We're not animals, and dolphins arent as smart as you think they are. They follow the same pack animal mentality that wolves and raptors used to. Its because they have a slightly stronger brain than reptiles because theyre warm blooded.

Unless youre trying to tell me DOlphins are sentient, then I will just have to laugh at you for assimilating too much hippy bullshit from all the save the whale assholes. They dont even have a language, yeah they make songs, but then again so do birds. The bird doesnt know what its saying niether do dolpins or whales. Theyre just resonating thier larings chambers and squeeling and they figured out instinctuallly that it attracts other dolphins.

And you cat compare stars to ducks or birds, a star is a singular construct, a dog is not in the same sense. SO my point still stands, you didnt even address it properly, and for someone who pretends hes logical slipping in a red herring for an argument should be beneath you.

Youre saying that if we come from the animal kingdom originally then we arer animals and I am saying that using your flawed logic that if we come from star dust then we are stars. Both are wrong.

You and I both know niether of us could ever imagine what that would be like.

And your point is moot, philosophically speaking it would STILL be better to have highs and lows than to have 1 medium. Wether or not the person knows that or experienced it or not is irrelevant. Its a FACT that the lows highlight the highs, and as such you could never be as high if you didnt have the lows. ANd therefore the highs from having highs and lows are better than not having them. Therefore its better to have them both, then neither.

If bears and crows had rational thought they would develope art, culture and language. Even a 2 year old human can do these things.

Bears and animals cannot, its because they lack the brain power as well as the brain mass and cells used to formulate cognitive thought. They essentially have tiny underdeveloped cerebellums and larger R and M complexes.

IT'S NOT PHILOSOPHY! The man has a PhD. in psychology, and teaches it at Harvard, I think it's safe to say that he knows what he's talking about! Now, if you want to try and play a condenscending game with me, we'll play. Because as it stands, you know jack shit about anything you talk about.

I didn't even bother to read the rest of this. And quite frankly, I'm done with you as a whole. Go study something, go read something, go figure it all out for yourself. I'm sick and tired of giving appropriate answers for your questions and then in turn getting shit on by your attitude and responses. As if I'm some fuckin' ignoramous who hasn't spent years studying philosophy. And for your information, Philosophy is a science, its theories are as justifed and as truth-based as any other science theory. Now, if you want to continue arguing things you seem to know very little of, then so be it. Play with the others, like Billy. Anywho, nice talkin' to ya, but bye...

Philosophy is a science as are the theories presented. I assume in school they taught you that a theory is not a fact even if it is printed in a book by someone with a PhD.

You stated I was incorrect and provided two titles that prove me incorrect. I do not see where either of the titles provided facts to prove my statment was incorrect. Frankly Mr. Goleman's book does not even appear to relate to the topic. I do not see in the limited amount I have read of this book where he draws conclusions about the decsion making process of animals other then man. You then take a qoute from his book and infer from that some conclusions about bears. Agian this does not disprove my example about the bear simply provides a counter argument, yours I might add and not Goleman's.

I value your statments there are very insightful and provide for me alot to think about. I dont think I have shit on you. If you want to call me incorrect prove that Iam dont provide theories and pass them off as truths. If you want to cry like a little girl who lost her lolly when I disagree with a statment of yuors do me a favor and dont reply to my posts. Your are certainly alot more learned then Iam in the theories of Philisophy I agree so is a priest when it comes to religion when he talks about god should I accept what he is telling me as fact. If I disagree with him am I unqualified simply because I did not read the bible?

Um....this convo hasnt really gone anywhere

Anyway, unconscious desire=instinct, not just desire in general. I desire food so that i have energy and my body can continue to thrive, i desire shelter so that i can be safe when the bad weather strikes. Certain animals dont know why they eat, or why they build a shelter.

Also many of our "preferences" and particular "wants" are influenced by our personality, not by any kind of instinct...

As for happiness, explain to me why you want sadness as well as happiness...ok so you can appreciate your happiness more...but that means you like death, because it makes you appreciate your life more....I guess for me, eternal happiness is the goal, but for that to be achieved i have to be perfect, along with everyone else.......so at this point is in impossible to be truly happy, but you can always get as close as possible.

