|
|
 |
|
Getting On : Literature Reviews
Nietsche | from the antichrist - Tuesday, January 10, 2006
accessed 1895 times Read fucking Nietzsche's Zarathustra or Der Antichrist.
It's the opposite of everything the family ever fed you, even made me understand the cult better This book must be read by anybody who's been in the family |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from exister
Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 07:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
As much as I enjoy discussing Nietzsche and his work I cannot bring myself to do so in a thread where his name is misspelled in the title. Perhaps you did so intentionally as an homage to Nietzshe's syphilitic dementia, or maybe you just don't care about accuracy or precision in the human experience.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from nietzsche
Monday, October 08, 2007 - 07:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
"The Christian church is an encyclopedia of prehistoric cults" - Fredrick Nietzsche
Nietzsche thought also that it is the desire of Christians to see the world as ugly and bad that has made it ugly and bad.
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will often be lonely, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself - Fredrick Nietzsche
Alas, I can see that you do not know what it means to be alone. Wherever there have been powerful societies, governments, religions, or public opinions - in short, wherever there was any kind of tyranny, it has hated the lonely philosopher; for philosophy opens up a refuge for man where no tyranny can reach: the cave of inwardness, the labyrinth of the breast; and that annoys all tyrants - Fredrick Nietzsche (Schopenhauer as Teacher)
As long as you still experience the stars as something above the head you lack the eye of knowledge - Fredrick Nietzsche
"human, all too human"-Nietzsche
documentary
http://www.freemoviesandfilms.com/component/option,com_seyret/Itemid,26/task,videodirectlink/id,463
"Just look at us, everything is backwards
Everything is upside down:
Doctors destroy health
Lawyers destroy justice
Universities destroy knowledge
Governments destroy freedom
Major media destroy information
Religion destroys spirituality"
On relationships:
Freeing others from the slavery to your emptiness and need
When you are no longer emotionally affected, negatively
or positively, by what another person does, says or thinks
you will have attained independent selfhood.
He who fights too long against dragons, becomes a dragon himself - Fredrick Nietzsche
"In individuals insanity is rare, but in groups, parties, nations and epochs it is the rule." - Fredrick Nietzsche
"He who fights with monsters might take care; lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into You." Nietzsche
Nietzsche wrote, "The 'kingdom of Heaven is a condition of the heart -- not something that 'comes upon the earth' or 'after death'".
(reply to this comment)
|  From thatata
Monday, October 08, 2007, 10:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Nations only produce great men in spite of themselves. Thus the great man is the conqueror of his nation." - Baudelaire
I think this quote is very Nietzchean, Nietzche was both unpolitical as well as not a racist I think this quote would be in complete agreement with his ideas.
I wonder why he was so into his "over-man" ? Most people are Nietzchean "ultimate-men", into the belief in so-called progress, and I could understand despising these "ultimate-men", but why this obssession with the "over-man"? What exactly constitutes an Ubermensch?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From thatata
Monday, October 08, 2007, 22:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Although I like the idea of transcendence of ego into true self, the idea IMHO sounds more like Zen then Nietzche, I belive he wanted to strengthen man not necessarily find the true self. He would perhaps find the idea of a true self very debatable. I think what he was on about was strength. The strongest man can take the 'Eternal Recurrence". But then again the idea of the Eternal Recurrence sounds a little Buddhist. Whats your opinion on the whole thing?
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from one favorite quote
Monday, October 08, 2007 - 04:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
Will and willingness.-- Someone took a youth to a sage and said: "Look, he is being corrupted by women." The sage shook his head and smiled. "It is men," said he, "that corrupt women; and all the failings of women should be atoned by and improved in men. For it is man who creates for himself the image of woman, and woman forms herself according to this image."
"You are too kind-hearted about women," said one of those present; "you do not know them." The sage replied: "Will is the manner of men; willingness that of women. That is the law of the sexes - truly, a hard law for women. All of humanity is innocent of its existence; but women are doubly innocent. Who could have oil and kindness enough for them?"
