Skip to main content

Author Topic: Random musings

n
  • ***
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 114
  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Random musings
#255: June 30, 2020, 09:13:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Happiness is a child's goal in life.

For the Greek philosophers, “happiness” was the goal of human activity, understood as “human flourishing”.  Were they children?

You know that 'philosophy' means 'love of knowledge', which would make a 'philosopher' a 'lover of knowledge', right? No where is 'happiness' (not of Creator) implied in the actual meaning of 'philosophy' or 'philosopher'.

Buddhism pursues happiness by using knowledge and practice to achieve mental equanimity. In Buddhism, equanimity, or peace of mind, is achieved by detaching oneself from the cycle of craving that produces dukkha.
  • IP logged

n
  • ***
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 114
  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Random musings
#256: June 30, 2020, 09:25:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If we are not our bodies then why do the different biological human races matter? or do black, whites, asians, etc. have different etheric/astral counterparts?

Ask yourself this..what tecnology or great work originated from the africans

Maybe they discovered fire?  All manner of percussive instruments?  Not sure if they had a wheel.  Dugout canoe.  Mud hut.  What more do you need?   :)

They are the natives so they see no reason to change or create new things. Civilization and inventing is Luciferian.

And yet multiple studies have shown the simpler the civilisation the more happy it is.

You know you can't provide citations for those studies because they don't exist this isn't Twitter dude we have a higher standard here

True, they don't, but a little common sense proves it.

Just one example - stress - all of the shit we have to deal with daily just living in this modern world builds stress, limits time spent exercising or "making love" or time spent with family. Most people spend most of their lives working and sleeping, only 1/3 of their life spent on anything else.

Our ketogenic system in our body is designed that we can go long amounts of time without food and then feast all in one go (so long as we dont break it with carbs) so the amount of time hunters were not hunting, probably in winter, gave them more family time.

Another example is how happiness is caused by giving to others, which is much easier when you live in a clan to survive.

Another example is how if you were born weak you probably died very early on, so the people who are actually alive are not limited by problems, let alone all the mental problems the population have now. Going back to stress, in the USA alone, 13% of the population are on prescription antidepressants. 18% of the USA alone have anxiety disorders. These, according to numerous books at least, did not exist living a simple lifestyle in nature.
  • IP logged

T
  • *****
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 745
  • Karma: +12/-0
Re: Random musings
#257: June 30, 2020, 09:35:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Happiness is a child's goal in life.

For the Greek philosophers, “happiness” was the goal of human activity, understood as “human flourishing”.  Were they children?

You know that 'philosophy' means 'love of knowledge', which would make a 'philosopher' a 'lover of knowledge', right? No where is 'happiness' (not of Creator) implied in the actual meaning of 'philosophy' or 'philosopher'.

Buddhism pursues happiness by using knowledge and practice to achieve mental equanimity. In Buddhism, equanimity, or peace of mind, is achieved by detaching oneself from the cycle of craving that produces dukkha.

Yeah except we discussed this already. Becoming detached in the Buddhist sense means you will never muster the the e motions to preform magic.
  • IP logged

T
  • *****
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 745
  • Karma: +12/-0
Re: Random musings
#258: June 30, 2020, 09:37:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If we are not our bodies then why do the different biological human races matter? or do black, whites, asians, etc. have different etheric/astral counterparts?

Ask yourself this..what tecnology or great work originated from the africans

Maybe they discovered fire?  All manner of percussive instruments?  Not sure if they had a wheel.  Dugout canoe.  Mud hut.  What more do you need?   :)

They are the natives so they see no reason to change or create new things. Civilization and inventing is Luciferian.

And yet multiple studies have shown the simpler the civilisation the more happy it is.

You know you can't provide citations for those studies because they don't exist this isn't Twitter dude we have a higher standard here

True, they don't, but a little common sense proves it.

Just one example - stress - all of the shit we have to deal with daily just living in this modern world builds stress, limits time spent exercising or "making love" or time spent with family. Most people spend most of their lives working and sleeping, only 1/3 of their life spent on anything else.

Our ketogenic system in our body is designed that we can go long amounts of time without food and then feast all in one go (so long as we dont break it with carbs) so the amount of time hunters were not hunting, probably in winter, gave them more family time.

Another example is how happiness is caused by giving to others, which is much easier when you live in a clan to survive.

Another example is how if you were born weak you probably died very early on, so the people who are actually alive are not limited by problems, let alone all the mental problems the population have now. Going back to stress, in the USA alone, 13% of the population are on prescription antidepressants. 18% of the USA alone have anxiety disorders. These, according to numerous books at least, did not exist living a simple lifestyle in nature.

'Stress' seems to point to how you handle things not that what your doing is actually that difficult or demanding.
  • IP logged

N
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 634
  • Karma: +14/-0
Re: Random musings
#259: June 30, 2020, 11:43:11 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Happiness is a child's goal in life.

