Happiness & Sadness

shanered

Here's a thought.
If happiness is "up"
And sadness is "down"
And the middle is in limbo between the two..
And if "the closest thing that we have ever experienced to death to date was before we where even born"...
And that "you don't know real happiness till you know sadness"

Picture this;
Remember histrograms from studying for your Junior cert.
Picture a Heart monitor...
Say if your happinessess and sadnessess where displayed on that,
Happy being up
And sad being down.
I think that everything might be relative,
That when you die it could be just like before you where born.
Just not there, neither happy nor sad.
Not even there to contemplate existence.
But here is the strange part...
Could everybodies existence be in essence balanced out when they die.
With their over all experience balancing out at the moment they die.
I'm saying if somebody was really happy for a day that not nessessarily would they be sad for day, but be (half/one tenth) as sad but for (twice/ten times the time).
Like a histrogram from maths that it balances itself out like some unfound law.
And that everybodys life is reletive to their own experiance.
Was might look misreble to one person might be wholly satifying to another. That experiance become balanced at the moment of death.


Just a thought, any thoughts yourselfs?

charlemont

I can see your point and you could be very close as maths can supposedly solve any puzzle and our existence and emotions are the biggest puzzles of them all.

Cannibal Ox

I don't think it works. The outcome, the synthesis of happiness and sadness in death, is dependent on happiness and sadness existing outside of time and space (otherwise, you'd have to show that death can be affected by time and space, or that happiness and sadness are not affected by subjectivity). On the other hand, you're saying that happiness and sadness exist within a human being, that they experience it, which'd mean that they do partake in time and space because human beings and experience partake in time and space. You could try and get around that with Platonic forms. Simplifying it, you'd argue that what a human experiences as happiness is part of what is happiness above and beyond time and space. It's also a lot like dialectics, in the sense that you have the thesis, happiness, the antithesis, sadness, and the unity in death.

You'd still have to show how happiness and sadness are both dependant and independant on human beings, which'd be....tricky.

shanered

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I don't think it works. The outcome, the synthesis of happiness and sadness in death, is dependent on happiness and sadness existing outside of time and space (otherwise, you'd have to show that death can be affected by time and space, or that happiness and sadness are not affected by subjectivity). On the other hand, you're saying that happiness and sadness exist within a human being, that they experience it, which'd mean that they do partake in time and space because human beings and experience partake in time and space. You could try and get around that with Platonic forms. Simplifying it, you'd argue that what a human experiences as happiness is part of what is happiness above and beyond time and space. It's also a lot like dialectics, in the sense that you have the thesis, happiness, the antithesis, sadness, and the unity in death.

You'd still have to show how happiness and sadness are both dependant and independant on human beings, which'd be....tricky.

Thanks for a good response, I didn't even know what the meaning of dialectics was, just looked it up there to read some pretty cool stuff that is definitely food for thought.