Do you need Happiness and Peace?

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Renuka,

Almost none will pursue happiness with it being the explicit goal. But your attitude and actions should be conducive for deriving happiness. That was my focus.

 

[a-TB]

You are giving examples and forcing your conclusions on them.

Ok let us assume some one is not healthy, intelligent or wealthy. Dont you think ill health will cause suffering and reduce happiness and lack of intelligence will not help you coping up with problems in the right way and lack of wealth will not give the happiness that basic amount of wealth will give?

Think before you start shooting examples and making your own conclusions.

Did you understand that your list does NOT meet necessary or sufficient requirements??

It is possible for some to be unhappy if they have ill health. But happiness is of the mind. One can feel body pain and still be cheerful about life because they have very good attitude towards life.

I was not drawing my own conclusions. All I showed you is that your list did not meet your own criteria of necessary and sufficient conditions. Do you still maintain that your list meets both necessary and sufficient conditions. OK, then prove it and show why the examples do not disprove your claims.

Be concrete and do not dodge the criticisms of logic on what you have presented so far. Plus you have other issues raised that you have not responded to

 

[a-TB]

Dear Renuka,

Almost none will pursue happiness with it being the explicit goal. But your attitude and actions should be conducive for deriving happiness. That was my focus.

I think you did not understand Madam Renuka's comments.

 

[sravna]

Dear a-TB,

Logic is not about proving through examples. For example it is very much possible in the case of sanyasis that they are extremely intelligent and that they have transcended physical existence and so always blissful.

So Logic is about making your premise and whatever assumptions you make definitely lead to the conclusion and that the premises be true. Yours is not strong logic because it does not do that and you assume that the sanyasis do not have beyond basic intelligence. Your assumption can be countered.

First sort out this logical issue of yours and then I will be happy to respond to your other objections.

 

[a-TB]

Dear a-TB,

Logic is not about proving through examples. For example it is very much possible in the case of sanyasis that they are extremely intelligent and that they have transcended physical existence and so always blissful.

So Logic is about making your premise and whatever assumptions you make definitely lead to the conclusion and that the premises be true. Yours is not strong logic because it does not do that and you assume that the sanyasis do not have beyond basic intelligence. Your assumption can be countered.

First sort out this logical issue of yours and then I will be happy to respond to your other objections.

Again you are replying without understanding what was said

Prove why your list of three items are both necessary and sufficient.

If your claim is falsified even by one example then your claim is not based on logic.

Yes, not all sannyasis are blessed with intelligence. Their intelligence level is that of the society.

OK, first prove why your list of three are both necessary and sufficient.

 

[sravna]

Please do not make me repeat what I have said already. Kindly go back and refer to what I have said for the conditions being necessary. I did not say they are sufficient.

 

[a-TB]

Please do not make me repeat what I have said already. Kindly go back and refer to what I have said for the conditions being necessary. I did not say they are sufficient.

Are you going to respond the challenge to prove what you said or not?

You are caught in the web of your own illogical statements. Let me prove again the absurdity of what you have written lately

A. You schooled me in Post 71 that " "For some conclusion to logically follow from a premise , the premise has to be not only necessary but also sufficient." These are are your words. But then in your last post you claim you only meant that your list in Post 1 is only satisfying necessary conditions. That means what you have written subsequently do NOT logically follow your prmise.

B. Example cannot prove but can disprove claims. In SAT level example let us say you claim all prime numbers are odd. I only have to give example of number 2 to show your statements are false. I have shown by examples why your list in post 1 is neither necessary or sufficient. It is just some silly thing that came in your mind that you came here to dole out to all of us.

C. If you cannot understand my example as to why your list is not satisfying necessary condition then prove your assertion that your list satisfies necessary condition.

If you cannot do that even, then stop making illogical statements just because it came to your brain. You may want to think before you write here.

I think you do not have logic on your side and do not have courage to own up to your mistakes. So you will dodge once again without getting into details. Stop wasting the bytes here as my sparring friend would say

 

[sravna]

Are you going to respond the challenge to prove what you said or not?

