A great note for all to read. It will take just a few seconds to read.

kleefarr

Two men, both seriously ill, occupied the same hospital room.


One man was allowed to sit up in his bed for an hour each afternoon to help
drain the fluid from his lungs. His bed was next to the room's only window.
The other man had to spend all his time flat on his back.
The men talked for hours on end. They spoke of their wives and families, their
homes, their jobs, their involvement in the military service, where they had
been on vacation.
Every afternoon, when the man in the bed by the window could sit up, he
would pass the time by describing to his roommate all the things he could
see outside the window.
The man in the other bed began to live for those one hour periods where his
world would be broadened and enlivened by all the activity and colour
of the world outside.
The window overlooked a park with a lovely lake. Ducks and swans
played on the water while children sailed their model boats. Young lovers walked arm in arm amidst flowers of every colour and a fine view of the city
skyline could be seen in the distance.
As the man by the window described all this in exquisite detail, the
man on the other side of the room would close his eyes and imagine the
picturesque scene.
One warm afternoon the man by the window described a parade passing
by. Although the other man couldn't hear the band - he could see it in his minds eye, as the gentleman by the window portrayed it with descriptive words.

Days and weeks passed.

One morning, the day nurse arrived to bring water for their baths, only
to find the lifeless body of the man by the window, who had died
peacefully in his sleep. She was saddened and called the hospital attendants
to take the mans body away.
As soon as it seemed appropriate, the other man asked if he could be
moved next to the window. The nurse was happy to make the switch, and after making sure he was comfortable, she left him alone.

Slowly, painfully, he propped himself up on one elbow to take his
first look at the real world outside.
He strained to slowly turn and look out of the window beside the bed.
He discovered the window faced a blank wall. The man asked the nurse what could have compelled his deceased roommate to described such wonderful things outside this window.

The nurse told him that the man was blind and could not even see the wall.

She said, "Perhaps he just wanted to encourage you."


Epilogue:

There is tremendous happiness in making others happy, despite our own
situations.

Shared grief is half the sorrow, but happiness when shared, is doubled.

If you want to feel rich, just count all the things you have that
money can't buy.



Love and peace to everyone this Christmas.

Kevin.

transperson

beautiful.

thanks go to you

Goodshape

Aye, beautiful.

Cheers, and happy Christmas to you too


....actually, just wondering.. did you write that yourself or find it somewhere?

Fysh

a) I don't think this is really suited to philosophy, although it's hardly my call. After hours or creative writing seem more likely locations for it.

b)Does that intentionally sound like the tree hugging sh*te that trainers tend to spout to "motivate" people, or is this a happy coincidence? (I have a low tolerance for this sort of inane crap, having been over exposed to it during corporate training sessions)

kleefarr

Fysh wrote:

a) I don't think this is really suited to philosophy, although it's hardly my call. After hours or creative writing seem more likely locations for it.

b)Does that intentionally sound like the tree hugging sh*te that trainers tend to spout to "motivate" people, or is this a happy coincidence? (I have a low tolerance for this sort of inane crap, having been over exposed to it during corporate training sessions)

A) I thought it was quite philosophical, so I thought it should go here, just my opinion. Then again I wouldn't mind where it went as long as people can read it.

I stumbled across it and was genuinely touch by it, for no reasons other than it provoked thought. No tree hugging Sh*te intended.



Have a Merry Christmas.


Kevin

kleefarr

Goodshape wrote:

Aye, beautiful.

Cheers, and happy Christmas to you too


....actually, just wondering.. did you write that yourself or find it somewhere?

Thanks.
I was actually sent it by a friend. Felt like sharing it. Kind of brings you back down to earth, so to speak.

Neuro

This reads like something out of a Hallmark Get Well Soon card!

Epilogue:

There is tremendous happiness in making others happy, despite our own
situations.

This statement is clearly false. If we assume that everyone in the world wants to be happy and the above was true then all pain and suffering would quickly disappear from the face of the earth; as this hasn't happened the above statement is false.

Shared grief is half the sorrow, but happiness when shared, is doubled.

Now this is just plain silly. In repeated psychological tests it has been shown that people would prefer to get a €5,000 raise while their colleagues got an extra €4,000 instead of receiving a €10,000 raise while their colleagues got an extra €11,000. Also remember that some games are zero-sum!

If you want to feel rich, just count all the things you have that
money can't buy.

Psychological homeostasis prevents us from appreciating what we posses/achieve for long periods of time; the brain adjusts our baseline mood to accommodate any long term variations in much the same way that the body adjusts to psychoactive drugs, over time you need more and more to attain the same 'high'.

