Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Philosophical Thinking

Posted Nov 8, '13 at 6:07am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,512 posts

Knight

Your right, that is ideal, and it could only theoretically exist in a place like Heaven.

Not only. I think a state where everyone is happy is theoretically possible. Depending on how you define happiness of course. If you define it with 'having no problems at all', it won't be possible I guess. If you define it with a general feeling of happiness, it should be possible.
 

Posted Nov 8, '13 at 4:50pm

Erabor

Erabor

279 posts

If you define it with a general feeling of happiness, it should be possible.

It just depends on how big the society is that your dealing with. If its a hamlet of 70 people, and life is just jolly and without worry, then I suppose there could be some truth to that. However, the larger the society is, the more problems and conflicting views (which ultimately bring unhappiness) there are.
So if you take a whole nation, or the world, theoretically, unless you genocide everyone and thing that doesn't see your point of views exactly, then you won't see steps towards universal happiness.
 

Posted Nov 8, '13 at 5:35pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,512 posts

Knight

Even among 70 people, you won't have a unified consent of opinion on all points; and it is not needed for a certain level of happiness. There sure are a lot of conflicts nowadays, but theoretically there could be tolerance, as there has been in single communities time and again in history (even among jews, muslims and christians). The only problem is that the more we are, the less probable it is to have this kind of living together on a global scale at one point; yet it remains theoretically possible.

 

Posted Nov 8, '13 at 11:02pm

pft

pft

527 posts

It just depends on how big the society is that your dealing with. If its a hamlet of 70 people,


To an extent i agree with this. If there are collective communites with around 150 that were similar to yourself. I think for all purposes that this could work. I don't mean with no problems ever these will still happen it is aspect of human nature but the over all yearly round happiness should be alot higher.

I believe in Libertarism as an ideal society. This would be a society with minimal State/Goverment. The only people in charge would be that of the community who can best fit the requirements. Of course aswell everyone gets a say and with few people there who are relatively alike it should be easily resolvable if problems ever do arise.

What type of political system do you think would be best to achieve the best state of wellbeing? What do you think about the current system your in can happiness be achieved there? To what extent can their be happiness within the current systems?
 

Posted Nov 8, '13 at 11:59pm

Erabor

Erabor

279 posts

What type of political system do you think would be best to achieve the best state of wellbeing?

I was raised in a Republican family, so minimal government intervention was the idea in my household.
However, I believe that the government is and was created to serve the people, not the other way around. What if each state (or county within a state) was self sufficient in its own way, providing itself with food, and educated its youth. Each person within the county would pull their own weight.
There are clear flaws to this idea though. It sounds pretty Communistic, and what about the disabled? If Joe Schmoe was missing an arm, and he had to work the fields, he would be at a disadvantage. However, what if in this magical society, people pursued what they wanted to. If that same Joe Schmoe had a passion for baking bread, then teach him how to bake bread, so that he can better himself, and treat the county with tasty rolls.
But if everyone could take whatever job made them happy, then the demand for some jobs would go up (Like plumbing....eww) and then that would make some people essentially more valuable. If people are more valuable, then they might have to move out of the county to provide some kind of assistance (Such as a heart doctor leaving his home county to save a boy's life).
So really, its fun to give it some thought..... Leisure is the mother of philosophy (Thomas Hobbes).
 

Posted Nov 13, '13 at 8:33pm

pft

pft

527 posts

oe Schmoe was missing an arm, and he had to work the fields, he would be at a disadvantage. However, what if in this magical society, people pursued what they wanted to. If that same Joe Schmoe had a passion for baking bread, then teach him how to bake bread, so that he can better himself, and treat the county with tasty rolls.


The society should bring out the best in people. I feel in a capitalist system there is next to no people that do kind things for others. There is always a price. So the people in this society will be like a family, well friends and people with general good attitudes towards each other.

With that there is essentially no freedom as money is the deterrent factor in almost everything . Sure you might say people can pick what they want to do and be happy making the money. That is a world that doesn't virtually exist now. Thanks to who the people elect to take charge of their lives. They have all the cash they need for essentially being a professional liar. Mess up the economy. So those who are not well off are left with the only choice of freedom they have. Work a job leading nowhere in a sad life or have no money at all and live a sad life. There is another way for this knowing what you want and meeting people with these similar views to stand up to the corruption of today. Most people dismiss anything like this out of fear and uncertainty of what the future holds.

The moral of this is to truly find what we need and make it happen. Not selfish gain but the joy of life. As i say 'in the way you wish to be treated, is the way you treat those.*
 

Posted Nov 13, '13 at 9:16pm

Erabor

Erabor

279 posts

Then everyone should be looking out for each other, in mutual benefit.

 

Posted Nov 13, '13 at 10:17pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,805 posts

Knight

It just depends on how big the society is that your dealing with.


I like vanilla icecream and you like chocolate. You go over there and eat chocolate while I have vanilla. We never reached a consensus on the matter but we are both happy.
No reason why this concept couldn't technically work on a larger scale.

This would be a society with minimal State/Goverment.


I don't think big or small government is really the issue. Rather how smartly the government intervenes. Some things may require lots of government intervention, while others may require very little. But if that government intervention is being misdirected it could just end up doing harm rather than helping.
 
Reply to Philosophical Thinking

You must be logged in to post a reply!