random thoughts

the state of being happy is essentially a combination of chemicals in your brain being present. can it be validly stated that a person who pursues happiness is a natural drug addict as opposed to the regular "external" drug addict? why is one considered ok and other other not?

and if it is just a series of highs, is it pretty pointless to pursue since we'll all just die anyways?

 

It depends on the state of happyness. General mental "life" happyness is not chemical based. Happyness after sex IS chemical based. Certain versions of happyness can indeed be substituted or replicated with drugs, while others cannot.

 

^semantics

short answer yes. its not okay to be a regular external drug addict because usually the means of obtaining the drugs affects other people negatively. however, if ur not affecting other people, do as u damn well please.

btw op u smoke too much cheeba.

 

true semantics,

I mean the mixture of brain chemicals released that give you happy feelings are relased according to signals that they should be released and are a natural drive hardwired into our animal bodies.

Using external drugs is a shortcut, but like most shortcuts there are consequences. The drugs don't have solitary actions. They have side effects that can cause negative consequences.

Even in the cases of avoiding direct action side effects lets say there is a pure happiness drug, like the cocaine monkeys, you may spend so much time achieving chemical happiness that you avoid everything else and your life falls apart.

I think the whole Buddist ideal of balance is the best answer to your question. There must be balance, you can't always have happy and part of the adventure is the pursuit of happyness.

If there is a person who doesn't believe in a higher power, then like your last statement there really is no point of living. Another theory of live in a ecological standpoint is that the reason to live is simply to make offspring and insure that they will make offspring to insure survival of your genes.

Of course these topics have been debated over and over and involve alot of philosophy and religon and are the reasons for war and etc.

So I'll end with.

Either IBTM or IBTL.

 

Woah.. I don't believe in a higher power.. so you saying there's no point in my living?

Oh and IBTL

 

^ Not sure I do either. Which one of us should mix the Kool-Aid?

 

We all pursue happiness, and the route there varies depending on the person. Some routes are accepted and others aren't -- that's primarily a social thing if you ask me. I've always found it amusing that recreational drug use is condemned, yet we celebrate alcohol and consume it at all sorts of social gatherings. Add in the fact that other inherently dangerous recreational activities like motorcycle riding, BASE jumping, mountain climbing, and so forth are accepted, respected, and featured on television, and searching for logic is simply futile. It is what it is.

Now pardon me while I go smoke a big bowl and pop some prescription painkillers. But wait, that might cause cardiovascular damage and result in substance dependence. Maybe I'll go have a marbled steak and a glass of wine instead, because everyone's cool with that.

 

Just so I'm not misunderstood, I don't think being athiest is wrong and athiests should die or are damned or anything like that.

I was just talking about the original question. It bodes the age old question what is the meaning of life?

Religion thinks it is to reach salvation of some sort and be good with the higher power.

Ecology says it's to forward the survival of the species. In this arguement the athiests have every reason to survive.

 

didn't Monte Python answer that?

 

Technically an addiction is something that results in negative consequences, which I'm hoping happiness wouldn't do. On the other hand, I think you could also say that we depend on happiness for good mental health. That's all I've got for now.