Ernest Hemingway had an interesting statement:
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
This was quoted in an interesting article that described an inverse relationship between intellect and happiness. Accordingly to the article, the culprit is largely education:
Western society is not set up to nurture intelligent children and adults, the way it dotes over athletes and sports figures, especially the outstanding ones. While we have the odd notable personality such as Albert Einstein, we also have many extremely intelligent people working in occupations that are considered among the lowliest, as may be attested by a review of the membership lists of Mensa (the club for the top two percent on intelligence scales).
Education systems in countries whose primary interest is in wealth accumulation encourage heroes in movies, war and sports, but not in intellectual development. Super intelligent people manage, but few reach the top of the business or social ladder.
Although it’s definitely a debatable assertion, it’s nonetheless an interesting and controversial idea. What I gather is that the “happiness” the article harps on is grounded on moral values or prioritization that is assigned by society which is implemented and disseminated by the educational system. What society “values” highly: wealth, sports, etc.–are what defines “happiness” or success.
However, is intelligence necessarily anti-thetical to these values? I think there’s an implicit error here in that the article seems to differentiate or dichotomize between reason (intelligence) and emotion (happiness) when there isn’t necessarily a gap between the two. This is very apparent in thus further excerpt:
Children develop along four streams: intellectual, physical, emotional (psychological) and social. In classrooms, the smartest kids tend to be left out of more activities by other children than they are included in. They are “odd,” they are the geeks, they are social outsiders. In other words, they do not develop socially as well as they may develop intellectually or even physically where opportunities may exist for more progress.
Arguably these four “streams” are really just two: mental and physical. And these two streams are really just one: since the brain is a physical organ, and the mental stream encompasses intellect, emotion, and sociology. However by dividing a person into body and mind and the mental into further compartments, on the one hand it may give insight into human motivations, but on the other hand it may also be an excellent excuse for contradictory behavior.
Consider the following statements:
- “Follow your heart instead of your brain.”
- “Follow society instead of yourself.”
- “Follow the right path, regardless of how you feel.”
- “Follow what makes you happy, instead of what makes sense.”
Although these statements imply varying motivations: all these motivations take place in the mind, and are all still the province of reason/rationality. The contradictions and conflicts implied in these statements all exist in the mind.
The heart doesn’t make decisions–it simply pumps blood. It’s the brain that chooses the emotional route instead of the logical one. And arguably, in this case, the emotional route becomes the logical one for the person who chooses it. Society doesn’t choose for an individual, it’s the individual who values society that chooses to follow soceity’s dictates. The social need is still in the mind. Right or moral path vs. emotion is another version of heart vs. brain. In this case by choosing the right path–you are in effect putting morality as part of your logic or reasoning. What was really in conflict are the choices of what morality to value, not a choice between morality and emotion.
So back to happiness–which is an emotion, which is part of the mind. A happy person isn’t happy because he values certain things (e.g. wealth or the body) above intellect. In reality it is his intellect that produces the emotion–his intelligence that values those things. A sad person isn’t unhappy because he chooses intellect above all things–but perhaps those things his intelligence values are lacking in his life.
Maybe the proper question is not a dichotomy between the mind and happiness–but what kind of happiness the mind is looking for.
Finally–this doesn’t touch yet on that other controversial dichotomy: that of the body (which includes the brain and the mind), and the spirit/soul.
Happiness is very much subjective. Nothing more to say.
… and the whole discussion about it seems so redundant and a waste of time.
Well, if by “nothing more to say” you really meant “I have one more comment to make”… then I guess by “a waste of time” you really meant “it’s interesting enough for me to comment… twice”.
Contradictions? Or maybe you just simply type too fast?
Cheers. 🙂
Mark, I believe that you’re full of shit. Let me tell you why.
1. The “article” you point out is not “peer-reviewed”. This mean that it could have been written by any looney and, therefore, lacks any value.
2. You never define “happiness” and, therefore, neither you now we know what you’re talking about.
3. You compare happiness with success. This is a wrong comparison because both are subjective concepts, and also because there are countless examples of happy unsuccessful people and viceversa.
4. By grouping the three “intellectual” streams you’re reducing everything that the brain does to just one thing. This is an oversimplistic view prone to be misleading.
