or a more scientific analogy, at pH 7, is a liquid acidic, or alkaline?

This post has been edited by lin00b: May 31 2010, 07:14 PM

+1

it cannot be measured scientifically. well..atleast i dont know how.

the boundary is sad at the point where unhappiness enters the picture.

sometimes people had to learn it through the hard way.

yea it follows the same rule as ' no pain , no gain '

Yes, we need problems to be happy, especialy when we solve it !