Life Sucks [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

MystyrMystyry

09-17-2011, 06:57 PM

You need to find a passion to carry you through life. Both long term goals and short term goals.

Me, I'm an artist - I've trained my brain to be one. But I'm not an artist if I don't do anything.

Before a work I get enthusiastic. During the work. After the work. Buying new materials.

Everyone else is also an artist - a lot just don't realise it because it seems easier to let someone else do it. And that may seem to be true, but from experience I know it's much less satisfying than having a project to occupy your mind - and it can be anything from rejuvinating an old piece of furniture with oils and fabrics, to writing the most amazing novel ever.

But it's up to you to do it first and talk about it later - not sit around imagining it. While you're dong it your brain develops ideas, and after you've finished your brain develops ideas for the next thing.

People who take up space and do absolutely nothing, expecting to be entertained, are miserable, selfish and boring, and deserve all the unhappiness the universe inflicts on them.

You have to generate your own happiness in which ever way you see fit though. You have to use your head and your hands. You have to feel that you've achieved something, that your time has been worthwhile and productive - this gives you the understanding and direction to ensure that your future will also.

Don't be a snail brain!

keilj

09-17-2011, 07:00 PM

Top Tips for a Happy Life: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64062

Life is what it is. If you dwell on the negative - that is what will define you; own you.

Volunteer. Learn to become a glass half full person. Hang with people who have good old fashioned wholesome fun. Get counseling. Turn off the news. Watch & read comedies that make you laugh. Smell the roses. Garden. Write about your cares (it's cathartic)... besides you've already started here; write a short story or poem or autobiography.

Best wishes,
tailor STATELY

What you and others like you fail to realize is that just because you have the ability to see the bright side and are able to ignore the stark realities of suffering in this world, everyone is not built that way. And reading "tops tips" will not cause someone with deep conscience to be able to ignore the darkness in this world.

Behind every silver lining, there's a dark cloud - George Carlin

You need to find a passion to carry you through life. Both long term goals and short term goals.

Me, I'm an artist - I've trained my brain to be one. But I'm not an artist if I don't do anything.

Before a work I get enthusiastic. During the work. After the work. Buying new materials.

Everyone else is also an artist - a lot just don't realise it because it seems easier to let someone else do it. And that may seem to be true, but from experience I know it's much less satisfying than having a project to occupy your mind - and it can be anything from rejuvinating an old piece of furniture with oils and fabrics, to writing the most amazing novel ever.

But it's up to you to do it first and talk about it later - not sit around imagining it. While you're dong it your brain develops ideas, and after you've finished your brain develops ideas for the next thing.

People who take up space and do absolutely nothing, expecting to be entertained, are miserable, selfish and boring, and deserve all the unhappiness the universe inflicts on them.

You have to generate your own happiness in which ever way you see fit though. You have to use your head and your hands. You have to feel that you've achieved something, that your time has been worthwhile and productive - this gives you the understanding and direction to ensure that your future will also.

Don't be a snail brain!

This post has to be pure satire. There's no way you can actually be an adult and think this way

Top Tips for a Happy Life: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64062

Life is what it is. If you dwell on the negative - that is what will define you; own you.

Volunteer. Learn to become a glass half full person. Hang with people who have good old fashioned wholesome fun. Get counseling. Turn off the news. Watch & read comedies that make you laugh. Smell the roses. Garden. Write about your cares (it's cathartic)... besides you've already started here; write a short story or poem or autobiography.

Best wishes,
tailor STATELY

here's some more realistic advice - rather than that "glass half full" rot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2Q7YRDL90E

at least this clip reflects a realistic understanding of the truths of this world

Calidore

09-17-2011, 07:09 PM

This post has to be pure satire. There's no way you can actually be an adult and think this way

I think the ability to think that way makes one an adult. It's a mistake to try to spin the lack of a skill as a positive.

MarkBastable

09-17-2011, 07:12 PM

What you and others like you fail to realize is that just because you have the ability to see the bright side and are able to ignore the stark realities of suffering in this world, everyone is not built that way. And reading "tops tips" will not cause someone with deep conscience to be able to ignore the darkness in this world.

Ah, yes. There you are with your conscience, and if people happier than you had such a conscience they'd be less able to ignore the darkness, and so they'd be less happy. Those happy, conscienceless nitwits.

If that's a fair way to characterise other human beings as an explanation of their tendency to see a bright side, then it would be equally fair to suggest that those who tend to see the dark side are actually self-important melodramatic scaredy-cats. Not, of course, that any sensible and kind person would make that kind of generalisation, any more than any kind and sensible person would write off happier people with phrases like 'what you fail to realise' and 'ignore the stark realities of suffering'. Either dismissal of vast swathes of humanity would be simplistic and childish.

MystyrMystyry

09-17-2011, 07:18 PM

The darkness of the world can't be helped. You have to find your own happiness without dwelling on the negatives.

When you use your mind to create something worthwhile (an experience for others also to enjoy), then you're doing something which is infinitely better than doing nothing, though this depends - if you're a snail brain washing dishes for a living of course you're going to hate life (fairly quickly I imagine). But if you 'make your own luck' and get the best job in the world where you're surrounded by interesting, exciting, and enthusiastic people with similar passions, then that's how to use your brain to generate happiness.

Hang out with the deadbeats if you think somewhere in the suffocating miasma of their nothingness you'll get to a position of as close to complete happiness you could wish for.

Who doesn't want to crack the joke that makes everyone laugh? Misery guts doesn't - and who cares about Misery guts? Not me - life's too short!

tailor STATELY

09-17-2011, 07:38 PM

"Behind every silver lining, there's a dark cloud - George Carlin"

dark (for nightshifft)

all is not bunnies
and sunshine and puppies
and rainbows and kisses
and vistas bright
nor angel's wings
hugging one tight

sometimes it's dark
damn, it's dark
sometimes
dark

1/12/2010
tailor STATELY

I've been there and done that with what you portray as your sensibilities.

I've moved on and have tried to make a difference for the good in this wonderful world and life.

I repeat: Life is what it is. If you dwell on the negative - that is what will define you; own you.

Leaving this thread for brighter pastures.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

Paulclem

09-17-2011, 07:38 PM

It's a misconception to think that age makes you unhappy - the dribbly end bit does- but up to that point you may find yourself happier than when you were younger. Certainly I'd rather be older than a teen/ twenties.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1252996/Were-happiest-74-Its-downhill-till-40-life-gets-better-say-scientists.html

Mutatis-Mutandis

09-17-2011, 08:01 PM

As someone with a rather debilitating disability, and someone whose had cancer several times, I feel sorry for you, keilj.