5. Your analysis of the statement “Follow your heart instead of your brain.” Is nonsense. It adds nothing to your arguments.
6. You never go back to the other statements, which suggests that they are there for decoration.
7. On “the emotional route becomes the logical one for the person who chooses it”, this is true if the person is free to choose. However, most people cannot choose the way they feel. Therefore, this argument is flawed.
8. Society DOES choose for individuals. Laws are the one thing that society does to make individuals choose between “good” and “bad” options.
9. “The social need is still in the mind.” What the f*** are you talking about?!!!
10. Also, the very fact that you later write “Right or moral path vs. emotion is another version of heart vs. brain.”, going back to the “heart”, suggests that you did not rationalize, nor understand your own flow of ideas.
11. Finally, on “A happy person isn’t happy because he values certain things (e.g. wealth or the body) above intellect. In reality it is his intellect that produces the emotion–his intelligence that values those things. A sad person isn’t unhappy because he chooses intellect above all things–but perhaps those things his intelligence values are lacking in his life.” You try to define what happiness or sadness isn’t, but never what it is. By not defining your subject, I believe that you have no idea what you’re talking about. If you were going to give a speech about the subject in front of intelligent people, you’ll be booed out of the stage in no more than five minutes.
Hmmm. Let’s study equations.
What is so powerful about E=MC2 despite the fact that by looking at it we simply cannot understand it, unless you are a physicist?
It is interchangeable. That is the 1st test of validity. Therefore, is Success = Happiness interchangeable?
MTM doesn’t have and hasn’t been using for decades any such thinking tools. And he is NOT a public performer. For public performance, that’s me, and I could give him a cardiac arrest.
More on equations later. Have to get back to work!
Have a great day all of you!
yes interesting enough to despise….
^ Whoah, despise? Lighten up man.
Then again it does seem consistent with your statement: discussing happiness would indeed be a waste of time to those who despise.
And WHAT do you know about being consistent?
Have you ever played with morphic fields? Well. How can you play with morphic fields when you couldn’t even get your frameworks and constructs correctly!
Think of Zorba, MTM. Contemplate on the Zorba.
You got it!!
I understand some amount of effort went into this but im sorry to say personally you’ve come across as very pretentious… You’ve obviously got a brain and a high vocabilary but the inabilty to reason. I get the feeling you get a kick out of sounding like mr interlectual as you ponder over unnecessary stuff.
Just try not to fill the gaps with noise in aid of making you sound intelligent (a word which is commonly misunderstood).
🙂
You have no idea what we’re talking about here, do you?
And there’s such a thing as making a lot of noise but making no point at all.
I don’t think there’s anything “high” about the vocabulary of the piece Lele, but unfortunately there’s also something to be said about people who use faux flattery as an excuse for having a small brain.
Why does this make the author pretentious?
I think that we shouldn’t conclude that people are pretentious just because they sometimes blog about “unnecessary stuff”. They deserve the benefit of the doubt. Maybe people write about things you dismiss as “unnecessary” just because they find it diverting.
I also think that we shouldn’t conclude that people are pretentious just because they use long words where shorter ones would work. I blame the school system for rewarding verbose assignments more than concise ones, which conditions us to write verbosely for the rest of our lives.
Hey Lele,
1. No need to apologize for a personal opinion.
2. How obvious is my inability to reason?
3. I respect your “feeling that I get a kick” however when you say “unnecessary” is that a feeling too?
4. When you say “noise” is that one of your feelings as well?
Apart from that, thanks for the unsolicited advice, although I would have personally preferred more critical comments on the subject rather than an exposition on your “feelings”.
Cheers.
MTM,
Don’t you think it’s a bit ironic that while the topic has much to do with feelings and you reiterate the role of intuition in critical thinking, you could invalidate, with a slight of hand, Lele’s feelings? How could you expect to be Zorba the buddha without putting all that you are in this thing that you are doing, hmm?
Or is this because your own feelings are all in your belly, drowning in beer? Haha. I could’ve sworn you were somewhere in your 3rd trimester of pregnancy. And if that makes you happy, well, enjoy your drink all you can and happy hours.
Anyway… I shall now discuss further this “Happiness”.
