Life Sucks

[JuniperWoolf]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

"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.

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

[cl154576]

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

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]

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

[Vonny]

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]

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]

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.