Thread: Your hobbies outside of computers

Originally Posted by Alpo

That is sort of the point, it's a philosophical question. It doesn't have an objective correct answer, just subjective ones.

What? Philosophy is at the heart of science and is still today -- as it always was -- one of the breeding grounds of scientific thought. If we are speaking of a correct application of dialectics to encourage critical thinking and honest argumentation, then there is nothing subjective about philosophy.


Of course, there are always pseudo-philosophers, who cannot seem to be able to dabble in the Socratic or other accepted dialectic methods. Always were. A penchant for fantasy, a case of terminal fallacies and an irresponsible and absurd diagnosis characterizes them also since ancient times. And that's where pseudo-philosophical question like that one fall in. Whether you prefer to be a happy animal or a moderately discontent human is a stupid question. There's really no other way I can put it. It is designed to provide one and only one valid answer to humanists, realists and rationalists, and the opposite valid answer to relativists, existentialists, or post-humanists.

Originally Posted by Alpo

Getting in an argument over this would lead to frustration, I choose not to do so. :P

Why would it? You get frustrated with arguing? I thought you liked philosophy. It's all about arguing.


To clarify: The idea that one can choose to be happy if they so wish is really on the level of soap opera mentality and can be put right there on the same shelf as "love conquers all" and "if you really really love someone, nothing can break you apart". It's the type of thinking that ignores the fact we don't live alone, or in the void and many factors (human or incidental) can come into play, ruining or making it hard for that happiness to come about. You don't depend on yourself to be happy unless you happen to be an hermit. And an hermit will soon find his happiness ruined when someone comes living next door. Something he wasn't counting on.

Happiness comes and goes and it is not really the end of a journey. It's a series of moments that come and go. Having experienced myself true happiness (or the idea of true happiness as I perceive happiness to be) on more than one occasion, three things I learned from those experiences: (1) You don't know you are being happy, you just know you experienced (past tense) happiness (2) I was never in control of that happiness; several factors combined semi-randomly for that happiness to be, and (3) It had an end.


While you may be tempted to call this simply anecdotal evidence based on my own experiences, everyone I talk too seems to agree to similar experiences. And it's not really very hard to look at life as it is and see the difficulties imposed by the idea we could control our own happiness. We are NOT generally happy. But we should, if we could control happiness. If there is one thing all human beings share is a desire to feel good, feel great, be happy. The way they perceive this to be is vastly different. Some are happy being in love, others by killing their enemy. If we all could in fact control our happiness we would have already found out how. And everyone would be happy. The fact most everyone isn't happy is a sign happiness, while not out of reach, is not really under our individual control. 'nough said.

Originally Posted by Alpo

The most insidious lie? Well again it's sort of subjective, but I can think of several other real life examples of lies off the top of my head that have lead to mass death, genocide, ect.

Of course. There's more than just one big lie. Since this started from herd mentality, how about Nationalism and Patriotism as two big lies that start or fuel wars, death and genocide.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

To clarify: The idea that one can choose to be happy if they so wish is really on the level of soap opera mentality and can be put right there on the same shelf as "love conquers all" and "if you really really love someone, nothing can break you apart". It's the type of thinking that ignores the fact we don't live alone, or in the void and many factors (human or incidental) can come into play, ruining or making it hard for that happiness to come about

But no one said "you can choose to be happy". You just interpreted that from the original question, but I don't know what your reasoning was for interpreting it that way. By a "philosophical question", I was trying to imply it's just rhetorical in nature. It begins with "if", meaning that no truth claims are made, it's just meant to make you question whether increased intelligence leads to more contentment (imo).

Originally Posted by Mario F.

(1) You don't know you are being happy, you just know you experienced (past tense) happiness (2) I was never in control of that happiness; several factors combined semi-randomly for that happiness to be, and (3) It had an end.

I sometimes feel like that as well, but as for #1, there is a well known cognitive bias on memory regarding happiness:
Rosy retrospection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It leads me to thinking that maybe you don't ever know when you are really happy, as it's ultimately interpretive to those factors mentioned in #2.

