Idealists out there are often adamant about their personal definitions of happiness. Money, they would proselytize, is the ultimate evil. It does not give the beholder any more comfort than the amount of materialistic possessions needed to fill in lonely, empty, sin-filled hearts. As long as the average men have aspired to accumulate great wealth, the major religions of the world have been piously calling for simplicity, to be away from the lures of the seemingly all-powerful cash that have "corrupted" all modern humans.
The purported nobility of the idealist should not be doubted (especially since I am one of them in many ways). Yet, the genuineness of those who believe higher income leads to greater happiness also cannot be doubted in any way. And certainly, by following through on their respective dreams, each will certainly lead satisfying and enviable lives that they can proudly brag to anyone else. Both camps ascribe a certain predefined way that can lead to a belief of personal improvement.
However, is one of the ways better than the other, or, to take a step even further, is either of the ways actually worthy of following and emulation for anyone seeking greater satisfaction in life. While the significant adherence to major religions and their codes of conduct is still a fact of life in most places on Earth, the popular knowledge of billionaires and their paths to success are also rising and changing the ways of religious following. Is such a situation "good," or is it "bad"?
The truth is, by defining both the methods (following money or ideals) and the results (satisfying or not satisfying, good or bad), humans are unfortunately subjecting the entire argument to oversimplification of such extent as to making the point of the whole argument null. The question is not one of what one "should do" to achieve happiness, but to fundamentally question what really satisfies oneself in a biological way, beyond simply to follow the public perception of "happiness."
Indeed, for both the money-chaser and ideal-chaser mentioned above, the defining moment of their "happiness" is public recognition: the money-chaser by public knowledge of his wealth, and the ideal-chaser by the public gratitude of his efforts. It is pretty much guaranteed that both need to go through painful efforts and maybe multiple failures in the process in the process to achieve the ultimate public recognition. In other words, they are not really considered to be "happy" biologically (due to mental strain and physical pain) until the euphoria of being surrounded by envy and respect at the very end.
The alternative would be to subject oneself to biological pleasure at all times: to eat, to sleep, to have sex, to play games...the life of a lazy good-for-nothing bum, as society defines it. Certainly, come to think of it, mentally handicapped people with no more incentive to live beyond such simple pleasures, often seem the happiest people on Earth. Thus, if everyone were to chase that real biological happiness, society would not advance, and indeed, even the basics of survival, such as putting food on the table, would not be completed.
Thankfully, our ancestors redefined "happiness" along more socially productive ways as they went about creating the existing social hierarchy that made humans the most organized animals on the planet. By rewarding the productive with symbols of respect, whether it be higher social ranks, greater power, or wealth, human civilization, throughout her formative years, have taught individuals that SOCIAL pleasure, such as being respected, greatly outweighs biological ones like eating or sleeping.
And to make the brainwashing even more completely, the early humans gradually formed systems of morality, evolved from organized religions and traditional customs, to define what is "evil." Unproductive seeking of biological pleasure, with the code of morality, is professed as "evil" worthy of social isolation and public condemnation. By placing such social restrictions, it is no wonder the talks of pure "happiness" can only exist today in the form of abstract philosophical theories.
The purported nobility of the idealist should not be doubted (especially since I am one of them in many ways). Yet, the genuineness of those who believe higher income leads to greater happiness also cannot be doubted in any way. And certainly, by following through on their respective dreams, each will certainly lead satisfying and enviable lives that they can proudly brag to anyone else. Both camps ascribe a certain predefined way that can lead to a belief of personal improvement.
However, is one of the ways better than the other, or, to take a step even further, is either of the ways actually worthy of following and emulation for anyone seeking greater satisfaction in life. While the significant adherence to major religions and their codes of conduct is still a fact of life in most places on Earth, the popular knowledge of billionaires and their paths to success are also rising and changing the ways of religious following. Is such a situation "good," or is it "bad"?
The truth is, by defining both the methods (following money or ideals) and the results (satisfying or not satisfying, good or bad), humans are unfortunately subjecting the entire argument to oversimplification of such extent as to making the point of the whole argument null. The question is not one of what one "should do" to achieve happiness, but to fundamentally question what really satisfies oneself in a biological way, beyond simply to follow the public perception of "happiness."
Indeed, for both the money-chaser and ideal-chaser mentioned above, the defining moment of their "happiness" is public recognition: the money-chaser by public knowledge of his wealth, and the ideal-chaser by the public gratitude of his efforts. It is pretty much guaranteed that both need to go through painful efforts and maybe multiple failures in the process in the process to achieve the ultimate public recognition. In other words, they are not really considered to be "happy" biologically (due to mental strain and physical pain) until the euphoria of being surrounded by envy and respect at the very end.
The alternative would be to subject oneself to biological pleasure at all times: to eat, to sleep, to have sex, to play games...the life of a lazy good-for-nothing bum, as society defines it. Certainly, come to think of it, mentally handicapped people with no more incentive to live beyond such simple pleasures, often seem the happiest people on Earth. Thus, if everyone were to chase that real biological happiness, society would not advance, and indeed, even the basics of survival, such as putting food on the table, would not be completed.
Thankfully, our ancestors redefined "happiness" along more socially productive ways as they went about creating the existing social hierarchy that made humans the most organized animals on the planet. By rewarding the productive with symbols of respect, whether it be higher social ranks, greater power, or wealth, human civilization, throughout her formative years, have taught individuals that SOCIAL pleasure, such as being respected, greatly outweighs biological ones like eating or sleeping.
And to make the brainwashing even more completely, the early humans gradually formed systems of morality, evolved from organized religions and traditional customs, to define what is "evil." Unproductive seeking of biological pleasure, with the code of morality, is professed as "evil" worthy of social isolation and public condemnation. By placing such social restrictions, it is no wonder the talks of pure "happiness" can only exist today in the form of abstract philosophical theories.
Comments
Post a Comment