Happiness and Will
Here, we must avoid not only a sociological inductive perspective but we must even go past what would be referred to as the standard psychological perspective. This is a topic of Being. Being is my opinion the most important (if not only important) study in literally existence (except, perhaps, physics, but physics is bigger than existence anyways and that is an incredible story unto itself). We define ourselves in according to human terms, which makes sense. When humans reacted to this, science started to get more of a foundation, and it was essentially finalized in analytic philosophy. It was this that I was obsessed with when I was younger and naive because it showed determinism and chaos theory and a predictable world and proof of the concepts of perfection, the ideal, and utopia. Things are what they are - who could argue?
Science, depending of the field, while defined by analytic philosophy, still is not specifically philosophy. I'll unsurprisingly use psychology as an example. You use intuition, authoritative claims, reasons, and so forth and create hypotheses. These are in no way theories. When they are tested, you put them through the scientific method, and a slow yet objective pattern arises. If something happens accurately in subsequent experiments, yeah, you predicted it from your successful experiment-gone-theory. If it doesn't happen, you still predicted it from your theory because you showed a probability that it would not happen (thus statistics are pretty damn cool). You've proven a pattern but cannot technically prove the concept, but you can predict the probability of that concept of happening. I can say that, in my experiment, there will be a 79% of success. Well, at first it may be zero or 52 or whatever, but if I'm right and I do the experiment a literal infinite number of times, it will be successful 79% of those times. You can't do something infinitely, which is why you can never prove a coin flip (even if balanced) will have a 50/50 chance split. This is all exemplified in quantum physics (again, totally different story, but I'm just learning about physics and it is insane). If you are right that much in a row, though, you did damn good anyways.
So the scientific method is very independent. Analytic philosophy is difficult to define as it was just a collection of different movements, but they were much more objective in their results. Humans are part of their reality, that kind of stuff. When I got into existentialism, I later found out about the rival of the analytic philosophy I always used to love, the continental philosophies. Generally, continental philosophy is a body of post-Kantian stuff. I prefer the post-Hegel work of Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Sartre, existentialism, and the movements that followed. The contrast I focus on is on the relation of humanity and reality. Existentialism states it in a simple manner, there is existence and essence - and they are separate. One argues if the physical reality or world of concepts comes first, but in general it was thought that existence precedes essence in science and later on Sartre. In Eastern philosophy (especially Hinduism, which actually gives Hinduism some acceptability with cynical westerners), rather than man existing in reality, it is vice versa. We exist and the world comes from that - similar to subjectivism but without stupidity. And this will be our focus. The world must be deconstructed so we can focus on man as a Being (but not being as a Being, that's too far for what I want to say). Thus, forget everything you know about the world except reason.
And here we go. The issue of analysis is happiness. You come to exist, not as a being, but a Being, capable of theory of mind, able to understand the self. Clean slate. So there is nothing and you do nothing. Therefore, you are not sad or suffering as you are nothing. When we apply humanity to it, still maintaining simplicity, you are given something. This something from nothing gives you joy. It is taken away. You would NOT suffer for this. You would change your being back to its previous state as a form of personal development. You had it and enjoyed, you lost it but wanted to enjoy it, and because of your reasoning skills from theory of mind, you change accordingly. Evolution claims we are the most adaptable species alive. If you lose something, knowing it will no longer exist, then you will adjust yourself so it does not exist in yourself either. Buddhists can call it acceptance, Heidegger can call it death, but you can call it "Well, crying ain't going to bring momma back to life again". So we now do apply our world to it. This is where Zen stems from. So, if all this stuff will disappear or change itself, then you should not let it exist in you. That way you never lose anything. Sad indeed, but it stops you from being sad, I suppose.
But this isn't about the enlightenment part. This about growing the fuck up. You can take your inductive analytic philosophy reasoning and aim for something and if you get screwed over in the process it won't matter because your goal is still available. This is why induction is so great. It can make you immortal. Nothing actually hurts you because in the long run nothing has changed. This is the problem with the west, or, as many would say, civilization in general, or, as the huge majority of the structure of (post/late) modern Ontology would think, the industrial revolution. Whenever a philosopher complains about the industrial revolution, they are complaining about modern capitalism and vice versa. We are given a selection of different types of goals in America, and we attempt to choose one or ten or so. However, what happens is that the goal we choose becomes unobtainable. Thus, we keep trying to achieve it but it never happens.