JBI

09-17-2011, 08:02 PM

Meh, I am having a good time.

Paulclem

09-17-2011, 08:18 PM

keilj

09-17-2011, 09:48 PM

As someone with a rather debilitating disability, and someone whose had cancer several times, I feel sorry for you, keilj.

Whatever makes you feel better

Ah, yes. There you are with your conscience, and if people happier than you had such a conscience they'd be less able to ignore the darkness, and so they'd be less happy. Those happy, conscienceless nitwits.

My premise must bother you, that you have to try to distort it instead of engaging it

If you have an original idea that you want to express - then do so. Instead of trying to misrepresent what I said by adding your own colorful language to it

If you and others in this thread want to mistake being a realist with being some kind of sulking curmudgeon, then feel free. If you want to engage in an intelligent conversation about the basis for people's happiness, what true happiness is built on, and, perhaps, how people cope with the unhappy things in this world, then maybe this Internet thread might become more interesting

People who take up space and do absolutely nothing, expecting to be entertained, are miserable, selfish and boring, and deserve all the unhappiness the universe inflicts on them.

In a world where alcoholism and dependence on psych drugs is quite high (see the recent study about "happiness" in European countries), I think it is extremely condescending and petulant to characterize people as "sitting around doing nothing". The world and the people in it are a little more complicated than that

It seems that all of these "happy" people have very little empathy

here's a link to the study

http://www.fyiliving.com/mental-health/depression/mental-illness-affects-almost-40-percent-of-europeans/

I was surprised by it because I had always assumed that Europeans were generally happier than Americas. I had heard how some nations like Italy and Spain have a laid-back attitudes, 4-day work weeks.

MystyrMystyry

09-17-2011, 10:31 PM

Quite right. It is as simple as that.

You offer advice to a junkie and it falls on deaf ears - thus you've wasted your breath which would have been put to better use elsewhere.

You try to give them an actual hand up and they'll respond by trying to take advantage of your sympathy, kindness, time, and whatever else. You have to actually meet and attempt to help these people to learn first hand that their innate idiocy and self-centredness (albeit the result of their ingested poisons or elsewise) will earn not even genuine thanks.

Their so-called 'suffering' comes not from the anaeshetic qualities of their chosen drugs, but the lack thereof. Basically you can't help someone who isn't prepared to help themselves, and though a rare few have given themselves the time to try, it doesn't mean it's worth the effort for the vast majority.

No drug is so addictive it can't be overcome, but these 'people' are just using drugs as a crutch to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions. The day they decide to do so is the day they can start living - it's not my job to help them. I can only wish they wake up, but that's as far as my involvement will ever go. You can waste you time trying if you want, but their problems are not actually the fault of anyone else (other than the enablers obviously).

There's a Yiddish proverb:

The fool sees happiness in the distance, the wise it grows beneath their feet.

These fools see happiness only in the next vial, bottle, syringe, baggy, whatever, and have chosen to shortcircuit their neurons to diminish both a future and immediate happiness.

Life's a gift, and wasted only on the wasters.

Do I care about the reason for their stupidity? Not in the least! It's entirely their fault.

sh_einstein

09-17-2011, 11:12 PM

Top Tips for a Happy Life: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64062

Life is what it is. If you dwell on the negative - that is what will define you; own you.

Volunteer. Learn to become a glass half full person. Hang with people who have good old fashioned wholesome fun. Get counseling. Turn off the news. Watch & read comedies that make you laugh. Smell the roses. Garden. Write about your cares (it's cathartic)... besides you've already started here; write a short story or poem or autobiography.

Best wishes,
tailor STATELY

Well, yeah I feel awesome after reading a good book or watching a nice movie but so what? Is that what life is all about? laughing at jokes and keeping yourself busy so you don't see all the craziness?
[thanks for your advice. I took a long walk in the beautiful autumn weather today. Didn't change my mind about life in general but it was good (: ]

You need to find a passion to carry you through life. Both long term goals and short term goals.

Me, I'm an artist - I've trained my brain to be one. But I'm not an artist if I don't do anything.

Before a work I get enthusiastic. During the work. After the work. Buying new materials.

Everyone else is also an artist - a lot just don't realise it because it seems easier to let someone else do it. And that may seem to be true, but from experience I know it's much less satisfying than having a project to occupy your mind - and it can be anything from rejuvinating an old piece of furniture with oils and fabrics, to writing the most amazing novel ever.

But it's up to you to do it first and talk about it later - not sit around imagining it. While you're dong it your brain develops ideas, and after you've finished your brain develops ideas for the next thing.

People who take up space and do absolutely nothing, expecting to be entertained, are miserable, selfish and boring, and deserve all the unhappiness the universe inflicts on them.

You have to generate your own happiness in which ever way you see fit though. You have to use your head and your hands. You have to feel that you've achieved something, that your time has been worthwhile and productive - this gives you the understanding and direction to ensure that your future will also.

Don't be a snail brain!

Actually I've achieved a lot in my life. I've been the best in almost everything I did. You might be 'older' than I am but you're where I used to be 4 years ago. It's not about productiveness really... after a while you get used to it all and then you want to achieve bigger and bigger things. One day when you've made enough achievements you'd realize that everything is just so pointless...

and about your last post:
I appreciate your time and effort. I don't think you're any different from the people you're insulting... You think you're so right that you've closed your ears to what everyone else is saying.
[and what's wrong with being a dishwasher? I assume you're one of those people who think power's got to do everything with happiness.]

Mutatis-Mutandis

09-17-2011, 11:39 PM

Actually I've achieved a lot in my life. It's not about productiveness... after a while you get used to it all and then you want to achieve bigger and bigger things. One day you realize that everything is just so pointless...
So, you're a nihilist.

Whatever makes you feel better
Why would it make me feel better to feel sorry for you? What's that supposed to mean?

Life is what you make of it. I, too, am a realist, but that doesn't mean I can't find enjoyment every once in a while. If you can't, it's your problem. Do something about it, aside from moaning and being condescending to those who don't share your world view.