"Damn oil! Damn kindness!" someone shouted out of the crowd; "Women need to be educated better!" - "Men need to be educated better," said the sage and beckoned to the youth to follow him. - The youth, however, did not follow him.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | From thatata
Wednesday, October 10, 2007, 11:10
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Or it could be said that he rejected women. And not from prudishness, but because he was an an ascetic philosopher. As far as misogyny goes, misogyny has played a large part in the development of culture and civilization (and I purposely use the word development not progress, because progress means something good).
In both the objective and cultural sense man has played a larger part; thats a fact in the development of civilization.
I dont mean men r smarter then women, Im just saying how the game has been played. And thats how it is isnt?(reply to this comment) |
| | From to clarify
Friday, October 12, 2007, 14:20
 (Agree/Disagree?)
If its the blunt question of whether I support misogyny or not the answer is:NO, I dont support it.
If its the question of whether the developement of civilization, has to a large degree been developed by what modern people would call misogynists the answer is:Yes, to a large degree it could be said that it was developed by what modern people would call misogynists.
If its the question of whether Women are inherently dumber then Men the answer is:NO.
This is what I was saying.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From check this..
Monday, October 08, 2007, 15:03
 (Agree/Disagree?)
I feel so sorry for you guys. All guys who read this and unfortunately might even take note and agree with the contents.
Study after study after study has shown that in order of happiness/fulfilment in life - number one being the happiest of all the groups the following happiness chart exists in our society:
1. The happiest of all are married men
2. The next happiest group are single women
3. Unhappier are married women
4. The most unhappy & miserable of all are single men
Your articles are completely based on the erroneous facts that married women are happier than single women. The truth is that they leave because they KNOW they will be happier single than live with some caveman who has NOT REALIZED that it is HIM who will be unhappier than her should they split up.
This creates a power play that most men are not aware of. That she will be *happier* if she leaves you - yet you keep threatening to leave. She KNOWS you will be unhappier. Women have always worked & lived in solitude, mainly in the home, and it is not a problem for them.
This page and other articles shows clearly the false thinking you guys have. NOT ONCE does it state - “we are unhappy because our wives keep leaving us & we wish we could find one because we are lonely” (the truth). It states over and over “women had better change back to the way they used to be or they will never find a husband and be left lonely..etc…” (women could not care less as they are happier being single)
Its a classic case of projection. It is YOU who are scared to be lonely. It is YOU who is being left on the shelf all alone. It is YOU who is losing the best years of your life with no family & no hope.
For the guys out there who understand what I’m saying. Ignore this page. Go to your ex and show them that you know that you need them as much as they need you. Be aware that she will be happier than you should you split up and accept this. When you meet a new potential partner you will have to realise that you need her more than she needs you. Realise that she knows she will be happier single.
Realise that she knows that you will go into the number 1 happy group once married and she will, by the same act go down one step to number 3 in happiness. Realise that she will make this sacrifice only for someone who will appreciate her for doing so. Realise that threats that she will be ‘left on the shelf’ and all other stupid threats will NOT work because she will remember that she was happier when single. Realise that love, respect and equality will work & you will be happier for it.
Good Luck in having an equal & respectful relationship with women. You WILL be happier as a married man. You WILL need to change your point of view to reflect the true facts of who is happier in society.(reply to this comment) |
| | From to clarify
Tuesday, October 09, 2007, 12:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
Woman is often viewed as the cause of man's downfall, but this seems very contradictory to me. It is significant that this attitude conforms to the Christian doctrine of the fall of Adam. It was not his weakness that was at fault, it was the fault of the woman who tempted him. Why should the strong, superior male be so vulnerable to the weak, inferior female? Nietzsche says in this section that it is because the manner of man is will, and the manner of woman is willingness. I interpret this to mean that Man wants to take, and Woman wants to give. A woman's instinct is to please a man, because her nature seeks fulfillment in motherhood. Men has chosen to blame and revile woman for the biological imperative that drives her, while cherishing the same instinct in himself that draws him inexorably to her. Because his own self-image is damaged by the weakness he perceives in himself, his resentment of woman's power over him distorts his image of her. Once again, the theme of female sexuality as a negative and shameful thing is repeated. Woman, in her turn, is compelled by her nature to conform to this image; because her willingness to please is so great, she demeans herself. Nietzsche seems to think that this injustice toward women could be eliminated by educating men to understand themselves better.
he compared truth, life and humanity to a woman; by symmetry woman is also truth, life and humanity. Life, truth and humanity are valuable, woman is the giver of life and the sustainer of humanity. The truth may be that Nietzsche had a higher regard for women than may be evident from his confusing and contradictory writings and less-than-flattering references to women.
