is happiness absolute?

[Alex_]

Rephrasing: if one is unhappy, one is universally unhappy, or is he or she only relatively unhappy? If eveyone is extremely miserable in an universe, would a person that is "just" unhappy in ours be happy there, or would he or she still be unhappy?

 

[SpaceYeti]

This strikes me as an odd question. Of course happiness is absolute in the sense that you're either happy or unhappy (or somewhere in between) and that feeling feels the same no matter where you are. The change of location and circumstances may change your mood, though.

 

[Montresor]

How do you measure happiness? Is it an absolute value? If eveyone is extremely miserable in an universe, would a person that is "just" unhappy in ours be happy there, or would he or she still be unhappy?

No, I do not see happiness as an absolute value.

It's more like a ratio of how you are feeling at a given time compared to the maximum pleasurable state, expressed as a percentage with 2 decimal places.

By this reasoning, it's totally acceptable that a person from a different universe might be more or less happy when experiencing a new universe.

 

[Nezaros]

Have you read the Count of Monte Cristo?

 

[PhoenixRising]

Happiness is a completely relative state. It is triggered by different events, and probably feels somewhat different for everyone. imo, there is nothing absolute or even objective about it, just like any other emotion.

My question is, why are humans so interested in being happy? Why is "the pursuit of happiness" what so many people spend their lives doing? Aren't the other emotions just as legitimate? The pursuit of knowledge I can understand, or of innovation.. but the pursuit of an emotion is rather arbitrary.

 

[Alex_]

Have you read the Count of Monte Cristo?

No, I haven't. I heard the name quite often, though. Is it a good reading? I love Kafka -- so you can tell what I consider a good reading.

Happiness is a completely relative state. It is triggered by different events, and probably feels somewhat different for everyone. imo, there is nothing absolute or even objective about it, just like any other emotion.

I agree, I edited the OP to clarify a few points.

My question is, why are humans so interested in being happy? Why is "the pursuit of happiness" what so many people spend their lives doing? Aren't the other emotions just as legitimate? The pursuit of knowledge I can understand, or of innovation.. but the pursuit of an emotion is rather arbitrary.

It's a chemical thing I guess, being happy feels good, being smart -- not necessarily.

 

[Auburn]

I agree, but I meant as in "if one is unhappy, one is universally unhappy, or is he or she only relatively unhappy?". E.g. one is only rich, tall or thin if compared with an average -- I might be poor where I live, but I might be considered rich in a poor country. Now, is one only unhappy if compared to an average or referential, or is one universally unhappy?

It's a bit different from tall or short, since happiness can be defined in other ways than by relation to others. If you define 'happy' as a human having serotonin & dopamine reactions occurring in their brain, then that human would be happy regardless of what other creatures in the universe exist or what their chemical states are. It's similar to saying a human is hungry or full; it's dependent upon the context of the body itself - not other bodies.


'Happiness' isn't a universal value, so it can only really be defined within the context it belongs to -- and that is, being a biological self-motivator/rewarder designed to ensure propagation of a species' genome.

 

[BigApplePi]

Happiness is BOTH personal (internal) and environmental. In times of war, everyone is unhappy unless they are warriors. In times of prosperity, the prosperous will be happy.

Happiness goes up and down unless there is a physical or brain condition to stabilize.

 

[Montresor]

Have you read the Count of Monte Cristo?

I read the first half. It's a good example.

I think you're adding real imagery to the idea of "maximum pleasurable state", and quite possibly the "minimum pleasurable state". However, I am not familiar with the climax of the story so - end thought -

 

[Ink]

Wouldn't it be natural to assume that happiness is different for different people (different types?!) since the brain chemistry isn't necessarily the same for everyone? A bit unrelated to the topic perhaps...

 

[Montresor]

Wouldn't it be natural to assume that happiness is different for different people (different types?!) since the brain chemistry isn't necessarily the same for everyone? A bit unrelated to the topic perhaps...

Rebuttal: brain chemistry basically is the same for everyone. It's learned reward systems and circuitry that fundamentally cause variations in personality (and levels of happiness i.e. occurrences of "brain chemistry")

 

[Ink]

Rebuttal: brain chemistry basically is the same for everyone. It's learned reward systems and circuitry that fundamentally cause variations in personality (and levels of happiness i.e. occurrences of "brain chemistry")

I guess so. Still that would make peoples brain chemistry different in a sense? Since the type-specific brain patterns probably were set in stone at a very young age.

 

[Montresor]

I guess so. Still that would make peoples brain chemistry different in a sense? Since the type-specific brain patterns probably were set in stone at a very young age.

Again I disagree, but I am lacking in formal evidence (again).

I believe that responses are not "set-in-stone" at least until an individual reaches the "formal operational" stage of Piagetian development (i.e. age 10-12). It's basically accepted that children have no./weak concept of the abstract, absurd, or hypothetical until they are at least this developed. Probably because there are many tracts and connections yet to be made? (this might be one of those fateful moments where I am trying to convince myself as much as yourself)

Children are generally more plastic and malleable than adults in almost every regard.

However, yes, "it would make people's brain chemistry different in a sense" that certain groups of synapses are more active over a lifetime. The chemistry you refer to is basically the release and re-uptake of neurotransmitters, the most popular of which have already been named in this thread.

 

[Nezaros]

I read the first half. It's a good example.

I think you're adding real imagery to the idea of "maximum pleasurable state", and quite possibly the "minimum pleasurable state". However, I am not familiar with the climax of the story so - end thought -

The climax was more what I was getting at, but essentially happiness is a relative state. One could be living a miserable existence for years, becoming accustomed to it, and then when they are reintroduced to what most would consider normal, it feels as the greatest pinnacle of happiness. Likewise, someone with a great deal of pleasure in their lives, who is then accustomed to that lifestyle, may experience a return to normalcy, which would feel absolutely horrid.

 

[Ink]

Again I disagree, but I am lacking in formal evidence (again).

I believe that responses are not "set-in-stone" at least until an individual reaches the "formal operational" stage of Piagetian development (i.e. age 10-12). It's basically accepted that children have no./weak concept of the abstract, absurd, or hypothetical until they are at least this developed. Probably because there are many tracts and connections yet to be made? (this might be one of those fateful moments where I am trying to convince myself as much as yourself)

Children are generally more plastic and malleable than adults in almost every regard.

However, yes, "it would make people's brain chemistry different in a sense" that certain groups of synapses are more active over a lifetime. The chemistry you refer to is basically the release and re-uptake of neurotransmitters, the most popular of which have already been named in this thread.

By my and many others personal observation type is apparent from a very young age if you know what to look for.

 

[Montresor]

By my and many others personal observation type is apparent from a very young age if you know what to look for.

oh is that right?

So today's winner of the Fallacious Argument of the Day award is Ink.

hahaha just kiddin'

So what do you look for in children then? Because I stand behind my earlier contention that true type is not accessible until abstract, absurd, and hypothetical understandings have been developed.

In the interest of keeping this thread on its rails, i.e. happiness as an absolute, what causes people to change from being basically happy (children) to basically unhappy (adults)?

 

[Ink]

weren't you INTPish as a kid? I definitely were

 

[envirodude]

Rephrasing: if one is unhappydrunk, is one universally unhappydrunk, or is he or she only relatively unhappydrunk?

Happiness is our reaction to a state of brain chemistry.

If eveyone is extremely miserable in an universe, would a person that is "just" unhappy in ours be happy there, or would he or she still be unhappy?

See definition above. I figure they'd be "just" unhappy.