Arguing the Upside of Being Down

[rwyatt365]

I saw this article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) on the NPR website just now. It argues for the necessity for more melancholy in today's emotional environment. To the author I say, "Here, here!", there is far too much happiness being foisted on society.

Your comments...

[l345l]

very, very interesting.

i agree with a lot of what is said about psychiatry and how happiness is being sold through anti-depressant drugs, etc.

I also agree with the concept of being afraid not to smile, and the fear to be without happiness.

but there's something about his argument that just doesn't quite agree with me.
I've always had thoughts on the concept of happiness and its meaning... it is a relative term, isn't it?

[ElstonGunn]

Interesting. It reminds me of another NPR article I read a while back.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

NPR is out to destroy our happiness. :p

[AgentofGaming]

hmm, I never thought about sadness was there to foster advancement.
I see it now:
To be happy is to accept stagnation as dissatisfaction leads to seeking change.

Still... wallowing in despair doesn't feel nice.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

My thinking is that happiness, sadness, and anger etc. are transitory feelings and not a state of being. Even so, someone can experience more of one state than another and this may be percieved as a general state for that individual. Since these feelings are usually largely influenced by our life circumstances, then I would say that, if a person is not satisfied with their life in general, that is to say, if an individual wants to experience the feeling of being happy more often than at present, then they should takes steps to discover what, within their environment, may be contributing to any feelings of unhappiness. Conversely, if a person was content with how they felt, then..... say la vie (spelling?).

[Zilal]

This seems to be a new movement, this "happiness is not normal" thing. I think it's an honest and appropriate evolution of the ideas about happiness we've had in this culture for a while, but I'm not impressed by the occasional critiques that modern therapy is going about things all wrong by looking for happiness. Because I don't think modern therapy is all about trying to make people happy... rather, more balanced. But anybody can benefit from being patient with their own gloomy moods.

[coffeeloverfreak]

Depression is a very real and serious disease, and should be treated.

The problem is, we as a society over-diagnose everything. We give kids Ritalin if they don't sit still to do their homework, so why is it so surprising that we'd rush to take anti-depressants for mere sadness?

Sadness is a human emotion, and a necessary one at times. It's appropriate to feel sad sometimes, and it's important to have an emotional range. Sadness is not the same as depression.

coffeeloverfreak added to this post, 2 minutes and 26 seconds later...

hmm, I never thought about sadness was there to foster advancement.
I see it now:
To be happy is to accept stagnation as dissatisfaction leads to seeking change.

Still... wallowing in despair doesn't feel nice.

Have you ever seen the movie "Almost Famous"? Check out the scene where Lester Bangs is talking to William about being uncool:
That's because we're uncool. And while women will always be a problem for us, most of the great art in the world is about that very same problem. Good-looking people don't have any spine. Their art never lasts. They get the girls, but we're smarter. Great art is about conflict and pain and guilt and longing and love disguised as sex, and sex disguised as love... and let's face it, you got a big head start. The only true currency in this bankrupt world if what we share with someone else when we're uncool.

And that, in a nutshell, says it all. Happiness is the same as giving up. If you're happy with what is, you don't strive to make it better.

[bubbles]

It's impossible to always be happy. People who are doing this are desiring the impossible and that only causes misery. It's nice to feel down once in a while. You can't appreciate the feeling of happiness if all you have ever experienced is happiness. You have to experience the opposite of something to appreciate it.

[chocky]

I'm a confirmed melancholic. I've fought all my life for the full, juicy misery that feeds me. Fought against a mother that considered my sadness her failure (hands off you spineless pleaser! this is my misery! mine!) Against peers that wanted fun above meaning (choke on your laughter shallow fools....) Against caring 'professionals' - the doctors, counselors, shrinks, that foisted their anxieties upon me.... my melancholy is all the domain that I own, and unchallenged in revolves around the sun with me, and makes the atmosphere I breathe and breeds the water I drink ...and why is that such a threat that I have to be 'fixed' - neutered like an animal, deprived of potent creativity?