For the Greek philosophers, “happiness” was the goal of human activity, understood as “human flourishing”.  Were they children?

You know that 'philosophy' means 'love of knowledge', which would make a 'philosopher' a 'lover of knowledge', right? No where is 'happiness' (not of Creator) implied in the actual meaning of 'philosophy' or 'philosopher'.

Buddhism pursues happiness by using knowledge and practice to achieve mental equanimity. In Buddhism, equanimity, or peace of mind, is achieved by detaching oneself from the cycle of craving that produces dukkha.

Buddhism isnt philosophy it's an idealogy.
Also not the Greeks obviously
  • IP logged

N
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 634
  • Karma: +14/-0
Re: Random musings
#260: June 30, 2020, 11:45:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If we are not our bodies then why do the different biological human races matter? or do black, whites, asians, etc. have different etheric/astral counterparts?

Ask yourself this..what tecnology or great work originated from the africans

Maybe they discovered fire?  All manner of percussive instruments?  Not sure if they had a wheel.  Dugout canoe.  Mud hut.  What more do you need?   :)

They are the natives so they see no reason to change or create new things. Civilization and inventing is Luciferian.

And yet multiple studies have shown the simpler the civilisation the more happy it is.

You know you can't provide citations for those studies because they don't exist this isn't Twitter dude we have a higher standard here

True, they don't, but a little common sense proves it.

Just one example - stress - all of the shit we have to deal with daily just living in this modern world builds stress, limits time spent exercising or "making love" or time spent with family. Most people spend most of their lives working and sleeping, only 1/3 of their life spent on anything else.

Our ketogenic system in our body is designed that we can go long amounts of time without food and then feast all in one go (so long as we dont break it with carbs) so the amount of time hunters were not hunting, probably in winter, gave them more family time.

Another example is how happiness is caused by giving to others, which is much easier when you live in a clan to survive.

Another example is how if you were born weak you probably died very early on, so the people who are actually alive are not limited by problems, let alone all the mental problems the population have now. Going back to stress, in the USA alone, 13% of the population are on prescription antidepressants. 18% of the USA alone have anxiety disorders. These, according to numerous books at least, did not exist living a simple lifestyle in nature.

But 25 percent of women are on head meds so you have a very unwell demo pushing that number higher.

And nothing you said validates your point which you know because you felt the need to fabricate studies to add authority to your opinion,which you are wlecome to but opinions are the lowest form of information they require nothing but a pulse
  • IP logged

o
  • **
  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Random musings
#261: June 30, 2020, 03:00:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Happiness is a child's goal in life.

For the Greek philosophers, “happiness” was the goal of human activity, understood as “human flourishing”.  Were they children?

Citation please

Quote
For ancient philosophers, eudaimonia is not a particular kind of experience or feeling, but a particular kind of life, where reason almost always plays an important role. The link between happiness and reason is clearly drawn by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics (NE) I 7, where he argues that happiness resides in rational activity in accordance with virtue. This argument is discussed by Øyvind Rabbås in "Eudaimonia, Human Nature, and Normativity: Reflections on Aristotle's Project in Nicomachean Ethics Book I". He aims to explain how Aristotle's ethics can be both naturalist and practically normative, i.e. based in a conception of human nature as a rational being, and at the same time give guidance on how we ought to live. The connection between happiness and reason is particularly tight in the Platonist tradition, with Plotinus identifying the happy life with the life of intellect. Plotinus' thoughts on happiness are discussed by Alexandrine Schniewind (and touched upon by Eyjólfur K. Emilsson and Miira Tuominen). Schniewind shows in "Plotinus' Way of Defining 'Eudaimonia' in Ennead I 4 [46] 1-3" that Plotinus' puzzling remarks about his predecessors in the two opening chapters of Ennead I 4 are intended to clear the way for his own definition of happiness.

As well as a connection between happiness and reason, the volume demonstrates that there is a close connection between happiness and godlikeness in ancient ethics. This theme is mentioned in several papers, and taken up in detail by Svavar Hrafn Svavarsson in "On Happiness and Godlikeness before Socrates". Starting from the observation that Plato and Aristotle share the idea that happiness "consists in being as like god as possible" (28), he traces the development of this idea from Homer and Hesiod, through lyric poets, to Heraclitus. He shows how the focus shifts from happiness as external success, entirely dependent on gods, to internal factors responsible for this success. Another significant shift takes place in late antiquity, and is addressed by Christian Tornau in "Happiness in this Life? Augustine on the Principle that Virtue is Self-sufficient for Happiness". Augustine denies the possibility of achieving happiness in this life and regards happiness as a gift of divine grace, but nonetheless holds on to the traditional idea that virtue is sufficient for happiness. Tornau examines his attempt to resolve this dilemma through redefining virtue.

