Awesome.
Check out this clip of Scrubs. I think it sums everything up perfectly, and this thread can be laid to rest.

http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/...ain_Chart.html
(click on the image to start the vid).

hahahahaha!

good stuff.

ok, lets take what we both agree on. happiness is subjective.

do you not agree that we are able to measure the general happiness of a group of people so that we may learn whether their environment helps to make them happier than a group of people living in a different environment? yes, it isn't a precise science, but believe it or not it is becoming a precise science. there are geeks in labs measuring the brain activity of people who are involved in certain tasks or placed into certain environments. in this manner, whilst happiness remains on a level of subjectiveness for the individual, we are able to say which activities make for a happier population in general and strive to recreate them as frequently as possible. measuring peoples 'happiness' on accumulation of wealth is something that stretches back centuries. the people who first decided in our (yes, others thought about this before us) relatively recent history, back in england in the 1600/1700s, that happiness ought to be goal for society, were left unable to measure it objectively. therefore an artificial measure of happiness was created around these philosophies - capitalism, the accumulation of wealth (which, again, plagarises from classical ideas).

however, today people like you laugh at the very concept of the idea of measuring happiness objectively when the system we live in an attempt to do just that. post-modernist criticism (to be clear, every times i say 'post modernist criticism' i'm talking about post-post-modernism) has once again brought the issue of personal, subjective happiness to the front and is creating a lot of discussion on whether we are able to measure this happiness in an objective and better way than we have done previously.

if you're telling me it is impossible to measure happiness objectively then you're wiping out thousands of years of philosophical and economic progress.

happier would be a way to rank happiness. happiness is relative, which seems to follow the logic of science ie. laws of relativity. I wonder if happiness could follow a formula or be compared to a model?

But there's no objective, discrete variable.
But red blobs on a PET scan cannot capture the nuance and range of emotions involve in happiness as an overall and lifelong goal; satisfaction, lack of worry, excitement, joy, endorphins from drugs/exercise, achievement, etc. They can, at best, say that x number of people are happier when they are, say, eating ice cream than when they are being poked with pointy objects.

This is not objective or discrete. The best you can do is say that there might be some very shitty correlation between wealth and happiness. And there, the most I have heard is that the whole idea of marginal utility applies to wealth. Someone with 60k a year is happier than someone with 10k a year, but above a certain level where you can meet your basic needs without worry, more money is marginally useful in the quest for happiness.

We are apparently reading very very different things. I have not read or seen anything that points towards a (re)surgence in the move to find objective measures of happiness.

Are you studying economics and did some nutty economists think they could try and bring some (more) utilitarianism to the discipline under the guise of post-post-modern thought?

Why would we want to? What would be the point?

Both demand both. A theory doesn't become a theorem until it has been observed to be true. An observation without objectivity is just whimsy.

Maybe measure happiness by whether someone is happier or less happy than they were this time last year? I'm pretty sure that's the way everyone else does it.

i agree with you to an extent, but it isn't just about blobs on a screen. it's also about observation. i just threw the bit about blobs in to show there are people out there who do try to measure this stuff is as scientificly as is possible. however, the easiest way to try and measure happiness is to ask people themselves. you couldn't ask everyone, so you have to make do with the data you're able to obtain and try and find relationships between environment/situation and happiness. true, happiness is the result of different things in different people, but we're not measuring this - we're measuring their happiness. the pseudo stuff comes after the measure - the how, what and why of the thing.

agreed, but i'm talking about social, political and economic philosophy of the 1600/1700s in england. this was the best they could come up with. i'm not saying they were correct by any means, just trying to show people have tried to come up with artifical measurements for happiness for a while now. the modern thought is that we should be trying to measure happiness as happiness, not as wealth or education or any other thing. of course, we are hitting the same problems they did in the 1600/1700s. the problem isn't that people don't have happiness levels, the problem is that it's hard to measure them.

i just keep my ears and eyes open and try to pick up on modern thought - i made a post about this several days ago named "happiness or [economic] prosperity". most western governments are in the process of compiling, or have already compiled, philosophical studies on whether people are happier now than they were previously and on whether there is a link between happiness and wealth - in essence they are re-examining the philosophy of the 1600/1700s which our modern societies are close to realising.

but yes, i've been reading a lot of economy books lately. smith, marx, lenin, olson - it's opened my eyes a lot.

i'm assuming you're from the uk (forgive me if i am wrong). do you watch hardtalk? i've been trying to get the name of the american economist they had on a few nights ago so i can get my hands on some of his books.

for me, the biggest reason we moved on from post-modernist thought is because some people stood up and declared "but that makes me unhappy!". as taste and all stuff related is subjective, the only way you can argue post-modernism is in this objective way. if enough people are unhappy with something we at last have an arguement against the complete freedom of the individual under post-modernist thought other than "i don't like that".

I am extremely happy with my life right now! I can measure with some accuracy, subjective subjects based on a subjective set of determinants. I can compare those determinants with what can be observed in others, and those that I agree to set as a personal standard. There are some basic keys to reference from. I have a formula that works for me. I believe almost anyone can compare their own subjective scales to these factors and establish a personal rating system.