Look at that simple Being. It was an object, and that object exists. However, there is a wall that prevents the acquisition of the object. Since the wall cannot be removed, the item should be seen as not to exist. Being can think and say that if an object does not exist then it should not exist in the self of the Being either, but Being must use critical thinking skills in order to abstractly realize that an object that exists doesn't actually exist because there is no one in the self of the Being to acquire it thus it is not usable and it may not even be conceivable anymore. To think that you should not want what you can't have as it does not exist is easy, but as humans in a Darwinist/Nietzscheian sense, we live to will and exist. Thus, if you should not want what exists but first must be freed from behind a wall and this wall cannot be passed to go onto whatever may exist past it, you should be able to think to yourself that it is pretty easy but it is still much, much more difficult because you are using your reason to fight your will which exists to serve your reason. Now, to apply it to you, picture that this paragraph describes these simple situations, but your placement in society if going at the same length would take every single book on the planet to fill out. Not so easy, right? Well, that's why the simple is good, so you can understand why the complex is as such.
The moral of the story? If Being says that the wall cannot be passed using deduction, then it is quite obvious that whatever is past that wall essentially does not exist. This is actually now that I think about it the argument for apatheism. Likewise, if you are stuck with your life situation that takes every book in the world to tell, if you are being deductive you can open to any random page and just instantly improve your life by solving the logic of one paragraph. Deduction doesn't have any true goal as induction does, but deduction is a good active tool rather than an inductive passive one. The thing is that unhappiness does not exist out of a failure to live up to what (kind of) makes us human - theory of mind. If you misunderstand yourself, something will be snagged, and you will develop while always having this unhappiness until it is unsnagged.
To not be unhappy is the most unnatural thing a human can feel. Think of anything the could make you unhappy. Your family dying? You'd be setback, maybe, but you wouldn't become any less alive (well, you do, but only because you are obsessing that you can't make it on your own, which is why controlled grieving tends to work - get it out of your system). Girlfriend left you? Get a new one. Bad day? You've had a bad day, not that you are going to keep having one - it's usually just an excuse for other things. Depressed (clinical mood)? You're failing to realize that you are failing at things (and that makes sense because you can't fail at things you never intended to do), thus the feelings of helplessness. Even any bad mood at all? Learn to fucking enjoy it. If you are fucked up on a stimulant, it only sucks because people are afraid to be in a good mood, so if you can deal with the idea of partying when you are in the mood to party, then your fine. If you choose not to do that, then don't get into a good mood, or suffer. If you can't avoid a good mood, then accept good moods or suffer. Same for bad moods. If you are on a comedown, accept it's over and relax. It doesn't sound that hard. Why do you wanna stay up? To be productive? To avoid something? If the drug isn't keeping you in a good mood long enough, then it just isn't practical to it - the illusion of using this drug in a specific drug is a fictional concept trapped behind a wall and you must accept that even if you really, really want it, it's not real. So you are coming down, take a nap. Don't have time? Shouldn't have taken the drug at the time you chose, then, dumbass. Deal with it. No one loves you? Either do the hard and guaranteed monk hood solution or the easier yet trickier go out and fucking meet someone who doesn't make you feel lonely. The fact that you feel in the bad mood as being irrational is true and everything, but it still exists and you will suffer if you fuck-up. Some stuff can be overturned such as your thinking, but moods and feelings have to be prevented. You should never even fall into them.
We are biologically designed to feel bad, but no more or less than any mammal. We are humans, we are capable of highly advanced emotional and cognitive functions, why is it hard to say that we should know better? A lot of people are insanely happier than others. Happiness can be found in weird places, and that's fine. That's the difference between the western extreme form of essential living, Nihilism, and the eastern extreme, Zaozen. If you are constantly suffering, in pain, and showing your will, how can that be bad at all if the person has no problem (cognitively or emotionally) being in that state if they hypothetically are comfortable in doing because of something like war or physical competition? As for Zen, is there any difference with being a state of non-existence? Either the active nihilist or the passive monk, they choose their fates completely consciously and they did so with pride. If you can't choose every action you perform with pride, you're failing.