While this volume focuses primarily on happiness, rather than on virtue, the connection between happiness and virtue is an important theme in ancient ethics. Most ancient Greek philosophers agree that in order for one to be happy, one needs to be virtuous, though opinions differ as to whether being virtuous is sufficient for happiness. The Stoics famously take virtue, understood as wisdom, to be sufficient for the happy life, and a common complaint against their account is that the status of the wise person is outside the reach of regular people. Katerina Ierodiakonou's "How Feasible is the Stoic Conception of Eudaimonia?" considers and responds to objections presented by the Stoics' ancient critics. She argues that Stoic moral principles do not rule out moral progress, and their conception of eudaimonia, as an aspiration towards an ideal, is no less feasible than that of other ancient ethical theories. Ierodiakonou's paper is perhaps most directly about virtues, whereas other papers discuss virtues more or less indirectly.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote
Now what is the relation of the ancient philosophers’ eudaimonia to the modern notion of happiness? Here again, the scholarly opinions diverge. All scholars recognize the difference in contents between the ancient Greek notions of philosophical eudaimonia and the dominant modern ideas of happiness. But the question concerning the nature of happiness is a different issue from the question of whether the concept that is used is the same or not.
Richard Kraut has argued that the ancient theories of eudaimonia, especially Aristotle’s theory, are indeed theories of happiness, even though they are rather different ones from the dominant views in our own time.10 Our disagreement with the ancients is, in Kraut’s opinion, substantive and philosophical, but not conceptual or terminological. There are of course crucial differences between the ancient notion of eudaimonia and the modern notion of happiness. Aristotle and the ancients held that the fundamental standard of eudaimonia is objective: one can only be happy if he has virtue, a feature that can be recognized independently of the happy subject’s attitudes. The dominant modern theory of happiness, on the contrary, claims that the standards of happiness are subjective: one’s life is happy if his or her desires are satisfied whatever they happen to be. However, Kraut argues that the ancient notion of eudaimonia also includes an ingredient that connects it to the modern notion of happiness in the concept of happiness. This is a positive attitude towards one’s life, and Aristotle and other ancient eudaimonists really held that a eudaimon person has this kind of attitude towards life. The ancients thought that a positive attitude follows from certain objective features in one’s life, whereas the moderns think that it is merely a result from one’s subjective feeling. Kraut concludes that there is only one concept of happiness at play here, but two competing substantive conceptions of the contents of that concept. The subjectivity of happiness is a suggestion concerning the contents of the concept, not an integral feature of the concept itself.

Quote
Aristotle, for example, thought that life is pleasant if it consists of unforced actualizations of virtuous activities, whereas vicious or incontinent or even continent life is necessarily unpleasant.13 The subjective aspect of happiness, the positive attitude towards one’s life, is involved
 in the ancient notion of eudaimonia, as its necessary accompaniment, although not as a part of its essence. For Aristotle, a eudaimon life is pleasant, but it is not the pleasure that makes the life eudaimon. But if we think that the subjective feeling of pleasure or contentment has to be involved in happiness, there is enough of that dimension even in the ancient conception. For this reason, it is not misleading to translate the Greek eudaimonia as ‘happiness’, although it is also true that the ancient philosophers held that objective standards could be provided for happiness and these objective elements constituted the essence of eudaimonia.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
  • IP logged

T
  • *****
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 745
  • Karma: +12/-0
Re: Random musings
#262: June 30, 2020, 04:13:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Happiness is a child's goal in life.

For the Greek philosophers, “happiness” was the goal of human activity, understood as “human flourishing”.  Were they children?

Citation please

Quote
For ancient philosophers, eudaimonia is not a particular kind of experience or feeling, but a particular kind of life, where reason almost always plays an important role. The link between happiness and reason is clearly drawn by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics (NE) I 7, where he argues that happiness resides in rational activity in accordance with virtue. This argument is discussed by Øyvind Rabbås in "Eudaimonia, Human Nature, and Normativity: Reflections on Aristotle's Project in Nicomachean Ethics Book I". He aims to explain how Aristotle's ethics can be both naturalist and practically normative, i.e. based in a conception of human nature as a rational being, and at the same time give guidance on how we ought to live. The connection between happiness and reason is particularly tight in the Platonist tradition, with Plotinus identifying the happy life with the life of intellect. Plotinus' thoughts on happiness are discussed by Alexandrine Schniewind (and touched upon by Eyjólfur K. Emilsson and Miira Tuominen). Schniewind shows in "Plotinus' Way of Defining 'Eudaimonia' in Ennead I 4 [46] 1-3" that Plotinus' puzzling remarks about his predecessors in the two opening chapters of Ennead I 4 are intended to clear the way for his own definition of happiness.

