People seek comfort from food, to mask over their Insecurity. This Is not ‘happiness’ but Instead Is pleasure In Its simplest form.

As John mentioned, the fulfillment of the full human function. It Is when we are not `full` ‘fulfilled’ that we seek out pleasure to fill the gap, In the form of food, money, cars, new stupid phones and I-pads…..
which can never work.

You say simple advice can not be true or untrue.
I come from a Catholic backround…
Plenty of simple advice there, I believe It to be untrue, with many others.

You mentioned happiness coming from a sense of control,
This Is just another way of wording that ‘Void’ I was talking about. By getting lost In pleasure, people get a sense of control back. Il give you an EXTREME example, A drug addict experiences a terrible void, and complete loss of control (In the negative way) ”The meaning of control” as you put It would be to have a drink/joint/shoot up!
This gives them emmense pleasure and they regain control.
but Its only temporary.

Quote:
“Guess what” he says: You are mistaken if you think you will get that control. No one can. We are all tied to a bike, called society, circumstance, happerchance or whatnot.

So. What happens If you are tied to a bike called addiction?
(Everyone on this planet Is an addict by the way, In some shape or form, drugs or bad thoughts or most dangerous of all KNOWLEDGE. Knowledge junkies)
hmm?
You mean to say If we are tied to the bike called society, which Is corrupt and created by mans selfishness and unntelligence, that we should go with It?

Well, I for one, disagree with that.

This void, can only be filled by… Well, figure that part out for yourself.

I do not believe that one can say that a simple advice is true or not true. It works for some and does not for others.

I believe the point of the third episode is indeed some simple advice: Happiness comes – for humans at least – by a sense of control. You are happy when you feel that you are in control of your life, your cicumstances; the world around you makes sense. This is what everyone wants in order to get happy, even if the exact meaning of that (the purpose, object and means of control) is quite different for each and every one of us. For some, more than for others I guess.

“Guess what” he says: You are mistaken if you think you will get that control. No one can. We are all tied to a bike, called society, circumstance, happerchance or whatnot. You are not getting control no matter how much you try. You might fight for Communism all your life and 40 years latter you will see the Berlin Wall fall. Or be a hawk, destroy a couple of countries in the Middle East for no apparent reason, and just loose the next election with nothing to show for.

So accepting some measure of uncertainty (the only certain thing is that things are uncertain), accepting that others will make things difficult for you, plans will go astray and so on, will only make you more equiped to deal with those issues when they arise. It is like saying that by panicking you rarely achieve anything.

In effect, understanding of the world and of its ways, will restore some of this control back.

Well, I for one, agree with that.

Cheers

That line you wrote Is nice and simple, quote,

‘Happiness is the fulfillment of the full human function.’

So, fulfill our function.
Then we`ll come accross real happiness.

And I tell you what the problem of this whole series is – not just the third episode.
It makes the implicit assumption that happiness is merely but a form of hedonism – how to derive more pleasure out of things.
(Not surprising, it is the dominant world view today.)

But there is alternatice view to happiness – an authentic one – that was summed up by Aristotle.
Happiness is the fulfillment of the full human function.
In other words yes, being Just is part of realizing happienss – for it is part of our highest purpose.

Justice and happiness are not separate matters as Socrates put it – but one. Leading the good, the beautiful and the just life is one thing.
The result of living to our highest potential then = real happiness.

What this author has presented then is little psychological tricks one can use – to fool themselves into how to enjoy life more.

Accordingly, being unjust or just makes little difference to the state of mind, according to this series author – as happiness is more a question of whether he has enough pleasure in it… (or perceives it as such)

Need it be said, but Nietzsche was so miserable throughout his life, he went mad towards the end of it.
It’s like asking the most unfit, overweight person to teach you about health.
… Not very smart.

I am simply stating the truth..

The point he made Is simply untrue,
you will also notice that more people commenting here have also noticed a problem with that particular episode. 3 others

Are we JUDGING It for our own purpose?
Or simply pointing out a mistake.

You say this Is a series about happiness, not justice.

So does that mean that If It were about justice, I would be correct, and because It Is about happiness I am Incorrect?

Surely they should be congruent.

The point I was making Is this, you used the words, ‘accepting misfortune’.
What If your misfortune Is caused by your own doing?
Then to accept this will not put an end to the cycle.

Think about It.

But by refusing to accept It,
And changing what causes It,
It ceases.
Simple.

Accepting misfortune will only bring you temporary relief,
masking over the deeper Issues.

Thank you.

If you believe that injustice is to be undone (as I agree you should), then this will not lead to you to a happy life I can tell you that.

Anyway, please judge them for their purpose not for yours.

Nietzsche and Schopenhauer were known to be some of the most pessimistic, unhappy people ever for example.
Why choose them in discussing the subject of happiness?

Most important, how could you possibly not have Aristotle in the mix – his definition of happiness would have helped the viewers so much.
There are much better philsophers on the subject of happiness – that lived happy lives and gave profound lessons.
Also, what about Kant?

Other than this criticism, wow, what a great TV series of a Philosophy of Happiness! I’m glad that a group of people distilled the best they could six tenets that cover this philosophy. I have not seen this quality of a holistic treatment of this subject matter on American television. Bits and pieces cannot describe the whole concept. Typical American TV funding considerations eliminate any chance of a decent comprehensive series on Happiness. The pharmaceutical industry, for one, would not want to lose out on profits due to PBS viewers coming to their senses and realizing they too can attain a non-medical peace-of-mind. But that’s a discussion for another forum.