With this economical recession and all, I think it's beginning to be just a matter of time when the whole current system based on capitalism collapses. I know the socialist and communist systems did even worse, but I would like to see just one more country try it out, in a good old Marxist way, without all the Leninist crap. But probably that won't happen.
So far capitalism has worked out well. Even though capitalism works with "greed", which also brought about the recession, greed is - in some ways - the fastest way of development. When people want more for themselves they also benefit the society as a whole. It's also greed that made society possible to begin with: a group of individuals working together to reach more than they could ever reach by themselves. So the idea of a community is that it gives something to all of it's members, ultimately the thing that makes a society a desirable goal. So far socialism could seems like an ideal system for a society.
You know greed is a humane, basic instinct. The fact that greed will always exist regardless of our upbringing and the society's influence to the way we think, socialism can't work. This is because all individuals in the society are humans and therefore they're guided by the same desires. So the society we live in is competitive by nature and nothing is going to change that.
There is one thing that destroyes it all: in nature all species compete more with their own kind than they would ever compete with other species. This basic instinct also guides our behavior: if you lived in a society where everyone gets the same amount of commodities, you'd still want more. If you were happy about the system in the beginning, that illusion soon fades away and you start wanting more and more. If everyone workes as hard as you do, you want to do less work. if everyone gets as much food, you start wanting more.
don't think happiness needs to depend on hard work or good decisions.
To really be happy, you only need a certain mentality, that's all. But in a system that teaches everyone to work hard, seemingly to benefit the people themselves but in reality only to keep the system running, sticking to this mentality can be even harder than actually working for wealth (which doesn't equal happiness).
Right mentality can, to some extent, provide happiness. You can't reach happiness just by thoughts though. Happiness always requires actions or experiences.
I just wrote about the basic human instincts and the same thing can also be used to explain happiness: once you've reached a certain level on something that is thought to bring happiness, it stops doing so. In other words: you simply want more and more. Happiness, as a goal, is the illusion that drives our actions.
So if we're never truly satisfied, how can we ever be happy? I think that happiness is an illusion, a dream of something that we can never really reach no matter what we do. Failure, troubles and sorrow as just as much a part of life as is happiness. Because emotions can be divided into two groups (positive and negative emotions) and both of these exist at the same time on top of one another, we can never reach of state of ultimate happiness or sorrow. That's why I regard true happiness as a perfect balance between positive and negative emotions. Notice the word perfect. Perfect is also something that you can never reach, which is why you can never reach a perfect balance between positive and negative emotions.
Another thing is relative happiness, usually referred to in everyday life. Overall happiness in life just requires a certain attitude, just like Sakmongkol said. Yet, this state of mind can't be reached just like that. You always require some positive feelings, actions or experiences to reach anything close to relative happiness. You can always try to establish those positive feelings over negative ones, which is also why our personality affects in happiness. Some personalities are known to be overally happier than others, brought about by their better ability to establish positive emotions. So some people are, in a way, doomed to live a not-as-happy-life and others are blessed to live happier lives. Not that the environment and upbringing could not undermine our genetic backround to some extent though.
All in all, I must admit I don't know what would be a good way to share happiness, which economic system would work best and such. Maybe it is indeed so that the systems come and go, and there will always be the kind of people who bend under the system's pressure and become unhappy, as well as those people who can live their lives to the full with what they've got, and thus be happy.
True, in my mind aswell.
I'll repost one message from the 1# clan on the LXA
-thread which is in some ways lined with this topic:
I sure don't think so, but the people who have voted here seem to think Sak is more successful than DoA. I think it would be only fair to credit at least some of that success to the leader of the clan (me).
True, although the motives behind the votes might be something totally different. You're a major element in it's succes, of course, but that doesn't make the whole clan successful, does it? Clan consists of individuals, so when the clan
comes in to question, it shouldn't be leader that gathers all the votes. In my opinion, this is pretty close to why Perussuomalaiset were so successful in the last election (Timo Soini
So the big question is the leader's effect in the clan's overall succes and whether it's your personality that overtakes the effect of Sak's members. Or in other words, is it the prejudices and grudges directed at me that undermine our potential success?
Another important question is, too, what makes another clan more succesful that others. I bet most people don't even think about it, but instead base the decision in prejudices and rumours (not that Sak isn't a good clan to vote for). I was just thinking why people give DoA negative votes. That's also why I'd like to hear some real explanation to which the votes are based on.
The reason why I'd vote for Sak is that it feels like a safe choice, something that no one would argue with.
You never responded to this and I thought this might be the right thread for it. This is practical philosophy now