It’s tough to say there is a type of wine that tastes the best “in fact” that is considered universal. But connoisseurs will go on and on telling you there is such a thing as the purrrrrfect wine, how, why, when, where, what, etc., as precious as jooowels, and that they will be too unhappy if they were drinking far from perfect wine. Connoisseurs are employed for their keen senses, there for your senses to be pleased, as you know.
This gives you an idea why “connoisseurs” (as the more knowledgeable about something/intelligent about something), according to some wisdom folk, are least likely to find happiness and peace of mind, or satisfaction in life, but this is their job, you see, that, without them, the quality of wine will not improve, and their knowledge is a great contribution to society.
I think that the angle of the topic title in the form of a question above had something like this in mind. Is it, then, a choice between intelligence such as that of the connoisseurs and happiness?
I know of a person whose job is not at all pleasing to the senses, the chief medical examiner of Orange County in NJ, but she can tell you that she is happy:
http://www.hownottodie.com/drg-book.htm
So considering that… I would say that would be a great clue as to where happiness is, and that it is more an interpretation of the senses also known as perception.
are you happy?
I would say that, saying you are happy and being happy are two different things. One could fool themselves that they are happy as the mind is part of this reasoning process and if the mind has never experienced true happiness (which most of the time it does not) only later in an experience does the mind cast the decision that, “oh this made me happy”
I think that happiness comes from distortions of realities that one feels in the moment, you cannot really put your finger on that its happiness at the moment. There is something there but you can’t quite pin it, you are that moment, and you are that presence.
happiness is a symbol, it doesn’t really stand for anything.
If people were truly happy, would conflict be the case in their lives, would it effect them, or would they even consider a conflict a conflict?
To Akitaka,
I’ll answer your question, I’m neither happy nor unhappy. Becuase if you were happy, what happens when happiness is no longer present, I am still here, so you cannot possibly be happy, happiness may be there but it is not me. 🙂
Blessings! 🙂
I agree with LeLe here, actually. The style of the piece is a bit pretentious, but I have no problem with it. Practice makes perfect; you just need to find the right balance between precision and clarity.
Style over substance? Geez folks you need to read more and talk less.
I teach third graders, and it sounds like a few have commented here, though they couldn’t be my students. I tell my students that a bad attitude, or “battitude,” as I call it, will get them no where.
From my experience, not all smart kids are geeks. Kids need to have social skills to succeed at school – and in life. I believe our ability to connect with others brings us way more happiness than our intellect. I also believe that the American preoccupation with celebrity makes most people feel like they came up short. We talk about how important education is, but at the end of the day, we often more fixated on who makes the most money.
You sound like you must be an excellent teacher. It’s nice to know that you’re out there teaching our young people positivity, acceptance of themselves and others, and to value education over money.
Although our thoughts/brains can convince us to be happy of this and that (depending on our goals or perceptions of happiness), I think we are also born with a “default happiness”. I would think it is an inherited trait, the same way we inherit our parents’ talents in, for example, music. I think we can inherit temperament. But as free individuals/adults, we learn to form a way of thinking that will add or subtract to our “inherited default temperament”.
Actually, the physical (body, brains/logic) and spirit/soul(higher self) are not supposed to be contradictory! (I think.)
1. What makes us happy should make sense.
2. Our intuition should eventually be proven reasonable and logical. (in retrospect or after the event)
“Happiness is the rarest thing among intelligent…” because:
1. The intelligent people can see the defects more clearly and they take more responsibility in solving the defects of the world. In a way, he should take a little more responsibility since he is in a more powerful position of understanding just like Ayalas have more social responsibilities than Juan Tamad. But at the same time, it’s better to be intelligent than not, so that’s one reason to be happier.
2. (If) The intelligent person is ugly he can’t get laid, that’s why he is unhappy.
3. Intelligent people feel less connected with the average brained peers since they cannot communicate in the same level/wavelength. Ego is also a problem among the intelligents. It’s harder for an intelligent person to admit or even consider the possibility that he/she is wrong! wrong! wrong!
^ Haha = of course, ugliness and intelligence probably don’t come together.
On another note, about the consistency between the mind and the soul, presupposes the latter is independent (if it can be qualified). Maybe the mind is the soul.
In my experience, it’s not so much intelligence that is correlated with unhappiness, but so-called “intellectualism.”
