happiness is generated from external stimuli or reflecting on the memory of those stimuli. Each person will have diffrent happy responses to diffrent stimuli and the degree of happiness will also fluctuate. In this lies the fatal flaw of happiness. For example having your first child well most likely make you more happy then your favorite team winning a game. If having your first child is the happiest event in your life you will measure all other happy responses to that event (on some level atleast) in effect to some degree the level of happiness achieved is diminshed by prior happy causing events. This leaves you, in your pursute of happiness, forever chasing the happiest event which of course is unattainable because it will never be the same as the first time. Eternal happiness can not exist as you would always be needing to make new highs. Contentment on the other hand can be achieved.

Perfection in my opionion is nothing or everthing in its entirity. Imperfection are the parts viewed indivdualy.

why does it have to be unattainable, just because no one has achieved it yet; and if they did, would their secret, really apply to anyone else?

i can agree; it's easy, being happily content...but at some point, that becomes only a mild, sustaining form of happiness...that facet of happiness has been achieved....there's so many more out there...i've done the child elation, what's the next, sensation?

animals don't have the desire to maintain happiness, maybe because they've never known it, but we do; or

...lower animals have already found the secret to the absolute happiness, and privately chuckle at us scrambling around, searching for it?

yay addictions!

If any of you are truly interested in Philosophical Perfection(s)...go to this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfection

It's really the only thing I could find on the subject. Even my Dictionary of Philosophy had nothing on the subject...peculiar...Anywho, I had encountered a few ideas about the concept in my study, namely Aesthetic and Classic/Medieval concepts. Both I think are extremely intriguing.

From an Aesthetic view point, you have the idea that perhaps "perfection" isn't "perfect." The idea behind art (in a manner of speaking) is expressing/representing life. An idea of perfection is behind this, regardless of the type of art--for example, abstract vs' realism. Two different types, two different representations. But we realize a key problem with all variations of art. The concept: art is in the eye of the beholder (although cliche and not very philosophically approved) can provide a clue here. You take for example any painting, just pick a painting, say the Mona Lisa. Now, the argument basically stands as thus: As Da Vinci was painting this, representing this woman and his feelings toward her, is it conveyed in his work? Well, the answer is no. To Da Vinci, the painting might resemble love, but not how we (the observer) recognize it. Or rather, perhaps an observer doesn't have the feeling of love at all, perhaps they get a feeling of sadness from the painting, or whatever. So you have this problem where art doesn't necessarily convey its meaning. The same is applied to writing. There are four schools of thought that concern writing. I'm not going to go indepth, but just to give you an idea, one school is the Writer/Reader relationship (where the writer and reader both take away different meanings); the other is the thought that a piece of writing means only what the writer wants it to mean; the other is a deconstructionalist approach, where the meaning of a work is everything involved, and the dissection of all its parts, until, in the end, you've completely satisfied every subect--for example: the phrase "See you later alligator." Dissect the word "See" which is, more or less, the ability to take in information, an empirical observation, made with the eye. Now dissect all those words, and so forth and so forth and so forth. And, just for shits and giggles, Sartre himself wrote an essay concerning writing. It was his understanding that writing can only be conveyed accurately in pure, non-subjective, prose. Which, oddly enough, is the philosophy behind manuals, directions, guides, etc.

Anywho, the point is: if the meaning of the creator isn't actually conveyed or understood, then how good/perfect of a representation is the work? Well, Aestheticism wouldn't say it isn't perfect, but that it actually is. But not under the typical meaning of perfection. Despite the Dionysian aspect of the work (see Nietzsche's "Birth of Tragedy") being different to all observers and the creator, it's still there. And that is, after all, what matters. And that is what makes it perfect. Even if we can't agree on the meaning, we nonetheless know a meaning exists.


Another philosophical approach to perfection is the medieval view, which kind of plays in theology, aestheticism, and other key fields, and owes a lot to classical/early-medeival theories. More or less, like Burning Bush said, perfection in the older days (such as Aristotle's theory) is that perfection is everything in its entirety. Actually, Aristotle dissected the term perfection in three ways:

1. that which is complete
2. that which justifies its purpose
3. that which is its own, where nothing is more perfect than it...

