Why is everyone seeking satisfaction?

Question

Is it just me, or why is everyone seeking some kind of personal notion of satisfaction? It seems to be a better life mentality to relish in the cold reality of accepting the inevitable pains of life. That is, see pain as satisfaction. Rejection is a kind of pain, but what's that adage "Edison made 1,000 unsuccessful attempts at inventing the light bulb." Is this not a concept? Like, in my own opinion, I believe that the meaning of life is to get to the next logical step until life ends and that we all do this subconsciously under the guise of other beliefs and that the swarm interactions of all people doing this is what causes the empirically/scientifically verifiable notion of progress. Is this way of thinking an established belief system? I'd like to read/practice up on it if so.

---

Further exposition:

But, then again, other people's next steps are going to conflict, which produces one of three outcomes: 1 winner, 2 winners, 2 losers

But, to win is to attain satisfaction, no? I don't know, I just think that satisfaction should happen upon you as an unbeknownst consequence of your endurance. You know, I think what I'm asking is in the attainment of satisfaction is it better that it be sought after or given as a consequence?

But, then, among all those who have attained satisfaction as a consequence of their endurance at least one will have sought it prior, which kind of seems to nullify my purposed righteous method of satisfaction attainment.

Ok, now I'm having a one-electron universe moment where it doesn't seem to matter and all is equivalent.

Answer 1

It seems to be a better life mentality to relish in the cold reality of accepting the inevitable pains of life. Is this not a concept?

Something like this?

Remember that following desire promises the attainment of that of which you are desirous; and aversion promises the avoiding that to which you are averse. However, he who fails to obtain the object of his desire is disappointed, and he who incurs the object of his aversion wretched. If, then, you confine your aversion to those objects only which are contrary to the natural use of your faculties, which you have in your own control, you will never incur anything to which you are averse. But if you are averse to sickness, or death, or poverty, you will be wretched.

This is a snippet from The Enchiridion, by Epictetus (translated by Elizabeth Carter). Epictetus's general attitude towards life is about accepting things beyond your control, even things which otherwise would cause pain and suffering. He believed that essentially when you build expectations of things beyond your control, including things having to do with your life and health and the life/health of your loved ones, you're only setting yourself up for disappointment. Instead, you should accept these things as what they are; temporary states. Epictetus's personal experiences were interesting as well; he was lame from childhood and born a slave.

Epictetus was from the Stoic school of thought.

Answer 2

it's kinda like dh lawrence had this idea of 2 people meeting on a road, and instead of just passing and glancing away they decided to accept what he calls "the confrontation between their souls"

it's like freeing the brave, wreckless gods within us all

Answer 3

"seeking some kind of personal notion of satisfaction" "see pain as satisfaction"
"the swarm interactions of all people [causes] progress"

So, the fact you can pin 'satisfaction' or 'happiness' or 'utility' or whatever else, on to literally anything people choose to want, even pain, is why you can think it's what everyone wants. But it's just retroactive labelling. It's easy to see the 'mass' of people as having some simple motivations, and oneself as complex and sophisticated, but that just lacks imagination. People are on all kinds of crazy trips.

"meaning of life is to get to the next logical step"
"Is this way of thinking an established belief system?"

It seems like you want Sartre's experience of nausea, or Camus' confrontation with the absurd. Or maybe you are working towards a nihilist position. But to figure that our you need to state your position more clearly. Does the meaning of the steps from inside or outside? Is it the steps themselves, or relational, or purely subjective?

Answer 4

I'm currently in an Aristotle course and I clarified parts of his argument from Nicomachean Ethics Book I for some casual short response. I think this is from chapter six or seven:

All actions, in essence, have some purpose in mind, but for some, the purpose of the action is not in and of itself the ultimate purpose. The end of the former means becomes the mean to another end. For example, we seek money not because we value what money inherently is, but what follows from money (i.e. food, flexibility, shelter, luxury, etc.), and this is true for many actions and ends. But what is the chief end, or "good," that we are after of which is in and of itself an end and only an end, where no other purpose follows? Simply put, what is the final, inherent good for which we pursue all others? Certainly, our actions have some ultimate end in mind, something by which all other needs derive. (Aristotle thinks that if this is not the case then we would have an infinite loop. He doesn't like infinite regress and thinks it makes it meaningless.) Aristotle theorizes that the chief good is happiness, or “eudaimonia,” a successful quality of life, not the momentary emotion (think fulfillment). His reasoning is that we never choose happiness for the sake of something else, but choose everything else for the sake of happiness. We can choose things like honor, virtue, and justice for themselves, but we also seek them for happiness. Things that we do for the sake of other things are instrumental goods. Virtue, honor, etc. are instrumental and inherent goods. Happiness seems to be the only things that is only an inherent good. Happiness does not necessarily depend on concepts from which it follows, it is entirely self-sufficient and since we desire happiness and we seek means to this end. If happiness was not the ultimate end, we would act differently, for our actions would require different means. In the same sense, weightlifters lift weights and sprinters sprint; you do not train weightlifters to be olympic sprinters, for their goal is to lift weights, not sprint and vice versa. We do not stumble across happiness as the end to a particular means in which we thought was an end, our target is always happiness, whether through conscious intent or otherwise. Money in and of itself is not the ultimate end and only end, whether I believe it to be so or not, since money produces other things (i.e. the flexibility money allows can act as an instrument for virtuous actions that make one happy, making money not the final end, but happiness).

If any of my claims do not seem to have further explanation, he explains them later on in Nicomachean Ethics. He expands on many facets of happiness including pleasure and virtue. I recommend reading it, it might be helpful in understanding what I said, and just in general.