Encounters with Reality / happiness or suffering ?
Reality is experienced differently by each person and yet anchored by certain commonalities of emotion.
But there are differences in the experience of some subjects for example a serial killer who lacks empathy might never have felt grief or loss or sorrow (how else could their actions be explained?) might not be able to feel the joy you do when you do something you enjoy.
In normal subjects though Id say the experience of joy would be similar. Joy at the end of the day is joy and sadness is sadness, though both can be faked ( I mean to focus on genuine experience.)
In some settings our perception of reality shifts depending on the surroundings. An example would be hearing a love song after a break up or being in love and hearing a break up song. Again these sensory inputs affect the way we perceive our reality especially if we are new to such experiences.
So I would say that reality and thus life retains a certain uniqueness for each individual from the social circles we have and the people we interact on a day to day basis.
From this perspective it appears that reality in this day and age (especially with social media involved) is a type of social bubble which is self created by the choices of the individual of what to allow within their sphere of influence or bubble, but this does not necessarily mean just one bubble some people have a circle of friends that is bigger than one. Also some confrontations with the truth are unavoidable bubble or no bubble.
This leads to the individuals recognition that theyre in a self created bubble allows room for their self emergence from it and different perspectives on life and reality and maybe a pursuit of knowledge be that self-knowledge or philosophy.
But why philosophy anyway ? If a person is happy who needs it ? Its often recognised that life is suffering and ignorance is bliss but are these just convenient aphorisms or is the truth somewhere in between?
Society has changed rapidly since the days of Plato and whilst the republic and the philosophers aims should be to maximise human happiness and reduce suffering it seems were still lagging according to the news. But at least us westerners get to choose our leaders even though they might not fully represent our wants or wishes.
I realise Ive asked more than one question here but interested to hear thoughts from the community!
But there are differences in the experience of some subjects for example a serial killer who lacks empathy might never have felt grief or loss or sorrow (how else could their actions be explained?) might not be able to feel the joy you do when you do something you enjoy.
In normal subjects though Id say the experience of joy would be similar. Joy at the end of the day is joy and sadness is sadness, though both can be faked ( I mean to focus on genuine experience.)
In some settings our perception of reality shifts depending on the surroundings. An example would be hearing a love song after a break up or being in love and hearing a break up song. Again these sensory inputs affect the way we perceive our reality especially if we are new to such experiences.
So I would say that reality and thus life retains a certain uniqueness for each individual from the social circles we have and the people we interact on a day to day basis.
From this perspective it appears that reality in this day and age (especially with social media involved) is a type of social bubble which is self created by the choices of the individual of what to allow within their sphere of influence or bubble, but this does not necessarily mean just one bubble some people have a circle of friends that is bigger than one. Also some confrontations with the truth are unavoidable bubble or no bubble.
This leads to the individuals recognition that theyre in a self created bubble allows room for their self emergence from it and different perspectives on life and reality and maybe a pursuit of knowledge be that self-knowledge or philosophy.
But why philosophy anyway ? If a person is happy who needs it ? Its often recognised that life is suffering and ignorance is bliss but are these just convenient aphorisms or is the truth somewhere in between?
Society has changed rapidly since the days of Plato and whilst the republic and the philosophers aims should be to maximise human happiness and reduce suffering it seems were still lagging according to the news. But at least us westerners get to choose our leaders even though they might not fully represent our wants or wishes.
I realise Ive asked more than one question here but interested to hear thoughts from the community!
Comments (24)
Indeed, every reality is unique. :smile:
Quoting simplyG
Philosophy might be many things, but, whether a person is happy or unhappy, it often involves examining beliefs and presuppositions to determine whether they are true or justified.
Philosophy is only going to appeal to a percentage of people who have any reason to be interested in the subject. People have all sorts of ways to manage unhappiness; substance use, consumerism, hobbies, travel and other distractions, not philosophy so much. For some, religion may play a role.
Quoting simplyG
I remember people complaining about others living in bubbles well before the internet. There's always been the issue of people inhabiting a class or social group which has its own rules and values and is often ignorant of the wider world. In the days of newspapers, we often knew what bubble people belonged to by what paper/magazine they had delivered.
Good point, Tom.
But I wonder if one of the ways of facing unhappiness is to accept it. I mean, the act of comprehending and accepting that life has more negative/'sad' days than happy ones, and life tends to be more mediocre than we ever thought.
It is true that this way of thought goes to nihilism usually. I disagree because giving up with life doesn't necessarily mean being a nihilistic.
On the other hand, the line of taking drugs for facing whatever problem is blurred, don't you think? I take everyday Bromazepam and CBD to calm my anxiety down. Maybe it is not the best way to do so, but I don't know other. Even, if I got removed from those meds I would end up in a very pessimistic mood.
Yes. I think the default setting for most emotional states is to accept it - happy or not. We often assume how we feel is normal. We may not even be certain what it is we are feeling. Nevertheless, off we go, looking for distractions.
Quoting javi2541997
I wasn't referring to prescribed medication under treatment. I was thinking about self-medicating indiscriminately with booze and other substances.
Interesting. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and knowledge on this matter, Tom. Believe it or not, I see that treatment medication is under a big social taboo. Whenever I tell someone that I take those, I perceive that they think I take them for pleasure, that it is a terrible mistake to think so... I am even grateful to those chemists and psychiatrists who work on the research of mood meds. They helped me a lot.
Quoting javi2541997
Sometimes people need medication. We would not take this view with a diabetic who needs regular insulin medication.
Exactly! :up:
Hi. I guess these are the "more than one questions" you are talking about, right?
Well, I will answer thoroughly the first of them, as I cansider it more important. Besides, it's already a topic by itself.
Why philosophy?
It is certain that each one has one's own reasons for doing or being engaged in philosophy, although there must be some common grounds among people. I also believe the same applies to science, art, athletics and other human occupations and hobbies. We can observe passion and devotion in any of them. We can also observe simple pleasure, enjoyment, even fooling around.
Now, someone can be seriously involved or engaged in philosophy --meaning hard study, etc.-- for different reasons. Someone might do that as a quest for knowledge or because one loves "philosophizing" -- reasoning, argumentation, mental and spiritual development, and so on. Someone else might do that for one's career as a philosophy teacher. Someone else might do that because one wants be part of a philosophical elite club. And so on.
Now, I believe you are talking about the first case, i.e. one "does" philosophy for oneself as a quest for knowledge and personal mental and spiritual development, in general.
My personal experience in this has been the following: although I loved philosophy since my college years, I was never really engaged in it, I mean as a "philosophical thinker", a philosophizer. I was read a lot, a lot of books and got involved in Eastern philosophy, more for reasons of self-improvement, as a self-help endeavor. Then, for a very long time --about 35 years-- I had almost nothing to do with philosophy, except from some sparse thinking and reading about philosophical matters. But in 1980 I started to study the mind and got involved deeply involved in this field for 5 years, theoretically and practically (self-help activities). It's only when I joined Quora (2017) and started answering questions in subjects I knew well, including philosophy and the mind, that I started to "think philosophically". And then I also joined TPF, about 2 years ago, that the plane really took off! What was the key in all that: writing. By writing I was clarifying my thoughts by putting them down, in front of me, face them, evaluating them, distilling them, making them solid. My reasoning --esp. critical reasoning-- my awareness and my reality of the world as well as myself have risen to new levels, little by little but on a stable basis.
This is "Why philosophy?" as far as I am concerned! :smile:
Hi. I guess these are the "more than one questions" you are talking about, right?
Well, I will answer thoroughly the first of them, as I cansider it more important. Besides, it's already a topic by itself.
Why philosophy?