Sic, dont be too hard on burning bush, hes a good guy inside....i just know it.............................i think

i don't think we could be considered human if we're always happy...in addition to happiness, we have; love, anger sadness, bewilderment, frustration, irritation...and so many more, emotions that it makes us know what it's like to be alive, not just existing but being able to look at a sunset and say pretty, rather than look for someplace to hide for the night because we can't see...look at the suffering of hundreds and say it's horrible, and decide to do something about it or not...not just move in for an easy meal...and yes, even knowing our makes us appreciate our life...more so, for how fleeting it can be....

after all this, stimulating thought, i'm going to go with the doom of humanity is our emotion...everything else can be equated to animals with more, impressing needs...but it's emotion that really sets us apart, sentinence and consciousness, maybe...but without our emotion...we're just robots...even happiness is just an emotion...and there are as many levels of happiness as anything else that's complicated about our, intelligence.

but i do agree we have instincts...fight or flight is the most obvious, one does not have to think immediatly what to do, as any animal, but once we're able to stop and think, we can get ourself out of the situation, not just stay in our hole until the shadow goes away.

I think the point here is what happiness symbolizes, not what it means as we know it. As i said, to be completelly happy would mean that everything is perfect, which is the uptopia constantly sought after. This form of happiness would be enjoyable, as free will still exists in it. Being happy as many are saying it, joyful, opposite of sad, is just an emotion that comes about as a result of imperfectness, as the opposite of sad.

Fight or flight is a reflex based system not instincts...simple.

Why must everything be perfect in order to be completely happy? If by such, according to you, it is in fact impossible, then would not being content with your life thereby equate to being happy with it, thereby insinutating that your life, like life is, according tlo aesthetics, perfect? In other words, how can life be any more perfect? If it can't achieve it, then isn't it just fine and perfect the way it is, even if your life is shit. After all, it's life.

I never put in any red herrings you brought it up nor did I compare stars to birds and dogs.

Iam not saying because we came from the animal kindom then we are animals. Iam saying we are animals and are part of the animal kingdom.

To be sentient is roughly defined as being able to "feel". It is the opinion of many philisophers and scientists that there are many animals that have "feelings". To have feelings does not appear to be unique to being human theirfor it can not be a cause of seperation or distenction from the animal kingdom.

arguably maintaining a state of equilibrium (neither experinceing sadness or happiness) would be an ideal state as you are not subject to the "highs" nor the "lows". this could be construed as eternal happiness if the absence of sadness in ones life is considered to be a happy state being.

perfection is never settled upon, it is something desired to be achieved. In this case, no, it cant happen, but we can strive to get as close as possible. Therefore, the word "content" is also a bad word to use, as it is not "complete" happiness but the beginnings of it.

If it can't happen, then why do people desire to achieve it? You seem to be proclaiming that that which is out of reach is more valuable than what one has...but, if it's all you have...??? I don't think perfection, as you seem to be proclaiming it, is a factor of truth. What is truth is life. Life isn't perfect. Hence, perfection isn't truth...why concentrate on irrelevant definitions?

I think we always have unattainables or at least goals that havn't been fulfilled yet. It's not to say that until you reach these you will be unhappy, but cause once you get there, you will see further up the chain.

I am happy. If you had asked me 5 years ago what i wanted in life, I think I have ticked off everything. Gay huh?

I think the main thing is realising that it is ok right NOW. I'm not being tortured. I'm not unemployed. I eat pretty much what I want (food is a big part of my happiness). I have good relationships with the people I see. I made it this way.

Now to those that are down when they have everything, well, I think they just need to think outside themselves for a moment. To be unhappy and have everything going for you is just self-centeredness.

Might I add...I sound like a Pollyanna only because I have been exceptionally lucky in my life.

But still, I know people that have risen from ashes...so to speak.

Or a chemical imbalance, but yeah.

I am glad you are happy, but are you "completely" happy? I am not saying that happiness is impossible to attain, but complete happiness is not realizing that you are lucky compared to others, its not having wants, because everything desired is given. This statement is not refering to material things either.

To sic, i never said that you would constantly be unhappy due to imperfection, but as a result of imperfection no one will eternally be happy.

To the thread starter, besides what has been said it is society and the outlook of the person that keeps someone from getting ever closer to absolute happiness.