Discussions

So I'm curious Brandon, about what our city thinks about happiness and how individuals define it.  
 
Recently I heard a talk by a famous Jesuit, Father Robert Spitzer, who suggests that there are 4 levels of happiness, and that each time we progress up the happiness chart we end up with a sense of happiness that has a deeper form of gratification which is more enduring and longer lasting and that we can't progress up the ladder until we have been through the lower levels. Here are the 4 levels:  
 
1)Immediate gratification – Maximize pleasure and minimize pain, especially physical pleasure – gratification is immediate but generally not long lasting. It is not long before we chase after that second physically pleasurable hit. Characterized by an obligation to self alone. No desire for common, intrinsic or ultimate good, but rather only what affects me.  
2)Comparative Advantage and Personal Achievement – Level 2 is most evident in the need to satisfy one's ego, one centered in this level of happiness is generally seeking to outdo others and finds themselves to often be competitive. Personal power and control are key. Jealousy, fear of failure, contempt, isolation, loneliness and cynicism often characterize this level, and the gratification is generally short-term.  
3)Contributive – In level 3 an individual is looking at how their talents are making an optimal positive difference for others. These characteristics generally i:nclude love, community, justice. Intrinsic goodness is an end in itself. Decisions are focused on the greater good. The gratification is therefore long lasting.  
4)Ultimate Good – The o:bjective of level 4 is to give and receive ultimate meaning, goodness,truth, beauty, goodness and love. At this level people are looking outside of the material elements of the world and seeking happiness in transcendence, what people of faith look for in God. This happiness is the most pervasive, enduring and deep.  
 
So what do you think? Does Brandon agree with the levels as characterized? Are most of us stuck in level 1 and 2, or do you feel as if we are seeking out level's 3 and 4? How about our politicians, celebrities and big businesspeople, where do they generally fall in relation to the 4 levels of happiness? Also, does our society appear as if it is moving more in the direction of finding happiness in level 3 and 4 or less so?

I definitely see the strength in the categorizations provided but do take some issue by them being described as levels. Just like the languages of love, I might be more tempted to see these as the languages of happiness. To rate them by level reduces the meaning of happiness to a given constant instead of an individual experience. While I may derive pleasure, at times, from the area of "Ultimate good", I should not feel bad or lesser from deriving pleasure, at times, from the "immediate gratification".  
 
This seems as though Father Spitzer is slightly piggybacking Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and while I applaud attempts to further understand things, I would hesitate to rate a purely subjective concept such as happiness using an o:bjective tool of measurement.  
 
Edited by JustASoul, 2020-01-13 20:45:04

I wake up every day and have a smile on my face. Then I naturally do nice things for people I may encounter day to day; visiting family, opening doors, helping a senior, plugging a parking meter, smiling and saying a cheery hello, buying a friend a coffee, baking cookies for an ailing neighbor, etc.  
 
It's that simple. No need for deep, religious levels or preaching by others. A happy life is a simple life. I like it this way.  
 
You asked and this is how I define happiness.

Why does everything come down to religion with you? I’ve seen multiple posts from you that are all tied to religion. Can’t we go about our day without having every single thing devoted to god or religion. I believe in the big man but at no means do I drag religion into every daily conversation or task  
I have.  
 
In saying that I know I’m happy, And I don’t need 4 levels to tell me so. I try and help people whenever I can. Sometimes I help myself more then others. I think my overall happy ness is somthing I’ve created for myself not somthing some one else or a religion tells me I am. Maybe it’s a glass half full or glass half empty attitude. But if you look for the positives in everything your going to live a happier life.

I read this last night, gave it some thought, and am still unsure.  
I think it is a mistake to tie happiness with a connection with a greater power or a higher level of enlightenment. These things may allow a person to be at peace with themselves and the world around them because of understanding, but by no means create one to be happy.

Life is too short to be miserable all the time you only have one life so enjoy it while it lasts.

Some have asked why there needs to be a connection to God at the highest level of happiness? The answer for me is simple, that if one is seeking things like perfect beauty or justice, goodness or love, then one is seeking something o:bjective, as opposed to subjective. The subjective is found with people - as everyone has different opinions on different things, and yet I think we all realize at some level that there are universal truths which are above ourselves and our subjective thoughts.  
 