Now, most very intellectual people are also very intelligent. The problem is that people who ponder the great questions of life often forget to live. They (should I say we? probably) get too caught up in trying to find answers. We analyze everything to death. We want to pick apart a relationship before we’ve even given it a chance to develop.
My sense to your last sentence here is that the “analysts” are probably not in the mood for a relationship or vice versa.
I get Hemingway’s meaning. It’s almost like saying an active “peacemaker” is likely to be the most disturbed and without inner peace for being exposed to a multitude of situations we would rather not have. If you have to think about the multitude of this world’s self-created issues, and allow them to be the contents of your brain 24/7, 7 days a week, well, what kind of person are you going to become?
Thinking is an inward process. If you get stuck in the inwardness of this process, then naturally, that’s where you’re growing because that’s the focus.
Socializing is an extroversion. It’s… mammalian to do this. Mammals communicate. This is not just a norm but it’s our nature to do this. And nature is beautiful.
Otherwise, we’ll have to turn the pages to somewhere between anti-social and autism.
Interesting conversation all of you. I’m not sure I have any answers to the question of happiness, but I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the quote from A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, “I’d rather be Happy than Right.”
I think that a whole lot of strife in this world is our need to be right – whether it be simply correct in a debate, or in the deeper meaning, moral. Being “right” or “wrong” always brings conflict between people, which is the source of much unhappiness. Forming opinions about what is good or bad, what is of value or not, is also a source of unhappiness when we can’t have what we deem to be good or of value.
I imagine the ultimate happiness as a person who is so enlightened that he can walk through the midst of a battlefield and not be at all affected by what is taking place. He simply observes and is interested in the experience. He has no attachment to the right or wrong, he simply loves all the people on both sides. If he sees someone who needs help, he helps them. If he sees something beautiful he takes in the beauty. If he sees something intriguing, he learns from it. If he picks something up and someone snatches it out of his hand, he simply picks up something else. No attachment, just love and experiences. To me, this is how we live life happily.
Hi Zanna, Just to let you know, I’m feeling you. This was a topic of me and my friends today – happiness. I have a whole happy plan for myself. My plans are more based on happy than right.
Thanks, and I agree with your comments on Hemingway as well. It’s good to know that there is someone else who thinks along the same line as I do. I’d love to hear about your “happy plan”.
Psychosis (from the Greek ψυχή “psyche”, for mind/soul, and -ωσις “-osis”, for abnormal condition) means abnormal condition of the mind, and is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a “loss of contact with reality”. People suffering from psychosis are said to be psychotic.–wiki
^Although I agree with positivity and good disposition, I don’t agree with psychosis as a means to attaining happiness. There should still have a good grasp of reality and processing from the person. For example, in the phrase “I’d rather be happy than right..” It may mean you’re selfish and don’t care if your actions affect the others badly. It may mean the you don’t care knowing the truth, no inquiry, just I don’t care self-absorbed way. What’s worse than PSYCHOTIC-HAPPY? It’s psychotic-mad. Even psychotic-fear, and psychotic-depressed are less damaging. Psychotic-mad can be likened to a jihad who has no grasp of reality, just masskilling crazy.
Intsksiomai, that’s not what I mean at all! I don’t mean that one should not be interested in finding truth for onesself, and I certainly don’t mean that we shouldn’t care about others. I simply mean that perhaps each of us should understand that what I know as truth may not mean the same as what you know as truth (as we now discuss!). And the things we held as true yesterday we may see as false tomorrow (racial segregation, sexual inequality, immorality of homosexuality . . .). Morality is really mostly just social programming, not universal truth. Jihad is a good example of social programming, resulting in a group of people who think they know the truth, lording it upon others in a hurtful way. Christianity has done the same thing during different periods of history (slavery, witch hunts, indigenous massacres . . .). Being “right” only brings strife and never happiness. I agree with you that psychotic-mad is a terrible thing. As I see it, it is the ultimate extreme in having to be right: pure anger towards some perceived injustice, hurt, abuse – whatever. But hey, if you want to be right in this conversation that’s cool, and you are entitled to your opinion. I’m just sharing with you, and I’d rather be happy than right. Peace 🙂
Regarding psychosis, a very broad, wide-range of unreality suddenly appear, especially in mythological studies. Some might even say it’s better to go through it, although messy, than to avoid it and no growth takes place in your life/psychological state.