Actually, there is something else that goes along with the sympathy I feel for eternal pessimists, and that's anger. I have friends like you, always complaining about how unfair the world is. Get over it. You may not have a lot, but you surely have a lot more than many. Your ability to moan and act like a petulant child is proof enough that you do.

I also like how you seem to be justifying your pessimism by trying to show how happy people are somehow deluded. Not only do you want to be miserable, you want to drag others down with you.

author1500less

09-17-2011, 11:57 PM

Actually I've achieved a lot in my life. I've been the best in almost everything I did. You might be 'older' than I am but you're where I used to be 4 years ago. It's not about productiveness really... after a while you get used to it all and then you want to achieve bigger and bigger things. One day when you've made enough achievements you'd realize that everything is just so pointless...

and about your last post:
I appreciate your time and effort. I don't think you're any different from the people you're insulting... You think you're so right that you've closed your ears to what everyone else is saying.
[and what's wrong with being a dishwasher? I assume you're one of those people who think power's got to do everything with happiness.]

I share similar thoughts but have some different conclusions.

Pursuing goals and chasing after achievements can help people from falling into the cracks of social deviancy. Sure it might be shallow, but it is better than committing a crime, accidental pregnancy or being a victim in a situation you shouldn't have been in.

Most of the planet is poor. Most of the planet is poorly educated. Individually we all make the decision, "How will my life be remembered?" Someone might be the "dishwasher" that made money for their children to chase silly dreams. Others might be the family businessman that helped his child be the only one to experience owning an exotic car. Or the adult who doesn't want his children to experience not growing up with a single parent.

The point I am building up is that people have tough experiences and they don't want certain people wife/child/friend to go through those things. And lots of people have made mistakes and suffered hardship. The whole life is pointless attitude doesn't improve the situation. Life is full of tragedy and few people know how to work their way out of it. At best a person's know how to prevent a specific tragedy from happening to someone else.

MystyrMystyry

09-18-2011, 12:07 AM

Everyone knows that its pointless. But that alone doesn't give you a reason to stop enjoying what you enjoy.

Other things that everyone knows is that eventually they're going to die. You know you're going to, I know I'm going to - preferably a long way away and when I'm not around - but the fact is that all you touch, see, think, feel, etc etc is all it will ever be.

The actual sense perception of humans is quite narrow - only as far as our finger tips, and as bright as we are to the light, and as loud as we can hear. And thus we extend our range by sharing stories with others who have seen and done more and different. Not the stories of those who have done less and nothing - where's the interest value in that?

For every druggy and alcoholic, there are a hundred people brighter, louder and more fascinating - real people who inspire you to generate and use your own energy. If you want miserable people they're in every bar in the world, some hide away in their own nests, some get deservedly arrested - but there isn't a fun one amongst them, not really. There may be famous ones like Lindsay and the now defunct Amy, but they're not fun intriguing people - just noongs in the spotlight, whom if they used their noggins could have by now achieved twenty great movies and twenty great albums instead of no great movies and only one great album.

The effects of these drugs are, to put it bluntly, the same as braining yourself. It'd be far cheaper and more interesting to approach Mike Tyson and start calling him names. You'd achieve the same result but at least you could say you'd been biffed by the best - and with the scars to prove it!

But most choose to biff themselves the slow, boring and expensive way. Why? Is life honestly that bad? No - in a word - they're dickheads.

There I've said it. Lindsay Lohan is a dickhead. Amy Winehouse was a dickhead.

Are you surprised at this news?

OrphanPip

09-18-2011, 12:11 AM

Mutatis-Mutandis

09-18-2011, 12:18 AM

I'm afraid I resent the attitudes presented here treating people who have drug addictions like they are living less valuable lives. They have families, values, emotions, and experiences just like any other human being.
I agree. Drug addicts may not be deserving of the Nobel Prize, but they're still people. I know plenty of fun, fascinating people who do recreational drugs and drink, also, so it kind of ruins your broad generalization, MM. I know of plenty of people who don't do drugs who are complete losers and/or dickheads.

MystyrMystyry

09-18-2011, 12:19 AM

You posted before you read my post, didn't you Pip?

Actually it was the lowest of the low I was referring to MM. I've met them, and wasted my time with them.

I've also shared doobies and Scotches with lawyers, politicians, medical students, and many others, and had a ball at the time. Recreational use isn't the same as junkie use.

Mutatis-Mutandis

09-18-2011, 12:39 AM

Vonny

09-18-2011, 01:56 AM

It seems drug addicts must always become the focus, and everyone has to get accountable in terms of empathy and support for them. There's no drug addicts or alcoholics here, so why talk about them? I find them boring.

It almost seems like someone with a rather debilitating disability, and someone whose had cancer several times, who is happy and not an addict - is less valuable than a drug addict.

I too struggle. In the last few months I've had terrible insomnia, and so I have moments of discouragement. But I never really have depression. I see a kind of magic in life.

Last February I caught a bug and was very sick for a while. I don't remember when before I was so sick and miserable. But in the middle of all of that, I remember having the realization of magic in life. I remember thinking how strange it was that I could have the two experiences going on at the same time - feeling miserable and feeling a sense of magic. But that's often how it is for me... And then when I got well again, it was so wonderful just not to be sick.

I think one of the problems with people today, is that they're spoiled - they have so much that they can't appreciate anything.

It is the simplest things in life that make for happiness, and those things people today are entirely incapable of appreciating or even noticing.

MarkBastable

09-18-2011, 03:10 AM

My premise must bother you, that you have to try to distort it instead of engaging it. If you have an original idea that you want to express - then do so. Instead of trying to misrepresent what I said by adding your own colorful language to it

So, if I ridicule it, I must agree with it? How would I act then, if I wanted to ridicule it because I disagreed with it?

And I don't think I misrepresented it at all. I simply rendered this...

What you and others like you fail to realize is that just because you have the ability to see the bright side and are able to ignore the stark realities of suffering in this world, everyone is not built that way. And reading "tops tips" will not cause someone with deep conscience to be able to ignore the darkness in this world. .

...like this...

There you are with your conscience, and if people happier than you had such a conscience they'd be less able to ignore the darkness, and so they'd be less happy. Those happy, conscienceless nitwits.

...which I think is a pretty fair - if slightly sarky - rendition of your proposition, to be honest.

If you and others in this thread want to mistake being a realist with being some kind of sulking curmudgeon, then feel free.