This seems like this is a argument for determinism versus free-will. I don't know which of those models is true (maybe both or neither?). I do think, subjectively, that believing you have the power to make meaningful choices isn't a bad thing though.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

If there is one thing all human beings share is a desire to feel good, feel great, be happy

I don't think that's true though, for instance why are sad songs so popular? This is ultimately another thing the question is meant to bring up I think. If people could make themselves perpetually happy, would they?

Originally Posted by Alpo

But no one said "you can choose to be happy". You just interpreted that from the original question, but I don't know what your reasoning was for interpreting it that way.

The question uses us as having a choice. It's the problem with questions like that. They can be refused merely on the basis of their operative verb. They pose no critical thinking or real dilemma, just an incipient hipster dinner table debate. And it perpetuates this idea that you have a choice of being happy or not. Because to answer the question you have to accept that as a fact. I'm telling you that is not true.

Originally Posted by Alpo

I do think, subjectively, that believing you have the power to make meaningful choices isn't a bad thing though.

If you don't have that power, it can't be a good thing. It will mislead you and leave you in a state of confusion and frustration as to why you can't achieve your goals. It will bring sadness and misery. It is pretty much that other big insidious lie that "you can be anything you want". No you can't. But believe it hard enough and as you keep failing constantly in achieving your goals, you will blame yourself and possibly even experience depression, instead of blaming those that put that stupid thought into your head.

Originally Posted by Alpo

I don't think that's true though, for instance why are sad songs so popular?

Aristotle thought about this. He called it Emotional Catharsis. Expose yourself too much to a feeling and it will be expunged from you and the opposite feeling will surface. But he was wrong, of course. We like sad music because it makes us feel good by a process called Vicarious Emotion. I can point you to the research on this field by a group of psychologists. But before I do that, think about it a bit if it is or not true that sad music actually makes us feel good.

Originally Posted by Alpo

This is ultimately another thing the question is meant to bring up I think. If people could make themselves perpetually happy, would they?

Another non question, or is it a trick question?

EDIT:
Oops, forgot about that research. It's here.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

The question uses us as having a choice.

No, prefixing the sentence with "if you could choose" implies the exact opposite.

Originally Posted by Mario F.;

If you don't have that power, it can't be a good thing. It will mislead you and leave you in a state of confusion and frustration as to why you can't achieve your goals. It will bring sadness and misery. It is pretty much that other big insidious lie that "you can be anything you want". No you can't. But believe it hard enough and as you keep failing constantly in achieving your goals, you will blame yourself and possibly even experience depression, instead of blaming those that put that stupid thought into your head.

These are just claims I mean we can talk about this (I might like that), but it needs to be understood that we are both just speculating based purely on our feelings. I can't evaluate this in the usual manner of contemplating whether the conclusion actually follows the premises without the possibility of making a scarecrow of your argument. A syllogism or other logical construct might be more effective, just from the top of my head, something of the form:

1. Happiness is defined as [definition].
2. The means of producing happiness are [mechanisms]
3. In conclusion the [mechanisms] of happiness is/is not in the control of human beings.

That's just from the top of my head, another form might be more effective.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

If you don't have that power, it can't be a good thing.

I feel this is disregarding the positive effect belief can have on a persons ability to accomplish things. If there existed no belief that it was possible to put yourself in a favorable condition ("favorable condition" being the definition of happiness I just made up :P), then what incentive would people have to pursue anything?

Because people do pursue happiness (according to us both) that there is this incentive, and that because not all human experience is bad (my assertion), that this pursuit must not always lead to an unfavorable conclusion.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

It will mislead you and leave you in a state of confusion and frustration as to why you can't achieve your goals. It will bring sadness and misery. ...

According to what I think you have said (again), I understand that you believe people do pursue happiness. Since you conclude that this pursuit must necessarily lead to confusion/frustration (unfavorable outcomes), based on their ultimate inability to control the attainment of it, it sounds as if you are saying the human experience must necessarily be unfavorable?

