alt Hacker NewsI have been trying to square such suggestions for happiness with G.B. Shaw's quote:
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
The steps towards happiness basically require accepting the world as is and appreciating it as is. Does that mean happy people are reasonable? And if they are, does that mean that happy people do not drive progress? Are there happy AND unreasonable people?
Replies
You can appreciate the world and still do Hard Work to make it better - definitely not mutually exclusive. Be unreasonable. Be Progressive.
Temper it all with Desiderata[0], since we’re being philosophical.
It's not a binary choice, but a spectrum. It depends on the scope and your own abilities - you can't turn a river around with a stick, but you can clean up your part of the lawn. Keep control over what you can control, and don't get too upset about what you can't - so with a little effort you change (or progress) a little part of the world.
Funnily enough I also know some happy people who adhere to none of these points.
Try circles instead of a square.
Not 1 and 0, but infinity.
You matter more than you think.
Very good book:
I'm not religious nor a recovering alcoholic, but I've always liked the serenity prayer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_Prayer.
Obviously it is unreasonable to continue walking with a stone in your boot because you want to adapt to it; equally obviously it is unreasonable to expect your boots to last forever without repair.
One can be content or happy without being complacent. Also finding peace with what you have can open motivation to make change. The discontent of one’s current situation can be debilitating and demotivating so removing the mood or feeling can actually enable action.
But then what you put effort in will resonate with you and not be the same as what you would do when trying to chase something to impress someone outside.
There is this strange paradox of accepting a situation enables changing it. I hope others who read this who understand it better will share their more lucid insights.
Yes, yes, and no.
I mean you have to ask what does unreasonable mean in this context?
Because in a literal meaning, that basically puts both John Carmack and Adolf Hitler in the same "unreasonable men" bucket. Both had ideas for the "world" and adapted it to themselves.
But I don't think we should read it that way. Also you should never take one philosopher's idea and only follow it in isolation. Every great thinker has massive blind spots and it's always better to think for yourself and read opinions that may counter each other.
Also I don't think its as simple as to be happy you must accept the world and be a passive host and make no changes. In fact, many would argue you get real happiness when you pursue something bigger than yourself and in those pursuits, we usually make progress.
More so, do you think Hitler was unhappy? Are you saying every unreasonable person that makes progress is unhappy? That clearly cannot be true.
In fact, your question should be answered by what is happiness rather than how to be happy. And the answer can be complciated. No 10 list guide can truly help you unravel the actual human pysche and what makes you you but it can act as markers and make you think if done properly.
That quote is from a play, and was written by a character who is a revolutionary and an anarchist.
In a meta-sense, I don't think G.B. Shaw intended this quote to be taken as an absolute truth by the audience.
And, even taking the quote itself at face value (pretending the fictional character who wrote it was a real person), I think it's referring mostly to political progress. Indeed, most times that political institutions have been upended, it was by people who were not happy with the status quo. But I think that's a different sort of unhappiness from the unhappiness of not being satisfied with your life.