The hidden face of happiness, documentary

[Christophe]

We may have already talked about it here or there forums? (see maybe https://www.econologie.com/forums/reflexions ... t8396.html , https://www.econologie.com/forums/le-bonheur ... 13183.html , https://www.econologie.com/forums/le-bonheur ... 11323.html ), here is the full video of the documentary "The hidden face of happiness"

Overwhelmed with clichés, we are not very good at imagining what will make us happy. Scientists have discovered that half of our happiness is determined by our genes. SPECIMEN explores the hidden face of happiness.

See here: http://www.rts.ch/play/tv/specimen/vide ... id=3855716

[Ahmed]

The central question: "what is happiness?" is very quickly evacuated for a series of flat phenomenological considerations. I'm not surprised in the least because could it be otherwise? Science does not have the capacity, by definition, to explain what happiness is, whether it is possible or not, and to what extent.
Does the happiness (or lack thereof) of an imbecile (in the medical sense of the term) have any significance?

The few elements of the answer, not on what is happiness, but on the superficial idea that these scientists have of them, join very trivial considerations, except that they are guaranteed here by percentages (to quantify the qualitative, hum ...)!
Disturbing, but significant of a cultural automatism, this idea that happiness would be a "personal capacity", susceptible of training and therefore improvement, of "performance".

[Obamot]

The central question: "what is happiness?" is very quickly evacuated for a series of flat phenomenological considerations. I'm not surprised in the least because could it be otherwise? Science does not have the capacity, by definition, to explain what happiness is, whether it is possible or not, and to what extent.

Surely...

Does the happiness (or lack thereof) of an imbecile (in the medical sense of the term) have any significance?

(or anyone else?) yes, it does, well-being (which underlies happiness?) is responsible for at least 50% of our state of "good health"! (Even if the fact of "considering yourself happy" is not always enough, there are prerequisites to reach a certain duration ..)

(It is possible to prove that it can go up to 80%, if not a little more ...)

Now who is qualified to say who is fool and who is not: can't we see loads of "supposed fools" who would be daring ready to prove to you that they are not and "categorized fools" which are not really ... hey hey ...

And besides, the status "fool"does not acquire like that, it must be earned!

The few elements of the answer, not on what is happiness, but on the superficial idea that these scientists have of them, join very trivial considerations, except that they are guaranteed here by percentages (to quantify the qualitative, hum ...)!
Disturbing, but significant of a cultural automatism, this idea that happiness would be a "personal capacity", susceptible of training and therefore improvement, of "performance".

If you take your definition with respect to death:
- a state ?!
- a situation of passage from one to the other ...?!

And everyone will have their definition, more or less happy, according to their ambitions ...

[Capt_Maloche]

To be happy, one must first be aware of it

and forcing oneself out of material hassles to keep only the substantive marrow of existence

I think you have to have shit at some point in your life to know how to "take full advantage" of what is good around us.

be aware that being alive is already something exceptional and relativize the rest.

Of course, it is already necessary for that to happen to support himself and his family of essential needs.

Everything else is a bonus, and getting pleasure is happiness.




which brings me to the next subject of the baccalaureate:
Is “lacking nothing” enough to make a man happy?

[Ahmed]

If we stick to a down-to-earth formalism, "happiness" is only the activation of the cerebral sphere of pleasure, whether it occurs through the effect of a socio-cultural gratification of order. hierarchical or, in its absence, by a chemical drug does not matter.

In the documentary, there are some interesting examples (although not explained):
- the billionaire who withdraws from business to devote himself (weakly!) to a micro-credit company, sees his satisfaction increase because he evades competition and is rewarded by actions he believes virtuous (and which seem so in the eyes of others).
- the Buddhist monk who takes refuge in an imaginary "outside" (this is not pejorative) which preserves him from the turbulences of the world and who renounces the desire and therefore the dissatisfaction which necessarily results from it (part of society of consumption).
- the disabled person who stops running to land (I speak in a figurative sense that derives from the proper meaning) and who restricts his field of action, intensifies his relations with his family and others (moreover, more likely to empathy because of a difference that is positivized by this fact).

Is “lacking nothing” enough to make a man happy?

To miss nothing means to have no desire, which can be understood in two ways: either simply as in the case of the Buddhist monk who renounces desire, or as the common man who, sufficiently provided, is unable to formulate a desire allowing him to imagine a future happiness resulting from the possession of the desired object, possession which would immediately ruin the desire (since it exists only until its realization).

In fact, if the possession of goods, in a world dedicated to their production and consumption, can be socially rewarding (paradox: private consumption only makes sense under the eyes of others!), It is only the admiration of other victims of this alienation it may arouse. Relative admiration, since the competition is endless (in both senses of the term) ...

[boutkiller]

I would say that to be happy we must already provide for our basic needs, which are good to eat, sleep and have a minimum of comfort.
Then I think we need to consider ourselves in relation to others, if we think to live better, to have more than the people around us, we will feel more happy.
There is also the prospect of the future, that tomorrow will be better than today.
Another point that is essential to my eyes is freedom. Even if today many prefer to lose in freedom to gain in security and comfort.

[Ahmed]

The following maxim:

... having more than the people around us will make us feel happier.

is rich in teaching: "let's try to find a narcissistic pleasure in the objects of gratification resulting from the socio-cultural automatisms which have been inculcated in us and on which the social hierarchy has been built", ... except that competition constantly reduces this hope to nothing (and this frustration is the engine of the farce)!

[sen-no-sen]

The following maxim:

... having more than the people around us will make us feel happier.

A thermodynamic interpretation is necessary:

Dispel more energy than those around us, and we can guarantee our dominance in the Darwinian struggle that is imposed on us ...

It works like that too, does not it?

Happiness is actually in the dissipation of energy!
From a strictly consumerist point of view: by having a maximum of goods and having access to a very large number of services, which allows in our consumer society to guarantee domination.

From a compassionate point of view: by striving to guarantee the protection of the weakest, which conceptually leads to guarantee the survival of the greatest number and thus to maximize the dissipation of energy of the species.

[I Citro]

However fools are by nature more often happy than others ...

[plasmanu]

it's you who is saying it...