Hacker News Reader

Comment by zaque1213 | Hacker News Reader

Interesting conclusion. I agree that we need to let go of the notion that there is someone "perfect" for us. That person doesn't exist. True, lasting happiness in marriage is possible. Joy in marriage occurs when we seek the highest good of the other through unselfish sacrifice and compromise, and the other does the same toward us. That isn't easy, and could take years of discipline and failure. I've seen couples that I knew were heading for divorce grasp this and are now the happiest people I know. Of course, sometimes divorce is inevitable, but I think some could be avoided if each recommitted themselves to the higher good of the other.

View on HN

Your post contains a contradiction, at least it appears to me to be so.

If something is countable or quantifiable, like 'True, lasting happiness'. Isn't the partner that is capable of providing the 'True, lasting happiness' the perfect match for you? There might be multiple potential partners that will provide lasting happiness, and the one that does this in the most expedient fashion (or perhaps the result of doing happinessp1 * happinessp2) is the 'perfect' partner. My understanding of what you wrote is that you mean to say that there is no Disney prince/princess waiting for anyone out there. I can agree with that, but certainly there is a match somewhere that is maximally mutually compatible (perfect??)?

I think what he's saying is that true, lasting happiness comes from "unselfish sacrifice and compromise" to one another, instead of from from finding a "match somewhere that is maximally mutually compatible".

That is how I see it too, and in fact it seems to be how the writer sees it:

  > The person who is best suited to us
  > is not the person who shares our every
  > taste (he or she doesn’t exist), but
  > the person who can negotiate differences
  > in taste intelligently — the person
  > who is good at disagreement. Rather 
  > than some notional idea of perfect 
  > complementarity, it is the capacity
  > to tolerate differences with 
  > generosity that is the true marker
  > of the “not overly wrong” person.

Thanks for raising my apparent contradiction. What I meant to say, perhaps not very well, is that _no_ partner is capable of proving true, lasting happiness, which I now realize is an unexact term. However close one can come to that happiness, though, is a consequence of ones own resolve to seek the highest good of the other. In my marriage, the more loved, safe, happy, secure, etc, my wife is, the happier I am free to be. And my wife strives for the same. We are satisfied in the others satisfaction, and therefore don't depend on the other for satisfaction.

If you want to make a formal argument, I think you will need a formal definition of 'true, lasting happiness' and of expediency in its provision.

Agreed, I've admitted in another comment that this was an inexact term. I'm not a happiness expert, so I'm open to suggestions!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com