The most important of these premises is the "completeness" of the thing in question. In order to be perfect, it must satisfy the premise of being entirely complete. But a key problem arose during the latter stages of medieval philosophy, right before modern philosophy (I do believe). The problem is: if something is QUOTE-UN-QUOTE complete, then it lacks one key thing...striving for completion. Striving to be better. Or, if that's too abstract for you, take this example into account: absolute (and complete) knowledge, like that of a supreme being (whatever IT is)...let's say that IT is all-knowing...IT STILL LACKS ONE THING! The ability to learn. If it's all-knowing, it doesn't have the ability to learn, or no longer has the ability. Hence, it has no knowledge of this subject. Therefore, it still doesn't satisfy the pre-requisite. So what you have is a problem with "completeness." If something is complete, then it can't improve itself. But the argument is: why must it improve itself if it's complete? Well, in order to stive for completion, one must have success. For obviously, failure doesn't lead to completion. So, if in order to attain completion, you need success...but if completion is attained, then there's no more success to gain, and that is its failure.


Anyway, chew on that for awhile. And check that link out above, I saw some other interesting theories concerned with perfection. But as a whole, as far as I know, "perfection" is merely a word, possibly an ideal, but not a reality per-se. And thus, what is in fact perfect, if we truly want to believe in the ideal, doesn't necessarily represent its basic definition. In other words, especially to you FAID, abandon your typical notions...look to philosophy and philosophers for a clearer, and more truer (is truer even a word?!) definition.

Well "perfection" as in having everything, to me can be "too perfect". Too perfect makes me uncomfortable. Too perfect means you have too far to fall. What is life with no wants, goals or dreams? If I had everything that I could possible want, I would have nothing to aim for.

I'm happy right now because everything I need is fulfilled and my wants, well they are just luxuries waiting around the corner. If perfection is completeness, then for my age, right now in my life, I am complete. Maybe in 10 years I will want babies, but that doesn't make me unhappy right now because I don't have babies yet and thus my life is incomplete right?

Happiness is about now.

maso
Maso
the pursuite of things makes you happy? or is having everything you need make you happy? I see a contradiction. But this is my point you are content if you have everything you need but not happy, you need somthing to make you happy.

Jordyn you cant be eternally happy because the happiness you feel from some event does not maintain the same euphoria.

If perfection is to be complete or with out flaws. what are flaws and completeness? Interestinly enough one defines the other and as a result both are ambigous. So as each is mostly undefined we are just as likley to be perfect as we are to be imperfect. Perhaps this is the most important choice we can make to accept ourselves as perfect or imperfect. What are the consequences of making either choice.

The all knowing conept is an interesting one. The future can not be known (i take this as a given if someone wants to present a contrary opinion I would be extremely interested) so to know everything it all most have already happened. so it must end and begin again forever repeating the exact same way (dejavoue). I can not see any other way an all knowing being could exist. personnaly I dont like that concept and find orginzied religion some what scary as a result.

Many people search for peace of mind and those who have attained it are the ones who are truly 'happy'. thats what I believe anyway

that's a good belief, to possess...simple and well spoken; but can a human mind ever be, at peace...living with in physical reality?

Exactly. As for the consequences...I don't have an answer really for that one...seems too...arbitrary. I mean, it's so simple to say he who imagines himself perfect is happy (and yet, that on it's own is a character flaw, which can in turn bring his undoing). And he who imagines himself imperfect isn't happy (which in turn can bring about many revelations...if he looks for them, which in turn can make him happy). So...go figure.

A discussion about the future is another topic altogether. So much philosophy is there. Infinity, circular time, linear time, fate, free-will, the existence of time, metaphysical time, physical time, etc. etc. etc. etc. It's mind boggling. It even includes the end being the beginning, and yaddah, yaddah, yaddah. But, on a whole, most philosophers wouldn't declare there is in fact an all-knowing being...too many flaws. But the concept of an all-knowing being doesn't necessarily have its hands in just organized religion. There are sciences and philosophies about such an entity. But they're a little more crack-pot-ish. If you know what I mean. But then again, you already did know that. So...what the hell do you know anyway? DUN-DUN-DUN!

The pursuit of SOME things make me happy. I wouldn't want the pursuit of a good job, the pursuit of a soul mate, the pursuit of good health, the pursuit of a great home, the pursuit of good relationships with the people I know.

I do have the pursuit of finding some nice dining chairs, a nice couch, a nice dress to wear at my grandmother's birthday.

I have a awesome job, I have found my soul mate, I'm healthy and able, I have a great home and a fun life.