I could tell you from personal experience that the pursuit of a thing can be it's own reward, and that a bad conclusion to an episode of striving does not make me personally feel as if striving is some sort of folly.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Oops, forgot about that research. It's here.

That is pretty cool . I don't know enough about music to really determine why "dissonance, and minor key" music was chosen as sad music, but giving them that, it was pretty interesting and does make me think that they are correct.

It brings up another point though, as it seems this type of music can produce a favorable state. If humans really couldn't make choices that affected their perceived state, then does this mean that people don't choose to listen to music? I mean I could say:

1. Happiness is a favorable state.
2. Certain music produces a favorable state.
3. Therefor as humans decide to listen to music, they have the means to produce a favorable state.

Originally Posted by Alpo

According to what I think you have said (again), I understand that you believe people do pursue happiness. Since you conclude that this pursuit must necessarily lead to confusion/frustration (unfavorable outcomes), based on their ultimate inability to control the attainment of it, it sounds as if you are saying the human experience must necessarily be unfavorable?

No. I'm saying that we aren't completely in charge of our future. We can just guide it as if driving a car with very bad steering. The society at large and random events will keep stepping in the way making this an easier or harder objective to achieve. Usually harder, because as we know the human condition is, generally speaking, miserable.

When we spout "you can be happy if you choose to be happy" or "you can be anything you want", we are effectively falsifying reality. We have been building our societies in this false belief. It is one of the reasons we punish failure and award success without giving due consideration to the intrinsic value of the actual effort involved. If some person failure in life was the result of numerous tries, an intense desire for success, much work and bad luck, too bad for him. We all feel sorry. If some other person reason for success was his father wealth, even if his a bum, he'll do ok in life and probably die a rich man having lived a good life. We are in fact living in a society not much different from what is portrayed in Gattaca.

And this punishment/reward brings in a strong feeling of misery and sadness. In our western societies, men are supposed to work towards success. Failure is not an option. And we are told we can succeed if we want. Bull........! We can succeed if we work hard for it and other people along with the universe don't conspire against us (Agency). And we can succeed if we make the right choices often without having possessions of all the facts to make a wise decision (Luck). But because we are told we can succeed if we want, failure is our own fault. A loser is a losers fault. And few will care to look past that. Often, as is the case with so many people, even your own family.

Certainly we have wonderful stories of success or happiness against all odds. But they are not representative of the general population. It would be like believing everyone who can sing can be a star because a tiny fraction of the people that can sing become stars. And even then, those stories of success or happiness against all odds all share in common the fact that it was also a mixture of random events and good luck that influenced the outcome. It is inevitable. We live our lives along with other people. Family, friends, coworkers, enemies, and the random person in the street that made you late for that job interview that you now will never know would have changed your life forever, either because you would have met there the love of your life, or someone else who you would befriend and two years later start their own business and invite you in into a company that would have given you a lifetime of achievements.

Originally Posted by Alpo

I could tell you from personal experience that the pursuit of a thing can be it's own reward

If I'm pursuing stamp collecting, maybe.

But if instead the thing i'm pursuing will take my family out of poverty, or my sister out of cancer, or marry the woman I love, I won't see many rewards in the pursuit, if the goal isn't achieved.

You see, this is all rosy and pink when we are talking about becoming programmers, learning how to ride a bicycle. Our middle-class western societies tend to make us blind to the actual reality of achievement. We can be anything we want? Tell that to 4 year old child in Angola's slums. We can be happy if we want? Tell that to a wife that saw her husband being shot to death by private security of an illegal diamond field.

And don't discount these so quickly. In our planet, poverty and suffering is the majority of the population. We are the minority and the exception.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Tell that to 4 year old child in Angola's slums. We can be happy if we want? Tell that to a wife that saw her husband being shot to death by private security of an illegal diamond field.

You do realize it's not certain that these people will live in abject misery forever right?