Gee, thanks. But I'm not suggesting that realists are sulking curmudgeons. I'm suggesting that you're not a realist.

sh_einstein

09-18-2011, 03:15 AM

MarkBastable

09-18-2011, 03:35 AM

I think one of the problems with people today, is that they're spoiled - they have so much that they can't appreciate anything.[

It is the simplest things in life that make for happiness, and those things people today are entirely incapable of appreciating or even noticing.

As soon as I see the words 'people today', I have to ask for some kind of evidence that whatever it is that 'people today' are doing or feeling* was done or felt differently by 'people yesterday'.

Also, how much longer ago are we talking? Literally yesterday? When the speaker was a child? Before the Industrial Revolution? And how do we measure the difference between 'people today' and other people? And even if we can come up with both a timeframe of comparison and a scale by which to measure change, how do we assess whether the difference is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing?

Actually, we don't have to the last bit, because the premise of any sentence that involves 'people today' is that whatever they are doing is a Worse Thing than what people yesterday did.

But if we look at the proposition again...

I think one of the problems with people today, is that they're spoiled - they have so much that they can't appreciate anything.[

It is the simplest things in life that make for happiness, and those things people today are entirely incapable of appreciating or even noticing

...it can't be entirely true, because if it were true of the poster, she wouldn't know it was. So she, at least, is not spoiled, and is not entirely incapable of appreciating and noticing that the simplest things make for happiness.

And if it's not true of Vonny, maybe it's not true of a lot of other 'people today' either.

So the last question we need to ask is, who do we mean by 'people today'.

* ...or, as is usually the case when that phrase is used, not doing or not feeling

Vonny

09-18-2011, 04:01 AM

As soon as I see the words 'people today', I have to ask for some kind of evidence that whatever it is that 'people today' are doing or feeling* was done or felt differently by 'people yesterday'.

Also, how much longer ago are we talking? Literally yesterday? Last year? When the speaker was a child? Before the Industrial Revolution? And how do we measure the difference between 'people today' and other people? And even if we can come up with both a timeframe of comparison and a scale by which to measure change, how do we assess whether the difference is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing?

Actually, we don't have to the last bit, because the premise of any sentence that involves 'people today' is that whatever they are doing is a Worse Thing than what people yesterday did.

But if we look at the proposition again...

...it can't be entirely true, because if it were true of the poster, she wouldn't know it was. So she, at least, is not spoiled, and is not entirely incapable of appreciating and noticing that the simplest things make for happiness.

And if it's not true of Vonny, maybe it's not true of a lot of other 'people today' either.

So the last question we need to ask is, who do we mean by 'people today'.

* ...or, as is usually the case when that phrase is used, not doing or not feeling

Okay, maybe I said this wrong. The problem with some people now, and it was no doubt the problem with some people long ago, is that they are spoiled and incapable of appreciating the things that make for happiness. Obviously, there are many people today on this forum who don't have this problem of being unable to appreciate.

What I'm actually thinking about when I compare people today with past people, is the people of about the 1860s - 1880s, the American pioneers. I've studied them a lot, and so they are, unconsciously, sort of the basis of a lot of my thinking. There's a series of children's books that I read a lot, and you English have never heard of them, I'm sure, but if you had ever read the Little House books by Laura Ingalls Wilder, you'd understand what I'm talking about. And I learned from studying her, that her life was much more spartan and difficult, and included even more loss, than the children's books depicted, yet she was very happy.

But believe me, there's tons of evidence that the pioneers were happy with much less than people have today. (Generally speaking, although there are characters in Laura's books who were spoiled and unappreciative, so those have always been around.)

MarkBastable

09-18-2011, 04:47 AM

What I'm actually thinking about when I compare people today with past people, is the people of about the 1860s - 1880s, the American pioneers. I've studied them a lot, and so they are, unconsciously, sort of the basis of a lot of my thinking. There's a series of children's books that I read a lot, and you English have never heard of them, I'm sure, but if you had ever read the Little House books by Laura Ingalls Wilder, you'd understand what I'm talking about. And I learned from studying her, that her life was much more spartan and difficult, and included even more loss, than the children's books depicted, yet she was very happy.

But believe me, there's tons of evidence that the pioneers were happy with much less than people have today. (Generally speaking, although there are characters in Laura's books who were spoiled and unappreciative, so those have always been around.)

As you say, there are spoiled and unappreciative people in the fiction - and the little girl whose parents run the store represents that (at least she does in the TV version).

So all this tells us is that however much or little stimulus there is - in terms of possessions, environment and so on - the available range of human response, from happiness to misery, is pretty constant. So the 'people today' thing doesn't really apply. It's nothing to do with 'today'.

JuniperWoolf

09-18-2011, 05:46 AM

Why does life have to be so complicated? I keep thinking that's everything's going to get better someday but that day just doesn't seem to be coming. I haven't seen a happy person for such a long time, and don't get me wrong I'm not just talking about my own life. I mean life in general. Isn't this whole thing a big, pathetic joke?

Happiness is just an emotion, but it's often talked about as though it were something tangible that everyoneone must aquire or else their lives would have been in vain. Oh, and it's our responsabilty to be happy you know, it's up to us to look on the bright side EVERY SECOND OF THE DAY. Smell the roses! Dance in the sunshine! Blah blah blah. It's too stressful, trying to be happy all the bloody time.

Happiness comes, it goes, it's an emotion just like fear or anger and they're all equally important and a part of life. Some people experience "happiness" more frequently than others and reach a general level of serentiy (or whatever), but I still don't think that serentiy is that important because it's boring. No one wants to read a book about someone who's "serene," without any heart-thumping challenges to overcome.

I've been thinking about what to aim for in life if not an intangible emotion, and I've decided that it would be a good idea to aim for a wide range of experiences. While having those experiences I feel happiness, as well as the rest of the emotional spectrum, occasionally but never permanently because emotions are like water.

Dodo25

09-18-2011, 06:12 AM

Complaining all the time is of no use, and feeling sad is of no use either, the problem being that it's hard for some people to avoid it. People differ, some are prone to depression, others prone to happiness.

Some of the 'be more happy' comments here seem to preach escapism and 'look away', I don't think that's necessarily a good strategy either.

The way I cope is by accepting that this world is the product of evolution, a blind, indifferent process that created a lot of suffering. Then, I figure out how to make the best of it.

Cunninglinguist

09-18-2011, 06:13 AM

Actually I've achieved a lot in my life. I've been the best in almost everything I did. You might be 'older' than I am but you're where I used to be 4 years ago. It's not about productiveness really... after a while you get used to it all and then you want to achieve bigger and bigger things. One day when you've made enough achievements you'd realize that everything is just so pointless...

You sound lonely.

For the psychologically normal characters out there: the essence of suffering is not censure or poverty, infamy or ingloriousness, it is neither deepest humiliation nor greatest failure. In short, it is rejection from those around you. And the essence of happiness is not flattery or wealth, fame or glory, or highest success, or some attitude which we consciously select. It is friendship. I am reminded of Shakespeare's Sonnet 66:

Tired with all these, for restful death I cry,
As, to behold desert a beggar born,
And needy nothing trimm'd in jollity,
And purest faith unhappily forsworn,
And guilded honour shamefully misplaced,
And maiden virtue rudely strumpeted,
And right perfection wrongfully disgraced,
And strength by limping sway disabled,
And art made tongue-tied by authority,
And folly doctor-like controlling skill,
And simple truth miscall'd simplicity,
And captive good attending captain ill:
Tired with all these, from these would I be gone,
Save that, to die, I leave my love alone.

If you are indeed lonely, and if you want to be happy, you need to find comfort sharing yourself with people.

JuniperWoolf

09-18-2011, 06:50 AM

Complaining all the time is of no use, and feeling sad is of no use either.

Actually it isn't useless to be sad. Some of the greatest works of art and scientific breakthroughs in history have been accomplished only after a period of great suffering. Suffering also builds character. Ever met someone who has had a lifetime of nothing but candy and joy? Dull as dishwater.

Vonny

09-18-2011, 02:31 PM

As you say, there are spoiled and unappreciative people in the fiction - and the little girl whose parents run the store represents that (at least she does in the TV version).

So all this tells us is that however much or little stimulus there is - in terms of possessions, environment and so on - the available range of human response, from happiness to misery, is pretty constant. So the 'people today' thing doesn't really apply. It's nothing to do with 'today'.

Oh you've seen that TV show. That show, so I've heard, bears no resemblance to the books. Whoever made the show should have been sued. Some of the characters and places have the same names - that is the only consistency between the two. (Well, I think Mary went blind in the show, but still it was all such a distortion.) If they had made the books into a show, no one would watch, because it would have been sooo boring! The books have a substance that could not be translated into a show. There is so much suffering in the books, yet there is such appreciation for the little things.

There are many differences in people today and people then. Back in those days people got diphtheria and there was no treatment. Shortly after Laura married, she and her husband both got diphtheria. Almanzo insisted on getting up to work before he was completely recovered and he had a stroke! For the rest of his life he dragged one of his feet. Laura made the comment that you never appreciate two good feet until you've lost them.

Back in those days, people regularly buried their children. That gave them a different mindset. Illness and death were always imminent. Women accepted that they would really suffer in childbirth, and they knew that they could die in childbirth. These realities affected people's thinking and their priorities. And yes, women have always loved clothes and things like that, but women took a lot of pride in making their own dresses and they shared their skills with one another.

If you read the Little House books and journals of the pioneer women who came West, you are absolutely stunned by the difference in people then and today. But one difference - which I don't know if it is good or bad - is that the pioneers believed wholeheartedly in the bible, and this gave them more of an acceptance of their hardships and provided some peace.

Laura realized that South Dakota where she had spent her teenage years was a miserable place and that much of her life wasn't good there, yet she never said: "Life Sucks." It spurred her to get a better life in Missouri, which still involved some very hard work and discomfort, but she appreciated everything she had as an adult.

Cunninglinguist I like your post. I've had trouble interpreting the Sonnets, but I get that.

Mutatis-Mutandis

09-18-2011, 03:49 PM

It almost seems like someone with a rather debilitating disability, and someone whose had cancer several times, who is happy and not an addict - is less valuable than a drug addict.
What the **** is that supposed to mean?

cl154576

09-18-2011, 04:02 PM

"Remember to appreciate each and every little thing, because there are always people with less than you" ... That type of moralizing makes me sick.

Materially, yes. But emotional fulfillment is subjective. No one likes hearing someone whine about their unhappiness constantly, but it's equally obnoxious to tell someone else they should be happy.

This conversation brings Maslow's hierarchy into mind.

Another thing that bothers me – I am not sure how to express it but it seems to me that people are always suggesting that other people need to live. For example: "I'm starting to feel depressed again and it scares me" or "My life feels meaningless. I wish I were dead sometimes and it really frightens me. What should I do?"

People label depression or suicidal ideation as something inherently wrong that must be gotten rid of. What's wrong with it? Notice it and accept it. If you want it to pass, then you ultimately want to live and it's possible to create a more meaningful life if you work at it. If you really wish you were dead do whatever you wish. No one forces you to live. The fear is pointless.

Revolte

09-18-2011, 04:05 PM

Life can be hard yes, partially due to ours being an overpopulated species generally all living under the consent of our owners rather then ourselves (some exceptions do apply, with risk). I struggle with extreme states, I can get incredibly down. BUT the truth is it's a beautiful planet and under all the concrete and fake grass there is something to be said about the magic this place offers.

MarkBastable

09-18-2011, 04:09 PM

There are many differences in people today and people then. Back in those days people got diphtheria and there was no treatment. Shortly after Laura married, she and her husband both got diphtheria. Almanzo insisted on getting up to work before he was completely recovered and he had a stroke! For the rest of his life he dragged one of his feet. Laura made the comment that you never appreciate two good feet until you've lost them.

This is fiction. It might tell you something about how life works, at a sort of attitudinal level - but it's not circumstantially true. So I wouldn't get too interested in Almanzo's fortitude, if I were you.

Back in those days, people regularly buried their children. That gave them a different mindset. Illness and death were always imminent. Women accepted that they would really suffer in childbirth, and they knew that they could die in childbirth. These realities affected people's thinking and their priorities.

If you read the Little House books and journals of the pioneer women who came West, you are absolutely stunned by the difference in people then and today. But one difference - which I don't know if it is good or bad - is that the pioneers believed wholeheartedly in the bible, and this gave them more of an acceptance of their hardships and provided some peace.

Yep - that's what 'people today' lack. A book that suggests they should be happy despite high perinatal mortality rates.

