11

It occurs in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, here it is in context (from 4:418-19, p.29 in the Gregor's Cambridge translation): "He is not capable of any principle by which to determine with complete certainty what will make him truly happy, because for this omniscience would be required. One can not therefore act on determinate principles ...


6

The natural rebuttal to Russell here is that he has misunderstood the Stoic understanding of Happiness. In choosing their actions and goods in a principle of "Rational decision in accordance with nature", Stoics do not deny what would make them happy. Happiness for the Stoics just is making that choice willfully. Perhaps Russell might be right were he to ...


6

I wouldn't say there are "widely accepted (precise) definitions" for the two terms you mention. I would say there are several different well-known accounts that deal with relationship. The first one I would recommend is from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. For Aristotle, the end goal of life is eudaimonia -- a word that can and has been translated as "...


6

Ahh, you are where I was a few years ago :) .. A good way to deal with nihilism would be to contrast it with the diametrically opposite possibility. A situation where there is perfect meaning to life, with perfect happiness, no sorrow or injustice, and where the progress of nature ensures this in every way. If you see the psychological issues humans would ...


5

You will need to strike a balance. If you can't enjoy today, or tomorrow, or they day after that, or the day after that, ... you can't enjoy anything. You should think about foreseeable long term consequences of your actions, so that your actions today don't negatively affect your happiness tomorrow. But there are many things that you can't foresee - it'...


5

It seems, that your problem with well-being is that there are hardships. So if there were no hardships I suppose you'd be well by you definition. Hardships are a severe difference in what you want and what you have. There is a notable philosopher, that worked on that precise front: Diogenes of Sinope. He proposed not working on the "having side" but on the "...


5

St. Thomas Aquinas, who was a follower of Aristotle in many things, has 32 questions on happiness (felicitas) in his Treatise on Man's Last End (Summa Theologica I-II qq. 1-5) or purpose, which he says is twofold: to attain happiness, which is "the acquisition of the last end" or purpose (ibid. q. 1 a. 8) and happiness itself, which is the last end. cf. ...


5

Glückseligkeit nicht ein Ideal der Vernunft, sondern der Einbildungskraft ist, Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten Kapitel I


4

A person who managed to become rich and therefore happy hasn't bought happiness. "Buying happiness" would mean giving away money in exchange for happiness. This person hasn't been giving away money in exchange for happiness. And a person who has only one goal in life wouldn't be automatically considered a happy person when that goal is achieved. They would ...


4

The work of the thinkers and writers we typically classify as "existentialist" (although few of them loved the term), Kierkegaard, Sartre, Dostoevsky, Camus, de Beauvoir, and so forth, can be viewed as collectively comprising responses to the conditions of life and the basic metaphysical assumptions that otherwise lead to nihilism. So if you want to start ...


4

Although Aristotle's eudaimonia is often loosely translated as "happiness" the meaning is quite different from the modern, subjective and emotional, idea. Aristotle's eudaimonia is objective and teleological, the human happiness is in fulfilling the function of a human being, which is, to Aristotle, living life guided by reason according to virtue....


3

According to utilitarism your last implication is right "If surveillance doesn't increase happiness of the public, then it would be immoral." But the problem is to determine which kinds of surveillance are to be considered and which additional effects - possibly increasing security - also result from surveillance. Not until answering these questions one ...


3

Nietzsche does not provide an answer because he does not draw a distinction between joy (Lust - I think 'pleasure' would be a better translation) and happiness (Glück). At least he makes no distinction in the note (German source: NF-188 14[121]) you quote from, as he says a few sentences earlier: Daß es eine bedeutende Aufklärung giebt, an Stelle des ...


3

Based on Jonathan Haidt’s “The Righteous Mind”, when we “philosophically align with nihilism” we have made an intuitive decision to accept nihilism and then task our brains to rationalize that decision. The reasoning process may alter the decision somewhat but the intuitive decision is non-rational. See YouTube for some of Haidt’s views in particular “...


3

I suspect that happiness is pretty much what you get when you have good relationships with other people, including any people having power or authority over you. To the extent that people isolate themselves with technology, I would say that "Yes, modern technology makes us unhappy." But I would not say that this is a purely up-to-date modern thing; after ...


3

We don't know how far the 'Socrates' of the Republic, or of other Platonic dialogues represents the historical Socrates. Only saying. As to the substance of your question, no-one leads a lonely and impoverished life in the Republic. There are three social classes (Rep. IV. passim): (1) the commercial and labouring class, who enjoy all the normal amenities of ...


3

We all know that there is none who didn't cry at least in childhood. I mean, if we consider this statement (the main issue) for one's complete life time, this is rather impossible. Even though you abstain from money, the person who brings you up may be making use of money or something that does the purpose of money. But we can say like this-- "Money, ...


3

You my friend, are not alone! And I for one congratulate you for seeking answers. You're also seeking answers in the right place. I had exactly the same experience and to some extent I still do, probably always will. But so do countless millions of others. Though this feeling is more common now (in fact it used to be called 'the modern disease') humans have ...


2

As an initial attempt, I would say that an experience machine would be:     good for addicts     bad for those interested in 'the truth' How to define 'addict' is a bit difficult, so I'm going to be sloppy. I mean to include those addicted to any physical substance as well as those addicted to any repeated experience—...


2

neither approach works because individuals have conflicting definitions of happiness. e.g. Plato's thumotic individual, which has been a major theme pertaining to conflict between individuals manifesting in some way or another in the work of every great political philosopher. i.e. People who make themselves happy at the expense of others. e.g. the tyranny of ...


2

Permanent - there is nothing in this world that is permanent. Everything is always changing. Well-being - There are as many people in this world that enjoy being miserable as there are that enjoy being happy. If you had no sense of being 'unwell', you would have no sense of being well. You can have no sense of well-being without the sense of not having ...


2

Remember that Aristotle lived two thousand years before Hobbes, and therefore, his criticism of the latter can only be made in retrospect by us. Aristotle starts off in the Nicomachean Ethics by defining happiness as "living well and doing well" (Book 1 Chapter 4). He then mentions the different ways in which people define a happy life - life of enjoyment, ...


2

You have asked two questions. To the first - yes, happiness is relative. An example of this, is a poor and humble person being very happy to receive a gift that a more affluent person would consider "trash." As to the second - whether you may want more happiness or not, that depends on your current state of satisfaction and whether you consider the "cost" ...


2

I don't think you're in the right place to ask about that , i'm not even sure this should be on a forum. A doctor ( a psychologist probably ) should be a better person to speak with about your problems. But if you realy wan't to talk about that then you should give more details about your condition like why are things not allowed to you ? Who forbid them to ...


2

I think the necessity of practicallity overcomes nihilism rather well. If you leave a general skepticism aside, you are a being in time, in the world. The passing of time itself creates a necessity to decide upon actions that lead to different possible worlds. The not doing anything is itself one possible option of infinitly many. Therefore deciding to do ...


2

"We swim in a sea of generosity, of many daily acts of consideration, reciprocity, benevolence, compassion, kindness, helpfulness, warmth, appreciation, respect, patience .." - Rick Hanson, "Just One Thing" p.168. Possibly it's not philosophy but its empirical evidence. We tend to notice the one thing that goes wrong rather than the 50 things that go ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible