Debate split from God is Indescribable

[nebula]

Yeah . . . love.

What is life without love? What is happiness if there is no love?

[nebula]

I knew you were going to make this conclusion.

But I threw happiness in there because of your high view of it. What I was trying to show is that when you make happiness your goal, you will never find it. You see, if you seek out love for the sake of obtaining personal happiness, love will elude you and thus your happiness will be shattered.

Happiness is nothing more than a side-effect of "everything going well." Granted there are some who have managed to make happiness a choice, but even with them, is it "happiness" they are holding on to? Are they being happy for the sake of being happy, or do they have a greater goal to hold onto?

Let me throw this out:

If happiness is what everyone seeks and wants, how do you explain this poem?

I walked a mile with Pleasure

She chattered all the way

Though she left me none the wiser

For all she had to say.

I walked a mile with Sorrow

Not a word said she

But oh, the things I learned that day

When Sorrow walked with me.

[nebula]

Well, believe so if you must, cache.

I speak as someone who lived with chronic depression most of my life, and it wasn't until I gave up the pursuit for "happiness" that I was able to walk down the road towards healing.

Happiness, I found, was only a mask. Though it hid the pain well, "making myself happy" never enabled the problem to be dealt with.

Enjoy your mask.

[Kansasdad]

Kansasdad

How very selfish this concept is. All of life is about "my" happiness, and everything is measured against that one premise. Have you ever given thought to where that concept has led?

Well I find that if the people I care about are happy, it makes me happy, so it isn't really a selfish concept at all. If you lived for only your own happiness, you would loose all your friends and family very quickly, so you'd end up being lonely and unhappy anyway. Therefore, the only way to maintain your own happiness is to maintain the happiness of those around you as well. Still think it's selfish?

Yes I still think it is very selfish. If your motivation for being concerned about someone is only measured as positive if you yourself gain pleasure from it, how fleeting is that. I have no problem with this being a "byproduct" the problem is when this is the goal.

ie: the reason I care about you is because doing so makes me happy. What happens if it no longer makes you happy, do you stop caring about them? It is still all about you and other people are just means to your end.

Some of the most evil atrocities are born from this very concept.

God Bless,

K.D.

[RebekahDavid]

"Do whatever works for you" and herein lies the problem. what if "what works for me" to gain personal happiness is harmful to you or even self harmful for me"? how can you then draw a line for i would be only seeking self fullfillment? there could be no lines precisely because people are different.

love your sister in Christ,

Rebekah David

[Kansasdad]

Kansasdad

Yes I still think it is very selfish. If your motivation for being concerned about someone is only measured as positive if you yourself gain pleasure from it, how fleeting is that. I have no problem with this being a "byproduct" the problem is when this is the goal.

ie: the reason I care about you is because doing so makes me happy. What happens if it no longer makes you happy, do you stop caring about them? It is still all about you and other people are just means to your end.

No, happiness comes from caring for them, not the other way around. There's a big difference.

Could you ever care for someone if it didn't bring you happiness?

[RebekahDavid]

"Do whatever works for you" and herein lies the problem. what if "what works for me" to gain personal happiness is harmful to you or even self harmful for me"? how can you then draw a line for i would be only seeking self fullfillment? there could be no lines precisely because people are different.

love your sister in Christ,

Rebekah David

A person with empathy will quickly stop enjoying themselves if it is harmful to other people, so to maintain real happiness they will need to be sensitive to others. What's wrong with wanting to be happy? If you seek it in a sensitive and responsible way it isn't selfish or harmful to anyone.

empathy towards who? my needs, my family's, circles of freinds' needs for happiness that still may result in bringing harm to others. especially since it is only relative to me and how i define empathy for my fullfilment.

[Kansasdad]

Kansasdad

Yes I still think it is very selfish. If your motivation for being concerned about someone is only measured as positive if you yourself gain pleasure from it, how fleeting is that. I have no problem with this being a "byproduct" the problem is when this is the goal.

ie: the reason I care about you is because doing so makes me happy. What happens if it no longer makes you happy, do you stop caring about them? It is still all about you and other people are just means to your end.

No, happiness comes from caring for them, not the other way around. There's a big difference.

Could you ever care for someone if it didn't bring you happiness?

That depends how much I care about them when they change and start to make me unhappy for whatever reason. If it was a family member, there isn't really anything they could do to make me stop caring about them. If it was a close friend I would probably live with it in the hope that they became their old self again. I don't know exactly, that's just a guess, but generally I don't care for people that I don't get along with.

Could you care about a drug dealer in Somalia?

[mikeinsarasota]

Kansasdad

Yes I still think it is very selfish. If your motivation for being concerned about someone is only measured as positive if you yourself gain pleasure from it, how fleeting is that. I have no problem with this being a "byproduct" the problem is when this is the goal.

ie: the reason I care about you is because doing so makes me happy. What happens if it no longer makes you happy, do you stop caring about them? It is still all about you and other people are just means to your end.

No, happiness comes from caring for them, not the other way around. There's a big difference.

Could you ever care for someone if it didn't bring you happiness?

That depends how much I care about them when they change and start to make me unhappy for whatever reason. If it was a family member, there isn't really anything they could do to make me stop caring about them. If it was a close friend I would probably live with it in the hope that they became their old self again. I don't know exactly, that's just a guess, but generally I don't care for people that I don't get along with.

Could you care about a drug dealer in Somalia?

Absolutely. And I think in order to be more Christlike we are obligated to do so.

[Kansasdad]

Kansasdad

Yes I still think it is very selfish. If your motivation for being concerned about someone is only measured as positive if you yourself gain pleasure from it, how fleeting is that. I have no problem with this being a "byproduct" the problem is when this is the goal.

ie: the reason I care about you is because doing so makes me happy. What happens if it no longer makes you happy, do you stop caring about them? It is still all about you and other people are just means to your end.

No, happiness comes from caring for them, not the other way around. There's a big difference.

Could you ever care for someone if it didn't bring you happiness?

That depends how much I care about them when they change and start to make me unhappy for whatever reason. If it was a family member, there isn't really anything they could do to make me stop caring about them. If it was a close friend I would probably live with it in the hope that they became their old self again. I don't know exactly, that's just a guess, but generally I don't care for people that I don't get along with.

Could you care about a drug dealer in Somalia?

Absolutely. And I think in order to be more Christlike we are obligated to do so.

I agree, but under the concept given by Cache this would not be possible. In fact the very idea would seem as nonsense.