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:Yg08lwEklywJ:www.wpunj.edu/cohss/philosophy/COURSES/NIETNET/WOMAN.HTM+neitzsche+on+woman&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&client=safari
(reply to this comment) |
| | From thatata
Wednesday, October 10, 2007, 10:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, Nietzche was no prude, but he was a man and therefore feminine willingness would be out of the question for his own masculinity.
Praising women is not impossible for male chauvinism, infact its part of it.
Men and women are poetic (artistic), comparing women to truth, life and humanity is not scientific.
Sexism will always exist.
And do we really not want sexism to exist? Personally I think everyone is sexist, its really impossible to get around. We are not scientist we r more like artists, we think in an artistic sense some of those senses r pretty old, though.(reply to this comment) |
| | From to clarify
Friday, October 12, 2007, 14:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
Its not necessarily a promotion of sexism or an attack on it, possibly it is both an attack and 'promotion' of sexism, but its not necessarily ,either.
Its just my ambiguous ideas on an ambiguous idea. And since sexism is an ambiguous word shouldnt it be permitted to speak ambiguously about it? If something is ambiguous shouldnt it be be spoken about ambiguosly?
Because if it were straight then it would only be right that it be spoken about right (I mean straight), but since its ambiguous its only 'right' that it should be spoken about ambiguously. :)
So what is 'sexism' and where have I gone wrong? :)
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oh gee....
Monday, October 08, 2007, 17:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
So by your assertion:
-Men are dependent on women to be happy; they cannot achieve happiness through work, accomplishment, adventure, sex or even children; they require dependence on a woman to find happiness.
-This is necessarily a selfish arrangement, marriage necessarily or by majority of instances undermining or destroying the happiness or fulfilment of the woman.
-Fidelity is unhappiness to a woman. Being bonded to a partner is unhappiness to a woman.
-Single men exist purely to find a woman whose life they must destroy in order to find happiness; erstwhile, women are, after thousands of years of falling foul of the practice, fucking stupid enough to be hoodwinked into it.
-Despite the enormous differences in responsiblity and burden of the married man in comparison to the single man, these are so outweighed by the benefits of happiness synonymous with union, that by and large married men are still happier than single men.
Why does this perspective place all the strength of character solely on the female? Where in good high heaven would such statistics come from (other than angry militant feminists united)? What, did you just go out and ask people 'are you happy?' and then whether or not they were single or married, male or female?
How f__king dare you imply that I need another human being, especially a woman, and more that I need to impose an unequal relationship in which I will be the major beneficiary, in order to be happy! I do not intend to marry, I do not intend to have children, nor do I pursue a lifestyle which even accomodates any more than the most casual of relationships. I am happy alone, or at least I find being in anything even close to a more than passing relationship makes me miserable. In all likelihood I will live and die alone, and I have accepted this a long time ago. Are you telling me that I must become a parasitic social and emotional leach to find fullfillment? GO SWING YOUR BLEADING BATTLEAXE ELSEWHERE!!!!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From murasaki
Thursday, October 11, 2007, 09:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
Seems like someone hit a nerve ;) Putting happiness aside, because how does one really measure happiness anyway, married people live longer and are healthier. It's just statistics, nothing to do with battleaxes. It does not mean that every single married person will be happier/healthier/etc...than those who are not, but study after study has concluded that the averages tilt in favor of those who have a significant other. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From book review
Tuesday, October 09, 2007, 13:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier and Better Off Financially. - Review - book review
By Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher: Doubleday, 256 pp., $24.95.
RECENTLY Time magazine published a cover article titled "Who Needs a Husband?" It chronicled, if not celebrated, the trend of women "flying solo"--never getting married, and even learning to like their single state. The article reported that currently 40 percent of all adult females are single, up from 30 percent in 1960. In 1960, 83 percent of all women between 25 and 55 were married; today, that figure has dropped to 65 percent. Are women panicked by such statistics? Apparently not the women interviewed by Time.