One example taken up by Joseph Campbell himself went something like this: A girl/boy grows up and takes too much credit for her/his beauty/handsomeness. All that youth and (ephemeral/passing) thing growing up all around it, and when the full identity of this person latches on to this, s/he becomes quite psychotic.
Just because the 5 senses are for a moment in our lives entertained by our so-called realities, doesn’t mean it is reality … as an individual has many options on how to interpret and implement interpretation of them.
The psychosis, therefore, is not in the sensing alone. But how you are relating with the senses.
And if psychosis happens this way, perhaps happiness does not depend on what can be sensed, but more the interpretation of them.
Psychosis is actually prevalent , if not a part of each one of us already, just in different degrees. I think that’s our coping mechanism to the things we cannot handle or face in our life head-on. Losers turning delusional, or victims turning paranoid is quite common.
What I find kinda psychotic or out of touch with reality is suppose a person is in the middle of a war, bullets firing around, strangers attacking anybody, realistically that person should not be in a happy/peaceful mode. Unless:
1. He is thinking of an afterlife that is better than this life.
2. He thinks he lived his life to the fullest, if he dies, he dies.
3. He is wearing a bulletproof armor.
…and other compensating factors. I’m actually interested in the THINKING PROCESS, or DATA PROCESSING of the person more than anything.
If the reason why he is happy in the middle of the war is #1, then the assumption is he genuinely believes in the afterlife or extension of soul, and for that person to be understood by others, the others has to understand why he believes in the afterlife.
#2, #3 are actually more comprehensible to everyone.
I describe the person to be psychotic if there was no actual processing that occurred. That’s just like the “greasemen” walking on the street. “Greasemen” just strip, show their bird to everyone, get mad, scream, laugh, cry for absolutely no reason.
Or having a boost of drugs prior to entering the battle.
There’s also the “joy” of bloodlust, also chemically-driven (by endorphins?).
“Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld”
I used this example of walking through a battlefield because it is an extreme. Obviously, if a person is in his right mind, in a situation like this his survival instincts would kick in and he’d get the hell out of there. The point I was trying to make is that this world is a battlefield; full of pain, full of fighting, full of anger – all of it brought on by people who think they are right, justified, morally obligated to set things straight, and the opposing party feeling the same way. When we are able to put these thoughts and feelings aside, then we will be happy. Knowing that morality is something that each of us creates for ourselves, it is easier to accept our own truth and let others have theirs without a need to prove anything, justify anything, fight over anything. It really makes a peaceful, happy existence.
Of course, many people think quite differently. The people I work for (a religious organization) would say that happiness is always secondary to being right. We must fight the good fight for truth and morality, even if it means sacrificing our lives. We must take a stand for injustice and right the wrongs. All in the name of love, of course. Well, so far I really don’t see that this has brought about happiness – or peace, or love. Just lots and lots of fighting and death and destruction.
Since this is a critical thinking blog, I wanna present another point to consider.
Another angle I see is sometimes, you have to prove yourself right to be happy. It can be quite simplistic or dismissive to just say let things be, let people be, and just be happy. For example, GMA imprisons you because you published an expose about her corruption. You’d have to prove that what you published is correct and prove that GMA is really corrupt before you can get out of prison. Of course, you can decide to make your stay in prison happy, but at the same time justice should be sought. Otherwise, you’ll become a psycho inside the jail. Que Sira Sira, whatever will be, will be…
Emotional disposition–happiness included–may be chemically-induced though.
There’s no chemical for “right.” Although some may feel righteous at times.
I enjoy your comments on my comment, intsiksiomai. I can tell that you are a deep thinker and also very well educated.
