Boots wrote:Grunth wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)
It is not the pursuit of an emotion which is relevant. It is to understand emotion therefore to understand the human condition thereby understanding one's own condition. 'Understanding' is not an 'emotion'. Why pursue what you have already stated as fleeting? Why care about what others pursue? Why not just lay out what 'happy' is to you and FOR you, rather than what it must mean to most and therefore must make it also so for you?
I've laid out what it means for me while you seem to be analyzing what it must mean for everyone. Are you for you or are you for everyone? I find this so often that the usual analysis of the human condition is never one which brings it home. It is so often left dangling in some dank chamber and assumed to be 'objective'. Apparent objectivity is merely an excuse for mediocrity. It seems most of humanity are distracted by conventions that are assumed as reality.
The pursuit of an emotion is relevant to some, since a number of humans pursue happiness. It's pursuit is considered a right in America. You say on the one hand that what is relevant is understanding "emotion therefore to understand the human condition thereby understanding one's own condition," and on the other hand, "Why care about what others pursue? Why not just lay out what 'happy' is to you and FOR you, rather than what it must mean to most." These statements are at odds. As you said, we try to understand others in order to understand ourselves.
Dangling in a dank chamber? Objectivity an excuse for mediocrity? Conventions assumed as reality?
I'm not following your logic.
-- Updated May 14th, 2016, 1:44 am to add the following --
Boots wrote:Grunth wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)
It is not the pursuit of an emotion which is relevant. It is to understand emotion therefore to understand the human condition thereby understanding one's own condition. 'Understanding' is not an 'emotion'. Why pursue what you have already stated as fleeting? Why care about what others pursue? Why not just lay out what 'happy' is to you and FOR you, rather than what it must mean to most and therefore must make it also so for you?
I've laid out what it means for me while you seem to be analyzing what it must mean for everyone. Are you for you or are you for everyone? I find this so often that the usual analysis of the human condition is never one which brings it home. It is so often left dangling in some dank chamber and assumed to be 'objective'. Apparent objectivity is merely an excuse for mediocrity. It seems most of humanity are distracted by conventions that are assumed as reality.
The pursuit of an emotion is relevant to some, since a number of humans pursue happiness. It's pursuit is considered a right in America. You say on the one hand that what is relevant is understanding "emotion therefore to understand the human condition thereby understanding one's own condition," and on the other hand, "Why care about what others pursue? Why not just lay out what 'happy' is to you and FOR you, rather than what it must mean to most." These statements are at odds. As you said, we try to understand others in order to understand ourselves.
Dangling in a dank chamber? Objectivity an excuse for mediocrity? Conventions assumed as reality?
I'm not following your logic.
Do I really have to spell it out?
It is not the pursuit of an emotion which is relevant......to being happy.
As for the other things you are confused about, try a dictionary. Look up words like 'objectivity', 'excuse', 'mediocrity', 'convention', 'assume', then just see how they can make a sentence. As for 'Dangling in a dank chamber'. It's a metaphor, therefore you visualize the metaphor to see what feeling one may get from the visual. For example, did the visual feel warm, nice and comfortable or something else more or less opposite to that?
How old are you?