As well as a connection between happiness and reason, the volume demonstrates that there is a close connection between happiness and godlikeness in ancient ethics. This theme is mentioned in several papers, and taken up in detail by Svavar Hrafn Svavarsson in "On Happiness and Godlikeness before Socrates". Starting from the observation that Plato and Aristotle share the idea that happiness "consists in being as like god as possible" (28), he traces the development of this idea from Homer and Hesiod, through lyric poets, to Heraclitus. He shows how the focus shifts from happiness as external success, entirely dependent on gods, to internal factors responsible for this success. Another significant shift takes place in late antiquity, and is addressed by Christian Tornau in "Happiness in this Life? Augustine on the Principle that Virtue is Self-sufficient for Happiness". Augustine denies the possibility of achieving happiness in this life and regards happiness as a gift of divine grace, but nonetheless holds on to the traditional idea that virtue is sufficient for happiness. Tornau examines his attempt to resolve this dilemma through redefining virtue.

While this volume focuses primarily on happiness, rather than on virtue, the connection between happiness and virtue is an important theme in ancient ethics. Most ancient Greek philosophers agree that in order for one to be happy, one needs to be virtuous, though opinions differ as to whether being virtuous is sufficient for happiness. The Stoics famously take virtue, understood as wisdom, to be sufficient for the happy life, and a common complaint against their account is that the status of the wise person is outside the reach of regular people. Katerina Ierodiakonou's "How Feasible is the Stoic Conception of Eudaimonia?" considers and responds to objections presented by the Stoics' ancient critics. She argues that Stoic moral principles do not rule out moral progress, and their conception of eudaimonia, as an aspiration towards an ideal, is no less feasible than that of other ancient ethical theories. Ierodiakonou's paper is perhaps most directly about virtues, whereas other papers discuss virtues more or less indirectly.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote
Now what is the relation of the ancient philosophers’ eudaimonia to the modern notion of happiness? Here again, the scholarly opinions diverge. All scholars recognize the difference in contents between the ancient Greek notions of philosophical eudaimonia and the dominant modern ideas of happiness. But the question concerning the nature of happiness is a different issue from the question of whether the concept that is used is the same or not.
Richard Kraut has argued that the ancient theories of eudaimonia, especially Aristotle’s theory, are indeed theories of happiness, even though they are rather different ones from the dominant views in our own time.10 Our disagreement with the ancients is, in Kraut’s opinion, substantive and philosophical, but not conceptual or terminological. There are of course crucial differences between the ancient notion of eudaimonia and the modern notion of happiness. Aristotle and the ancients held that the fundamental standard of eudaimonia is objective: one can only be happy if he has virtue, a feature that can be recognized independently of the happy subject’s attitudes. The dominant modern theory of happiness, on the contrary, claims that the standards of happiness are subjective: one’s life is happy if his or her desires are satisfied whatever they happen to be. However, Kraut argues that the ancient notion of eudaimonia also includes an ingredient that connects it to the modern notion of happiness in the concept of happiness. This is a positive attitude towards one’s life, and Aristotle and other ancient eudaimonists really held that a eudaimon person has this kind of attitude towards life. The ancients thought that a positive attitude follows from certain objective features in one’s life, whereas the moderns think that it is merely a result from one’s subjective feeling. Kraut concludes that there is only one concept of happiness at play here, but two competing substantive conceptions of the contents of that concept. The subjectivity of happiness is a suggestion concerning the contents of the concept, not an integral feature of the concept itself.

Quote
Aristotle, for example, thought that life is pleasant if it consists of unforced actualizations of virtuous activities, whereas vicious or incontinent or even continent life is necessarily unpleasant.13 The subjective aspect of happiness, the positive attitude towards one’s life, is involved
 in the ancient notion of eudaimonia, as its necessary accompaniment, although not as a part of its essence. For Aristotle, a eudaimon life is pleasant, but it is not the pleasure that makes the life eudaimon. But if we think that the subjective feeling of pleasure or contentment has to be involved in happiness, there is enough of that dimension even in the ancient conception. For this reason, it is not misleading to translate the Greek eudaimonia as ‘happiness’, although it is also true that the ancient philosophers held that objective standards could be provided for happiness and these objective elements constituted the essence of eudaimonia.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

So where is it implied that "happiness is the goal of human activity"? From what you quoted, all that seems to be explained is what the Greek philosophers thought 'happiness' was and what kind of life was required to achieve it.

I wonder what the only real philosopher thought about such a notion.
  • IP logged

o
  • **
  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Random musings
#263: June 30, 2020, 05:38:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Happiness is a child's goal in life.

For the Greek philosophers, “happiness” was the goal of human activity, understood as “human flourishing”.  Were they children?