These people who are victims of circumstance are not worthless, and I would hope they don't feel that way. I still see no harm in anyone believing their lot in life can change. What if someone did tell the kid living in the slums that things might improve? What possible harm is going to occur? He might never escape poverty or hunger, but it seems silly to worry about such people having too much hope.

(Plus it sounds like a plot point of a Final Fantasy villain :P, although it would be along the lines of "The world is rotten and evil, love is a lie, something something...").

Actually I'm quite positive in life. I just don't fall for the afternoon talk show BS we've been discussing here. Failure or success, happiness or sadness, are not exclusively the sum of an individual faults or qualities. They are mostly the product of society and chance. If someone fails in life, it's not necessarily their fault. If someone succeeds in life it is not necessarily on their merits. If you cannot achieve happiness it is not necessarily because you didn't try, if you achieve happiness it is not necessarily because you tried.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

If someone fails in life, it's not necessarily their fault. If someone succeeds in life it is not necessarily on their merits. If you cannot achieve happiness it is not necessarily because you didn't try, if you achieve happiness it is not necessarily because you tried.

But when you say "succeeds, fails, ect", what does that have to do with being happy? Just a few posts ago you posted a study saying music makes people happy, and then later tried to tie happiness to this idea that you must succeed.

Just to take one of your examples, let's say you didn't cure your sister of cancer. Ok, what then? Do you really think you will mourn forever? If someone told you that your mourning would pass and everything would be ok again, what heinous lie are they telling?

Originally Posted by Alpo

But when you say "succeeds, fails, ect", what does that have to do with being happy? Just a few posts ago you posted a study saying music makes people happy, and then later tried to tie happiness to this idea that you must succeed.

I think you just forgetting about the things being said. Have you been following this discussion? It's all there for you to read again...

The only relationship I ever made between "you can be happy if you choose to" and "you can be anything you want" was to call them both lies. And gave examples of why for those two BS sayings.

Originally Posted by Alpo

Just to take one of your examples, let's say you didn't cure your sister of cancer. Ok, what then? Do you really think you will mourn forever?

If you remember, I used that as an example for "pursuit of a goal is reward enough", which you used and is another BS saying. I tried to demonstrate for many goals, if you can't achieve the goal it will be a failure. No reward in the pursuit. If your goal is stamp collecting, learning how to program, learning to ride a bicycle, fine. But If your goal is to take your family out of poverty, saving your sister from cancer, marrying the woman you love, getting the job you always dreamed of, there's hardly any reward in the pursuit, unless you actually succeed.

Originally Posted by Alpo

If someone told you that your mourning would pass and everything would be ok again, what heinous lie are they telling?

I have no idea what makes you think I was talking about that. You were right in the beginning, this is starting to become frustrating.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

You were right in the beginning, this is starting to become frustrating.

It would have been less so, but the matter we are talking about is based on subjective experience. I only started replying seriously when you suggested it could be based on philosophy and science.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

If you remember, I used that as an example for "pursuit of a goal is reward enough", which you used and is another BS saying.

Oh a BS saying is it? Well thanks Mario I'm convinced now.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

I tried to demonstrate for many goals, if you can't achieve the goal it will be a failure. No reward in the pursuit

Yes and you make a good point, but because it's not true for all goals, then to say there is no reward in the pursuit is completely wrong. There could be a million things for which the pursuit is not rewarding, but it only takes one to make that statement true some of the time. Which is why I don't understand why you would disregard it entirely as BS.
(Edit: I'm saying that just because a thing is perceived as more tragic doesn't give it any more weight than any other case.)

In that spirit, it's graduation time here and I've been doing charcoal sketches of some of the kids. I wouldn't feel right posting them (plus only one is done lol). I did one of my dog, whose name is Reighn. She is a half Cocker Spaniel and half 'Weenie Dog' (Dachschund):



She was the prettiest dog I ever saw. She had the head of a Cocker Spaniel and the body of a weenie dog, with smooth black hair. Plus she was so smart, she learned how to shake in only a week! She had heart problems though, and a few months ago she passed on. Originally I wasn't too bothered because she was old and suffering, but I started missing her and did this picture .