I do have wants and I enjoy thinking and fantasising about them. I like browsing on things that I MIGHT get in the future, a home I might purchase, a garden I might one day own.

I'm not unhappy because I don't have them. I'm not unhappy if I don't have them ONE DAY. I'm happy that I have these fucking simple wants.

Are you saying to be happy is having no further wants? If I had no wants I would have no goals or ambition. That to me is a reason to die. I would rather die than have nothing to live for - nothing more I want to enjoy or experience. Is happiness being OK with death and not wanting anything more from life? To me, that's just being morbid. I think human nature is to want to live and to move forward. Not to stand still or worse, go backward.

Most of the oldest religions in the World stem from the same principle, that happiness comes from living rightly. Although over many years too much dogma and tradition for the sake of tradition has become entangled in these religions, in the recent decades when these systems have become either obsolete or secondary, this very important founding principle has been left behind, when it should not be.

It is a fundamental truth of human nature that a person who is just will always be happier than one who is unjust. Socrates, Jesus, Buddha, Confucious, and nearly every other founder of a major world philosophy agree on this. While the details of what constitutes right behavior in every situation varies, naturally, with which teacher you go to, the basic principle can be defined this way; one who does what is right, regardless of personal benefit, will love himself. One who acts selfishly, who knowingly does wrong and is unthinking of the health and happiness of others, will, whatever they tell themselves and others, never love themselves. Without love of self, happiness is fleeting and illusive; one is only a kite in the wind, subject to the whims of fate, happy when everything is going your way, miserable when the slightest disturabance occurs, or something is less than you expect it to be. With love of self, one has a bedrock of assurance, where one may be saddened without losing hope, angered without losing sense of self. Your happiness no longer depends on everything continuing to go your way; even if you should be unjustly attacked or imprisoned, you know that you have acted rightly.

Maso

What Iam saying is that happiness is a response to an external event(s). The degree to which you are made happy by that event diminishes with time, ie your relationship, job ect never make you as happy as they did the first time or until the first time is eclipsed. for example you get a promotion that event makes you more happy then the orginal happiness in getting the job. but in turn the happiness from the promotion fades. It fades into contentment. These things can still make you happy but only if you stop and reflect on them but this reflection can not make you happier only as happy as the first time that happiness was experinced. As such happiness can not be eternal.

Dark Messiah

I agree, in this case happiness stems from a "just" action or the belief that one has lived life in a "just" manner or acted "justly". The happiness is not internal its confirmation is all external. these are the simplest methods to achieve a happy condition though (my opinion atleast).

Sic

I wonder if it really has to be that complicated perhaps it is just that simple. That wouldnt be very mush fun though.

The all knowing being is an just interesting concept. I like the one about man already knowing everything he simply has not discovered it yet. Which goes back to the completeness and abality to learn. It may be that man can not learn he already knows everything he simply discovers it. Columbus discovered North America just like Newton discovered how to express his laws in mathmatics they were both always there and would still exist even if Columbus or Newton never made there discoveries. We really dont invent or create anything we simply discover it. If this is true we are already complete (its only a matter of the passage of time) and hence we are flawed and perfect. If it not true we are flawed in our lack of completness but perfect in our pursuite of it. Just some random rambeling.

What?! That was just a foot in the face to Modern Philosophy...specifically existenialism, absurdism, nihilism.

Mmm...sounds like Heidegger. But that's a different subject altogether...the philosophy of science and technology.

But yes, you seem to be on the right path. Being flawed doesn't necessarily mean imperfect. Even flaws themselves can be perfect. Ahh...the perfect flaw.

we exist theirfor we are perfect but in existing we are flawed. ahhh conundrums, like a chinese finger puzzle they are great fun.

But Sic arent they simply fulfilling the desire of the self when meeting the needs of others?

Modern philosophers tend to end up committing suicide desperate, unhappy and alone an awful lot. Or to die of alcohol poisining in ditches. Just saying. If the philosophy doesn't work, maybe it doesn't.

I read an article recently in Discover magazine (of course a grain of salt should be taken wiht this) that the creativity of man comes from the subconscious and the conscious mind gets in the way. So if this study is to believed the greatest thinkers and the most creative people would have been those where the conscious mind want in the way. I can think of a few artists and muscions and scientists this applies to. Some of the most famous had mental defciences that might have also done the same. Perhaps the study is incorrect and as a people we just like tragic stories