Science, depending of the field, while defined by analytic philosophy, still is not specifically philosophy. I'll unsurprisingly use psychology as an example. You use intuition, authoritative claims, reasons, and so forth and create hypotheses. These are in no way theories. When they are tested, you put them through the scientific method, and a slow yet objective pattern arises. If something happens accurately in subsequent experiments, yeah, you predicted it from your successful experiment-gone-theory. If it doesn't happen, you still predicted it from your theory because you showed a probability that it would not happen (thus statistics are pretty damn cool). You've proven a pattern but cannot technically prove the concept, but you can predict the probability of that concept of happening. I can say that, in my experiment, there will be a 79% of success. Well, at first it may be zero or 52 or whatever, but if I'm right and I do the experiment a literal infinite number of times, it will be successful 79% of those times. You can't do something infinitely, which is why you can never prove a coin flip (even if balanced) will have a 50/50 chance split. This is all exemplified in quantum physics (again, totally different story, but I'm just learning about physics and it is insane). If you are right that much in a row, though, you did damn good anyways.
So the scientific method is very independent. Analytic philosophy is difficult to define as it was just a collection of different movements, but they were much more objective in their results. Humans are part of their reality, that kind of stuff. When I got into existentialism, I later found out about the rival of the analytic philosophy I always used to love, the continental philosophies. Generally, continental philosophy is a body of post-Kantian stuff. I prefer the post-Hegel work of Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Sartre, existentialism, and the movements that followed. The contrast I focus on is on the relation of humanity and reality. Existentialism states it in a simple manner, there is existence and essence - and they are separate. One argues if the physical reality or world of concepts comes first, but in general it was thought that existence precedes essence in science and later on Sartre. In Eastern philosophy (especially Hinduism, which actually gives Hinduism some acceptability with cynical westerners), rather than man existing in reality, it is vice versa. We exist and the world comes from that - similar to subjectivism but without stupidity. And this will be our focus. The world must be deconstructed so we can focus on man as a Being (but not being as a Being, that's too far for what I want to say). Thus, forget everything you know about the world except reason.
And here we go. The issue of analysis is happiness. You come to exist, not as a being, but a Being, capable of theory of mind, able to understand the self. Clean slate. So there is nothing and you do nothing. Therefore, you are not sad or suffering as you are nothing. When we apply humanity to it, still maintaining simplicity, you are given something. This something from nothing gives you joy. It is taken away. You would NOT suffer for this. You would change your being back to its previous state as a form of personal development. You had it and enjoyed, you lost it but wanted to enjoy it, and because of your reasoning skills from theory of mind, you change accordingly. Evolution claims we are the most adaptable species alive. If you lose something, knowing it will no longer exist, then you will adjust yourself so it does not exist in yourself either. Buddhists can call it acceptance, Heidegger can call it death, but you can call it "Well, crying ain't going to bring momma back to life again". So we now do apply our world to it. This is where Zen stems from. So, if all this stuff will disappear or change itself, then you should not let it exist in you. That way you never lose anything. Sad indeed, but it stops you from being sad, I suppose.
But this isn't about the enlightenment part. This about growing the fuck up. You can take your inductive analytic philosophy reasoning and aim for something and if you get screwed over in the process it won't matter because your goal is still available. This is why induction is so great. It can make you immortal. Nothing actually hurts you because in the long run nothing has changed. This is the problem with the west, or, as many would say, civilization in general, or, as the huge majority of the structure of (post/late) modern Ontology would think, the industrial revolution. Whenever a philosopher complains about the industrial revolution, they are complaining about modern capitalism and vice versa. We are given a selection of different types of goals in America, and we attempt to choose one or ten or so. However, what happens is that the goal we choose becomes unobtainable. Thus, we keep trying to achieve it but it never happens.