These women say that they are enjoying their space, their freedom, their ability "to be themselves," their money, their travels, their friends and, indeed, sex with some of those friends. Many still want to marry, but only if the right man comes along. The Time article makes it seem that the majority of single women are living the life depicted in Sex and the City, HBO's hit series about single women in the fast lane. The article's portrait of single life is consistent with the recent report on singles from the Rutgers University National Marriage Project called "Sex without Strings, Relationships without Rings." The Time essay quotes Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, one of the report's authors: "The reality is that marriage is now the interlude and singlehood the state of affairs."
Of all the reasons it gives for why women are marrying less, Time does not include one of the most common--the belief, popularized 30 years ago by sociologist Jessie Bernard, that marriage is a bad deal for women. And it turns out this is one of those social science Factoids that is being contradicted by new research, including that presented by sociologist Linda Waite and journalist Maggie Gallagher.
Waite broke ground on this subject in her 1995 presidential address before the Population Association of America, when she argued that marriage pays off in big ways. Married people live longer, are healthier, have fewer heart attacks and other diseases, have fewer problems with alcohol, behave in less risky ways, have more sex--and more satisfying sex--and become much more wealthy than single people. There was one exception to this rosy picture: cohabiting couples do have more frequent sex. But they enjoy it less.
And single women--how do they fare? Not as well as Time implies. When one examines the big picture and the large data sets that sociologists love to analyze, married women come out far ahead of women who have never married or who are divorced. True, marriage is still slightly better for men than for women, but it is a much better deal for women than Jessie Bernard led people to believe.
Waite and Gallagher's book is neither theological nor philosophical. It never defines marriage or traces its origins and development in Western society and thought. This is a book about data--lots of it--on the consequences of marriage.
Take health: mortality rates are 50 percent higher for unmarried women and 250 percent higher for unmarried men than they are for married women and men. Married surgical patients are less likely to die than the unmarried. Of men matched in every respect except marital status, nine out of ten married men who were alive at age 48 made it to 65; only six out often bachelors lived to the usual retirement age. Nine out of ten married women alive at age 45 made it to 65, while only eight of ten unmarried women did.
The selection effect--that is, the likelihood that healthier people get married and less healthy people don't--explains some of the difference, but not all. According to Waite and Gallagher, the evidence shows that married people start practicing healthier lifestyles after they marry. "Researchers find that the married have lower death rates, even after taking initial health status into account. Even sick people who marry live longer than their counterparts who don't." Marriage is also better for your health because married people take more responsibility for one another even than those who cohabit. They nag each other more, remind their partners of appointments and take care of each other when sick. Marriage also generally reduces stress and boosts the immune system.
What about sex? Many people believe that marriage dampens the sex life, and for some it doubtless does. But most married couples have much better sex and more of it than singles. According to a University of Chicago National Sex Survey, 43 percent of married men reported having sex at least twice a week, while only 1.26 percent of single men not cohabiting had sex that often. Single men were 20 times more likely to be celibate than married men. Familiarity does not dampen sexual ardor; indeed, Waite and Gallagher argue that marriage facilitates sexual activity. Sex is easier for married couples. Any single "act of sex costs them less in time, money and psychic energy. For the married, sex is more likely to happen because it is so easy to arrange and so compatible with the rest of their day to day life."
(reply to this comment) |
| | From The female of the species
Tuesday, October 09, 2007, 12:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
The Female of the Species
When the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man,
He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can.
But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
'Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
Man's timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
For the Woman that God gave him isn't his to give away;
But when hunter meets with husbands, each confirms the other's tale --
The female of the species is more deadly than the male.
Man, a bear in most relations-worm and savage otherwise, --
Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.
Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
Mirth obscene diverts his anger --- Doubt and Pity oft perplex
Him in dealing with an issue -- to the scandal of The Sex!
But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same,
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.
She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pity -- must not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversions -- not in these her honour dwells.
She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.
She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unchained to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.
She is wedded to convictions -- in default of grosser ties;
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies! --
He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.
Unprovoked and awful charges -- even so the she-bear fights,
Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons -- even so the cobra bites,
Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw
And the victim writhes in anguish -- like the Jesuit with the squaw!
