Happiness is the Only Logical Pursuit?

[MustachianAccountant]

I've been thinking about the last blog article for a while now ("Happiness is the Only Logical Pursuit" http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2016/06/08/happiness-is-the-only-logical-pursuit/), and I'm coming up with a lot of questions and problems with the MMM philosophy. He's great at early retirement math and being motivational to that end, but I think he really struggles with philosophy. Which is understandable, as his background is engineering, not philosophy.

At any rate, a couple of basic, glaring questions that aren't covered:

If we are just our brain chemistry ("meat machines"), why is "natural" happiness preferable to "induced" happiness through drugs? He seems to be touching on the idea of "fulfillment" (natural happiness is more fulfilling than chemical happiness) but doesn't flesh that out - what is "fulfillment," and if it too is just a chemical in my brain, we're back to the original question - why not just take a pill? If happiness despite life situation is the "endgame" a pill to alter my brain chemistry into the feelings of happiness should be sufficient.

If I am just a meat machine (I think his exact words are "you are nothing more than a complex machine made of meat"), then is there free will? Machines can't go against their programming... in which case, there's a sticky discussion about criminals, laws, and whether I can even actually choose to retire early or not. After all, maybe my meat machine programming is telling me that I need to be a consumer sucka. What is the part of us that "chooses to change"? Computers can't go against what they've been programmed to do. Even complex ones. So when he says, "happiness automatically includes...being good" and doesn't flesh out what "being good" is, or why someone would "be good" if that's not in their meat machine programming, there's a philosophical problem.

I also think it's interesting that Pete tries to shoehorn his "meat machine" philosophy into Stoicism and Buddhism - while acknowledging these philosophies get it right, he denies the greater spiritual underpinnings that these philosophies are based on.

He really seems to be struggling with a greater meaning to life. I'm interested to see where he ends up.

[marty998]

Can a machine be happy? No.

The whole meat machine thing is a metaphor. I think you're reading too far into it.

Analysing happiness is like analysing comedy, it defeats the purpose. Smile/laugh in the moment, and move on.

[Playing with Fire UK]

The reason I look for natural happiness rather than synthetic/induced happiness is that I've found natural happiness to have positive side effects and synthetic happiness to have negative side effects/after effects.

You bring me some safe long-term happy in a bottle and I'll take it. Dunno if this is what MMM was thinking but I find it internally consistent.

[MustachianAccountant]

Can a machine be happy? No.

The whole meat machine thing is a metaphor. I think you're reading too far into it.

Analysing happiness is like analysing comedy, it defeats the purpose. Smile/laugh in the moment, and move on.

I disagree. I think that MMM actually believes that all you are is a meat machine.

[MustachianAccountant]

The reason I look for natural happiness rather than synthetic/induced happiness is that I've found natural happiness to have positive side effects and synthetic happiness to have negative side effects/after effects.

You bring me some safe long-term happy in a bottle and I'll take it. Dunno if this is what MMM was thinking but I find it internally consistent.

Wait, why did you tack "safe" on there? If my brain is chemically happy, and that is chemically indistinguishable from "natural" happy, why is my external life situation relevant?

[matchewed]

So you cannot distinguish between an induced happiness which causes you harm and a chosen one that does not because they are chemically identical?

Or rather those externalities are actually relevant, you can't just write them off.

[2Cent]

Some people choose a Philosophy as a guide based on what seems true and follow that. Others choose a Philosophy based on what they want to do, to have a rationalization for their behavior. Most people, like MMM, fall into the latter category. In that case there is no point in trying to pin them down on their Philosophy, because it is not leading.

[MustachianAccountant]

So you cannot distinguish between an induced happiness which causes you harm and a chosen one that does not because they are chemically identical?

Or rather those externalities are actually relevant, you can't just write them off.

If the brain chemistry is all that matters to create happiness, then phrasing something as "happy AND" creates a tangent. Sure, "happy AND safe" is nice, but if you could only choose one, which would it be? If the answer is "happy," then you should pursue that at the expense of safety if necessary, because that's your priority.