My thoughts on this matter is that this is not a question of happiness vs. being right, it is a question of authority. Some people will impose authority over us in their quest to be right, and this can be very damaging. If someone is imposing authority, then I try to get out from under it whenever possible. I have to take care of myself and my children. Of course, some authority we simply have to live with – the government, the banking system . . . These strip us of our freedom, but unfortunately it is the system that we’ve created and must do our best to live with it, unless we can all unite in a more peaceful and free way of thinking. But when it comes to individuals who want to assert their authority – abusive spouses, tyrannical parents, egoistic bosses, power hungry leaders – get away from them by any means possible. If it’s just a matter of them having to be right all the time, so what? Loving them despite their crazy ideas will go much further than fighting them. But when a person starts to assert authority by abusive or controlling behavior, it’s time to pack. Just leave them alone. When they’re left alone with no one to control, they’ll give it up. I know that probably sounds pretty passive, but I don’t see it that way. I see it as taking control of my own life and my own happiness in the most peaceful way possible. In the example of GMA, I will say try to undo the unjust authority imposed on you and get yourself out of prison, but realize that it may have been your need to be right that got you there in the first place. Next time, choose to be happy instead.
After my personal experiments w/ happiness and even peace, and, of course, you must also do your own experiments and lab tests of your own mental states, the more you put requirements to your happiness, the more you are making it difficult for yourself! Tell yourself things like, “I will be happy ONLY IF…” then most likely it’s going to happen for you that way.
If you got into a messy situation such as the GMA one, it is most likely because you have already made yourself predisposed to it, and you just needed characters and props to your situation.
What should be activated, then, in that situation is not so much happiness than responsibility, and making the best out of the situation, if you think this is best for you.
what is happiness to begin with? isn’t it just a chemical response to a situation we desire to be in, or are content with. in that case perhaps the reason why intelligent people aren’t happy is simply because they substitute reason for desire. in this case, reason is a left brain activity and desire is a right brain activity and it is very difficult to stimulate both. because intelligent people naturally have a greater capacity for left brain logic and reasoning it is safe to say that unless they have an equally above average capacity for emotion, they will more often than not “choose” to think rather than to feel. and i use the word choose loosely since a choice is an action associated to free will, another thing intellectuals debate.
Mark, I believe that you’re full of shit. Let me tell you why.
1. The “article” you point out is not “peer-reviewed”. This mean that it could have been written by any looney and, therefore, lacks any value.
2. You never define “happiness” and, therefore, neither you now we know what you’re talking about.
3. You compare happiness with success. This is a wrong comparison because both are subjective concepts, and also because there are countless examples of happy unsuccessful people and viceversa.
4. By grouping the three “intellectual” streams you’re reducing everything that the brain does to just one thing. This is an oversimplistic view prone to be misleading.
5. Your analysis of the statement “Follow your heart instead of your brain.” Is nonsense. It adds nothing to your arguments.
6. You never go back to the other statements, which suggests that they are there for decoration.
7. On “the emotional route becomes the logical one for the person who chooses it”, this is true if the person is free to choose. However, most people cannot choose the way they feel. Therefore, this argument is flawed.
8. Society DOES choose for individuals. Laws are the one thing that society does to make individuals choose between “good” and “bad” options.
9. “The social need is still in the mind.” What the f*** are you talking about?!!!
10. Also, the very fact that you later write “Right or moral path vs. emotion is another version of heart vs. brain.”, going back to the “heart”, suggests that you did not rationalize, nor understand your own flow of ideas.
11. Finally, on “A happy person isn’t happy because he values certain things (e.g. wealth or the body) above intellect. In reality it is his intellect that produces the emotion–his intelligence that values those things. A sad person isn’t unhappy because he chooses intellect above all things–but perhaps those things his intelligence values are lacking in his life.” You try to define what happiness or sadness isn’t, but never what it is. By not defining your subject, I believe that you have no idea what you’re talking about. If you were going to give a speech about the subject in front of intelligent people, you’ll be booed out of the stage in not more than five minutes.
You posted this twice?!
More equation studies…
A few nights ago, I was thinking of numbers as symbols again as pertaining to elevator floor numbers. We tend to think numbers are 2-dimensional, earth-is-flat, black-and-white types of things, but a number is multi-dimensional, a symbol like the swastika, like the cross, like the sun. Because in some buildings, there are “bad luck” numbers, so you won’t see a particular number in most of them, depending on the culture.
In Japan, this bad luck number that you shouldn’t have on your elevator list of floors is “4”. The reason is that the character (kanji) of “4” has two readings, “yon” and “shi”. The character of “death” is also read as “shi”. So “4” sounds like the character of “death,” and to avoid affirming such thoughts, they removed it from the elevator list.
