lemons_boardgames t1_iz8ueci wrote
Reply to comment by cutelyaware in Philosopher José Antonio Marina: 'The fact that happiness has become fashionable is catastrophic' by FDuquesne
Whenever this discussion comes up, I get the feeling that 'happiness' must be defined beforehand. I say this because you seem to be talking about two forms of what may be called happiness. There is happiness as in joy, excitement, pleasure; and then there's happiness as in mirth, fulfillment, contentment, peace. The interviewee touches on this extremely briefly:
>There are two types of happiness: lowercase and uppercase.
He goes on to say
>But since the 18th century we have become aware of another kind, a social, public happiness, the only one in which we can agree, which leads us to ask: in what model do we want to live?
So he's addressing mostly this third kind of happiness, and hence why he does not cover the distinction you're addressing. It's this 'social happiness' that has become trendy in his opinion.
He's not saying anything remotely new, by the way. He's basically echoing Augustine, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and so on down the existential tree...
shelf_actualization t1_iz94b61 wrote
He goes on to say the following:
> That is what makes it a very conflictive society. The fact that happiness has become fashionable is catastrophic, because everyone is being told to think about their psychological happiness and the relationship of happiness with justice, with ethics and with public happiness, is broken. It is a return to narcissism. The individual is being shut in their own happiness and breaking the bond with social happiness.
I haven't read his work, but it seems he's saying that forgetting the relationship between social happiness and psychological happiness in favor of overemphasizing the latter in isolation is the problem.
cutelyaware t1_iz8vus9 wrote
That helps, thanks.
And yes, the categories make sense, though I'd move mirth to the first one. And I agree the 3rd is the most important. Society over the individual. Normally that aligns with the 2nd, and it sucks to live when it doesn't.
lemons_boardgames t1_iz8ya0v wrote
>I'd move mirth to the first one
Interesting. I'm not a native English speaker and the word mirth came into my vocabulary via G.K.Chesterton (Christian thinker) where it is most definitely in the second category. But looking at the dictionary, yeah, I think you're right. Must be a particular use of the word in Chesterton.
Valzemodeus t1_iz8xfrg wrote
May you live to see what you strive for.
A lengthy lifetime without happiness.
(Edit: It's been a long week. I apologize for this. Hopefully we all find what we are looking for in unironic ways.)
cutelyaware t1_izbqumh wrote
Good luck holding onto happiness
Valzemodeus t1_izcuxwn wrote
Good luck holdin onto anything.
All is transitory.
That said, there is a movement that encourages people to forgo happiness for obligation. There are times to do so, and there are times not to. Happiness is ultimately a gauge by which one can measure how much others have fulfilled their obligations.
When one feeds a system without reciprocation, one ultimately feeds a parasite.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments