Life Sucks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

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 ...

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vonny

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keilj

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vonny

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.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cl154576

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MystyrMystyry

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/Creativ...mental_illness

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist

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/Creativ...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vonny

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jajdude

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?)

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

oh my gosh! Be happy! You're alive! You have technology and education! You are a wonderful human being! Don't get down on yourself! Life is NOT all suffering. There is a ton of joy and happiness in life. You just need to know where to find it. Go watch It's A Wonderful Life to make yourself feel better if you need to!