For sure our culture has taken melancholy to be a threat of late, primarily I think because it is contrary to the ethos of unquestioning consumption upon which our society depends. The existence of we melancholics is, I think, a capital insult to Mammon and the Industry of Happy.

Viva melancholia.

[thod]

As a child there was no future or past there was only the moment and you would do what you wanted without regard for consequence and without planning. This is required for happiness. As soon as you start to consider the past and use it to plan the future you lose that spontaneity. There is no joy is such a regimented existence Only the grey boredom of predictability.

Try walking around the city streets some place where you don't know. There is thrill in the idea of being lost, of not knowing where your are and which turn you should take.

[rwyatt365]

When I read this I thought about a program on PBS concerning the over-medication of children in America. It started off with a young boy (probably 6-7 y/o) that had some "problems". He was very active, and somewhat uncontrolled (to me, he was just a spoiled, bratty little boy with clueless parents). Anyway, he was given "medication" to calm him (i.e. dope him up) and make him "normal".

As the program continued, it followed this child through puberty, adolescence and young-adulthood. All along he was given progressively stronger "medications" to keep him "normal" and to offset issues that developed because of all of the medications. As far as I am concerned, his parents created a medically-dependant "monster". Their child had developed several nervous tics, and had other developmental problems that are attributed (IMHO) directly to the meds that he had taken for the past 12-14 years.

My point is that American (and to a lesser degree, most Western) society places such a high value on "normality" (i.e. positive attitude, gregarious, outgoing, etc...) that it is willing to experiment with its children to achieve that ideal. We are willing to dope an entire generation to knock off the "high, and low-points" in order to achieve the happy median.

[ElstonGunn]

Have you ever seen the movie "Almost Famous"? Check out the scene where Lester Bangs is talking to William about being uncool:

[...]

And that, in a nutshell, says it all. Happiness is the same as giving up. If you're happy with what is, you don't strive to make it better.

I liked that quote, but I disagree with your interpretation of it. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is happy when he has some kind of project to work on. Or maybe I'm just thinking of happiness in a different way. I guess any definition of the term is valid (within reason), but once you get into thinking about that, you have to figure out what is meant by "happiness" versus "satisfaction," "contentment," "bliss," and so on with a thousand other related words.

My point is that there definitely is a state in which a person accepts the 'what is' and drifts aimlessly without doing much to change it or improve his life. But I wouldn't call that happiness. It sounds boring and frustrating to me.

[coffeeloverfreak]

But it follows. I mean, if you're happy with what is, then you're loathe to change it, because, well, the present state of affairs makes you happy. Change usually comes from the discontented, because they're the ones with the motivation to drive change.

[AgentofGaming]

Have you ever seen the movie "Almost Famous"? Check out the scene where Lester Bangs is talking to William about being uncool:


And that, in a nutshell, says it all. Happiness is the same as giving up. If you're happy with what is, you don't strive to make it better.
hmm a movie...
I haven't watched movies in a long long time and I seldom ever did. So not surprisingly no.

If I am happy with something it's only temporary.

I liked that quote, but I disagree with your interpretation of it. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is happy when he has some kind of project to work on. Or maybe I'm just thinking of happiness in a different way. I guess any definition of the term is valid (within reason), but once you get into thinking about that, you have to figure out what is meant by "happiness" versus "satisfaction," "contentment," "bliss," and so on with a thousand other related words.

My point is that there definitely is a state in which a person accepts the 'what is' and drifts aimlessly without doing much to change it or improve his life. But I wouldn't call that happiness. It sounds boring and frustrating to me.

I've had that too. When I accomplish something and then I notice this problem: "what am I going to do next?" Now I've done it, I'll be bored with nothing to do, and that makes me sort of sad. Like an "aww... it's over?"
Probably it's the pursuit of happiness that is happiness. Especially so for those who seek perfection.