This stems from a radio programme I listened to in the car last Monday, called Beyond Belief. (you'll have to use the scroll bar at the bottom to find the programme for 21st August). Surprisingly, it's about religion rather than crazy inventions, and this particular episode was concerned with the pursuit of happiness. I was particularly impressed with some of the views put forward, and it helped me to crystallize something I've long thought. Bear with me: I know all you religious types will want to jam God in there somewhere, but this is my basic happy-old-shit-humanist theory:
Material things can bring you pleasure: Only other people can give you happiness.
Now I guess I have to define how I'm using 'pleasure' and 'happiness', which is probably where I'm going to struggle.I know what I mean, though, so here goes: pleasure, I think, is a momentary state, a brief point where the cares of the world are forgotten. Happiness is where the cares of the world can be remembered and dealt with without bringing you down.
Oh. Gosh. Um. I guess that sums it up, really. I thought that was going to take a couple of paragraphs, at least. Right. Well. Um. In the absence of any more wisdom from me, here's a picture of a kitten:
So: things=pleasure; people=happiness. Once you've got that in your head, what else is there?
17 comments:
fun=? (call for list!)
Well, I think there's only animals, plants and mythical beings left to assign, aren't there? And then that's everybody/thing.
What about yourself?
Is it possible to be happy/pleasured/{somethingelsed} without any of these things?
I think it's interesting to think of happiness or pleasure as an interaction. You can look at something, or listen to something (birdsong for example) and feel happiness - or is it pleasure? I don't know.
I suppose by material things bringing pleasure, you mean the sensual interaction with those things - whether it's sight, sound, smell, taste, touch etc. Since you can receive pleasure from people via these media, might it be better to redefine the two; Pleasure being sensual, and happiness being - something more ephemeral - dare I say, spiritual? (That's spiritual in the context of being non-physical, not necessarily in the ghosty-ghosty-wah sense.)
I know ;)
I've almost forgotten!
I must admit that I prefer to take my pleasure with people, preferably the female type, well-cushioned.
But I will point out that happiness is something that comes from the inside, and is not externally imposed, and generally not even externally affected, at least on a lasting basis.
If you define pleasure as being something more of the moment, and happiness as a state, then I think it's sufficient to view the former as a momentary surge in endorphines and the latter as a permanent seratonin level.
This is why most unhappy people stay unhappy despite the fact that they certainly receive pleasure on multiple occasions.
then again, as Charles Shulz always said, "Happiness is a warm puppy."
(I once held a gosling - I was quite amazed how warm it was.)
Yes, I'm quite sure it's possible to pleasure yourself.
...............Arthur said..............
Obaketsu is a Japanese word for "bucket", isn't it?
Apparently.
"At OBAKETSU STORE we do mail order concerning the bucket commodity of the regular."
Interesting that it's a Japonification of an English word.
I want you to note I'm keeping my opinion to myself... this time.
Unlike you, Debs ;)
Ok you textted my arm. I thought carefully about this and I think you are right. hah! The only God I can jam into the mix is this, knowing God is for me a source of peace. not happiness, The rest I'll agree with.
Fair enough. I like that.
Post a Comment