The above sentiments are quaint myths but are utterly useless in the real world.

Pherekydes

Neuro wrote:

This statement is clearly false. If we assume that everyone in the world wants to be happy and the above was true then all pain and suffering would quickly disappear from the face of the earth; as this hasn't happened the above statement is false.

Unfortunately, you are equating the assumption that everybody wants to be happy with the faulty assumption that everybody wants to make others happy. That wasn't what was stated.

Pherekydes

Neuro wrote:

Now this is just plain silly. In repeated psychological tests it has been shown that people would prefer to get a €5,000 raise while their colleagues got an extra €4,000 instead of receiving a €10,000 raise while their colleagues got an extra €11,000.

Which repeated tests? Did they test everybody? Some people would assuredly like to see their colleagues do worse than themselves, even if it meant they lost out too. But some would be happy to see their colleagues do better than themselves, especially if it meant they did better too.

You are applying tests on some people to all people. If you didn't apply the test results to all, then you must accept that there exists some people who are happy to make other people happy.

Also, the tests you mention were in relation to working colleagues and not to other categories, such as family, friends etc.

Pherekydes

Neuro wrote:

Psychological homeostasis prevents us from appreciating what we posses/achieve for long periods of time.

That wasn't the point. You don't have to appreciate a loved one for 'long periods of time'. All one has to do is think of what they have every now and again.

kleefarr

Neuro wrote:

This reads like something out of a Hallmark Get Well Soon card!

Epilogue:

There is tremendous happiness in making others happy, despite our own
situations.

This statement is clearly false. If we assume that everyone in the world wants to be happy and the above was true then all pain and suffering would quickly disappear from the face of the earth; as this hasn't happened the above statement is false.

Shared grief is half the sorrow, but happiness when shared, is doubled.

Now this is just plain silly. In repeated psychological tests it has been shown that people would prefer to get a €5,000 raise while their colleagues got an extra €4,000 instead of receiving a €10,000 raise while their colleagues got an extra €11,000. Also remember that some games are zero-sum!

If you want to feel rich, just count all the things you have that
money can't buy.

Psychological homeostasis prevents us from appreciating what we posses/achieve for long periods of time; the brain adjusts our baseline mood to accommodate any long term variations in much the same way that the body adjusts to psychoactive drugs, over time you need more and more to attain the same 'high'.

The above sentiments are quaint myths but are utterly useless in the real world.

If your world is the real world, good for you.

Mine is something completely different ... :rolleyes: I think?

And

You forgot to add...

BAH HUMBUG!!!!

Chill Out.
(Everyone has their own opinion)


PS. Good points Slow coach

Neuro

Slow coach wrote:

Unfortunately, you are equating the assumption that everybody wants to be happy with the faulty assumption that everybody wants to make others happy. That wasn't what was stated.

Er, that's what was stated and that is what I disagree with.

1. People want to be happy.
2. Happiness is making others happy. ("There is tremendous happiness in making others happy, despite our own situations.")
3. There are many unhappy people in the world.

Now, assuming 1 and 3 are true, 2 is false. If 2 were true happiness would quickly cascade around the world turning it into something approaching Nirvana.

Slow coach wrote:

If you didn't apply the test results to all, then you must accept that there exists some people who are happy to make other people happy.

Also, the tests you mention were in relation to working colleagues and not to other categories, such as family, friends etc.

While there are no doubt some people who are happy to make other people happy that is not the point. The original post would seem to suggest that such behavior is universal which is not the case.

Family members are always a special case when it comes to analysing altruistic behavior; inclusive fitness will always induce us to help a family member to a degree that is proportional to their relatedness to us. This is not true of individuals who are not closely related to us genetically, in other words most of the world's population.

Slow coach wrote:

That wasn't the point. You don't have to appreciate a loved one for 'long periods of time'.

Again, that was the point and it is this that I disagree with. In the original post:

If you want to feel rich, just count all the things you have that money can't buy.

Homeostasis prevents us from attaining the same psychological sense of well-being when we recount all that we have as we had when we originally obtained them.

Neuro

kleefarr wrote:

You forgot to add...

BAH HUMBUG!!!!

You seem to be confusing descriptive analysis with prescriptive analysis:
Descriptive: Describing the way things are.
Prescriptive: Describing the way things should be.

Although the sentiments in the epilogue of your post would be wonderful if people heeded them (prescriptive) they were presented as facts (descriptive) and it was on this latter aspect that I was analysing them. Of course the world would be a better place if everyone set out to make others happy and I would more than welcome it, but this is not the case!

kleefarr wrote:

Chill Out.
(Everyone has their own opinion)

See http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2146602#post2146602

Pherekydes

Neuro wrote:

2. Happiness is making others happy.

That isn't the only source of happiness. Which is what you are inferring was meant.