If and at that those times that one seeks out that highest, fourth level of happiness, they are necessarily going to be seeking out God, for at the most satisfying level of happiness is found o:bjective perfection. That only comes from God. Further if one is truly seeking the meaning to their life and why all of this exists, they can necessarily only find that in God.  
 
I have never known anyone who told me that they felt fully satisfied with life that wasn't basing their happiness in their relationship to God.

I tried to engage in this discussion without the religious component. Silly me. I'm out.

I am fully satisfied with my life and I base my happiness on my relationship with my family, with nature , with animals and being self employed.

Just a Soul you suggest that it is more proper to characterize the levels of happiness as languages because they are more individual experiences then a given constant. The thing about characterizing them as levels is that they are also individual experiences, because we can't progress to the higher levels of happiness until we have experienced the lower levels. Just as children need to be taught competition or altruism before they can experience it, so too do we need to experience them before we can progress to a higher level.  
 
I agree though with those who have suggested that there is nothing inherently wrong with any of the levels of happiness, just because we experience a lower level of happiness at times doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it, but there is still a progression of happiness, whereby the more enduring, longer lasting and more fulfilling forms are found at the higher levels, I would invite any disagreement on that.  
 
It's funny that you should immediately want out of the discussion because of the religious component, especially because your ebrandon name 'justasoul' implies something religious.  
 
Why is it that some people want nothing more then to completely disengage from discussions about religion, when surely there can be nothing more important in this life then to know about God?

With all due respect, I am more than happy to engage in discussions centered on or involving religion. The problem is that you have shown time and time again an unwillingness to engage in discussion. You espouse your point of view and anyone with a contrary opinion is simply wrong. That cannot be the basis for a discussion so I will disengage. Not due to topic but purely due to the predetermined outcome. There are no topics I will not discuss as I am always ready to broaden my horizons. I will not, however, engage in a "discussion" with any party unwilling to have open dialogue. My apologies to Adam as I know this explanation is poster related and not topic related as intended in the rules of Ebrandon.

Just a soul, in my last response to your post I actually conceded a valid point that you made. Your suggestion that I continuously won't engage in discussion I think is grounded in something else. Perhaps that you simply don't like what I have to say.  
 
It's easy to attack the messenger when you don't like their message, it's an ad hominem style of attack. It's even easier to say I won't engage because the poster won't engage. If you truly believed that was really true, why not just internally message me the response, rather then needing everyone else to hear your ad hominem attack?  
 
Orion's Belt had earlier suggested that all of my posts are on religion, and that I seem to be doing this consistently. Actually my last posting before this topic was on the question of Canada annexing Turks and Caicos, it didn't get much of a response, and that was months ago. It seems that people are much more interested in the religious or quasi-religious topics.

Let me get this strait you had one post nobody noticed about a place not to many people vacation too ( Cuba Mexico DR all more popular) and like a dozen on religious stuff. Some of it saying If you don’t come to fully embrace god you won’t get to the ultimate level of happiness.  
 
Who are you to tell people how happy they can get in life with or without certain beliefs. Further more, I don’t think it’s fair to judge another persons happiness. You might be a level four today. You might be a level one tomorrow. I can consistently be a level three 5/6 day’s a week.  
 
I personally think you just like to come on here and start and continue to engage in Conversations that are boarder line controversial for your own happiness. Where would that rate on your scale of happiness?

I posted about Turks and Caico's because although not many people vacation there, there has been a lot of interest in the past about joining Canada, and if they did, that would mean we would have a Caribbean island, which I think would be one of the coolest things for Canada. I wonder if you also saw my posts at the end of September on how to help Brandon grow - again unfortunately not too many people seemed interested in talking about it.  
 
You ask who am I to tell people how happy they can get with or without certain beliefs? Well perhaps the answer is simply that I am a happy person, and I hope that others can come to know that sort of happiness too.  
 
As for judging another's happiness, it's true that I can't really judge how happy others are, but I can look at what appears to make them happy, and from that I can deduce just how enduring that is. Just as a celebrity who is always preoccupied with appearing to be more appealing and popular then others, I can safely say is likely not perpetually happy, so too I can safely say that things that give physical pleasure, or a sense of happiness from comparative advantage does not provide lasting happiness.