You are caught in the web of your own illogical statements. Let me prove again the absurdity of what you have written lately

A. You schooled me in Post 71 that " "For some conclusion to logically follow from a premise , the premise has to be not only necessary but also sufficient." These are are your words. But then in your last post you claim you only meant that your list in Post 1 is only satisfying necessary conditions. That means what you have written subsequently do NOT logically follow your prmise.

B. Example cannot prove but can disprove claims. In SAT level example let us say you claim all prime numbers are odd. I only have to give example of number 2 to show your statements are false. I have shown by examples why your list in post 1 is neither necessary or sufficient. It is just some silly thing that came in your mind that you came here to dole out to all of us.

C. If you cannot understand my example as to why your list is not satisfying necessary condition then prove your assertion that your list satisfies necessary condition.

If you cannot do that even, then stop making illogical statements just because it came to your brain. You may want to think before you write here.

I think you do not have logic on your side and do not have courage to own up to your mistakes. So you will dodge once again without getting into details. Stop wasting the bytes here as my sparring friend would say

Please. A premise like 2 is a prime number is definitely true and it cannot be countered and so the refutation becomes logically correct unlike your example that sannyasis have only basic intelligence etc etc Kindly read up on elementary theory of logic before you proceed further so that everyone's time is not wasted.

 

[a-TB]

Please. A premise like 2 is a prime number is definitely true and it cannot be countered and so the refutation becomes logically correct unlike your example that sannyasis have only basic intelligence etc etc Kindly read up on elementary theory of logic before you proceed further so that everyone's time is not wasted.

You are dodging and not really responding to the logical challenges.

I said as an example if someone who is illogical claimed that all prime numbers are odd then showing a single example that 2 is prime and even is enough to dismiss the claim.

The above was used to show you how examples are useful to disprove claims and it has nothing to do with what that number 2 represents.

What part of the above you did not understand???

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

You have made claim in post 1 that you cannot prove.
I have shown you all that is wrong with your statements and claims

Someone coming to an open forum is expected to respectfully respond to challenges with specifics.

Otherwise you are conceding that you are just blabbering here opening threads without thinking.

One must learn how to debate before writing whatever comes to the mind.

Be aware that I am here to point out logical flaws and all the blabberings.

 

[sravna]

You are dodging and not really responding to the logical challenges.

I said as an example if someone who is illogical claimed that all prime numbers are odd then showing a single example that 2 is prime and even is enough to dismiss the claim.

The above was used to show you how examples are useful to disprove claims and it has nothing to do with what that number 2 represents.

What part of the above you did not understand???

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

You have made claim in post 1 that you cannot prove.
I have shown you all that is wrong with your statements and claims

Someone coming to an open forum is expected to respectfully respond to challenges with specifics.

Otherwise you are conceding that you are just blabbering here opening threads without thinking.

One must learn how to debate before writing whatever comes to the mind.

Be aware that I am here to point out logical flaws and all the blabberings.

Little knowledge is very dangerous. Please get yourself a good book or a good tutor on logic before you present your argument.

An example is ok as a rebuttal if it has the force to refute. Otherwise I can give as an example whatever comes to my mind and I am sure you will agree that cannot be a rebuttal. Your premise should be true for your argument to be correct.

 

[sravna]

Please spare yourself the task of finding logical flaws and blabberings . It is an insult to those who can do it.

 

[prasad1]

:focus:

Even though the topic is illogical.

:fencing::fencing::fencing:

To PM.
Please spare others.

:lalala:

 

[a-TB]

Please spare yourself the task of finding logical flaws and blabberings . It is an insult to those who can do it.

You are yet to prove what you said in Post 1

Forget schooling othes. You started a thread that has no basis. You are yet to prove its validity based on your own criteria

So anyone self respecting will address this basic concern

 

[a-TB]

:focus:

Even though the topic is illogical.

:fencing::fencing::fencing:

To PM.
Please spare others.