Is it passable to make conclusions such as: 4 = death? Is it a powerful idea this way?
In other cultures, it is the number “13” that we don’t see on elevators. It doesn’t necessarily mean “death”, although that is the worst possible thing that can happen in the whole spectrum of bad luck associated with the number.
So can we say, 13 = bad luck?
Both “4 = death” and “13 = bad luck” are not interchangeable. So it’s weak this way. Or it cannot be concluded this way.
Some ideas come in particular forms, such as:
1 (5 + 2) / 1 = 3 + 4
Which means that they are not the same, although they are equivalents (“equivalents” is a term we use in the study of some mythological ideas). One example is:
Jesus = Sakyamuni
(as representations of compassion & enlightenment)
This idea is interchangeable. It does not mean to say that they are the same – at all! But they are equivalents.
So how to strengthen the elevator floor ideas?
While 13 doesn’t mean death in particular, the common denominator cannot be death (in the case of 4), but bad luck. So…:
Floor Level 4 = Floor Level 13
(as unlucky elevator floors)
Of course, constructs and frameworks must be presented along with them, otherwise it really won’t make sense.
Ecstasy is our very nature; not to be ecstatic is simply unnecessary.
To be ecstatic is natural, spontaneous.
It needs no effort to be ecstatic, it needs great effort to be miserable. That’s why you look to tired, because misery is really hard work; to maintain it is really difficult, because you are doing something against nature.
OSHO
One thing that could affect your happiness would be the way in which you look at things.
There are more happy geniuses than unhappy ones.
Just take a look at this guy Richard Feynman for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSZNsIFID28 or ANY other video about him, and just watch how he can never stop smiling while he talks about the wonders of the world we live in.
There are many more like him Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris, etc.
If anything intelligence would help you making better choices which would lead to a more enjoyable life.
When discussing a subject as convoluted and subjective as human happiness, there is no “right” or “wrong.” To touch on the article, “right” and “wrong” are simply values created and sustained within the minds of individuals. In my opinion, pundits should keep this in mind before they choose to critique someoneelse’s philosophy. Open-mindedness is the key to creative discussion. I enjoy my ability to think about emotions and how they are created within my mind and also the minds of others. However, if I truly understood what emotion is, my existence would be futile.
[…] Esse texto combinou leituras daqui, daqui, daqui e daqui e algumas conclusões apressadas minhas.) Publicado em Frases, Músicas com tags de Autoramas, […]
Truth is, it has to do with awareness. For the most part when you are aware of all the things going on, it’s sometimes difficult to be happy.
That’s the saying “ignorance is bliss.”
“Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld”
[…] Esse texto combinou leituras daqui, daqui e daqui e algumas conclusões apressadas minhas.) Quer compartilhar? Postado em Frases, Músicas com as […]
Marcel is right. Alot of the things written here is full of shit.
Evidently this comment is one example.
“Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld”
Happiness that you create within and around your life is a true measure of your intelligence.
Than why are great thinkers so often depressed? And you can’t forget circumstance. You can’t call a starving African unintelligent because they’re unhappy. I think depending on what your intelligence specializes in, it can help or hurt your happiness. I like to think I’m smart, but I’ve been depressed and unable to ever achieve happiness in my life thus far.
I agree with most of this.. I’d say, as a depressive, who uses meth to cope with emotion and as someone who values intellect and awareness over happiness, that intellect does not offer “happiness” per say. However, i choose it over happiness anyhow, because intellect does offer something: satisfaction.
I fear being oblivious or ignorant. I don’t wanna be some happy idiot with my head in the clouds. Which of funny because this fear can never be realized, for if i become ignorant (or maybe already am), i wouldn’t know it. If i realize i am ignorant, at that very moment I would no longer be, and would have nothing to fear.. regardless its still a frightening thought. Self awareness and awareness in general makes me feel in control. Even if the perpetual analysis of myself pushes me further into introversion and farther into social exile.
A brutally inward thinker with an intense mental wedlock to chemicals. Talk about a tough cycle to break free from. I’m twenty four, doubt anything will change at this point. Do i want to even? I don’t think i do, honestly, i can’t quite explain it but in a way i like the struggle. Roller coaster.. I like the ups, and even the downs
Intelligence.. I’m not a fan of the word. It’s too… Ambiguous and equivocal. Very broad definition that is unique to everyone. It depends on what you value in terms of criteria for intelligence.