Citation please

Quote
For ancient philosophers, eudaimonia is not a particular kind of experience or feeling, but a particular kind of life, where reason almost always plays an important role. The link between happiness and reason is clearly drawn by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics (NE) I 7, where he argues that happiness resides in rational activity in accordance with virtue. This argument is discussed by Øyvind Rabbås in "Eudaimonia, Human Nature, and Normativity: Reflections on Aristotle's Project in Nicomachean Ethics Book I". He aims to explain how Aristotle's ethics can be both naturalist and practically normative, i.e. based in a conception of human nature as a rational being, and at the same time give guidance on how we ought to live. The connection between happiness and reason is particularly tight in the Platonist tradition, with Plotinus identifying the happy life with the life of intellect. Plotinus' thoughts on happiness are discussed by Alexandrine Schniewind (and touched upon by Eyjólfur K. Emilsson and Miira Tuominen). Schniewind shows in "Plotinus' Way of Defining 'Eudaimonia' in Ennead I 4 [46] 1-3" that Plotinus' puzzling remarks about his predecessors in the two opening chapters of Ennead I 4 are intended to clear the way for his own definition of happiness.

As well as a connection between happiness and reason, the volume demonstrates that there is a close connection between happiness and godlikeness in ancient ethics. This theme is mentioned in several papers, and taken up in detail by Svavar Hrafn Svavarsson in "On Happiness and Godlikeness before Socrates". Starting from the observation that Plato and Aristotle share the idea that happiness "consists in being as like god as possible" (28), he traces the development of this idea from Homer and Hesiod, through lyric poets, to Heraclitus. He shows how the focus shifts from happiness as external success, entirely dependent on gods, to internal factors responsible for this success. Another significant shift takes place in late antiquity, and is addressed by Christian Tornau in "Happiness in this Life? Augustine on the Principle that Virtue is Self-sufficient for Happiness". Augustine denies the possibility of achieving happiness in this life and regards happiness as a gift of divine grace, but nonetheless holds on to the traditional idea that virtue is sufficient for happiness. Tornau examines his attempt to resolve this dilemma through redefining virtue.

While this volume focuses primarily on happiness, rather than on virtue, the connection between happiness and virtue is an important theme in ancient ethics. Most ancient Greek philosophers agree that in order for one to be happy, one needs to be virtuous, though opinions differ as to whether being virtuous is sufficient for happiness. The Stoics famously take virtue, understood as wisdom, to be sufficient for the happy life, and a common complaint against their account is that the status of the wise person is outside the reach of regular people. Katerina Ierodiakonou's "How Feasible is the Stoic Conception of Eudaimonia?" considers and responds to objections presented by the Stoics' ancient critics. She argues that Stoic moral principles do not rule out moral progress, and their conception of eudaimonia, as an aspiration towards an ideal, is no less feasible than that of other ancient ethical theories. Ierodiakonou's paper is perhaps most directly about virtues, whereas other papers discuss virtues more or less indirectly.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote
Now what is the relation of the ancient philosophers’ eudaimonia to the modern notion of happiness? Here again, the scholarly opinions diverge. All scholars recognize the difference in contents between the ancient Greek notions of philosophical eudaimonia and the dominant modern ideas of happiness. But the question concerning the nature of happiness is a different issue from the question of whether the concept that is used is the same or not.
Richard Kraut has argued that the ancient theories of eudaimonia, especially Aristotle’s theory, are indeed theories of happiness, even though they are rather different ones from the dominant views in our own time.10 Our disagreement with the ancients is, in Kraut’s opinion, substantive and philosophical, but not conceptual or terminological. There are of course crucial differences between the ancient notion of eudaimonia and the modern notion of happiness. Aristotle and the ancients held that the fundamental standard of eudaimonia is objective: one can only be happy if he has virtue, a feature that can be recognized independently of the happy subject’s attitudes. The dominant modern theory of happiness, on the contrary, claims that the standards of happiness are subjective: one’s life is happy if his or her desires are satisfied whatever they happen to be. However, Kraut argues that the ancient notion of eudaimonia also includes an ingredient that connects it to the modern notion of happiness in the concept of happiness. This is a positive attitude towards one’s life, and Aristotle and other ancient eudaimonists really held that a eudaimon person has this kind of attitude towards life. The ancients thought that a positive attitude follows from certain objective features in one’s life, whereas the moderns think that it is merely a result from one’s subjective feeling. Kraut concludes that there is only one concept of happiness at play here, but two competing substantive conceptions of the contents of that concept. The subjectivity of happiness is a suggestion concerning the contents of the concept, not an integral feature of the concept itself.

Quote
Aristotle, for example, thought that life is pleasant if it consists of unforced actualizations of virtuous activities, whereas vicious or incontinent or even continent life is necessarily unpleasant.13 The subjective aspect of happiness, the positive attitude towards one’s life, is involved
 in the ancient notion of eudaimonia, as its necessary accompaniment, although not as a part of its essence. For Aristotle, a eudaimon life is pleasant, but it is not the pleasure that makes the life eudaimon. But if we think that the subjective feeling of pleasure or contentment has to be involved in happiness, there is enough of that dimension even in the ancient conception. For this reason, it is not misleading to translate the Greek eudaimonia as ‘happiness’, although it is also true that the ancient philosophers held that objective standards could be provided for happiness and these objective elements constituted the essence of eudaimonia.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

So where is it implied that "happiness is the goal of human activity"? From what you quoted, all that seems to be explained is what the Greek philosophers thought 'happiness' was and what kind of life was required to achieve it.

I wonder what the only real philosopher thought about such a notion.

Quote
The achievement of happiness, according to Aristotle, is the end goal of every man.
His reasoning is thus: All human activities are done in order to attain something that is good. We don’t do something because we think it will be bad for us. In addition, most of these activities are not the main objective, but rather a means to a higher end. Consequently, the activity that is an end in itself, writes the prolific philosopher, is the highest good, and that good is happiness. We aim at happiness for its own sake, not because it will achieve something else. Happiness, therefore, is our greatest mission.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote
Diogenes maintained that all the artificial growths of society were incompatible with happiness and that morality implies a return to the simplicity of nature
Quote
Diogenes taught by living example. He tried to demonstrate that wisdom and happiness belong to the man who is independent of society and that civilization is regressive.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
  • IP logged

N
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 634
  • Karma: +14/-0
Re: Random musings
#264: June 30, 2020, 07:05:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Happiness is a child's goal in life.

For the Greek philosophers, “happiness” was the goal of human activity, understood as “human flourishing”.  Were they children?

Citation please

Quote
For ancient philosophers, eudaimonia is not a particular kind of experience or feeling, but a particular kind of life, where reason almost always plays an important role. The link between happiness and reason is clearly drawn by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics (NE) I 7, where he argues that happiness resides in rational activity in accordance with virtue. This argument is discussed by Øyvind Rabbås in "Eudaimonia, Human Nature, and Normativity: Reflections on Aristotle's Project in Nicomachean Ethics Book I". He aims to explain how Aristotle's ethics can be both naturalist and practically normative, i.e. based in a conception of human nature as a rational being, and at the same time give guidance on how we ought to live. The connection between happiness and reason is particularly tight in the Platonist tradition, with Plotinus identifying the happy life with the life of intellect. Plotinus' thoughts on happiness are discussed by Alexandrine Schniewind (and touched upon by Eyjólfur K. Emilsson and Miira Tuominen). Schniewind shows in "Plotinus' Way of Defining 'Eudaimonia' in Ennead I 4 [46] 1-3" that Plotinus' puzzling remarks about his predecessors in the two opening chapters of Ennead I 4 are intended to clear the way for his own definition of happiness.

As well as a connection between happiness and reason, the volume demonstrates that there is a close connection between happiness and godlikeness in ancient ethics. This theme is mentioned in several papers, and taken up in detail by Svavar Hrafn Svavarsson in "On Happiness and Godlikeness before Socrates". Starting from the observation that Plato and Aristotle share the idea that happiness "consists in being as like god as possible" (28), he traces the development of this idea from Homer and Hesiod, through lyric poets, to Heraclitus. He shows how the focus shifts from happiness as external success, entirely dependent on gods, to internal factors responsible for this success. Another significant shift takes place in late antiquity, and is addressed by Christian Tornau in "Happiness in this Life? Augustine on the Principle that Virtue is Self-sufficient for Happiness". Augustine denies the possibility of achieving happiness in this life and regards happiness as a gift of divine grace, but nonetheless holds on to the traditional idea that virtue is sufficient for happiness. Tornau examines his attempt to resolve this dilemma through redefining virtue.