Theoretically, at least. But when the truth doesn't match the theory, we must ask why. Is it because drugs only approximate happiness? Is it because safety creates happiness for some people? Or something else entirely?

[MustachianAccountant]

Some people choose a Philosophy as a guide based on what seems true and follow that. Others choose a Philosophy based on what they want to do, to have a rationalization for their behavior. Most people, like MMM, fall into the latter category. In that case there is no point in trying to pin them down on their Philosophy, because it is not leading.

This is very insightful - I hadn't considered this.
Something like, "Life philosophy as a justification for choices versus a guide to making good choices."

[J Boogie]

I think the fundamental problem with his article is in the title.  Happiness is a byproduct of living a good life, not a worthwhile goal.

I believe happiness is a byproduct of living your life in a way that is beneficial to others.  Serving others in various ways, especially ways we are good at, is likely to make us happy.

Early retirement in some ways runs counter to this notion.  If your goal is to no longer serve others, you will be unhappy and unfulfilled when you achieve this goal I think.  However many here seek this goal so they can serve others in a more profound, human way. 

I'm a Christian btw.

[ooeei]

If we are just our brain chemistry ("meat machines"), why is "natural" happiness preferable to "induced" happiness through drugs? He seems to be touching on the idea of "fulfillment" (natural happiness is more fulfilling than chemical happiness) but doesn't flesh that out - what is "fulfillment," and if it too is just a chemical in my brain, we're back to the original question - why not just take a pill? If happiness despite life situation is the "endgame" a pill to alter my brain chemistry into the feelings of happiness should be sufficient.

If I am just a meat machine (I think his exact words are "you are nothing more than a complex machine made of meat"), then is there free will? Machines can't go against their programming... in which case, there's a sticky discussion about criminals, laws, and whether I can even actually choose to retire early or not. After all, maybe my meat machine programming is telling me that I need to be a consumer sucka.

And as far as actual happiness vs induced, I don't think current technology is really at the point where the two are comparable.  Virtually all "induced" happiness creators have not so nice side effects and consequences.  Could be an interesting philosophical discussion though, assuming the tech was there.

I guess that depends on how you define "free will."  That's one of those terms that people love using and makes them feel good, but rarely really try to nail down exactly what it means.  Every choice you make and thought you think is influenced in some way.  The predictability of people's decisions is why advertising and market research work so well, and they're only getting better.  Free will is a regular philosophical debate point, and it usually comes down to how it's defined (as do most philosophical arguments).

I'd argue that you can choose to retire early because you have all of the information about it and are in a position where it is possible.  Whether you WILL choose to do it or not could probably be predicted with a sufficiently complex model of your past experiences and genetics if the tech were available to do so.  Currently the human brain and experience is more complex than any simulated models can sufficiently analyze.  That gap is closing quickly.

[Brokefuturedoctor]

This is just in support of what some others have said about happiness being a goal and natural vs artificial.

Based on the one philosophy class I too during undergrad, theoretically, you cannot have happiness as a standalone goal because it is obtained through obtaining other goals. It is an ultimate goal but not a proximal one. One cannot simply pursue "happiness" and expect to become happy.

For example, I set some goals: make sure I have food, water, blah blah. Let's assume "blah blah" is not a necessity. I won't be happy without those things. However, once I obtain or achieve these things I will be happy. In reality achieving synthetic happiness is not really happiness at all but rather an abuse of your own chemical pathways in the brain. That is not to say that it doesn't feel good to when you take a "happy" pill, but it would be fleeting and not true happiness.

Perhaps, this more comes down to how you define happiness. In short, if you are happy, then you need nothing else.

[GuitarStv]

If we are just our brain chemistry ("meat machines"), why is "natural" happiness preferable to "induced" happiness through drugs? He seems to be touching on the idea of "fulfillment" (natural happiness is more fulfilling than chemical happiness) but doesn't flesh that out - what is "fulfillment," and if it too is just a chemical in my brain, we're back to the original question - why not just take a pill? If happiness despite life situation is the "endgame" a pill to alter my brain chemistry into the feelings of happiness should be sufficient.