Pherekydes

Neuro wrote:

1. People want to be happy.
2. Happiness is making others happy. ("There is tremendous happiness in making others happy, despite our own situations.")
3. There are many unhappy people in the world.

Now, assuming 1 and 3 are true, 2 is false.

Since 3 is true only for some people, then it follows that 2 can be true for some people. You are basing your conclusion on the understanding that the statement in parentheses is true for all people. It doesn't state that. You even said as much when you stated "...would seem to suggest...".

'Seem' is not definite.

transperson

fair play to slow coach for arguing with this individual.

the piece was a short imaginary note on two old men in hospital with some vaguely inspirational words at the end.i am of the opinion that it was meant to make one think about and reflect on life a little and maybe take something from it.

it was not intended as an philosophical ethical theory or doctrine and neuro is making a mistake if he/she thinks this.

if neuro wants to have a formal philosophical discussion i suggest it happens on a different tread,perhaps neuro himself/herself could put something up and i would be happy to try and discuss it in a formal reasoning manner.

Doper Than U

Now this is just plain silly. In repeated psychological tests it has been shown that people would prefer to get a €5,000 raise while their colleagues got an extra €4,000 instead of receiving a €10,000 raise while their colleagues got an extra €11,000. Also remember that some games are zero-sum!

That doesn't necessarily "prove" that people don't want others to be happy. It just shows that the majority of people in that study are greedy idiots who have poor math skills.
Meh, it was a nice story, if a little twee in it's ending. Not everything needs to be ripped apart and "explained".

lost_lad

Neuro wrote:

1. People want to be happy.
2. Happiness is making others happy. ("There is tremendous happiness in making others happy, despite our own situations.")
3. There are many unhappy people in the world.

Response to point 1
We dont want to be happy. We want what we believe happiness to be. money,sex and power.
I want to be happy but dont really know what it is or how to achieve it.
I used to belive the above 3 was what was required i know now it is not.

Response to point 2
What about people who get enjoyment out of making people miserable?

Response to point 3
Many? more then many the majority.

impr0v

Slow coach wrote:

Since 3 is true only for some people, then it follows that 2 can be true for some people. You are basing your conclusion on the understanding that the statement in parentheses is true for all people. It doesn't state that. You even said as much when you stated "...would seem to suggest...".

'Seem' is not definite.

Unless you are going to argue that there are not many people in the world who are unhappy, then you must accept statement three to be true, not 'for some people', as it is not individual specific, it is either true or false.

The statement in parentheses was presented as follows:

There is tremendous happiness in making others happy, despite our own
situations.

It's an unqualified statement, presented as a fact, which it clearly isn't.

lost_lad wrote:

Response to point 1
We dont want to be happy. We want what we believe happiness to be. money,sex and power.
I want to be happy but dont really know what it is or how to achieve it.
I used to belive the above 3 was what was required i know now it is not.

Response to point 2
What about people who get enjoyment out of making people miserable?

Response to point 3
Many? more then many the majority.

Are you attempting to prove the statement 'We don't want to be happy' by following it up with 'We want what be believe happiness to be', which for the purposes of point 1 (to use your nomenclature) is the same thing, and directly stating 'I want to be happy'? I'm not sure that it was your intention to do so, but you have effectively agreed with Neuro in stating that 1 and 3 are true, and 2 is false.

lost_lad

impr0v wrote:

Are you attempting to prove the statement 'We don't want to be happy' by following it up with 'We want what be believe happiness to be', which for the purposes of point 1 (to use your nomenclature) is the same thing, and directly stating 'I want to be happy'? I'm not sure that it was your intention to do so, but you have effectively agreed with Neuro in stating that 1 and 3 are true, and 2 is false.

I am agreeing with what Neuro said except point 2.

I didn't mean to contradict myself like that let me explain.

Assuming Happiness is a feeling that comes from with in ones self then if we are pursuing material goods in the believe that we will gain happiness from them (because the media presents it as so).
We are not trying to achive happiness but merely buy into the facade of what happiness is and should be. We are not sitting down and asking ourselves how do I achieve happiness just assuming material goods will bring it to us quickly with little or no effort on our part. We are just pretending to be happy.
I want to be able to sit in a blank room and be happy with just myself and no requirements for anything else. I think that is what happiness is and the majority of 21st people dont want that.