While this volume focuses primarily on happiness, rather than on virtue, the connection between happiness and virtue is an important theme in ancient ethics. Most ancient Greek philosophers agree that in order for one to be happy, one needs to be virtuous, though opinions differ as to whether being virtuous is sufficient for happiness. The Stoics famously take virtue, understood as wisdom, to be sufficient for the happy life, and a common complaint against their account is that the status of the wise person is outside the reach of regular people. Katerina Ierodiakonou's "How Feasible is the Stoic Conception of Eudaimonia?" considers and responds to objections presented by the Stoics' ancient critics. She argues that Stoic moral principles do not rule out moral progress, and their conception of eudaimonia, as an aspiration towards an ideal, is no less feasible than that of other ancient ethical theories. Ierodiakonou's paper is perhaps most directly about virtues, whereas other papers discuss virtues more or less indirectly.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote
Now what is the relation of the ancient philosophers’ eudaimonia to the modern notion of happiness? Here again, the scholarly opinions diverge. All scholars recognize the difference in contents between the ancient Greek notions of philosophical eudaimonia and the dominant modern ideas of happiness. But the question concerning the nature of happiness is a different issue from the question of whether the concept that is used is the same or not.
Richard Kraut has argued that the ancient theories of eudaimonia, especially Aristotle’s theory, are indeed theories of happiness, even though they are rather different ones from the dominant views in our own time.10 Our disagreement with the ancients is, in Kraut’s opinion, substantive and philosophical, but not conceptual or terminological. There are of course crucial differences between the ancient notion of eudaimonia and the modern notion of happiness. Aristotle and the ancients held that the fundamental standard of eudaimonia is objective: one can only be happy if he has virtue, a feature that can be recognized independently of the happy subject’s attitudes. The dominant modern theory of happiness, on the contrary, claims that the standards of happiness are subjective: one’s life is happy if his or her desires are satisfied whatever they happen to be. However, Kraut argues that the ancient notion of eudaimonia also includes an ingredient that connects it to the modern notion of happiness in the concept of happiness. This is a positive attitude towards one’s life, and Aristotle and other ancient eudaimonists really held that a eudaimon person has this kind of attitude towards life. The ancients thought that a positive attitude follows from certain objective features in one’s life, whereas the moderns think that it is merely a result from one’s subjective feeling. Kraut concludes that there is only one concept of happiness at play here, but two competing substantive conceptions of the contents of that concept. The subjectivity of happiness is a suggestion concerning the contents of the concept, not an integral feature of the concept itself.

Quote
Aristotle, for example, thought that life is pleasant if it consists of unforced actualizations of virtuous activities, whereas vicious or incontinent or even continent life is necessarily unpleasant.13 The subjective aspect of happiness, the positive attitude towards one’s life, is involved
 in the ancient notion of eudaimonia, as its necessary accompaniment, although not as a part of its essence. For Aristotle, a eudaimon life is pleasant, but it is not the pleasure that makes the life eudaimon. But if we think that the subjective feeling of pleasure or contentment has to be involved in happiness, there is enough of that dimension even in the ancient conception. For this reason, it is not misleading to translate the Greek eudaimonia as ‘happiness’, although it is also true that the ancient philosophers held that objective standards could be provided for happiness and these objective elements constituted the essence of eudaimonia.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

So Greeks believe happiness to be the byproduct of a life lived strictly adhering to the optimization of your logical faculty not the narcissistic hedonistic view of Happiness today. You're talkin about the byproduct not the goal and even then it doesn't even resemble the terms as ypu used it
  • IP logged

N
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 634
  • Karma: +14/-0
Re: Random musings
#265: June 30, 2020, 07:06:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Happiness is a child's goal in life.

For the Greek philosophers, “happiness” was the goal of human activity, understood as “human flourishing”.  Were they children?

Citation please

Quote
For ancient philosophers, eudaimonia is not a particular kind of experience or feeling, but a particular kind of life, where reason almost always plays an important role. The link between happiness and reason is clearly drawn by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics (NE) I 7, where he argues that happiness resides in rational activity in accordance with virtue. This argument is discussed by Øyvind Rabbås in "Eudaimonia, Human Nature, and Normativity: Reflections on Aristotle's Project in Nicomachean Ethics Book I". He aims to explain how Aristotle's ethics can be both naturalist and practically normative, i.e. based in a conception of human nature as a rational being, and at the same time give guidance on how we ought to live. The connection between happiness and reason is particularly tight in the Platonist tradition, with Plotinus identifying the happy life with the life of intellect. Plotinus' thoughts on happiness are discussed by Alexandrine Schniewind (and touched upon by Eyjólfur K. Emilsson and Miira Tuominen). Schniewind shows in "Plotinus' Way of Defining 'Eudaimonia' in Ennead I 4 [46] 1-3" that Plotinus' puzzling remarks about his predecessors in the two opening chapters of Ennead I 4 are intended to clear the way for his own definition of happiness.

As well as a connection between happiness and reason, the volume demonstrates that there is a close connection between happiness and godlikeness in ancient ethics. This theme is mentioned in several papers, and taken up in detail by Svavar Hrafn Svavarsson in "On Happiness and Godlikeness before Socrates". Starting from the observation that Plato and Aristotle share the idea that happiness "consists in being as like god as possible" (28), he traces the development of this idea from Homer and Hesiod, through lyric poets, to Heraclitus. He shows how the focus shifts from happiness as external success, entirely dependent on gods, to internal factors responsible for this success. Another significant shift takes place in late antiquity, and is addressed by Christian Tornau in "Happiness in this Life? Augustine on the Principle that Virtue is Self-sufficient for Happiness". Augustine denies the possibility of achieving happiness in this life and regards happiness as a gift of divine grace, but nonetheless holds on to the traditional idea that virtue is sufficient for happiness. Tornau examines his attempt to resolve this dilemma through redefining virtue.