Epicurus covered similar questions regarding his advocacy of hedonism (it's worth checking out some of his stuff).  In the short term you might be just as happy by popping a pill to be happy.  Long term however, this is almost always a poor response.  The pill won't necessarily always be available (due to monetary, legal, or supply problems), or you will probably develop addiction/resistance to the pill.  Dependence on a pill can lead to situations where your relationships with friends and family are damaged.  Short term it works out the same.  When you look at the long term effects, a pill is a poor substitute for a life well lived.

If I am just a meat machine (I think his exact words are "you are nothing more than a complex machine made of meat"), then is there free will? Machines can't go against their programming... in which case, there's a sticky discussion about criminals, laws, and whether I can even actually choose to retire early or not. After all, maybe my meat machine programming is telling me that I need to be a consumer sucka. What is the part of us that "chooses to change"? Computers can't go against what they've been programmed to do. Even complex ones. So when he says, "happiness automatically includes...being good" and doesn't flesh out what "being good" is, or why someone would "be good" if that's not in their meat machine programming, there's a philosophical problem.

Most current science points to the answer that no . . . there is no free will.  We are controlled by the electrical impulses and biochemical reactions that happen in our brains.  Something as simple as a tumor can make you a pedophile (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2943-brain-tumour-causes-uncontrollable-paedophilia/).  There's evidence that any descision you make is determined before you're conscious of the action you take (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html).  Then we have the uncomfortable effect of knowing that there is no free will, which is that we change to become more antisocial and dishonest (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/scientists-say-free-will-probably-doesnt-exist-but-urge-dont-stop-believing/).

This does open a large can of worms regarding treatment of criminals, how we view morality, and general philosophy of life.

[tobitonic]

I agree that MMM is clutching at straws in these discussions, but that's because I agree with the philosophy that happiness comes from a combination of a sense of purpose and a sense of connection (e.g., Freud's "love and work" theory, findings from the Blue Zones, etc). I get the sense that MMM feels a lot of pressure to keep writing articles because the blog makes such a large amount of money and he doesn't want to let it go even though he hasn't needed the money for a long time. That leads to a lot of articles that seem like self-serving stabs in the dark, especially when contrasted with other articles on the site (e.g., his recent arguing that dogs were optional after a previous article justifying their decision to have a child, which simultaneously insisted additional children were unnecessary for other families).

[Playing with Fire UK]

The reason I look for natural happiness rather than synthetic/induced happiness is that I've found natural happiness to have positive side effects and synthetic happiness to have negative side effects/after effects.

You bring me some safe long-term happy in a bottle and I'll take it. Dunno if this is what MMM was thinking but I find it internally consistent.

Wait, why did you tack "safe" on there? If my brain is chemically happy, and that is chemically indistinguishable from "natural" happy, why is my external life situation relevant?

I was using safe as a proxy for 'will not have a long term impact that makes me unhappy or give me less time to be happy in'. So alcohol makes me happy, too much alcohol gives me a hangover, which makes me unhappy, and could give me liver cancer, which could reduce the amount of time I get to be happy in.

So even if a massive dose of heroin would make me happier than anything else but then kill me rapidly, I'd prefer to have less happiness intensity and more time to be happy in.

I think you are saying that if there is a way so that the brain isn't aware of the hangover, then we don't need to consider the hangover in the happiness balance?

[Blueskies123]

I believe happiness is a byproduct of living your life in a way that is beneficial to others.  Serving others in various ways, especially ways we are good at, is likely to make us happy.

Early retirement in some ways runs counter to this notion.  If your goal is to no longer serve others, you will be unhappy and unfulfilled when you achieve this goal I think.  However many here seek this goal so they can serve others in a more profound, human way. 

I have never found someone that dedicated their life and or a large part of the life to helping others that was unhappy, by the way, some of them have incurred incredible loss and tragedy.  This thread has touched on two different topics, self will and happiness.  These are completely different topics.  In my 61 years I have learned that if I stop thinking about myself and serve others I will be happy.  Although every strand of my body wants to only serve itself I Choose to think of others.  (as best I can).