So it cames that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
With his fellow-braves in council, dare nat leave a place for her
Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
To some God of Abstract Justice -- which no woman understands.
And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
Must command but may not govern -- shall enthral but not enslave him.
And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail,
That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From JohnnieWalker
Monday, October 08, 2007, 15:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
First, your quoted study results are worthless without a reference. Second, it seems very dogmatic and perhaps even naive to interpret said results to mean that ALL men WILL be happier if they are married, or that ALL women WILL become unhappy when they marry, etc.
Even if the findings you quote are accurate, they would not be "true facts". They would simply be the observed or expressed emotional states of the _majority_ of the participants in the study.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From JohnnieWalker
Tuesday, October 09, 2007, 08:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
You cannot *establish* superlativeness without a unit of measure. Tell, me for instance, which of 3 people you consider to be happiest: The angry scowling person, the expression-less person, or the smiling and cheerful person? How did you manage to observe superlativeness without a unit of measure?
Granted, observance isn't definitive but rather subjective. And yes, a unit of measure would have to be established to determine, for example, which of two smiling people is the happier one. But the human brain is entirely capable of evaluating and classifying abstracts without a unit of measure.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Tuesday, October 09, 2007, 12:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
JW, you had an opportunity to evidence your own understanding of the subject by calling me out on my use of 'units of measure' instead of 'system of measurement'. To which I would have responded that given the inherent subjectivity of any attempt to quantify or measure happiness, the specific units would indeed prove key to understanding the overall system. That said...
What your example is comparing is the facial expressions of your subjects, therefore the three points you identified are indeed the units of measure - however subjective. You have over time - instinctively, and most likely sub-consciously - set the range of facial emotions along a scale and in this instance selected three points as the units to mark along that scale.
This illustrates my point in that although you have identified your system of measurement (facial expressions), the subjectivity of your units of measure mean that your audience will each likely have their own perception of what constitutes the respective units.
While indeed language and human interaction have taught us to recognise emotions, comparing them one against another is still a matter of scale - no matter how subconscious the scaling. Are we to assess the shape and size of the mouth? or the eyes? how about the cheeks or forehead? That the human brain is able to perform these calculations and comparisons seemingly so instinctively does not negate the complex quantification of the process.(reply to this comment) |
| | From .........
Tuesday, October 09, 2007, 13:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
It is a highly under-researched area. Some results are predictable enough: Work is miserable, and commuting is worse. Others are not so obvious. For instance, praying is fun, but looking after the kids is not. Spending time with your friends is one of the most enjoyable things you can do, but spending time with your spouse is merely OK. In fact, parents or other relatives turn out to make more enjoyable company than the supposed love of your life.
As we covered before, happy people tend to mirror the "social ideal!" To highlight just a few of the findings again: happy people are found to be more democratic, less dogmatic, and more open minded. They are highly pro-social, people-oriented individuals who are loving, caring, concerned, helpful, and giving. The tend to be more conventional, positively religious, and moral that others. They are typically seen as socially "model" or "ideal." They are more concerned with, social, moral and family values than making money (286, 329). They are honest and open individuals; and although they tend to have a rosy, optimistic view of life, they are not dishonest or deceptive, either with themselves, or others (415). Furthermore, happy people tend to be much more concerned and caring about social problems such as economic inequity, freedom, and world peace. And finally, happy people tend to contribute more to charitable causes and volunteer more of their time to their communities.
Clearly, happy people are not a detriment to society. In fact, just the opposite: happy people are what we would tend to describe as "model citizens."
Nor does happiness lead to a collapse of economic productivity. As we've seen before, happy people are anything but lazy; they are characterized by a high level of activity, involvement with life, productivity, competency, and success. Especially on the job! If Business has learned nothing about work-motivation in the last fifty years of research, at least it is coming to see that happy workers are productive workers (and ironically, although much of this research was done in the United States, it is the major economic powers in Japan and in Western Europe who've taken these lessons most to heart).