Mutatis-Mutandis

09-18-2011, 04:21 PM

cl154576

09-18-2011, 04:48 PM

That's all quie easy to say, especially for a 13 year old who surely has plenty of perspective. :rolleyes5:

I know my views are distorted. But for quite a while now people have been trying to treat me for various mental disorders, self-injury, suicide attempts ... I used to go along with it because I wanted to "get better." Now I can't see how I need "fixing."

It is a completely personal opinion. I am sorry if it came out rather aggressive. But no, it wasn't easy to say ...

Mutatis-Mutandis

09-18-2011, 04:58 PM

Well, maybe you've got more perspective than I assumed.

Vonny

09-18-2011, 05:05 PM

What the **** is that supposed to mean?

What I meant is that I've been interested in your "story" for quite a while. You mentioned a long time ago that you could go blind and then you will listen to audio books. You wrote about your skin cancer on a blog, you've mentioned your cough that prevents you from using the "chill" solution. In spite of this you go to school, have avoided addiction, and find happiness. I don't ask questions that may seem personal. But I like survivor stories. How you do this is interesting. But your complete thoughts on this never get explored. Then it seems the focus of threads always becomes "let's make sure we understand and defend drug abusers." Personally, the idea of blindness is very frightening, so I admire your courage in that. I'm always trying to figure out how people who have courage have found it. I'm not interested in people who drown their sorrows in drugs and alcohol. I don't have anything against these people - but they bore me. But as I said, you may not be comfortable discussing something so personal, so I don't ask questions. I haven't read your entire blog. I'll do that - maybe it's in your blog.

This is fiction. It might tell you something about how life works, at a sort of attitudinal level - but it's not circumstantially true. So I wouldn't get too interested in Almanzo's fortitude, if I were you.

This isn't fiction. This wasn't written in the children's books. Laura wrote for a newspaper for many years before she wrote her books, and this was in her newspaper column. I have an entire book full of Laura's newspaper writings, and this is how she thought.

Yep - that's what 'people today' lack. A book that suggests they should be happy despite high perinatal mortality rates.

Laura was Christian, but she wasn't obsessed with it. She wasn't psycho with it. As I said, I'm not sure if faith or a literal interpretation of the bible is the answer anymore.

But Laura buried her only son as an infant. This occurred around the time that she and Almanzo had diphtheria, and then her home caught fire and burned. And she went on to have a happy life. Burying babies is real life. That's how it was for thousands of years. Why shouldn't people be able to find "happiness" anyway? (I know happiness is a weird fleeting experience, but I don't know of a correct word.)

In saying this, I know there is suffering and pain, and some depression in every life, and I don't wish to invalidate those experiences.

MystyrMystyry

09-18-2011, 05:24 PM

Actually it isn't useless to be sad. Some of the greatest works of art and scientific breakthroughs in history have been accomplished only after a period of great suffering. Suffering also builds character. Ever met someone who has had a lifetime of nothing but candy and joy? Dull as dishwater.

Indeed, if not most - there's a distinct link between depression and creativity (and other forms of nuttiness, but that's for a different thread).

Content and complacent people bother me for some reason, they always have, and probably aways shall. It could have something to do with knowing they're not searching/questing for anything more.

I think those books you refer to, when done well at least, aim to teach about triumph over adversity, and an exceptional one should actually change the reader in a profound way - To Kill A Mockingbird for example - when I read that: BANG!

There's a lot to be said for no longer suffering after a period of suffering, and my childhood had distinct periods of the worst, though (fortunately) not the very worst, and my early teenage years were more about survival than sacrifice.

Those early experiences shape us, and continue with us for the rest of our journey. That so many suffer in different ways, well we should wear it as a badge of honour and courage - kids who have blissful childhoods and then choose to be lifelong turds should face the firing squad, no blindfold, no final words, no last cigarette...

MarkBastable

09-18-2011, 05:33 PM

In saying this, I know there is suffering and pain, and some depression in every life, and I don't wish to invalidate those experiences.

And neither do I.

What I'm saying is that happiness is a contextual thing. It's experienced in terms of the circumstances of the individual. So it's impossible - by definition - to compare the why of happiness. You can only say whether or not, given a sort of top rank of happiness, people are happy.

People who are happy in privileged circumstances are not more or less happy than people who are happy in unfortunate circumstances. Think of it like lust. Victorian men who were turned on by the glimpse of an ankle were not less or more turned on than your contemporaries are turned on by the glimpse of panties. The reactions are roughly estimable on a practical constant scale. But the stimuli change.

To use a fictional example, when Bob Cratchit's family are happy, they are as happy as humans can be. And when they are unhappy, they are no more unhappy than anyone can be. They can only be as happy or as unhappy as Gatsby or Quixote or the shallow horsefaced chick in Sex and the City.

It's a mistake to think that the circumstances of unhappiness are an indicator of the experience of unhappiness. Unhappiness and happiness are, in any individual's experience of them, absolute, whether or not anyone else believes that their reasons for feeling that way are credible, supportable, excusable or historically valid.

Paulclem

09-18-2011, 07:31 PM

Actually it isn't useless to be sad. Some of the greatest works of art and scientific breakthroughs in history have been accomplished only after a period of great suffering. Suffering also builds character.

This is true. Without challenges and pain, we don't realise what it is to be happy and contented. None of it needs to be manufactured though - life will freely give them to you.

The extremes are unfortunate - people who can't lift themselves from poverty and suffering for whatever reason suffer the most. Those for whom nothing is a challenge - who live a life of luxury - can't really appreciate anything but the very best. Just imagine being a food critic given the best food regularly, but having to come down to the mediocre most of us are happy with most of the time. They must experience a constant feeling of disappointment.

keilj

09-18-2011, 08:34 PM

on the other hand, if listening to music is a form of escapism - then I'm an escapist brother!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-KAvPbO8JY

jajdude

09-19-2011, 01:28 AM

I find it strange when someone calls himself a realist. What does it mean? Does anyone have a solid grasp of what is real? I don't even know what that question means.

Paulclem

09-19-2011, 01:36 AM

on the other hand, if listening to music is a form of escapism - then I'm an escapist brother!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-KAvPbO8JY

Me too - and books films etc.

Vonny

09-19-2011, 04:41 AM

Another escapist here! :) That's the source of my magic in life! I can be sick with something horrible, but I'm a million miles away.

And neither do I.

What I'm saying is that happiness is a contextual thing. It's experienced in terms of the circumstances of the individual. So it's impossible - by definition - to compare the why of happiness. You can only say whether or not, given a sort of top rank of happiness, people are happy.