While this volume focuses primarily on happiness, rather than on virtue, the connection between happiness and virtue is an important theme in ancient ethics. Most ancient Greek philosophers agree that in order for one to be happy, one needs to be virtuous, though opinions differ as to whether being virtuous is sufficient for happiness. The Stoics famously take virtue, understood as wisdom, to be sufficient for the happy life, and a common complaint against their account is that the status of the wise person is outside the reach of regular people. Katerina Ierodiakonou's "How Feasible is the Stoic Conception of Eudaimonia?" considers and responds to objections presented by the Stoics' ancient critics. She argues that Stoic moral principles do not rule out moral progress, and their conception of eudaimonia, as an aspiration towards an ideal, is no less feasible than that of other ancient ethical theories. Ierodiakonou's paper is perhaps most directly about virtues, whereas other papers discuss virtues more or less indirectly.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote
Now what is the relation of the ancient philosophers’ eudaimonia to the modern notion of happiness? Here again, the scholarly opinions diverge. All scholars recognize the difference in contents between the ancient Greek notions of philosophical eudaimonia and the dominant modern ideas of happiness. But the question concerning the nature of happiness is a different issue from the question of whether the concept that is used is the same or not.
Richard Kraut has argued that the ancient theories of eudaimonia, especially Aristotle’s theory, are indeed theories of happiness, even though they are rather different ones from the dominant views in our own time.10 Our disagreement with the ancients is, in Kraut’s opinion, substantive and philosophical, but not conceptual or terminological. There are of course crucial differences between the ancient notion of eudaimonia and the modern notion of happiness. Aristotle and the ancients held that the fundamental standard of eudaimonia is objective: one can only be happy if he has virtue, a feature that can be recognized independently of the happy subject’s attitudes. The dominant modern theory of happiness, on the contrary, claims that the standards of happiness are subjective: one’s life is happy if his or her desires are satisfied whatever they happen to be. However, Kraut argues that the ancient notion of eudaimonia also includes an ingredient that connects it to the modern notion of happiness in the concept of happiness. This is a positive attitude towards one’s life, and Aristotle and other ancient eudaimonists really held that a eudaimon person has this kind of attitude towards life. The ancients thought that a positive attitude follows from certain objective features in one’s life, whereas the moderns think that it is merely a result from one’s subjective feeling. Kraut concludes that there is only one concept of happiness at play here, but two competing substantive conceptions of the contents of that concept. The subjectivity of happiness is a suggestion concerning the contents of the concept, not an integral feature of the concept itself.

Quote
Aristotle, for example, thought that life is pleasant if it consists of unforced actualizations of virtuous activities, whereas vicious or incontinent or even continent life is necessarily unpleasant.13 The subjective aspect of happiness, the positive attitude towards one’s life, is involved
 in the ancient notion of eudaimonia, as its necessary accompaniment, although not as a part of its essence. For Aristotle, a eudaimon life is pleasant, but it is not the pleasure that makes the life eudaimon. But if we think that the subjective feeling of pleasure or contentment has to be involved in happiness, there is enough of that dimension even in the ancient conception. For this reason, it is not misleading to translate the Greek eudaimonia as ‘happiness’, although it is also true that the ancient philosophers held that objective standards could be provided for happiness and these objective elements constituted the essence of eudaimonia.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Epicurious would certainly agree with you the Pythagoras certainly not, diogenes Socrates they would all have very different ideas. There's nothing approximating consensus anywhere in philosophy
  • IP logged

  • ***
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 194
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • Truth
Re: Random musings
#266: June 30, 2020, 08:41:53 PM
Remember the good ol days when everyone just trusted the news?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Fair to wonder if anything in geopitics is real anymore.
  • IP logged
You cannot destroy my vision when you see my vision undestroyed because I am just an undestroyer.

  • ***
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 140
  • Karma: +10/-0
Re: Random musings
#267: June 30, 2020, 09:23:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Remember the good ol days when everyone just trusted the news?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Fair to wonder if anything in geopitics is real anymore.

Was it ever real? 🤔

Have we ever been told the truth?
  • IP logged

M
  • ***
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 159
  • Karma: +2/-0
Random musings
#268: July 01, 2020, 05:05:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login Curious name for a pet food company.
  • IP logged

M
  • ***
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 159
  • Karma: +2/-0
Re: Random musings
#269: July 02, 2020, 12:04:13 AM
Anyone know what this symbol is? You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
  • IP logged

 
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk