Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Fire>I can kinda see what you are talking about...well im trying anyway....馃槕We have extensive knowledge of stuff as a spicies and we still dont know why we are here...the purpose of our existance...
i made this point before, but it kinda got lost in all the writing...the question doesnt suggest complete stupidity to be happy...
i must admit, i should have warned that only people who have read Frankenstain could really debaite with me since this question derived from that book....
the movie frankenstein however did not invent that question, it's a filosophical question, I dunno from which period but .
Ignorace is not the lack of knowlage, its the refusal of knowlage, Thus Ignorant people must be happy because of their failure to realize what is really going on, yet this bliss is temporary because one cannot escape reality for all on you life, and being ignorant makes the realization of reality that much more devastating.
But if you seek knowlage, and are open too all surroundings, you become the opposite of ignorace, observant. By being observant you can accept reality and do your part to change it and become blissful from reality instead of the sub-reality that you have created for youself in being ignorant.
Thus Ignorance has nothing to do with knowlage, just how open one is to their surroundings and how much one accepts their obeservations as reality.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I liked how you approached my question, everyone else, istead of trying to debate it, see both sides, see that it is impossible to answer, all of them did exactly that...try and answer it!
No philosopher could answer this question...its a rethorical one.
Simple approach to question like this is just not good enough...and looking for an easy answer is even worse, especially to the reathorical question. 馃槃
I totally disagree. It is NOT rhetorical- it is based on assumptions I do not share- and easily answerable.
It isn't like 'Where do we come from?' or 'Why are we here?' For me, it is a question based on false premise and hence easily answered.
Sorry, but this does not strike me as a very deep question, and a simple answer very much strikes me as the best one.
(hugs back)
Thankyou.
If you ask a truly deep and rhetoical quesiton, lil, I will happily debate with complicated answers until the end of time. But this was not such a question. We are giving simple and easy answers because it deserves them.
I mean, if you had simply asked "What do people want?" you would have had what you have wanted. But instead you asked a question based on the premise that all people want to do is be happy. That rather sinks it, I am afraid, because you have not established that premise. You should ask a question without dodgy assumption if you want a deep discussion.
You can TRY and establish the premise- by asking "Is all people want is to be happy?"
But there would be no straight answer to that- you would have another deep discussion...
And you ALSO have to establish that ignorance is bliss! Which is, again, another huge debate in of itself.
As it is, I think you need to check the meaning of 'rhetorical', Lil!
Well, I could stop being mean and ask the questions that Lil WANTS to ask- which is either "Why would a human value something other than happiness?" or "Is the pursuit of knowledge worth the price?" but neither of them are rhetorical either. They are both DEBATABLE, and a debatable question is by definition not rhetorical. A rhetorical quesiton is designed not to have an answer.
First question is better. Second is too easily answered by the benefits of modern civilisation; I think Shelley was a bit off the mark there.
My first thing to do would be to massively complicate the issue...
...and ask someone to define 'happiness'. Is it what makes us feel good, or acheiving what we value? We often feel UNHAPPY doing something we value, but don't we only do things we value because they make us happy?
That one will bake your noodle...
well, happiness can be a relization of a job well done, or possibly doing something we enjoy, many different thing cause ud happyness, but if you mean true happyness, ,that could mean, balancing thigs you enjoy with other things, that may be why ritcher people are notorious for not being happy, they do too much stuff they enjoy and it is not coupled with work or unenjoyable things.
happyness is relative
urhg...cant read all that.... ive just seen MAtrix Revolutions and ... ........
Im trying to be ok......now.....
But when i get my assigment 馃槧 done, i'll ask some questions about your posts people....
Ush? How can you think that 'Why are we here?' is easely answerd....
what about questions like 'What is the world made of?'
Originally posted by Ushgarak
My first thing to do would be to massively complicate the issue......and ask someone to define 'happiness'. Is it what makes us feel good, or acheiving what we value? We often feel UNHAPPY doing something we value, but don't we only do things we value because they make us happy?
That one will bake your noodle...