Looks like Just a Soul has boundaries.  
He is allowed to have boundaries. You are allowed not to like them.

Caribbean type crime..Wtf is that? What a racist comment: I’m so sorry I opened this. And which god is the OP referring to?

I found myself fascinated after learning Nietzsche's views on the subject (as misunderstood as they no doubt are).  
To put it my way . . . seeking out happiness makes for a fleeting and dull life. Pursuing a more meaningful path makes for a more satisfying existence, despite the suffering encountered along the way. The way I see it . . . satisfaction is not necessarily reminiscent of happiness.  
 
I speak for no one but myself, and I know that many will look at this with a furled eyebrow. This formula seems to be the one that works for me, so far.  
Even if it's only been based on a few intellectual exercises (research project into different complex topics just for the sake of it), the end result is normally positive. I feel better for knowing. Even if it makes conversing on some of these topics utterly irritating afterward.  
 
To each their own.

There are far more important things to know about. I said to each their own.  
 
You should consider the "live and let live" philosophy. It serves your faith much better in the eyes of the heathenistic masses.  
 
Really, anyone.  
 
Edited by Simonwalcal, 2020-01-15 11:21:56

How this has devolved.

 
 
Edited by Committed2Brandon, 2020-01-15 12:26:15

One of the problems with the live and let live philosophy is that as a society we don't ever really practice it. In a hypothetical world where everyone was of the same intelligence, had the same gifts, genetics, wealth, etc, and no one was dependent upon another, everyone was born a fully functioning intelligent adult and where everyone agreed to completely practice it, live and let live might work very well. The world we live in however is no where close to that, and judging by the recent murder of 57 Canadians, in addition to many others, in the shootdown of Flight UIA 752, it looks as though we are very far from a world where everyone is going to universally agree to live and let live.  
 
The really great thing about a public forum is that people don't have to participate in it. Every one who posts is a willing participant, even I dare say, everyone who reads my posts are willing participants. It's not as if I'm forcing any of my beliefs down anyone's throats - it's an online forum after all.  
 
I simply can't utilize that philosophy in a world where we murder our children in the womb out of convenience and with taxpayer funds, where families are continually becoming ever more divided and falling apart and our society doesn't value them, where suicide rates, especially among the young are ever increasing, where the old are less and less valued and left with assisted suicide as an easy out, where Christianity is becoming less and less valued and alongside it Christian values like forgiveness or love of one's enemies are forgotten. I can't utilize that philosophy when our own government doesn't want to utilize it, by attempting to force anyone who wants to receive government funds to sign an attestation agreeing that they subscribe to the values of the liberals.  
 
Our society is slowly and progressively unravelling, and I for one do not want to say that I didn't do my part to try and change the tide. Can you imagine what this world might have looked like if more people did their part to try and stem the tide of nazism, fascism, forced Islam by conquest, anti-Semitism or communism? Obviously if they had succeeded this world would have been a much better place.

I don't have much time, but ill do what I can.  
 
1.) UIA 752 was unfortunate, but it's hardly an isolated event. Had certain political idiocies not raised the stakes so high, people likely would not be so on edge to accidentally shoot down a passenger jet.  
 
If anything, I am impressed that the Iranian government openly admitted it (took responsibility?) within days. When the Americans blew IR655 out of the sky, they didn't show such integrity.  
 
It still baffles me that military installations don't have the same info at their disposal as the average ATC center. I mean . . . I can identify a passing aircraft with my PHONE.  
 
2.) You are projecting your values on the world at large. Personally, I am glad that people of your persuasion are . . . on the decline.  
 
I have no use for empty rhetoric or self-serving ideology masquerading as compassion.

Don’t be ridiculous. The only thing “unraveling “ is the blissful ignorance needed to follow your religion and others. And thank god it is.  
 
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that on just about every metric that counts the population of the planet is better off now than it has ever been when,more and more ,people are waking up to the fact that religion has little to offer in the real world.  
 
