Yes, some people do derive pleasure from other people's pain. Not everyone's goals are good for everyone else!
Regarding doing things that cause your own misery, I think that's an example of mis-valuing the ease/difficulty of a process/journey against an outcome. That's just a common feature of subconscious decision making and explains why people won't stop smoking, eat food that destroys their health, fail to exercise, proscrastinate, fail to save and many other human failings and habits.
This is not an easy calculus to perform --even by a conscious mind, and I would wager everyone gets it wrong in at least one aspect of their lives. I know I have and probably will in the future.
A limited number of life goals
Yes, basically. People with no goals tend to do whatever feels good (as a process/activity) all the time and never think about potential consequences, which can be pretty bad over time. People who are fixated only on goals may be doing things that make them miserable and have not thought about whether living that way is really worth it.
For example, working a job that one hates to buy stuff of questionable value is a common point of discussion here. Make a conscious choice to get rid of the goal -- having to make $X per annum to get the stuff -- and the hated activity becomes unnecessary. This is an improvement by subtraction.
In the ideal world, one would enjoy both the process/activity and what it achieves, or at least would not be left hurting by an activity one enjoys. But we know that can't always be the case.
For example, working a job that one hates to buy stuff of questionable value is a common point of discussion here. Make a conscious choice to get rid of the goal -- having to make $X per annum to get the stuff -- and the hated activity becomes unnecessary. This is an improvement by subtraction.
In the ideal world, one would enjoy both the process/activity and what it achieves, or at least would not be left hurting by an activity one enjoys. But we know that can't always be the case.
-
Spartan_Warrior
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
Interesting thread. For myself, I tend to think of my total happiness in terms of the "five aspects of human health". This is an existing concept in psychology, but I can't recall whose.
- Physical
- Mental
- Emotional
- Spiritual
- Social
Add the word "power" to the end of each of these dimensions and I think you're hitting close to home in terms of the core "motivations" of people. I believe the root nature of all organisms is simply to pursue pleasure (good feelings, "eudaimonia", etc) and minimize pain. We maximize our opportunities for pleasure and minimize our opportunities for pain by strengthening ourselves along these five dimensions. By becoming more physically powerful, I can exert more influence on my physical surroundings, my health and well being. By becoming more emotionally powerful, I become resilient to the painful emotional components of experience, like grief, envy, etc (the Stoic ideal). By becoming more spiritually powerful*, I become more at ease with my place in the world and reduce "existential pain". And so on and so forth.
*IMO spirituality is more than religion. I consider my philosophical and metaphysical beliefs about the world to be spiritual even if there's no God in sight.
You MIGHT consider adding some additional categories, perhaps "financial/money" power, but I agree with others who have pointed out that money is merely a social construct that serves as a means to an end for achieving these other types of health/power. I am utterly uninterested in money in and of itself (as someone else said, I would live in a world without money if I could) but I'm eager for financial independence because it will free up so many possibilities for advancement and good feelings in the other five categories.
I also agree that we need to consider semantics here. The concept I'm describing is focused on "health", as in, these are five dimensions of the human being that comprise healthiness and well-being. I wouldn't call them "goals". When I think of goals I think of specific objectives--e.g. publish a novel, have a family, achieve FI--whereas these five dimensions would be better classed as "motivating factors". The "goals" sort of
overlay the "motivators" and will end up infinitely variable based on individual differences in skills, genetics, experiences, etc.
- Physical
- Mental
- Emotional
- Spiritual
- Social
Add the word "power" to the end of each of these dimensions and I think you're hitting close to home in terms of the core "motivations" of people. I believe the root nature of all organisms is simply to pursue pleasure (good feelings, "eudaimonia", etc) and minimize pain. We maximize our opportunities for pleasure and minimize our opportunities for pain by strengthening ourselves along these five dimensions. By becoming more physically powerful, I can exert more influence on my physical surroundings, my health and well being. By becoming more emotionally powerful, I become resilient to the painful emotional components of experience, like grief, envy, etc (the Stoic ideal). By becoming more spiritually powerful*, I become more at ease with my place in the world and reduce "existential pain". And so on and so forth.
*IMO spirituality is more than religion. I consider my philosophical and metaphysical beliefs about the world to be spiritual even if there's no God in sight.
You MIGHT consider adding some additional categories, perhaps "financial/money" power, but I agree with others who have pointed out that money is merely a social construct that serves as a means to an end for achieving these other types of health/power. I am utterly uninterested in money in and of itself (as someone else said, I would live in a world without money if I could) but I'm eager for financial independence because it will free up so many possibilities for advancement and good feelings in the other five categories.