:lalala:

I will give up.. It is not possible to get Sravana to present anything logical or meaningful. I wasted by time and time of anyone reading. The idea is to prevent future threads that lower the value of his whole forum. First it was about spirituality and his powers and then it is some illogical claims & topics doled out to the members in a condescening way,

I give up,, May be the best thing is to ignore the posts and threads by Mr Sravana. The value of the forum as a place for legitimate discussions is going down I think

Oh well

 

[sravna]

Alright. This is what I said


In my view happiness happens out of the following three factors:

i. One's health
ii. One's intelligence
iii. One's wealth

So if one is lacking in one of these, one's happiness comes down.

So I stated them as only necessary conditions for happiness and not as sufficient conditions.

Then I gave the following reasons for necessary conditions

let us assume some one is not healthy, intelligent or wealthy. Dont you think ill health will cause suffering and reduce happiness and lack of intelligence will not help you coping up with problems in the right way and lack of wealth will not give the happiness that basic amount of wealth will give?

dear Shri a-TB, try to rebut the above .

 

[sravna]

Folks, back to the topic.

Trust me if one is able to see through the veil of others actions, one can understand the real motives of the person and hence be able to cope up very well with the adverse behaviour of the person. People create a veil for their motives because they do not want them to be openly known. Most of them do that.

 

[prasad1]

What Is Happiness?

Ah, happiness, that elusive state. Philosophers, theologians, psychologists, and even economists have long sought to define it, and since the 1990s, a whole branch of psychology—positive psychology—has been dedicated to pinning it down and propagating it. More than simply positive mood, happiness is a state of well-being that encompasses living a good life—that is, with a sense of meaning and deep satisfaction.

A growing body of research also suggests that happiness can improve your physical health. Feelings of positivity and contentment seem to benefit cardiovascular health, the immune system, inflammation levels, and blood pressure, among other things. Happiness has even been linked to a longer lifespan—providing more years to continue striving for fulfillment.

Attaining happiness is a global pursuit. Researchers find that people from every corner of the world rate happiness more important than other desirable personal outcomes, such as having a meaningful life, becoming rich, and getting into heaven.

[h=2]How to Achieve Happiness[/h][FONT=&quot]Happiness is not the result of bouncing from one joy to the next; researchers find that achieving happiness typically involves times of considerable discomfort. Money is important to happiness, but only to a certain point. Money buys freedom from worry about the basics in life—housing, food, and clothing. Genetic makeup, life circumstances, achievements, marital status, social [/FONT]relationships[FONT=&quot], even your neighbors—all influence how happy you are. Or can be. So do individual ways of thinking and expressing feelings. Research shows that much of happiness is under personal control. Regularly indulging in small pleasures, getting absorbed in challenging activities, setting and meeting [/FONT]goals[FONT=&quot], maintaining close social ties, and finding purpose beyond oneself all increase life satisfaction.

[/FONT]https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/happiness

 

[prasad1]

Happiness is used in the context of mental or emotional states, including positive or pleasant emotions ranging from contentment to intense joy. It is also used in the context of life satisfaction, subjective well-being, eudaimonia, flourishing and well-being.
Since the 1960s, happiness research has been conducted in a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including gerontology, social psychology, clinical and medical research and happiness economics.

The definition of Happiness:
[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP] and on possible differences in understanding by culture.
The word is used in several related areas:

​

• current experience, including (a) the feeling of an emotion (affect) such as pleasure or joy, or (b) a more general sense of 'emotional condition as a whole'. For instance Daniel Kahneman has defined happiness as "what I experience here and now". This usage is prevalent in dictionary definitions of happiness.
• appraisal of life satisfaction, such as of quality of life. For instance Ruut Veenhoven has defined happiness as "overall appreciation of one's life as-a-whole."
• subjective well-being, which includes measures of affect and of life satisfaction. For instance Sonja Lyubomirsky has described happiness as “the experience of joy, contentment, or positive well-being, combined with a sense that one's life is good, meaningful, and worthwhile.”
• eudaimonia, which is sometimes translated as flourishing.

These uses can give different results. For instance, the correlation of income levels has been shown to be substantial with life satisfaction measures, but to be far weaker, at least above a certain threshold, with affect measures.

The implied meaning of the word may vary depending on context, qualifying happiness as a polyseme and a fuzzy concept.
Some users accept these issues, but continue to use the word because of its convening power.


June Gruber suggests that seeking happiness can have negative effects, such as failure to meet over-high expectations, and instead advocates a more open stance to all emotions. Other research has analyzed possible trade-offs between happiness and meaning in life. Not all cultures seek to maximize happiness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness


There are tyrants who get their happiness by inflicting pain on others.

 

[sravna]

Thanks for the contribution Shri Prasad.

 

[sravna]

If you are able to have the right attitude towards others real motives then you will react either in a humorous way or feel sympathy for that person. The behaviour will not affect you in a negative way.

 

[a-TB]

Alright. This is what I said


In my view happiness happens out of the following three factors:

i. One's health
ii. One's intelligence
iii. One's wealth

So if one is lacking in one of these, one's happiness comes down.

So I stated them as only necessary conditions for happiness and not as sufficient conditions.

Then I gave the following reasons for necessary conditions

let us assume some one is not healthy, intelligent or wealthy. Dont you think ill health will cause suffering and reduce happiness and lack of intelligence will not help you coping up with problems in the right way and lack of wealth will not give the happiness that basic amount of wealth will give?

dear Shri a-TB, try to rebut the above .

Your statements have already been shown as wrong. Here is a recap.

Necessary condition means if condition is absent one will be not happy.
You have listed three items as necessary. You are confusing physical suffering with unhappiness.
Intelligence causes more suffering because a person can find new ways of suffering.
Wealth has nothing to do with happiness.

As shown earlier, to rebut a claim all one needs is a counter example.

++ Homeless and Sannyasis have no wealth and yet many are found to be happy. Many such people do not know where their next meal is coming from. Yet they are happy. No all Sannyasis or homeless people. But there are enough that are happy and will say so. Your list of necessary condition is not correct

I dont need to prove others but for fun let me give one more example

People who suffer and are terminally ill and hence choosing assisted suicide have reported enormous happiness and freedom. Just google for such people

Your list is neither sufficient (by your admission) and nor necessary.

++++++++++++++++++++

If you are truly curious and have the humility to listen to words of people who have done real research then Google for 'The Happiness Project". It is a well rated book and provides extensive research. I saw this book in someone's home and was curious. It cites historical studies that will refute whatever you have been trying to say here.

Your list is arbitrary and is not a fit with eastern or western thoughts and as shown above is not logical.

++++++++++++++

Mr Prasad provided some references and they are more reasonable to read.

 

[a-TB]

If you are able to have the right attitude towards others real motives then you will react either in a humorous way or feel sympathy for that person. The behaviour will not affect you in a negative way.

One cannot read other people's motives. They can only see their actions. Motives assigned will be one's imagination and is used to divide people into groups - group that think like me and groups that do not. That is divisive. Such divisive people cannot be happy

 

[prasad1]

The Liverpool football club manager Jurgen Klopp said he cannot keep all of his Liverpool squad happy"I cannot keep players happy," Klopp told a news conference.
"You are happy or not happy, you understand it or you don't understand it.
"A big squad isn't there to make each member of the squad happy. I think the boys understand it. That's how it is.

Happiness is a state of mind, it depends on your expectations. If your expectations are in check you can be happy.

 

[mskmoorthy]

The discussions here reminded me of a poem called The Terrible People by Ogden Nash https://westegg.com/nash/terrible.html (Odgen Nash, American Poet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogden_Nash was an American poet well known for his light verse, of which he wrote over 500 pieces. With his unconventional he was declared the country's best-known producer of humorous poetry)
I am quoting the last four lines:
The only incurable troubles of the rich are the troubles that money can't cure,Which is a kind of trouble that is even more troublesome if you are poor.Certainly there are lots of things in life that money won't buy, but it's very funny --Have you ever tried to buy them without money?

 

[renuka]

Spirituality is becoming a zombie apocalypse.

Spirituality wants to infect everyone.

I dont get it..even God incarnates from Yuga to Yuga but the spiritually infected want to incarnate from to day.

I have no issues if someone wants to pursue the spiritual path but they should not try to infect others as to try to control their minds.