People who are happy in privileged circumstances are not more or less happy than people who are happy in unfortunate circumstances. Think of it like lust. Victorian men who were turned on by the glimpse of an ankle were not less or more turned on than your contemporaries are turned on by the glimpse of panties. The reactions are roughly estimable on a practical constant scale. But the stimuli change.

To use a fictional example, when Bob Cratchit's family are happy, they are as happy as humans can be. And when they are unhappy, they are no more unhappy than anyone can be. They can only be as happy or as unhappy as Gatsby or Quixote or the shallow horsefaced chick in Sex and the City.

It's a mistake to think that the circumstances of unhappiness are an indicator of the experience of unhappiness. Unhappiness and happiness are, in any individual's experience of them, absolute, whether or not anyone else believes that their reasons for feeling that way are credible, supportable, excusable or historically valid.

I gave this a lot of consideration today. Some people feel a sense of comfort from diamonds, and no doubt a sense of dis-ease without them. (Actually, I do have some diamond earrings that I wear, but they only give me comfort when I remember that I could sell them.) I have the feelings of comfort about things like a safe home, privacy, and quiet. Some people desire to travel and are miserable if they can't. I'm miserable away from home. The stimuli changes but the feelings are the same. And then there's people who need XXXXporn to get turned on, or they need pain. Some of these things I don't understand, so I just have to realize that I can't quite understand, but it's okay... just differences in people.

I've not been too well lately. To me, health (and sleep!) really is one of the most valuable things in the world. There are things in my life I'd change if I could. But the basic things I need to be comfortable and happy, I have right now. It's suddenly nice to remember this.

Hmm, cars were what made my dad happy, not his family, but that's fine.

Cunninglinguist

09-19-2011, 05:40 AM

Cunninglinguist I like your post. I've had trouble interpreting the Sonnets, but I get that.

Thank you. I particularly like that sonnet – it’s “simple truth” and reflects an idea that (most) human strengths are essentially rooted in love and the hope of love. As Hugo said, “[We] have love. That’s the only future God gives us.”

People label depression or suicidal ideation as something inherently wrong that must be gotten rid of. What's wrong with it? Notice it and accept it. If you want it to pass, then you ultimately want to live and it's possible to create a more meaningful life if you work at it. If you really wish you were dead do whatever you wish. No one forces you to live. The fear is pointless.

I don’t think it’s quite that simple. As you yourself demonstrate, the suicidal (and the depressed) has a fundamentally divided psychology. On the one hand, there is that desire to die. Yet, on the other, there is usually evidence for some want to “get better.” But the impediments for most of these people (especially for the neuropsychologically abnormal), their doctors, and their friends and family involve not quite knowing how to “create a more meaningful [and generally better] life” for the person. In short, the suicidal has tried and failed; they’ve been so discouraged that their hopes and prospects are dispossessed; and when all bygones are bygones they then will turn towards destruction, or drugs, or they will go on to realize suicide.

Perhaps in the end the moral status of suicide won’t come down to a categorical question, but rather one of methods under various conditions. For the suicidal and the doctor both agree that suffering is wrong; then in what they differ becomes their method of rectification. The former’s is well known to us, the latter’s varies in types and degrees from doctor to doctor. For which method(s) is/are best, a forum is not the place to discuss beyond the most general of rules; the particulars vary on a case to case basis, and help invariably wants a good degree of expertise, a diligent appreciation for circumstances, and a thorough assessment of the situation.

Indeed, if not most - there's a distinct link between depression and creativity (and other forms of nuttiness, but that's for a different thread).

Statistically, the correlation between depression and creativity is the opposite of what you’ve asserted, unless you mean depression as an umbrella term for mental illness. But insofar as moods go, creativity is often associated with a positive (frequently hypomanic opposed to a depressed) one. The wikipedia article gives a succinct overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity_and_mental_illness

What I'm saying is that happiness is a contextual thing. It's experienced in terms of the circumstances of the individual. So it's impossible - by definition - to compare the why of happiness. You can only say whether or not, given a sort of top rank of happiness, people are happy.

I believe there are certainly 'whys' and 'hows' behind happiness -- it's not a random phenomenon. Countries with higher suicide rates (these tend to be, coincidentally, the ones with the most money) usually have a decided cultural emphasis on individualism and individuality, and a deemphasis on family values. And here I insert my argument: that the reason this correlation exists is because happiness ultimately depends on a genuine sense of social belonging. In that respect and on that basis I think we certainly can and probably should compare degrees of happiness. So what, perhaps, made these people Vonny is telling us about "happier" (not that I know much about them) was not necessarily their material condition, but their social one.

I will also add, as a side note, that I would argue material conditions only add to happiness because they have some sort of 'sociopersonal' significance to an individual.

cl154576

09-19-2011, 01:45 PM

I don’t think it’s quite that simple. As you yourself demonstrate, the suicidal (and the depressed) has a fundamentally divided psychology. On the one hand, there is that desire to die. Yet, on the other, there is usually evidence for some want to “get better.” But the impediments for most of these people (especially for the neuropsychologically abnormal), their doctors, and their friends and family involve not quite knowing how to “create a more meaningful [and generally better] life” for the person. In short, the suicidal has tried and failed; they’ve been so discouraged that their hopes and prospects are dispossessed; and when all bygones are bygones they then will turn towards destruction, or drugs, or they will go on to realize suicide.

Perhaps in the end the moral status of suicide won’t come down to a categorical question, but rather one of methods under various conditions. For the suicidal and the doctor both agree that suffering is wrong; then in what they differ becomes their method of rectification. The former’s is well known to us, the latter’s varies in types and degrees from doctor to doctor. For which method(s) is/are best, a forum is not the place to discuss beyond the most general of rules; the particulars vary on a case to case basis, and help invariably wants a good degree of expertise, a diligent appreciation for circumstances, and a thorough assessment of the situation.

To me, there are two types of "suicidal" people – people who don't want to live their current life, and people who don't want to live at all. If the former attempt suicide it is because they despair of finding a better life, but they do want to live, very much, if only they can find this "better life."