I also agree that we need to consider semantics here. The concept I'm describing is focused on "health", as in, these are five dimensions of the human being that comprise healthiness and well-being. I wouldn't call them "goals". When I think of goals I think of specific objectives--e.g. publish a novel, have a family, achieve FI--whereas these five dimensions would be better classed as "motivating factors". The "goals" sort of
overlay the "motivators" and will end up infinitely variable based on individual differences in skills, genetics, experiences, etc.
That's a nice breakdown/construct.
I go with a similar construct (that I stole from some unremembered source), but from the negative perspective. Namely, there are only three kinds of problems you can have: (1) health (including physical and mental); (2) career (including ordinary work, making money and hobbies or other productive activities); and (3) relationships.
The best way to spend your time is to do something that will at least improve one and won't subtract from the others. You could do the same kind of analysis with the five (or six) vectors you have identified.
I think a lot of people have trouble identifying what their real problem is -- e.g., if you have a spouse that wants to live a more expensive lifestyle than you, is that a relationship issue or a career/money issue? And can I fix a relationship with more resources?
I go with a similar construct (that I stole from some unremembered source), but from the negative perspective. Namely, there are only three kinds of problems you can have: (1) health (including physical and mental); (2) career (including ordinary work, making money and hobbies or other productive activities); and (3) relationships.
The best way to spend your time is to do something that will at least improve one and won't subtract from the others. You could do the same kind of analysis with the five (or six) vectors you have identified.
I think a lot of people have trouble identifying what their real problem is -- e.g., if you have a spouse that wants to live a more expensive lifestyle than you, is that a relationship issue or a career/money issue? And can I fix a relationship with more resources?
@spartan warrior: thanks for the enlightening post, it helps my thinking to be clear.
I have a question, perhaps you can help.
I notice that concentrating my efforts in life in one of the aspects you mention, diminish my results/abilities in other aspects.
It is the adagium of our limited time/capacities of course.
But do you know a helpful way to find a balance in one's efforts?
I have a question, perhaps you can help.
I notice that concentrating my efforts in life in one of the aspects you mention, diminish my results/abilities in other aspects.
It is the adagium of our limited time/capacities of course.
But do you know a helpful way to find a balance in one's efforts?
-
aussierogue
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:02 pm
Spartan Warriors post is interesting and thoughtproviking.
I actually think it works better when you don't add the word 'power'.
In my thinking the big five
- Physical power
- Mental power
- Emotional power
- Spiritual power
- Social power
Conjurs images of the way a conservative would describe success..think Mitt Romney or some other big, strong invinsible (looking) cat...
I on the other hand (as do many others) prefer a softer notion of success. I also think that spiritual power (as described above) is somehow in conflict with the other 4 (in many cases)
I see weakness (or atleats the accepting of weakness) as a virtue for example. We are all weak....and understanding that makes us strong.
So yes being strong (by accepting im weak) is a conundrum....but that is why i think dropping the idea of 'power' at the end of the phrases resonates with me more.
Also - they may be the big five but I actually put one of them higher than the other 4....the other 4 are poor in comparison.
I know children, elderly, physically disabled etc who i would describe as pretty close to perfect despite not having many of the 5 described above.
Maybe this gets back to the basic budhist life goal of 'being in the moment'. That is perfection...i dont need big bycepts to do that.
++
Alos i have always found perfection in things that are flawed and that lack obvious power. I like my heroes (yosarian), MMusic, houses, friends etc to be flawed/ understated / lacking in gloss. Being perfect is boring, moslty unachievable and and a little in-humane.
I actually think it works better when you don't add the word 'power'.
In my thinking the big five
- Physical power
- Mental power
- Emotional power
- Spiritual power
- Social power
Conjurs images of the way a conservative would describe success..think Mitt Romney or some other big, strong invinsible (looking) cat...
I on the other hand (as do many others) prefer a softer notion of success. I also think that spiritual power (as described above) is somehow in conflict with the other 4 (in many cases)
I see weakness (or atleats the accepting of weakness) as a virtue for example. We are all weak....and understanding that makes us strong.
So yes being strong (by accepting im weak) is a conundrum....but that is why i think dropping the idea of 'power' at the end of the phrases resonates with me more.
Also - they may be the big five but I actually put one of them higher than the other 4....the other 4 are poor in comparison.
I know children, elderly, physically disabled etc who i would describe as pretty close to perfect despite not having many of the 5 described above.
Maybe this gets back to the basic budhist life goal of 'being in the moment'. That is perfection...i dont need big bycepts to do that.
++
Alos i have always found perfection in things that are flawed and that lack obvious power. I like my heroes (yosarian), MMusic, houses, friends etc to be flawed/ understated / lacking in gloss. Being perfect is boring, moslty unachievable and and a little in-humane.
