[Buddha-l] The Malaise of Modernity

[Richard Hayes]

On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 18:34 -0500, Alberto Todeschini wrote:

> > Now if the data collected is simply a record of responses to the question "Are
> > you happy?" there is nothing wrong with those data.
> 
> And this is precisely what a large part of the field is based on.

So it would seem a large part of the field of scientists agrees with my
claim that the only meaningful measure of happiness is a person's report
of feelings. This suggests that happiness is a purely subjective state
about which it is impossible for a person to be mistaken. So long as no
one out there is making the dreadful mistake of saying something like
"Devadatta THINKs he is happy, but he is mistaken in this thought," I am
happy.

What makes me happiest is reading Sanskrit texts, so I'll get back to
doing that and leave those who gain pleasure from studying
questionnaires to pursue happiness in their own way.

> - relative wealth as opposed to absolute wealth *is* strongly
> correlated with happiness. For instance (I'm making the numbers up,
> but it's the idea that counts) people tend to be happier if they earn
> $50000 a year when their peers earn $30000 than if they make $100000
> when their peers make $500000.

Yes, I have seen these conclusions (and most of the others you have
reported).

> One obvious policy would be to encourage the conditions
> under which the redistribution of wealth is possible, for instance by
> taxing the wealthiest and improving the financial lot of the poorest.

Do social scientists note that about 85% of American people call such a
policy Socialism, a word that immediately induces convulsive jerking of
the knees accompanied by projectile vomiting?  

My favorite politcal scientist was Mort Sahl, who observed that liberals
feel ashamed of their wealth, while conservatives feel that they fully
deserve everything they have stolen.

> What if you are a politician or civil servant?

Under those circumstances, I commit suicide.

>  Are you going to tell
> your colleagues or your constituency that your policy is worthy
> because of something the Buddha or Heinrich von Kleist said?

No, I usually tell my colleagues that reality is so complex that no
policy would be workable if it were devised by someone as simpleminded
as I.

> If anything, I'm more and more amazed at how many things the
> Buddha, for instance, got right.

How do you know he got things right? All you are in a position to know
is that you agree with him about some things and that you also agree
with scientists who say approximately the same things. In short, you
know what you believe, and nothing more.

> Never heard anyone suggest this. See above. What scientists have done
> is offer a much improved understanding of both the whole picture and
> of the details.

If you are talking about physicists and chemists and biologists and
geologists, I could not agree with you more. (In other words, I share
their prejudices.) If you are talking about pseudo-scientists, such as
sociologists and social psychologists, I remain unconvinced that they
have much insight at all into either the big picture or the significance
of details. Were it not for the fact that I know that universities are
run by used care salesmen and retired football stars who have no
understanding at all of the intellectual life, it would amaze me that
universities actually pay sociologists. (In other words, I do not share
their prejudices.) 

Another big mistake that universities make, by the way, is to pay
philosophers. Anyone who accepts money for what they should be doing for
free is obviously too dishonest to be paid anything at all.

> In general, I'd say that it is a mistake to underestimate the degree
> of sophistication, self-scrutiny, the awareness of flaws and problems
> as well as the ability to see both the whole picture as well as the
> details of the scientists involved in researching happiness.

I assure you, I am not mistaken in underestimating their value. In fact,
on careful reflection, I am pretty sure that by dint of discussing them
at all I have overestimated their value.

Bear in mind, I have never read anything by a sociologist, but I did
have a friend once who read something by a sociologist. When I
discovered that, I immediately terminated our friendship.

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico