[totetsu]

I think PP's point was .. that even if you spend your whole life pressed into laboring to produce a surplus to satisfy the excessive consumption of the elites of your heretical society, in ways that create existential risk for future generations, and are at odds with your own inner values and moral compass.. you can still see the 'immateriality' of all that in the grand scheme of things and choose to be happy.

[AdieuToLogic]

No, my point is happiness is a choice.

There is no sociopolitical statement, no call-to-arms, no pontification as to the measure of one's life, no generational implications. There is an existential consideration, but not of the nature your post implies.

Happiness is an individual choice, available to us all at any time.

Full stop.

[bccdee]

If anyone at any time can simply choose to be happy, why do we care whether (for instance) our arms get chopped off? We are equally capable of choosing to be happy with or without arms. Why do we avoid harm?

[cardanome]

Thank you, your post cured my depression. (Sarcasm)

This is pure magical thinking. There are many reasons to be not happy. Being in pain, having lost a loved one, not having your physical needs met and well simply having depression or a myriad of other problems.

And people shouldn't be happy with all circumstances. It is not healthy to be happy all the time. Sometimes accepting the negative emotions is important for growth.

[AdieuToLogic]

> Thank you, your post cured my depression. (Sarcasm)

Your welcome. (Sarcasm returned)

> This is pure magical thinking. There are many reasons to be not happy. Being in pain, having lost a loved one, not having your physical needs met and well simply having depression or a myriad of other problems.

Of course there are many life situations where "being happy" is not what a person can or needs to experience at that moment, where "moment" is defined as some period of time determined by each person. And there are medical conditions where trying to choose happiness is simply not possible, such as "having depression or a myriad of other problems."

> And people shouldn't be happy with all circumstances. It is not healthy to be happy all the time. Sometimes accepting the negative emotions is important for growth.

I never wrote anything to that effect. What I wrote was:

  Happiness is an individual choice,
  available to us all at any time.

Just because a choice is available does not mandate it must be chosen immediately and unconditionally.

But you go ahead and mischaracterize what I wrote to serve whatever agenda you have and I will reiterate what I posted earlier in this thread:

  My key point is that happiness is a choice.
  I hope everyone can find a way to choose it.

[mbesto]

> Thank you, your post cured my depression. (Sarcasm)

I understand what both of you are saying, but I think its disingenuous to assume that happiness is simply the opposite of depression.

[dyauspitr]

If you have your basic needs met, have no physical ailments etc. I would agree with you. Your statement applies to a certain subset of folks that are defeatist, pessimistic etc. but not everyone.

[balamatom]

Yeah, no.

What you're promoting is a deeply narcissistic worldview, and I hope either the cure or the consequences reach you soon.

Though maybe those are going to present as the same thing.

[braebo]

They’re not entirely wrong, and your comment is seemingly unhinged and unprovoked… but there’s a lot of literature on stuff like mindfulness, CBT, and the impact thoughts can have on one’s emotions, especially happiness.

[cardanome]

CBT and mindfulness can help with SOME problems. It is great when it does but it also can work less well or even harmful for other problems. Especially people that are prone to rumination don't benefit much from it, they need the opposite of mindfulness.

The unhinged part was to imply that people can just choose to be happy under any circumstance which is obviously magical thinking.

[balamatom]

>to imply that people can just choose to be happy under any circumstance which is obviously magical thinking

Worse, I'm afraid. It's ideological thinking of the basest sort.

Magical thinking at least lets a person see that their bullshit isn't working, potentially even walk it back, correct themselves.

In ideological thinking, you gotta act as if the impossible wish has already come true. Reality says otherwise? Well, wish harder - or else. That's ideological thinking for ya.

And those are only two of the cards in that deck. I've observed that with sufficient mental self-mutilation, people can in fact choose to be happy under any circumstance. Occasionally even at no cost to innocents. (Though rarely - who'd permit them a clean getaway?)

Woulda had a field day with figuring out what complexes are puppetting AdieuToLogic, if their most coherent argument wasn't "fuck off" - pardon, "full stop".

[AdieuToLogic]

>> to imply that people can just choose to be happy under any circumstance which is obviously magical thinking

I never said nor implied that. It has only been the person with the account name "cardanome" who has applied absolutist determiners such as "all" and "any" to mischaracterize what I wrote.

> Worse, I'm afraid. It's ideological thinking of the basest sort.

Projection is a poor position to espouse and one easily identified such as the above, further supported by your previous assertion of "[w]hat you're promoting is a deeply narcissistic worldview."

Reread what I originally wrote in this thread objectively, if either you or "cardanome" can:

  I say;

    Happiness is found in neither a dream chased nor a chosen
    profession.  It is instead a choice we make each day in
    what we do, in how we view same, and if we allow
    ourselves to possess it.

    What constitutes each day is immaterial.

  But that's just me.

This is what is called a personal philosophy[0], specifically:

  2 a : pursuit of wisdom
    b : a search for a general understanding of values and
        reality by chiefly speculative rather than
        observational means

> Woulda had a field day with figuring out what complexes are puppetting AdieuToLogic, if their most coherent argument wasn't "fuck off" - pardon, "full stop".

I was directly replying to this[1] post, which contains phrases such as "I think PP's point was ..", "elites of your heretical society", and "at odds with your own inner values and moral compass".

If you and/or "cardanome" cannot comprehend why I finished with "full stop" in response to this post, then there is nothing I can do to help either or both of you understand.

0 - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/philosophy

1 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45410223

[balamatom]

>unhinged and unprovoked

I could of course explain exactly what my words "hinge" on, and what "provokes" them. I've found that this does not create understanding where previously it was lacking. So instead let's talk about what you said.

Two of your words I consider harmful and insulting:

>is seemingly

What the hell?!

...oh, right:

- If you say "X is Y", you gotta back it up. Scary!

- If you say "X seems to me Y", you gotta justify your perceptions. Nasty!

- But saying "X is, seemingly, Y", that's totally safe! Because it's bullshit. It posits a statement as true knowledge and elidies the need for justification outright, on the syntactic level.

What's worse, you probably didn't even notice you were doing this. You just picked up the pattern from people who looked like they had what you wanted.

That cognitive habits like yours are so widely accepted as "normal", is exactly why I'm guessing that CBT (or, for that matter, parent poster's wireheading suggestions) are probably going to be super effective on you, not kidding.

If you were to give those a shot, anyway. Instead of, you know, just stating existences of literatures at people. Also unless your current state of mind wasn't already achieved by similar methods. In any case, do report back!

[AdieuToLogic]

Put aside anything I have written elsewhere in this thread.

Look at the multiple ad hominem attacks you put forth in the above comment alone. Imagine you are the person to whom you replied when reading it.

All because someone disagreed with a post you authored by writing in part:

  ... your comment is seemingly unhinged and unprovoked ...

I truly hope you reflect on this and can find a way to talk about it with someone.

[balamatom]

Yeah, been that person, with reason and without. Anyway your turn now

[balamatom]

*elides #noprocrast

[Scarblac]

I really don't see how your comment has to do with his at all. You're both talking about completely different things, I think.

[balamatom]

OK, just to make sure we're on the same page here: you've already tried trying to make the connection, right?