We live in the post-modernism era. The common theme is the maximisation of hedonism, and through that we pursue "happiness".
Happiness needs to be experienced. Explaining what it is or how it feels is of low value. The problem is that happiness is directly linked to unhappiness. It's like notes and pauses: if we remove pauses from a melody, the melody turns into a "sound" that doesn't give us any pleasure.. it's not music.
So to experience happiness, we need to experience unhappiness for long stretches of time.
All this to say that happiness shouldn't be the end-goal IMO. Meaning makes more sense as an end-goal. If we can live "meaningful" lives, happiness could be a byproduct. Being happy is easy but transient (e.g. eating ice-cream can make someone happy). Finding "meaning" is difficult but way more permanent than "happiness".
I would separate career from "meaning" though. The two rarely go along and I also like to think that myself and everyone else is more than a "career".
Not really. Meaning can change in scope at a moment's notice. We are the only creatures on earth that I can think of with the "divine power" to add or remove "meaning". We should exercise this power as best as we can.
> In truth there is no lasting meaning. Eventually the Earth and the solar system will end, followed by the galaxy, followed by every star.
One could argue that enriching the human race with books, speeches, youtube videos, cooking or code for 1.5k years is "enough". You said "contentedness" is key, so there you go. Or one could hope that our species alongside a world-wide library on a usb-stick could embark on a trip go a galaxy far-far away a-la "Space Cowboy" or "Foundation".
Yes, pretty much. Feel free to expand though. I enjoy these kind of conversations and there's always the possibility I might got this whole thing wrong.
My insight comes straight from the Dalai Lama's book "The Art of Happiness".
He explains that often people mistake please for happiness, so he suggests that you contrast the two by asking yourself: "Will this bring me happiness or pleasure?"
Happiness as described in the book is much closer to contentment in my opinion. The best I can describe it is the deep contentment after helping someone, resting after having done a good job or finding beauty in seemingly ordinary things.
To me, it appears to be less dependent on external circumstances, and more dependent on a state of mind. It appears to be less fleeting and less addictive. The mind becomes more still because of it, whereas the mind tends to be come addicted to pleasure.
Happiness appears to find you, whereas the mind endlessly chases pleasure.
Well said. How do we know what happiness feels like unless we have experienced unhappiness? This doesn't answer OPs question, but it is still worth thinking about.
Happiness needs to be experienced. Explaining what it is or how it feels is of low value. The problem is that happiness is directly linked to unhappiness. It's like notes and pauses: if we remove pauses from a melody, the melody turns into a "sound" that doesn't give us any pleasure.. it's not music.
So to experience happiness, we need to experience unhappiness for long stretches of time.
All this to say that happiness shouldn't be the end-goal IMO. Meaning makes more sense as an end-goal. If we can live "meaningful" lives, happiness could be a byproduct. Being happy is easy but transient (e.g. eating ice-cream can make someone happy). Finding "meaning" is difficult but way more permanent than "happiness".
I would separate career from "meaning" though. The two rarely go along and I also like to think that myself and everyone else is more than a "career".