I believe the difficulty comes from a reluctance to reveal, or commit to truth.

Firstly, one has to agree to desire these subjective improvements in their subjective stance.

Secondly, one must establish personal guidelines and values.

Thirdly, one must adhere to a scale set by personal subjective measurements and scales.

Fourthly, and most importantly, I doubt I would qualify for any public or private funds to complete the research necessary. People would likely reject any measuring system that held them personally accountable for their growth. This can be easily tested by going to any pub and surveying logical causes for high levels of stories of personal misery and pain.

Foster's-- the cure for melancholy. How many Foster's does one consume in a two hour period in order to see the waitress as an angel and the wife like a desired sex object? LOL!!


"One is about as happy as one chooses to be"
~~Abraham Lincoln

I more or less agree with you, but with regard to this point, why measure something if you are just going to debunk the measurement because it is measuring something which is not quantifiable. It seems like individual perception is being overlooked here. Someone who might be "objectively" happier than someone else, might perceive and thus express their situation as less happy.

People "scientifically" measured skulls once upon a time to determine intelligence and make "scientific" claims about the relative evolution of different races. Just because someone is trying to assign scientific method to their work doesn't mean it is legitimate.

To the extent that you want people to perceive themselves as happy, some kind of happiness-research MIGHT be useful. But then you are not measuring happiness. You are trying to assess the indicators that people believe make them happy. And if it sounds like I am talking about a false conciousness here, I am. People may perceive themselves as more or less happy based on the dictates of a society. i.e. I have a wife, 2.3 kids and a white fence, thus I am happy (when in fact I am vapid and not engaged with life). Or, wow I am so unhappy because I am single (when in fact the single life is just ducky, but everyone tells me I should have a partner).

But I digress...

The point: happiness as an idea is just another (in a very long list) reason why utilitarianism sucks and blows at the same time... I mean, it doesn't work as an overarching theory of life.

I am not from the UK, but you are forgiven... not that you really needed it.

no entiendo.
Are you saying that the trouble with postmodernism is that everything becomes equally valid? Don't you think that the legitimacy of positionality is derived from more than just some baseless claims of happiness or unhappiness? You should read... I dunno... like... Kimberley Crenshaw. Lots of people doing minority studies/critical race theory/feminist theory etc etc have articulated really powerful critiques of PMism (which, by the way, I think is bogus - it served its purpose, but hello! so last decade). I just think a utilitarian critique of PMism is... not the best.

click here for some happines of the joi

Logic and truth. I believe logic may not necessarily lead to truth. When we over analyze we tend to loose utility. Living in the moment has a quality much like experiences that all of us can relate to at a reasonable level ie. the kiss and wiggle of a puppy when we were children. Logic may lead us to accept assumptions that are rooted in statistical truth rather than personal experience. I could give many illustrations of this, but I would imagine you can do a fair job yourselves.

We are bombarded with theories and opinions that are not true for our own path. Logic does not make these assumptions true, only possibly true under general circumstances. I find truth rooted in time, not logic.

It would be logical to say that academic achievement brings great happiness, but for the general sense the Ph.Ds that I have known or heard about were miserable people. Even many of the great philosophers were generally unhappy and unfulfilled men of status and accomplishment. They would not themselves even touch on a system of ranking such subjectives as happiness, or passion. Science is a valueless enterprise, and lack of values and standards of common sense are two criterion I would use to establish a scale of happiness.

Heaven=10; Hell =-10

Heaven:
quality, excitement, love, peace of mind, interest, responsiveness, compassion, empathy, generosity of spirit, kindness, common sense, the perception of abundance

Hell:
lack of high value experiences, routine, monotony, boredom, fear, insecurity, chronic pain, meaninglessness, the perception of shortage

striving for personalhappinessis still morally despicable cosit upholds the selfiterest on which the systemfeeds and allowsittocontinuethrough active participation
becausemoneyespeciallyas weve cometo know it is truly the root of all evil
on daflipsyde maybe the positive energy exuuuuded helpssomething somehow somewhere

but thats just mah rationalization fordoing nothing



maybe its not that people are happy cos theyre stupid
but literally chemically stupid cos theyre chemically happy

Capitalism benefits from the misery of its members. Unhappiness is a tool that can be manipulated through advertizing and product associations with happiness.

Miserable people are more productive and less likely to be distracted.

Workaholism is a condition of unhappiness.

Increased consumerism is a result of discontent.

Be happy-- resist the trap of misery.

it works both ways

they are sooo clever

good points tho
thats misdirected(easily) misery

1- if you haven't, try reading some of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mills. My guess is you'd enjoy their writings, same themes with a different focus. Sorta kinda.

2- For logic and truth-- See Kurt Godel and the incompleteness thereom. Basically, yeah.

Oh.. and you might add: Heaven-- clearly ordered. Hell-- chaotic.

You are very wise! I've read John Stuart Mills "On Liberty". he is an extremely logical writer, and very measured. I've read about Godel, yet have not read his writings. I'll add these suggestions to my priority list.

Next book author-- Demming; subject: quality control. Thanks!

As a poet I like Godel's universe. "Time does not exist".