There has also been the "political" fear, expressed by some critics, that happy people are too content to concern themselves with malevolent or dictatorial drifts in their governance. Yet, there is no evidence for this fear either. Internationally, for example, the countries that are the most democratic and concerned with human rights, are the ones with the happiest populations. As researcher, Bert Klandermans, concludes:
"There is little reason to assume that happiness necessarily turns people into acquiescent citizens. On the contrary, happiness might reflect the basic sense of security people need to become actively involved in their society." (412, p.61)
Indeed, historically, it would appear that political strife, violent revolution, and oppressive regimes spring more from unhappier populations than happy ones.
Yet, what of society's ills? Crime? Domestic violence? Child abuse? Drugs? Alcoholism?
Here again, there is absolutely no evidence that happiness leads to such social problems. Indeed, the mass of evidence on criminal and abusive behavior shows that it is unhappy people who are the most likely to perpetrate anti-social and self-destructive acts. Happy people, according to the findings we've already reviewed, are far less hostile, criminal, violent, and self-abusive.
Finally there is the matter of health. If nothing else, the research shows that a happy society is a healthy society, both mentally and physically! Not only do happier people enjoy better health from year to year, they also tend to have longer and more healthy life spans. In addition, happier people are more mentally healthy and emotionally well-adjusted. They are far less likely to suffer from emotional disorders than average and unhappy people are. With the staggering rise associated with health care costs for most nations in recent years, this obvious benefit of a happy population is clear.
In sum, both on an individual or national level, there is nothing bad about being happy. In fact, the research picture demonstrates just the opposite: individual or national happiness is good!
You see, the problem the critics have always had is based on a misunderstanding many people have about the nature of happiness. True happiness has little to do with the selfish accumulation, pleasure-seeking, and non productive dalliance the critics have always feared. Rather, as we have seen, is based far more on social inclusion, close family and marital ties, contributing to one's community, being productive, and having meaningful work to do.
Moreover, there is an apparent misunderstanding regarding basic human nature involved in these fears about happiness. And that misunderstanding, lies more in a lack of understanding about unhappiness, rather than happiness. For some reason, most people simply don't understand how much human misery is caused by unhappiness. People read about the violent crime, the domestic discord, the inhuman treatment of others, and the multitude of social ills, every time they pick up a newspaper. But rarely are they told of the tragic human unhappiness which underlies these despicable behaviors and lies within the persons who commit them.
Not that such unhappiness should ever be a legal excuse for such human crimes, but it is the main reason from them!
In my opinion, the major finding of modern Psychology is simply that unhappiness is the basis of all social evils. Unhappy people commit unhappy acts; either on themselves or others.
t is not a matter of judgement, here. It is not that unhappy people are intrinsically "bad." It is just that they are frustrated, angry, lacking, and desperate.
Frustrated, angry, lacking, and desperate people often do criminal, violent, and degrading things to survive. As Abraham Maslow theorized in his view of human needs, a human being has to meet his or her most basic "survival and safety needs," first, to be able to concern his or herself with any of the more higher-order human needs (like "love," "esteem," or "self-actualization"). In other words, one has to attain a certain level of happiness in his or her own life before one becomes concerned with the happiness of others. As a general psychological rule, unhappy people are the "self-centered" ones. When one is embittered, empty, and needy, one cares little about the feelings of others in meeting their own needs. It is only when one is reasonable happy on their own, that compassion for others becomes important.
Concern and caring for others, it seems, is not just a moral issue; it is a happiness issue!
Happiness has never been a matter of tangible knowledge, until now, thus how could anyone know where to start to improve it?
I believe there have been three major barriers which have blocked Humankind's attempt for greater happiness over the centuries.
The first is: people have never known what happiness is!
When we began this volume, we noted that as much as most people recognize that happiness is "the most important thing in life," few have any accurate idea as to what it is. Clearly, this is a tragic human irony. If happiness deserves pursuit, one should know a bit more about what it is that one peruses. Without a specific definition, our attempts to isolate it in our lives is "accidental," at best.
The second barrier: people have never fully appreciated happiness.
Based on the massive interviews I've collected over the years, few people really appreciate happiness. As much as they say they want it, few, even those that are happy, really appreciate what it means to be happy. The unhappy know it would be better to be happy, but they have no real understanding of what it might feel like to be that way; and the happiest people seem to take their happiness for granted, never full realizing or savoring the happiness they have. But in a larger sense, it appears that hardly anyone truly appreciates how fundamentally important happiness is, or how precious and valued it should be. Because of this, we loose sight of our happiness in day to day life, and greatly reduce the happiness we might gain from it.