Look at that simple Being. It was an object, and that object exists. However, there is a wall that prevents the acquisition of the object. Since the wall cannot be removed, the item should be seen as not to exist. Being can think and say that if an object does not exist then it should not exist in the self of the Being either, but Being must use critical thinking skills in order to abstractly realize that an object that exists doesn't actually exist because there is no one in the self of the Being to acquire it thus it is not usable and it may not even be conceivable anymore. To think that you should not want what you can't have as it does not exist is easy, but as humans in a Darwinist/Nietzscheian sense, we live to will and exist. Thus, if you should not want what exists but first must be freed from behind a wall and this wall cannot be passed to go onto whatever may exist past it, you should be able to think to yourself that it is pretty easy but it is still much, much more difficult because you are using your reason to fight your will which exists to serve your reason. Now, to apply it to you, picture that this paragraph describes these simple situations, but your placement in society if going at the same length would take every single book on the planet to fill out. Not so easy, right? Well, that's why the simple is good, so you can understand why the complex is as such.
The moral of the story? If Being says that the wall cannot be passed using deduction, then it is quite obvious that whatever is past that wall essentially does not exist. This is actually now that I think about it the argument for apatheism. Likewise, if you are stuck with your life situation that takes every book in the world to tell, if you are being deductive you can open to any random page and just instantly improve your life by solving the logic of one paragraph. Deduction doesn't have any true goal as induction does, but deduction is a good active tool rather than an inductive passive one. The thing is that unhappiness does not exist out of a failure to live up to what (kind of) makes us human - theory of mind. If you misunderstand yourself, something will be snagged, and you will develop while always having this unhappiness until it is unsnagged.
To not be unhappy is the most unnatural thing a human can feel. Think of anything the could make you unhappy. Your family dying? You'd be setback, maybe, but you wouldn't become any less alive (well, you do, but only because you are obsessing that you can't make it on your own, which is why controlled grieving tends to work - get it out of your system). Girlfriend left you? Get a new one. Bad day? You've had a bad day, not that you are going to keep having one - it's usually just an excuse for other things. Depressed (clinical mood)? You're failing to realize that you are failing at things (and that makes sense because you can't fail at things you never intended to do), thus the feelings of helplessness. Even any bad mood at all? Learn to fucking enjoy it. If you are fucked up on a stimulant, it only sucks because people are afraid to be in a good mood, so if you can deal with the idea of partying when you are in the mood to party, then your fine. If you choose not to do that, then don't get into a good mood, or suffer. If you can't avoid a good mood, then accept good moods or suffer. Same for bad moods. If you are on a comedown, accept it's over and relax. It doesn't sound that hard. Why do you wanna stay up? To be productive? To avoid something? If the drug isn't keeping you in a good mood long enough, then it just isn't practical to it - the illusion of using this drug in a specific drug is a fictional concept trapped behind a wall and you must accept that even if you really, really want it, it's not real. So you are coming down, take a nap. Don't have time? Shouldn't have taken the drug at the time you chose, then, dumbass. Deal with it. No one loves you? Either do the hard and guaranteed monk hood solution or the easier yet trickier go out and fucking meet someone who doesn't make you feel lonely. The fact that you feel in the bad mood as being irrational is true and everything, but it still exists and you will suffer if you fuck-up. Some stuff can be overturned such as your thinking, but moods and feelings have to be prevented. You should never even fall into them.
We are biologically designed to feel bad, but no more or less than any mammal. We are humans, we are capable of highly advanced emotional and cognitive functions, why is it hard to say that we should know better? A lot of people are insanely happier than others. Happiness can be found in weird places, and that's fine. That's the difference between the western extreme form of essential living, Nihilism, and the eastern extreme, Zaozen. If you are constantly suffering, in pain, and showing your will, how can that be bad at all if the person has no problem (cognitively or emotionally) being in that state if they hypothetically are comfortable in doing because of something like war or physical competition? As for Zen, is there any difference with being a state of non-existence? Either the active nihilist or the passive monk, they choose their fates completely consciously and they did so with pride. If you can't choose every action you perform with pride, you're failing.