Of course it’s easier to be happy when you keep yourself deliberately ignorant of facts that can free you from the life stifling dogmas and puritanical rules of Iron Age belief systems.  
 
Of course you can “live and let live” you just choose not to and that is on you and your ilk.  
 
A fetus is not a child, the notion of family is , thankfully, being redefined not destroyed, suicide rates have had little change overall in Canada in the last 20 years, and Canada is one of the best countries in the world to grow old in.  
 
Is there room for improvement in these areas? Absolutely! But it is certainly not going to come from ridiculous,fantastic beliefs in supernatural beings who are either unable or unwilling to affect change making them ( if they did exist) either impotent or evil.  
 
Regards

Religion can sometimes be the problem and not the cure.  
For myself I view understanding and acceptance to outweigh happiness. The lives that were lost with the shooting down of a plane full of innocent people is understandable given the circumstances, and I can also accept the loss of those lives given what war is, but to believe that a person can be happy throughout this tragedy makes me question things. If a person, regardless of their beliefs, says that they are eternally happy it would lead me to question their understanding of compassion and empathy.  
I find it difficult to believe a person to be eternally happy when they are so judgmental, and afraid of so many things.  
Happiness deals more with the self, and I find that that is very difficult for a person to be happy if they cannot accept the things around them.  
You mentioned about Muslims, and yet the people of Iran are as upset as the rest of the world.

Simonwalcal, you have characterized what I have said as "self-serving ideology and empty rhetoric masquerading as compassion" - the funny thing about this characterization is it comes right after your comment that I am "projecting my values on the world at large".  
 
So here's what's funny about that, you appear to be a moral relativist, and in particular your comment about "projecting my values" suggests that you are, but then you indicate that you don't like my values, when you say things like "self-serving ideology and empty rhetoric masquerading as compassion". You are testifying against yourself and demonstrating the hypocrisy of what you have to say.  
 
You can't tell people that you're glad people who "project their values on the world at large" are on the decline, and then condemn them because they don't fit in with your values. That's the problem with moral relativism Simon, it's completely hypocritical, as you yourself have very plainly demonstrated.

Don Brown, I'm surprised that you would think that the shooting down of a plane full of innocent people is somehow understandable? In what world and for what reasons does that possibly even come close to making sense to you?  
 
Don, you say that "I find it difficult to believe a person to be eternally happy when they are so judgmental, and afraid of so many things. " This brings up an interesting point, do you believe that happy people make no judgements? I guess perhaps that's part of your version of happiness, but I think most of us would see that as strange.  
 
I also don't recall ever having said that I was afraid of anything - are you perhaps conflating concern with fear?  
 
You then say that "I find that is very difficult for a person to be happy if they cannot accept the things around them. " By this are you suggesting that happy people accept the things around them and do not try to change them? I can't believe that you would seriously believe that. I think perhaps you simply need to think that one through some more.  
 
Finally you comment about how I mentioned Muslims, what I actually mentioned was forced Islam by conquest.

Change what you can  
Accept what you cannot change  
Know the difference between the two  
 
Given what human nature is one must accept that with war innocents will die.  
Someone in the not to distant past tried to sanitize the killing of innocent people, the term was collateral damage. Do you believe that we can change human nature as far as war goes?  
 
When we are judgemental, we define by our philosophical beliefs what is right and what is wrong. In level 4 of happiness we want truth. In one of your comments you stated that you knew of no one at level 4 of happiness that did not have God as a part of it, but I imagine that there are people out there who have achieved level 4 of happiness without God, so what is the truth?  
 
Concerns and fear.  
When you mentioned things that you are concerned about, why did you not mention about Christians conquering people and forcing their belief soon them. I think our history in this country would be a good example, one example that comes-to mind would be Residual Schools, or in the present time laws to address what certain religious garments can be worn.  
 
Do you believe that a person can achieve level 4 of happiness by beliefs in things other than religion, take for an example meditation. I have been told by religious people that if one acheives Nirvana it is that you are being fooled by the Devil, any thoughts or comments about that.

I am not a moral relativist. I just try to look at the world from all angles, considering all factors at play. Something that most westerners don't. Be it ignorance or arrogance, the middle east tends to be a magnet for this sort of one-sided thinking.