Statistically, the correlation between depression and creativity is the opposite of what you’ve asserted, unless you mean depression as an umbrella term for mental illness. But insofar as moods go, creativity is often associated with a positive (frequently hypomanic opposed to a depressed) one. The wikipedia article gives a succinct overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity_and_mental_illness

Depression on its own is draining, not creative. But I would not use the term hypomania either; hypomania is debatable and there are some who believe it is not a sign of mental illness.
Sometimes people with mental illnesses are better able to portray suffering, in literature, music, art, etc. When I read biographies I am convinced that, by modern standards, a good deal of the great writers and composers of the past would have been diagnosed with personality disorders.

I believe there are certainly 'whys' and 'hows' behind happiness -- it's not a random phenomenon. Countries with higher suicide rates (these tend to be, coincidentally, the ones with the most money) usually have a decided cultural emphasis on individualism and individuality, and a deemphasis on family values. And here I insert my argument: that the reason this correlation exists is because happiness ultimately depends on a genuine sense of social belonging. In that respect and on that basis I think we certainly can and probably should compare degrees of happiness. So what, perhaps, made these people Vonny is telling us about "happier" (not that I know much about them) was not necessarily their material condition, but their social one.

I will also add, as a side note, that I would argue material conditions only add to happiness because they have some sort of 'sociopersonal' significance to an individual.

Again, I think this relates to Maslow's hierarchy – I know it is controversial but on some points it is accurate.

OrphanPip

09-19-2011, 03:35 PM

I believe there are certainly 'whys' and 'hows' behind happiness -- it's not a random phenomenon. Countries with higher suicide rates (these tend to be, coincidentally, the ones with the most money) usually have a decided cultural emphasis on individualism and individuality, and a deemphasis on family values. And here I insert my argument: that the reason this correlation exists is because happiness ultimately depends on a genuine sense of social belonging. In that respect and on that basis I think we certainly can and probably should compare degrees of happiness. So what, perhaps, made these people Vonny is telling us about "happier" (not that I know much about them) was not necessarily their material condition, but their social one.

I will also add, as a side note, that I would argue material conditions only add to happiness because they have some sort of 'sociopersonal' significance to an individual.

The statistics are misleading though. Who exactly is recording suicide rates in rural Nigeria? Moreover, the group with the highest suicide rates by age in the West is actually the elderly, usually because of illness. Also, if we break down the suicide rates within Western societies, we find that the extremely poor have the highest suicide rate.

No one would dispute social belonging is an important part of someone being happy, but it is arguable whether people in poorer countries actually feel more like they belong. If we move away from individuality, certain people inevitably have to be left behind. Those who can not conform, such as sexual, racial, or religious minorities. The individualism of the West gives us greater opportunities, the ability to form our own tolerated subcultures where we can belong outside of the larger social order.

And what is the de-emphasis on family values that exists in the West? What exactly constitutes family values? In some countries that is women being in the home and acting as property, in some cultures selling your daughter for a cow is perfectly in line with family values. Where is the break down of family values in the West? Are we referring to divorce rates? Because I don't think people being trapped in unhappy marriages makes them very happy, spouse abuse is as endemic in developing countries as it is in the West. Some right leaning people would consider gay marriage as a break down of family values, despite this actually promoting more social connections.

Mutatis-Mutandis

09-19-2011, 03:37 PM

What I meant is that I've been interested in your "story" for quite a while. You mentioned a long time ago that you could go blind and then you will listen to audio books. You wrote about your skin cancer on a blog, you've mentioned your cough that prevents you from using the "chill" solution. In spite of this you go to school, have avoided addiction, and find happiness. I don't ask questions that may seem personal. But I like survivor stories. How you do this is interesting. But your complete thoughts on this never get explored. Then it seems the focus of threads always becomes "let's make sure we understand and defend drug abusers." Personally, the idea of blindness is very frightening, so I admire your courage in that. I'm always trying to figure out how people who have courage have found it. I'm not interested in people who drown their sorrows in drugs and alcohol. I don't have anything against these people - but they bore me. But as I said, you may not be comfortable discussing something so personal, so I don't ask questions. I haven't read your entire blog. I'll do that - maybe it's in your blog.
Maybe I mistook you comment as my life being less valuable than a drug addict as a slight when you wrote it, so my apologies if that's the case.

Just to clear up a couple misconceptions, though: I am in no more danger of becoming blind than anyone else. The audiobook comment was made, I believe, in one of those hypothetical "would you rather be blind or deaf" conversations. Also, I don't have a cough that prevents me from smoking--it's the cough smoking would cause that's the problem.

I don't care if people ask questions, personal or otherwise. If I think it's too personal, I say so and take no offense from it at all. I haven't checked my blog in quite some time, so if you ask questions there, I may not see them. Feel free to ask whenever, or even PM me, if you'd like.

MarkBastable

09-19-2011, 04:36 PM

I believe there are certainly 'whys' and 'hows' behind happiness -- it's not a random phenomenon.

I didn't say you couldn't identify the whys. I said that you couldn't compare them.

So, for instance, one can't say that living in a little house on the prairie makes people happier than winning the Pulitzer Prize or going to a really good restaurant on Madison or joining a mendicant order. If each of those prompts the people in question to declare that they are as happy as they can possibly be, then they are - and there's no point suggesting that they'd be happier if they gave the ol' pioneer lifestyle a shot.

Dodo25

09-20-2011, 03:06 AM

I find it strange when someone calls himself a realist. What does it mean? Does anyone have a solid grasp of what is real? I don't even know what that question means.

Maybe the following essay helps to resolve your confusion: http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth

Edit: Or should I rather say 'delusion'? If you really don't know what reality is, you might want to see a couseller or something of that sort. (Or were you being sarcastic?)

YW1990

10-25-2011, 06:54 AM

The truism " Life is what you make of it " is worth thinking about.
I've come to realise that life has nothing inherent about it. All these ' inherent' things that we attach to situations or events are a social and cultural construct.
A person may live a life that isn't filled with friends, social events, or hobbies and still be perfectly content and happy. There is nothing inherently sad about this kind of life. But because society reiterates to us that a happy life is filled with these kinds of things, we have come to accept this without question. The fact that these sorts of things do bring us happiness should make us question whether the happiness comes from something intrinsic within us or whether society has convinced us that they are intrinsic.

You saying ' Life sucks ' then, doesn't actually mean your life is intrinsically sucking. If you can somehow detach yourself from your life and see it from an outsiders perspective you might be surprised. But then again, i should swallow my own words because i would find this really hard to do. And even if i could do it, i'm not sure i'd find it any easier to live my life if i was having trouble accepting it :-S