[2Cent]

I believe happiness is a byproduct of living your life in a way that is beneficial to others.  Serving others in various ways, especially ways we are good at, is likely to make us happy.

Early retirement in some ways runs counter to this notion.  If your goal is to no longer serve others, you will be unhappy and unfulfilled when you achieve this goal I think.  However many here seek this goal so they can serve others in a more profound, human way. 

I have never found someone that dedicated their life and or a large part of the life to helping others that was unhappy, by the way, some of them have incurred incredible loss and tragedy.  This thread has touched on two different topics, self will and happiness.  These are completely different topics.  In my 61 years I have learned that if I stop thinking about myself and serve others I will be happy.  Although every strand of my body wants to only serve itself I Choose to think of others.  (as best I can).

Only if you come in with the right expectations. I have met quite a few bitter and sad people who dedicated their lives to serving others at their own expense, only to find after many years that people were basically using them and didn't care about them beyond what they did for them. Even after a while some of the receivers of help where starting to feel entitled, like it was their right to get free help. When they started they had visions of scores of grateful people which where saved from their problems.

[mak1277]

I believe happiness is a byproduct of living your life in a way that is beneficial to others.  Serving others in various ways, especially ways we are good at, is likely to make us happy.

Early retirement in some ways runs counter to this notion.  If your goal is to no longer serve others, you will be unhappy and unfulfilled when you achieve this goal I think.  However many here seek this goal so they can serve others in a more profound, human way. 

I have never found someone that dedicated their life and or a large part of the life to helping others that was unhappy, by the way, some of them have incurred incredible loss and tragedy.  This thread has touched on two different topics, self will and happiness.  These are completely different topics.  In my 61 years I have learned that if I stop thinking about myself and serve others I will be happy.  Although every strand of my body wants to only serve itself I Choose to think of others.  (as best I can).

Only if you come in with the right expectations. I have met quite a few bitter and sad people who dedicated their lives to serving others at their own expense, only to find after many years that people were basically using them and didn't care about them beyond what they did for them. Even after a while some of the receivers of help where starting to feel entitled, like it was their right to get free help. When they started they had visions of scores of grateful people which where saved from their problems.

If you're helping in order to receive gratitude that's quite different than helping simply because helping is the right thing to do. 

[sandmaninator]

Studies have determined that Latin Americans are some of the happiest folks on the planet.
I know many Mexicans that live in situations that would make an American or other "first-worlder" run for the exits. These folks actually have the option to move to "better" places but they cannot do so and maintain their happiness. They are so rooted to the local culture. They come to the states and are unhappy because they have no attachment, no purpose.

There is this danger with Mustachianism - It is deviant by definition. It is an attempt to re-program the meat machine and live unlike those around you.

I've been thinking a lot lately about anomie and I'd really like to read Sebastien Junger's book "Tribes" and "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind" by Harari. Pete's already read something like that, as evidenced by his suggestion to start one's own local urban tribe. I just don't think it is quite that easy. Especially if you are working. And then, you are adrift.

Anyway, I am still Mustachian. I've always been aloof , so, just more of the same. Sometimes I imagine if I lived in some other country with a well-defined culture that has not been taken-over by mass-media and consumerism, I'd be happier. But, all my friends and family live here. Plus, Freedom  ;-)

Look at what people do when they can choose their reality (video games). Seems mostly joining some imaginary tribe and then killing others. Hopefully a nice boost to the ego, a feeling of belonging, practicing a skill.  I plan to watch that space as it will (and has!) reveal much about how to manipulate the happiness center of human minds.  Data is being collected all the while...

[StacheOfInnerPeace]

I think the original poster and maybe MMM might find a lot of answers in Sam Harris' writings, podcasts, and queries.

https://www.samharris.org/waking-up

The first chapter is read by the author as one of his podcasts. Listening may save a trip to the library; or motivate a more expeditious trip.

Although I have not read or listened to any of it, he also has a book on free will:

https://www.samharris.org/free-will

SoIP