I hope this explains it better but i will try go away and have a think and try and elaboarte if necessary.

impr0v

I know what you are saying but point 1, i.e. the statement 'People want to be happy', does not need happiness to be defined, either for each individual or generally, in order to be true. In your view the media convinces an individual that material gifts will bring him happiness so he pursues them, you personally believe that happiness is not linked to commodities but comes from within so you pursue that. The end result might be different but you are both pursuing an idea of happiness, or you both 'want to be happy'.

Neuro stated that point 2 was false, which you agreed with by offering an exception to the statement.

lost_lad

I hang my head humbly.

Pherekydes

impr0v wrote:

Unless you are going to argue that there are not many people in the world who are unhappy, then you must accept statement three to be true, not 'for some people', as it is not individual specific, it is either true or false.

Statement 3 cannot be either true or not true as stated. If some people are happy, and some people are not happy, then the statement cannot be applied to all people.

If one is going to apply formal logic to premises, then the premises should be formally stated,

e.g.

It is true that there are some people in the world who are not happy

OR

It is true that all people in the world are unhappy

OR

It is true that all people in the world are happy

Pherekydes

impr0v wrote:

The statement in parentheses was presented as follows:

There is tremendous happiness in making others happy, despite our own
situations.

It's an unqualified statement, presented as a fact, which it clearly isn't.

It certainly was an unqualified statement. Again, it wasn't a categorical premise formally stated. So formal logic rules shouldn't be applied to these types of offhand statements.

Fysh

Much as I'm enjoying the discussion of the application of logic to the original post, I feel compelled to comment that nowhere in the realms of logical constructs are there any instructions on how to apply their precise rules to twee sentimental nonsense that tries to attain "inspirational" status by using vague platitudes and some artificial notion of "seasonal cheer" to suggest that one ought to act in the way described, and make you feel guilty if you do not do so.

(At this point I'll remind people that Christmas is meant to be a celebration of the arrival of Christ, saviour of those who follow the cult of Christianity and has later merged with various pagan beliefs to become a capitalist celebration of materialism. The cynic in me hastens to point out that the Hallmark-style message that "there is great happiness in making others happy" could be interpreted as little more than a greedy attempt to make people spend yet more money on christmas presents at the peak sale period of the year...)

kleefarr

lost_lad wrote:

Response to point 1
We dont want to be happy. We want what we believe happiness to be. money,sex and power.
I want to be happy but dont really know what it is or how to achieve it.
I used to belive the above 3 was what was required i know now it is not.

Response to point 2
What about people who get enjoyment out of making people miserable?

Response to point 3
Many? more then many the majority.

Point 1. That maybe what makes you happy. Other things will make other people happy.

Point 2. Again, that is what makes them happy.

Point 3. I thought more than halve (50%) was the majority.

lost_lad

Kleefarr see above i hung my head humbly. Should have thought before i typed.
T'was of the cuff.
Tanx for yet again pointing out i'm a dope.

kleefarr

lost_lad wrote:

Kleefarr see above i hung my head humbly. Should have thought before i typed.
T'was of the cuff.
Tanx for yet again pointing out i'm a dope.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to point out anything. I definately hadn't wished to imply that your a dope. I'm sure your not anyway. People always make mistakes. I make a lot of them.

Ardent

Lads & Lassies - quick question, is this thread one long p1ss-take or is this the kind of stuff ye debate in this forum the whole time? I found myself laughing reading this thread...!

lost_lad

kleefarr wrote:

Sorry, I wasn't trying to point out anything. I definately hadn't wished to imply that your a dope. I'm sure your not anyway. People always make mistakes. I make a lot of them.

SantaHoe

Ardent wrote:

Lads & Lassies - quick question, is this thread one long p1ss-take or is this the kind of stuff ye debate in this forum the whole time? I found myself laughing reading this thread...!

Yeah I'm surprised to see such a well-meaning fable being taken so literally as to be dissected and argued over.
I'm not saying it's either good or bad, I've just never seen it done before

lost_lad

SantaHoe wrote:

Yeah I'm surprised to see such a well-meaning fable being taken so literally as to be dissected and argued over.
I'm not saying it's either good or bad, I've just never seen it done before

But look where it is posted. Got to find the real meaning behind it...

simu

Some people have been complaining that the original post was like the message on a Hallmark card and so on and I have to say I agree. Although it's possible to start a philosophical discussion from just about anywhere, I don't think this fable approach is the best and certainly, in this case, the message has been overanalysed! There are a lot of similar messages floating around on the internet and this forum would be swamped if people were to post up even a fraction of the amount of such material they receive.

This forum is for discussion rather than sharing feel-good messages. I'll lock this thread and leave it here for now but any such messages posted here in future will most likely end up in afterhours or elsewhere unless they provide a more substantial basis for discussion.

Simu (philosophy board mod)