It is certain that each one has one's own reasons for doing or being engaged in philosophy, although there must be some common grounds among people. I also believe the same applies to science, art, athletics and other human occupations and hobbies. We can observe passion and devotion in any of them. We can also observe simple pleasure, enjoyment, even fooling around.
Now, someone can be seriously involved or engaged in philosophy --meaning hard study, etc.-- for different reasons. Someone might do that as a quest for knowledge or because one loves "philosophizing" -- reasoning, argumentation, mental and spiritual development, and so on. Someone else might do that for one's career as a philosophy teacher. Someone else might do that because one wants be part of a philosophical elite club. And so on.
Now, I believe you are talking about the first case, i.e. one "does" philosophy for oneself as a quest for knowledge and personal mental and spiritual development, in general.
My personal experience in this has been the following: although I loved philosophy since my college years, I was never really engaged in it, I mean as a "philosophical thinker", a philosophizer. I was read a lot, a lot of books and got involved in Eastern philosophy, more for reasons of self-improvement, as a self-help endeavor. Then, for a very long time --about 35 years-- I had almost nothing to do with philosophy, except from some sparse thinking and reading about philosophical matters. But in 1980 I started to study the mind and got involved deeply involved in this field for 5 years, theoretically and practically (self-help activities). It's only when I joined Quora (2017) and started answering questions in subjects I knew well, including philosophy and the mind, that I started to "think philosophically". And then I also joined TPF, about 2 years ago, that the plane really took off! What was the key in all that: writing. By writing I was clarifying my thoughts by putting them down, in front of me, face them, evaluating them, distilling them, making them solid. My reasoning --esp. critical reasoning-- my awareness and my reality of the world as well as myself have risen to new levels, little by little but on a stable basis.
This is "Why philosophy?" as far as I am concerned! :smile:
***
Question no. 2: If a person is happy who needs it?
Based on my own experience, philosophy can be very helpful to a person who is in bad mental state, as I was in 1976. A book by the Indian philosopher Krishnamurti, "The Only Revolution", had changed that state dramatically. It was also my initiation to Eastern philosophy which I studied for more than one year.
But, as I described above, the reasons wants to be involved in philosophy, in one way or another, do not have to do esp. with one's mental state.
***
Question no. 3: Its often recognized that life is suffering and ignorance is bliss but are these just convenient aphorisms or is the truth somewhere in between?
My opinion is that aphorisms of the type "ignorance is bliss" are much worse than convenient: they are harmful. They are used by oppressive people who want you to be a docile, submissive being, listening only to them. We all know about the Christian "Have faith and doubt not". I think it's disgusting.
As for suffering, just saying that "life is suffering so you must accept that" is equally harmful. One must offer real help to mitigate if not eliminate this suffering. This is what Siddhartha Buddha did with his preaching. He didnt say "Believe in God and you will be saved or cured" or "Have faith" and all these totally unacceptable "advices".
Sp, the truth does not lie somewhere in between. The truth lies elsewhere! :smile:
Good point, Alkis. As always, you have nailed it. It is a pleasure to read your posts because they are clear and solid, not like mines. These are chaotic and complex to follow up!
I think this I wrote in another thread might be of relevance in this discussion:
Hi, Thanks for your always kind words. :pray:
All these are only ideas. You too have offered very interesting and challenging ideas, as well as a new perspective based on Japanese wisdom!
The truth is somewhere in between. Life is not suffering. Life is one huge experimental lab that anyone could explore and try things out. It should allow you to think and be satisfied, be unhappy, or happy about what you find. (JS Mill might help here as a reference). Philosophy is a refuge to those who find that material things do not make them satisfied -- or they find that material possessions or wanting material possessions leave them empty. Science is also that -- many inventors in the past had devoted their entire life -- often dying without success -- working on their projects. Then, there's the artistic or creative realm where you can bury yourself just creating.
Bubbles are good -- if it leaves you not wanting other-wordly things. If it leaves you self-sufficient. I don't allow in my little circle individuals who suck. The energy vampires, as you some call them, have no life other than dump on you their dramas. And it's repeated everyday, multiple times a day. If you examine the way they think, there's really nothing exciting happening there.
I'm not sure what you mean by the word 'reality'.
You can be happy and bored or otherwise acknowledging there's more to discover or enrich one's life or understanding with. That is to say just because you're satisfactorily entertained or otherwise occupied and largely content doesn't mean you're "happy". In fact, you could even venture as far to say philosophy is far from the pursuit of happiness despite the nomenclature of "love for wisdom". We associate love with happiness, but as I'm sure we can all attest to, this is not always so.
Quoting simplyG
They're musings that seem to have stood the test of time, at least to the majority of persons. If you were born into 18th century royalty, your life would be far from suffering. If you're born in a dangerous jungle without knowledge to survive and avoid predators, ignorance is quite the opposite of bliss. People just tend to go with things that seem to work more often than not and call it truth. After all, it must be at minimum closer to truth than fiction. Right?
Please include more direct questions in your OP. While your musings are appreciated, they - at least for myself - become difficult to "unpack and attack" as they say in the world of intellectual debate.
Quoting Kevin Tan
Paradoxically, approaching to the truth objectively makes us gets far-away from happiness itself. This is due to the fact that happiness is subjective and could "crash" with the objective concept of reality.
I think the idea of happiness is not useful to address problems, because you can never tell if you are really happy: somebody under the effects of alcohol, or drugs, or just specific situations, might think they are happy and then, later, realize how fake that happiness was. In this sense philosophy is very useful exactly to those who think they are happy. I think an essential power of philosophy is its ability to criticize, criticize deeply. It can criticize happiness and unhappines. In this sense I think that what you wrote:
Quoting simplyG
is not really the noblest, the highest task of philosophy.
Quoting simplyG
In the context of what I said, considering that ignorance is able to make people feel happy, we might consider that, whenever you are happy, most probably you are so because you are in a degree of ignorance. But the same can be said about unhappiness, especially when it becomes a metaphysics of existence: if you decide that life is unhappiness, very likely you are ignoring something.
As a consequence, if we dont want be ignorant, we are prevented from being both happy or unhappy. We are forced to experience both things and see our soul torn by these strong emotions: unfortunately life is able to destroy our happiness by suddenly introducing the worst things, but also viceversa, life is able to force us to forget unhappiness by introducing experiences that seduce, attract, possess you with extreme feelings of bliss and happiness. In this sense I would say that life is violence, not only that violence that makes you suffer, but also the violence of good experiences that irresistibly force you, at least to a high degree, to forget your suffering.
I think that, in the middle of this condition, we can only try to find the best ways not to solve it, but to cross it, to go through it.
:clap:
Theres a difference between hedonic pain and pleasure versus the deeper dissatisfaction that Eastern philosophies and Schopenhauer often discuss.
Im not surprised in a culture of instrumentalism, that this would be the case.
I guess its for the sake of self introspection which can yield useful knowledge about oneself.
Quoting Tom Storm
Bang on there, thank you for bringing it up. Do you think this is healthy or unhealthy? To me it strikes as unhealthy as individuals should have a healthy level of curiosity of what is happening outside their little world.
Quoting Outlander
The initial shock of self imposed ignorance should make one angry or perhaps even sad that previously they did not think of the matter at hand in different ways. For me philosophy is more like a Swiss Army knife than a hammer whose many little tools (epistemology, metaphysics etc) allows one to tackle problems from many different angles.
Interesting. I hear this often and I think what you say is fair - but I just can't think of a single example of where I have yielded useful knowledge about myself in any such process.
Quoting simplyG
I guess we have to now because of the global effects of untrammelled capitalism and environmental degradation. But it wasn't that long ago what was happening in the next village didn't much matter. I think it is ok to only be aware of your own bubble, as long as this doesn't cause harm to others. The fundamentalist Christian, Fox News watching bubble is not so good.