Dubstepforum.com

Kids in the Hall - Brain Candy

<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZI19Au3AIk" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>

It's a physical state of being where serotonin flows through the body. Therefore, it is not objective.

ComfiStile wrote:It's a physical state of being where serotonin flows through the body. Therefore, it is not objective.

thats what i was trying to prove. and that if one does not feel good from being happy (serotonin release), than they have a disorder. because the way we evolved is so that we get happy when we do things that keep us alive, well, and comfortable so that we survive. sometimes i can be open minded, but other times i guess im pretty cut and dry about things. this is sort of one of them.

From my notes...

Hedonists identify well-being with experiences of pleasure, desire theorists equate it with the satisfaction of one's desires—actually getting what you want, versus merely having certain experiences. Both hedonism and desire theories are in some sense subjectivist, since they ground well-being in the individual's subjective states.

Objective list theorists, by contrast, think some things benefit us independently of our attitudes or feelings: there are objective prudential goods. Aristotelians are the best-known example: they take well-being (eudaimonia) to consist in a life of virtuous activity—or more broadly, the fulfillment of our human capacities. A passive but contented couch potato may be getting what he wants, and he may enjoy it. But he would not, on Aristotelian and other objective list theories, count as doing well, or leading a happy life.

Happiness, as
1. A state of mind (psychological) -subjective
2. A life that goes well for the person leading it; well being

"Well being" represents objective human needs, such as meaning, personal growth, relatedness, autonomy, competence, etc.

it's subjective

you can never tell me that i'm happy or i'm not

"meaning, personal growth, relatedness, autonomy, competence" are not objective qualities






I don't think that anything is objective though

I hate competition.

Especially in art.

I mean...one of the reasons people fail to express themselves
..is fear of or no desire to be judged.

What this has to do with happiness...

I know I'm unhappy when people put pressure on things like...
do something and be the best at it.....

..but we're only gonna give you two hours...and bare minimum materials.


..you know..that is just an introduction.

The only thing I will guarentee is a certain amount awkward and clumsiness in general.

ComfiStile wrote:It's a physical state of being where serotonin flows through the body. Therefore, it is not objective.

I was just about saying that happiness might be easier explained biologically

I want to bitch about my friend...being really moody after drinking...

...but It makes me angry when I think about it.



not an intimate friend - just a normal everyday friend...

bright maroon wrote:I mean...one of the reasons people fail to express themselves
..is fear of or no desire to be judged.

Yep.

Acidmath wrote:Hedonists identify well-being with experiences of pleasure, desire theorists equate it with the satisfaction of one's desires—actually getting what you want, versus merely having certain experiences. Both hedonism and desire theories are in some sense subjectivist, since they ground well-being in the individual's subjective states.

Objective list theorists, by contrast, think some things benefit us independently of our attitudes or feelings: there are objective prudential goods. Aristotelians are the best-known example: they take well-being (eudaimonia) to consist in a life of virtuous activity—or more broadly, the fulfillment of our human capacities. A passive but contented couch potato may be getting what he wants, and he may enjoy it. But he would not, on Aristotelian and other objective list theories, count as doing well, or leading a happy life.

pleasure and happiness are different ideas. pleasure might be reducible to serotonin levels, happiness is a broader concept. so i think objectivists have got a point.

being a couch potato is generally unsatisfying if it goes on too long. can be ok for a while. pleasure without happiness isn't enough for most people.

william burroughs said: "happiness is a by-product of function" ... (you wouldn't think he was an aristotelian, would you? ) ... that resembles the objectivist view, but is slightly different in that it suggests that any function might do, not just one kind of good life.

i like philosophy but that is a stupid ass question

how soon is now?

Mr Hyde wrote:how soon is now?

i am the son, and the heir....

mozzas eyebrows wrote:

ruckus49 wrote:i like philosophy but that is a stupid ass question

then you dont like philosophy...

If I sound panty bunched in this thread..I'm not

I've been feeling pretty good/well for the past two weeks...

I watched a great film the other day...
It was beautifully filmed...called "Rain" from New Zealand..

It was a retro styled - coming of age film....endings a bit melodramatic

Interesting thing - Americans don't talk to each other like that...like they do in the film...
with a sort of independent disconnect...I'd get slapped and sent to my room for attitude.

<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5Ym90yApHA&feature=related" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>