-
Spartan_Warrior
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
@J: What I did when coming up with New Years Resolutions this year is sort of what @Dragline alludes to. I actually charted out a bunch of things I was interested in achieving, and for each goal I assigned dimensions they impact. For example, "start a garden" would impact emotional (calming), physical (exercise), and financial (I did include this dimension in my own "motivations matrix" simply because reaching FI is so important at this time in my life). "Study Zen philosophies" would impact mental and spiritual. "Learn karate" might be physical, mental, and social. I tried not to have any goals that would actively work *against* any dimension (e.g. something too costly, bad for my health, extremely socially isolating, etc).
I then sorted these goals by priority based on the goals that improved the most dimensions at a time (e.g., "Start a personal fitness blog" might help physical, mental, social, and financial) and then based on dimensions I felt were lacking. For me the weak ones are social and spiritual.
Spiritual is a weird one because I'm not a religious person at all or even particularly "spiritual" in the sense of belief in a non-material world. For me it has more to do with your relationship with "the universe", while social = relationship with other people; emotional = relationship with yourself; physical = relationship with your body and physical world; and mental = relationship with your mind and body of knowledge.
@aussie: Yeah, you may be right. The addition of "power" to these concepts was my own idea. "Power" may be a poor choice of words as it has strong physical connotations. Perhaps resilience, capability, achievement, or simply "health" would be better terms. As you said, being able to admit where you're weak is also a sort of mental and emotional strength.
The physical dimension or "physical power", in my mind, isn't just being literally strong or powerful. It's simply overall physical health, and your ability to navigate the physical components of existence. I don't want to step on any toes here, but I would say objectively, being in good physical condition is "better" than being physically impaired. That said, importantly, I don't know that balance among the dimensions is even really required. I strive for it personally, and I think that was the original concept, but the more I think about it, it doesn't seem necessary. In your example, a physically disabled person may never have the same physical "power" as someone in ideal health, but I don't see why they couldn't live just as full, meaningful, and happy a life by devoting the equivalent energy toward the other dimensions.
Now, whether it's possible to completely *ignore* any dimension and still be happy, I don't know. A physically disabled person still has a large range of options within the "physical" dimension. Do they eat poorly or eat well, for instance? Do they take care of their hygiene and other "body maintenance"? And so on.
I then sorted these goals by priority based on the goals that improved the most dimensions at a time (e.g., "Start a personal fitness blog" might help physical, mental, social, and financial) and then based on dimensions I felt were lacking. For me the weak ones are social and spiritual.
Spiritual is a weird one because I'm not a religious person at all or even particularly "spiritual" in the sense of belief in a non-material world. For me it has more to do with your relationship with "the universe", while social = relationship with other people; emotional = relationship with yourself; physical = relationship with your body and physical world; and mental = relationship with your mind and body of knowledge.
@aussie: Yeah, you may be right. The addition of "power" to these concepts was my own idea. "Power" may be a poor choice of words as it has strong physical connotations. Perhaps resilience, capability, achievement, or simply "health" would be better terms. As you said, being able to admit where you're weak is also a sort of mental and emotional strength.
The physical dimension or "physical power", in my mind, isn't just being literally strong or powerful. It's simply overall physical health, and your ability to navigate the physical components of existence. I don't want to step on any toes here, but I would say objectively, being in good physical condition is "better" than being physically impaired. That said, importantly, I don't know that balance among the dimensions is even really required. I strive for it personally, and I think that was the original concept, but the more I think about it, it doesn't seem necessary. In your example, a physically disabled person may never have the same physical "power" as someone in ideal health, but I don't see why they couldn't live just as full, meaningful, and happy a life by devoting the equivalent energy toward the other dimensions.
Now, whether it's possible to completely *ignore* any dimension and still be happy, I don't know. A physically disabled person still has a large range of options within the "physical" dimension. Do they eat poorly or eat well, for instance? Do they take care of their hygiene and other "body maintenance"? And so on.
Spartan Warrior thanks for elaboration.
For your use perhaps:
In his Ethica ( difficult to read) Spinoza has a very helpful insight in spiritual and practical matters.
It makes you aware that you as human are part of nature too and nothing more. But nothing less too and gifted with the possibility to become master of your mind.
For your use perhaps:
In his Ethica ( difficult to read) Spinoza has a very helpful insight in spiritual and practical matters.
It makes you aware that you as human are part of nature too and nothing more. But nothing less too and gifted with the possibility to become master of your mind.
Here's an interesting and timely discussion of this very topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzYahFIW ... re=g-all-u
Their categories or "basic goods" as they put it, are health, respect, security, personalty (?), harmony with nature, friendship, and leisure. Not sure exactly how they define all of them, although they discuss a couple of them specifically.
I have not read their book, but I will probably put it on my list.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzYahFIW ... re=g-all-u
Their categories or "basic goods" as they put it, are health, respect, security, personalty (?), harmony with nature, friendship, and leisure. Not sure exactly how they define all of them, although they discuss a couple of them specifically.
I have not read their book, but I will probably put it on my list.