Comment by nyc111 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nyc111 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Aristotle is still the most insightful and relevant philosopher after all these years. From physics, to psychology, to biology, to politics, to ethics, to metaphysics, to logic. No single man has made more contributions to him.

I totally agree. Aristotle is still relevant today. But regarding happiness, as presented in this article, all these philosophers, Aristotle included, offer behavioral recipies that the SELF must enforce on his body in order to be happy. Usually by enforcing such things as frugality and fasting, instead of letting the body do what it wants. So let the body decide what is best for itself.

But what I want to say is that, happiness is, to a great extent, a feeling resulting from, or caused by, some chemicals. Like melatonin and seratonin. So all we have to do is to create the right conditions for the body to secrete the optimum amount of happiness chemicals. So it seems happiness is not about forcing body to behave a certain way.

> So let the body decide what is best for itself.

And what if the body decides that the best thing for itself is crack cocaine? You don't want happiness per se, but a fulfilling and satisfying life.

Think about it, if you could wire yourself to a machine that injected all the happiness chemicals into your brain for the rest of your life would you do it?

"Even a happy life cannot be without a measure of darkness, and the word happy would lose its meaning if it were not balanced by sadness."

> what if the body decides that the best thing for itself is crack cocaine?

Only in the sense that the brain is part of the body.

> You don't want happiness per se, but a fulfilling and satisfying life.

Also see https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2012/06/the-meani....

I’m not arguing about happiness. Or about how to be happy. My point is that Aristotle and others did not know about the role of some chemicals in the body that produce a feeling of happiness.

Maybe difference is short-term happiness vs sustainable. Looking at all kinds of addictions, just giving the right conditions to release happiness chemicals is not sustainable. Meanwhile putting some constraints and forcing the body in a certain way is harder but more sustainable? Sustainable as in longer term and for community as a whole.

That’s not what I meant! If you sleep in a really dark room; if you do not take your phone into your bedroom; if you do a short breathing exercise before you sleep, then, scientists tell us that your body will secrete melatonine and you will feel happier. This is hot short term! Not sure why people are offended by this fact.

But those things are "behavioral recipies that the SELF must enforce on his body". My body doesn't do breathing exercises on its own, and it wants to look at the phone screen before sleep. I have to consciously work against those tendencies. Same with eating. I'm certainly happier long-term if I don't just listen to my body and eat all the delicious things I see in my daily life.

> My body doesn't do breathing exercises on its own, and it wants to look at the phone screen before sleep...

You are right, that's why I said, or I was trying to say, that as the conscious self, I will prepare the most favorable environment for the body to relax and have deep sleep.

This is putting constraints on your body though. How the hell can you leave Facebook on the other side of bedroom door? Why would you force your body to exercise? Taking melatonin may have unforeseen circumstances though. Just like eating too much sugar.

No! I'm not talking about taking melatonin supplements at all. Given the right conditions the body produces it. I didn't even know you could take it as a supplement.

I guess I read that "take melatonin" part (which is now removed) in a different way.. :)

Yes. That was confusing.

It is if those forced behaviors over time in effect create more happy chemical compared to if you did not enforce these behaviors.

All I was trying to say was that neither Aristotle nor other historical philosophers knew about the role of chemicals in the feeeling of happiness.

Thy certainly did. They just had very poor theories about humors and xi and bile.

Did Aristotle know about the relationship of seratonin and the feeling of happiness? I believe not. Therefore, he could not have advised about hapiness and seratonin. If you claim Aristotle knew about Seratonin, maybe you can give a reference.

They probably knew about feedback loops, though, given the creation of waterclocks. Applying those principles to psychology is a short leap, yes ?

I don’t understand what you mean and I will not continue the discussion, instead I’m reading this article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a great article about Aristotle’s ideas on the topic. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com