rabcarl
07-19-2009, 02:34
I was pondering deeply today about the reconciliation between abstract psychological theorems and philosophical ideas and "hard" sciences when it occured to me that through scientific study one might be able to bridge the gap by a physical analysis of the human brain. I began to develop a theory with its basis in an unusual place: Buddhism. While classified as a religion, the core beliefs are philosophically good thinking in my opinion. But I propose to take these observations made in the now-famous Four Noble Truths, with particular emphasis on the first one, and take them further. I propose that it is not the "want" itself that predisposes men to suffering, and conversely "happiness" or "fufillment" defined here as "success", but along the lines of my last philosophical musing: Uniqueness, moreover the unique sets of wants each man has, and rather how he reconciles these "wants" with his measure of "success". But I am going further now to try to explain the causation of the relative, quantitive "success" as measured by each man. Whatever a man measures his success by, it is explained at least partly by that man under that tree, Buddha, all those years ago: wants. Fufillment of wants is the goal for any man, as we can all testify. And one of those wants, or even needs possibly, is the fuffilment of those wants. And how adept a man is at fufilling those is what I am concerned about in this particular case.
Men have always sought to do things that entertain or amuse them. Diversions, be it whatever our minds can concoct, are always there waiting for a time appropriate to make use of them. We can agree that whatever brings us pleasure is, at least in my observations, universally a challenge to the brain. Man's want to fufill wants is apparent here, because through these challenges, he is fufilling a want. Therefore, I postulate that those who percieve tasks, challenges, etc. that are in line with his own goals as "entertaining" and who also have a natural aptitude for such tasks, are the happiest, and I believe that it is greater to achieve this than to simply elimiate suffering. For example: one who enjoys financial analysis might be better disposed to be "successful" in terms of what he (this ficticious man) deems success: Financial security. In another man, however, let us suppose that his measure of success is also financial security. However, he has no predisposed aptitude to meet his goals. Therefore he is not able to fufill his desires (wants) and ultimately is less happy and is more prone to "suffering" (again, notice the Buddhist overtones). Then let us take this one step further: Suppose a man has an aptitude for financial analysis, but detests it. He may or may not have a pleasing and rewarding life, or he may not, depending on other circumstances. A man who has no aptitude yet still enjoys the task is again, subject to outside forces.*
This postulate, while maybe not brilliant and admittedly relatively straightforward, has some consequences which I feel that have not been adequately adressed at large. One of them is that the man whose aptitudes, but more importantly, what he views as "fun" or "entertaining" are in line with the wants that he has, will be more successful, especially if he can find a partner with whom his definition of "success" is the same. Therefore it is logical to assume that those with "success" measured at a general level more equivocal with what the general level of the population measures it as will be in a better state of "fitness" because he will be more likely to find someone of the opposite sex who has the same measure for success, and I believe will have a better chance of surviving and passing such traits on to his offspring. Therefore, I also notice a bit of Darwinian theory in these observations. Over time, as society progresses, we undoubtedly have different measures of success and failiure than we did in the past. While these might not be apparent, I believe that as the history of the human race becomes longer and longer, entire family lines will be successful or unsuccessful depending on how reconciled their "wants" are with what they measure as success.
There is also a social element ot these observations. I believe that all societies are flawed because they put predetermined expectations on people. I believe the utopian society to be one where a man's wants and what challenges he enjoys are appreciated universally and are not frowned upon.
Now comes the other part of analysis: The brain. Somewhere inside this wonderful organ, there must be something that determines which tasks are "pleasing" and which tasks are not. Therefore, those who are more predisposed to find the tasks with which their roles in society are associated as "entertaining" and moreover in line with their "success" measures, they will be the ones who are the happiest in their roles.
Therefore, if we envision a community in which all people for the most part have different roles and are free to pursue whatever their "wants" are (which will include the previously mentioned reconcilliation beetween happiness and wants), this community is the best catalyst for happiness, and is what I would encourage mankind to strive to achieve.
* There are obviously more wants than just one, and some are greater than others. Therefore one whose wants and "enjoyed challenges" are universally equivalent and one whose are an antitype are at either end of the spectrum of success as defined by the person. Obviously there are infinite states in between, and I would have no knowledge to begin trying to explain at which point any man is.
Men have always sought to do things that entertain or amuse them. Diversions, be it whatever our minds can concoct, are always there waiting for a time appropriate to make use of them. We can agree that whatever brings us pleasure is, at least in my observations, universally a challenge to the brain. Man's want to fufill wants is apparent here, because through these challenges, he is fufilling a want. Therefore, I postulate that those who percieve tasks, challenges, etc. that are in line with his own goals as "entertaining" and who also have a natural aptitude for such tasks, are the happiest, and I believe that it is greater to achieve this than to simply elimiate suffering. For example: one who enjoys financial analysis might be better disposed to be "successful" in terms of what he (this ficticious man) deems success: Financial security. In another man, however, let us suppose that his measure of success is also financial security. However, he has no predisposed aptitude to meet his goals. Therefore he is not able to fufill his desires (wants) and ultimately is less happy and is more prone to "suffering" (again, notice the Buddhist overtones). Then let us take this one step further: Suppose a man has an aptitude for financial analysis, but detests it. He may or may not have a pleasing and rewarding life, or he may not, depending on other circumstances. A man who has no aptitude yet still enjoys the task is again, subject to outside forces.*
This postulate, while maybe not brilliant and admittedly relatively straightforward, has some consequences which I feel that have not been adequately adressed at large. One of them is that the man whose aptitudes, but more importantly, what he views as "fun" or "entertaining" are in line with the wants that he has, will be more successful, especially if he can find a partner with whom his definition of "success" is the same. Therefore it is logical to assume that those with "success" measured at a general level more equivocal with what the general level of the population measures it as will be in a better state of "fitness" because he will be more likely to find someone of the opposite sex who has the same measure for success, and I believe will have a better chance of surviving and passing such traits on to his offspring. Therefore, I also notice a bit of Darwinian theory in these observations. Over time, as society progresses, we undoubtedly have different measures of success and failiure than we did in the past. While these might not be apparent, I believe that as the history of the human race becomes longer and longer, entire family lines will be successful or unsuccessful depending on how reconciled their "wants" are with what they measure as success.
There is also a social element ot these observations. I believe that all societies are flawed because they put predetermined expectations on people. I believe the utopian society to be one where a man's wants and what challenges he enjoys are appreciated universally and are not frowned upon.
Now comes the other part of analysis: The brain. Somewhere inside this wonderful organ, there must be something that determines which tasks are "pleasing" and which tasks are not. Therefore, those who are more predisposed to find the tasks with which their roles in society are associated as "entertaining" and moreover in line with their "success" measures, they will be the ones who are the happiest in their roles.
Therefore, if we envision a community in which all people for the most part have different roles and are free to pursue whatever their "wants" are (which will include the previously mentioned reconcilliation beetween happiness and wants), this community is the best catalyst for happiness, and is what I would encourage mankind to strive to achieve.
* There are obviously more wants than just one, and some are greater than others. Therefore one whose wants and "enjoyed challenges" are universally equivalent and one whose are an antitype are at either end of the spectrum of success as defined by the person. Obviously there are infinite states in between, and I would have no knowledge to begin trying to explain at which point any man is.