The third barrier: people have never really understood what contributes to happiness.
Naturally, this is the biggest barrier of all! If peoples, throughout history, had available a truly scientific knowledge regarding human happiness, there may well have been much greater happiness over the centuries. Indeed, the dream of universal happiness might already be a reality by now. But such scientific knowledge has only begun in our times.
Historically, of course, there has always been a great deal of common, "folk-wisdom" and philosophy regarding happiness to serve as a guide. But as we have seen, such views of happiness have only been partially accurate and often contradictory. The lack of commonly understood, scientific knowledge in the understanding of happiness is clearly one of the major reasons Humanity has made so little progress toward its attainment over recorded time. Despite the miraculous progress seen in other areas of science -- knowledge which has led form the eradication or polio to the the exploration of the moon -- our knowledge about human happiness has, until recently, remained as it was in the Stone Age.
If these are the major barriers which have stood in Humanity's way of happiness, then, certainly, the accumulated research on human happiness presented in this volume begins to tear them down.
Based on research, we have, for the first time, been able to, not only better define happiness, but we have also been able to appreciate human happiness as the ultimate goal of living. We've also examined what it's like to feel truly happy, and we have pinpointed the varied outside causes and isolated to numerous personality traits associated with happiness. We've learned that there are a number of basic personality characteristics and attitudinal sets which contribute to greatly to happiness.
Today, these age-old barriers have been dissolved. No longer can a lack of definition of happiness, or a mis-appreciation of its importance, or a non-understanding of its causes be an excuse for its lack of attainment.
There is the potential for a happier world!
Read the whole paper
http://www.gethappy.net/v104.htm
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | from thatata
Friday, October 05, 2007 - 14:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
Anybody have an opinion about Niestche, anybody read him? If there aint nobody then dont reply.
(reply to this comment)
| From Falcon
Sunday, October 07, 2007, 17:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
His name is spelt 'Nietzsche' and he is a favorite read of mine. All his books are great, but as written above, one of his best works in my opinion is 'Thus Spake Zarathustra'. 'Beyond Good and Evil' is another good one.
I don't know what kind of opinion you want to hear about him. He had problems, especially with women, but that likely had something to do with his ridiculous mustache. As we all know, genius and insanity run a fine line, and he hopped between the two frequently. But hey, I ain't judging the guy, cuz he left behind writings that are a worthy legacy.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From thatata
Monday, October 08, 2007, 09:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thats right, bad spelling.
I also like Nietzsche not my favorite author but one of them. I especially like how he critisizes every type of human being. He gives irrationalty its due, because there is no, True Reason. There is nothing sacred. There is no divine plan. Max Stirner an earlier philosopher was also in this line of thought, "Our athiests are pious people", he wrote.
If you like Nietzche you might also enjoy Max Stirner's The Ego and His own.
On the subject of moustaches, Hitler, and Nietzche, u might find this interesting:
To my mind Zarathustra was a magnificicent whose greatness of soul I admired, but at the same time he betrayed himself by puerilities that i, Dali, had already left behind me. One day I would be greater then he! The day after i first started reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra I had already made up my mind about Nietzche. He was a weakling who had been feckless enough to go mad, when it is essential, in this world not to go mad! these reflections furnished the elements of my first motto, which was to become the theme of my life: "The only difference between a madman and myself is that I am not mad!" It took me three days to assimilate and digest Nietzche. After this lions banquet, only one detail of the philosophers personality was left for me, only one bone to gnaw: his moustache! later , Frederico Garcia Lorca, fascinated by Hitlers moustache, was to say: "The moustache is the tragic constant in the face of man." Even in the matter of moustaches I was going to surpass Nietzche! Mine would not be depressing, catastrophic, burdened by Wagnerian music and mist. No! It would be line- thin, imperialistic, ultra- rationalistic, and pointing towards heaven, like the vertical mysticism, like the vertical Spanish syndicates.
(salvador dali - diary of a genius)(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from A Fan
Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 20:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nietzsche was great, a brave thinker. That was some of the first non-cult literature I read.
Check out this Onion article: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39313
(reply to this comment)
|
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]