What is happiness?

[chaz wyman]

You can get through life happily with no money, more easily than you can get through life unhappily with lots of money.

Obviously money can give you temporary happiness, but it is unsubstantial. Gimcracks and shiny things might make you smile for a minute, but there is a limit to how many of these things you can have. All inanimate objects or bought people are ultimately unsatisfying.

just a joke I think above. Sure most agrees with you on this one. The wonder of money however has always been that it opens up possibilities and it doesn't rot like food does. As long as the flow of potatoes goes to the store, a worth of a potato will always be the worth of a potato regardless how long you wait, that's the magic. If you were to live without money and, lets say, travel, you would have to bring a lot of cans with you in order to satisfy your hunger along the way. Money goes better then.

1) Essentials, 2) Happiness, 3) money in that order,

Franklyn says you can get through times with dope but no money, better than you can get through times with money but no dope.

[The Voice of Time]

1) Essentials, 2) Happiness, 3) money in that order,

Franklyn says you can get through times with dope but no money, better than you can get through times with money but no dope.

Ooooh no, you can't be that unspecific on a philosophy forum! Imagine: how do you cross the line between essentials and the superfluous?

These days the term "essentials" has been watered out to mean stuff like "internet" in some countries for instance. And if you were to say just "food" or "nourishment" or other stuff like that then you still have the problem of relativity: that you must decide on what to expect from the food before you state their importance.

For instance: if food was an essential and you "defined" an essential need for food as "fullness" or the absence of hunger, what would you do in a situation where you could choose between being hungry some but happy some and being full but unhappy? You might have a simple answer to this, but categorically the answer would be wrong, as essentials as you'd defined came first.

Never forget that you're dealing with philosophers here!

[chaz wyman]

1) Essentials, 2) Happiness, 3) money in that order,

Franklyn says you can get through times with dope but no money, better than you can get through times with money but no dope.

Ooooh no, you can't be that unspecific on a philosophy forum! Imagine: how do you cross the line between essentials and the superfluous?

These days the term "essentials" has been watered out to mean stuff like "internet" in some countries for instance. And if you were to say just "food" or "nourishment" or other stuff like that then you still have the problem of relativity: that you must decide on what to expect from the food before you state their importance.

For instance: if food was an essential and you "defined" an essential need for food as "fullness" or the absence of hunger, what would you do in a situation where you could choose between being hungry some but happy some and being full but unhappy? You might have a simple answer to this, but categorically the answer would be wrong, as essentials as you'd defined came first.

Never forget that you're dealing with philosophers here!

Essential for the sustenance of health. Food and shelter.
and NO a fucking mobile phone or a playstation is not essential.

[The Voice of Time]

Essential for the sustenance of health. Food and shelter.
and NO a fucking mobile phone or a playstation is not essential.

what is health? Some people go through their lives obese and they love it and it doesn't hurt either them or somebody else, and yet, people think obesity is unhealthy, leading to lower life expectations and stuff like that which we know most people couldn't care much for when it's like 3-5 years and expected life is 80-90 years. Or lots of other stuff where people live happy and "wonderful" in conditions which other people call unhealthy for some reason or another. Shelter is also arguable, does that mean everybody should have a personal bunker in case of war? Does it mean all houses has as a first-priority before other things to be 100% secure from all forms of bad weather and catastrophe? And yes I am mocking you because you are unreasonably inaccurate.

And try tell the Finish government that internet is not an essential ^^ there access to internet is written down in the law, so clearly it is essentially necessary for people to have access to internet...

[chaz wyman]

Essential for the sustenance of health. Food and shelter.
and NO a fucking mobile phone or a playstation is not essential.

2 can play this silly game.

what is health? Some people go through their lives obese and they love it and it doesn't hurt either them or somebody else, and yet, people think obesity is unhealthy,

Define obesity.
Define unhealthy.
Define some people.
Define hurt.


leading to lower life expectations and stuff like that which we know most people couldn't care much for when it's like 3-5 years and expected life is 80-90 years. Or lots of other stuff where people live happy and "wonderful" in conditions which other people call unhealthy for some reason or another.
What do you mean 'stuff"?

Shelter is also arguable, does that mean everybody should have a personal bunker in case of war? Does it mean all houses has as a first-priority before other things to be 100% secure from all forms of bad weather and catastrophe? And yes I am mocking you because you are unreasonably inaccurate.

Define 'unreasonably'.

And try tell the Finish government that internet is not an essential ^^ there access to internet is written down in the law, so clearly it is essentially necessary for people to have access to internet...