Personally i value self awareness and self honesty, general perception (of events around you and/or keen detection of another’s mood or feelings [sensitivity/discretion]), effective communication, sharp sense of wit/humour, skepticism, adaptability to people and situations, strong creative talent, pragmatic thought, and Mortal Kombat skill. Haha k maybe not Mortal Kombat unless you know EVERY finisher xD
Everyone, however, is intelligent in certain ways; if not to you, than to someone else. Someone can possess none of these traits and i could still potentially find them intelligent. Because intelligence can be broken into endless criteria.
I think intelligence can, and does detriment happiness because of social and emotional underdevelopment. I don’t think happiness ever directly results from the fact someone is or isn’t intelligent. Though a person whos intelligence is in for example business sense, they can earn a good living and thus intelligence had indirectly caused happiness. Or Einstein could have been born into a luxury life of Royals or in Somalia.. In either case, circumstance can negate the relation between intelligence and happiness altogether, and can potentially determine your happiness or lack there of on its own, Einstein or homer Simpson.
What you don’t know, CAN hurt you, and does so unwittingly because you’re ignorance can’t detect it. Or you may know, but poor self honesty can hide your knowledge in your subconscious – lol most humans are scared to embarrass themselves in front of… Themself…. did evolution cause this ridiculousness to put a smoke screen over shame and pain? Evolution should push towards knowledge not blinded happiness… Stupid nature..
From a technical standpoint, some brains are more capable, “finer specimen”.. They’re like computers, some just have more RAM. Șeen this way, intelligence is not relative.
Basically all this stuff is, is how you look at it. Nothing is certain, and every concept can be seen from different angles and remain true in that sense for each viewpoint. Zebra stripes, black on white? Vice versa?
If ignorance is bliss, I’d rather be miserable.
Cheers
Uh yeah easy for you to say. It’s extremely difficult for me to feel happy, actually. And no, it’s not just because of poor outlook.
It’s easy to make this declaration if you’re happy. I bet it would feel easy.
It’s absolutely not “natural to be ecstatic” Nature isn’t designed for living things to easily be happy, or depressed necessarily, and it doesn’t care for our happiness. Everything is a combination of the same elements. We’re practically objects. Evolution tries to improve species with the goal being survival and sustainability, and I’m not sure exactly how, but the evolutionary balancing act ensures our survival. If everyone were naturally ecstatic, don’t you think the world would be drastically different? I don’t know where you live but most people I meet don’t seem ecstatic.
To imply that misery is difficult to achieve for everyone is so ridiculous. And it implies that because of my depression, I must have a truly flawed mindset.
Why are swimming and running not part of the exercise branch of the above eyeball diagram?
Sorry, I meant the diagram below the eyeball.
The different modes and we can see, everything has its own relevance and everything can be balanced.
http://www.friv4go.com
How does one attain happiness? By being blissfully ignorant. You have to keep yourself perpetually in the present tense. You cannot ruminate on teh past errors and mistakes, onnly filtered memories of happy times. You cannot be preoccupied with the future. Happy people don’t care about anything except the fleeting pleasure seeking int eh present tense. That is the key. They don’t tehink about the fabric of nature and the consequences of things and the order of the universe and other lofty ideas that bog the mind down and prevent it from seeking gratification immediately. They simply don’t have time for complex though. The people that spends time on thinking about the past and future will see the dismal reality emerge in its motifs. Most smart people are sarcastic and cynical. Sure they ahve open minds, but not so open that their brain falls out. Intelligence and happiness are truly inversely proportional. The smarter you are, the more you think about the world around you, and the more you think about the world around you, the more uncertainty and and hopelessness will pervade your perception and the gloom and terror of depression starts to actually be a blanket. You take comfort in seeing the world as it truly is. The alternative is to have a metaphorical lobotomy and pretend and exercise deliberate denial and “positivity” techniques to block out the reality around you and be sanguine and content and oh so happy. Dumb people acheive this easily . they don’t want to think and hurt their head.
[…] [1] https://thecriticalthinker.wordpress.com/2009/01/31/happiness-intelligence/ […]