Pretentious Crap

[Mr. Tea]

People often confuse individuality with selfishness...you can be your own person and do your own thing without being a complete arsehole to everyone else.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Individualism

 

[josef k.]

I don't think it is an easy matter to compare "our" happiness to the happiness of some other subject (who?) in the past.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Individualism

If I want to write 'individuality' then I damn well WILL, alright? YOU ARE NOT THE BOSS OF ME!

 

[mixed_biscuits]

I don't think it is an easy matter to compare "our" happiness to the happiness of some other subject (who?) in the past.

In less individualistic societies the thoughts and feelings of the individual are less likely to be considered important - there would be a bias in the evidence.

Presumably one can make reasonable assumptions about what is painful to the individual subject as a physical human being - ie. hunger, thirst, unfashionable trainers etc...

 

[josef k.]

A very shrewd point - in a sense, the concept of happiness and the concept of the individual arise at precisely the same time. Happiness is an individualist concept.*



* Also, a warm gun.

 

[vimothy]

Indeed.

A quick online search gives:

pre⋅ten⋅tious
   /prɪˈtɛnʃəs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pri-ten-shuhs] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. full of pretense or pretension.
2. characterized by assumption of dignity or importance.
3. making an exaggerated outward show; ostentatious.

 

[Mr. Tea]

One thing I'm pretty sure of: stopping to ask yourself how happy you are all the time is not going to make you more happy. At best, it's going to have no effect on your happiness - but it may well have an effect, and probably not a positive one.

 

[IdleRich]

"A very shrewd point - in a sense, the concept of happiness and the concept of the individual arise at precisely the same time."

And when was this? I've got a pretty strong idea that if there ever was a time before these concepts existed it was certainly a lot earlier than the 20th century.
What is it that makes you assume there was a time before individuality existed at all?

 

[josef k.]

I don't know - this is not an easy question.

But our current conception of what individual is, and does, and what rights they have, for example, is not a transhistorical absolute.

A lot of this is really about how you define this term. Some concept of individuality probably always existed - but very different from what we have now.

I don't think a stone age tribe, for example, place a huge premium on individual happiness. But our own society is largely organized around this idea.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

A very shrewd point - in a sense, the concept of happiness and the concept of the individual arise at precisely the same time. Happiness is an individualist concept.

Hmm I see what you mean, but that wasn't what I intended - I find it hard to imagine (I suppose, for obvious reasons) that humans of 10,000 years past weren't essentially the same as people now.

I meant that in collectivist societies, individual, dissenting voices are more likely to be suppressed, making the general and personal lot seem more appealing than it actually was.

Presumably the most basic way of feeling individual would be being aware that one is not other people (for instance, whereas I can will myself to scratch my head, I can't will someone else to do so).

 

[vimothy]

I think in terms of power relations, state constitutions and national and international law, the individual is more at the centre than at any time in the past. Does this mean people are more individual than they were in the past? Not necessarily.

 

[Mr. Tea]

But our current conception of what individual is, and does, and what rights they have, for example, is not a transhistorical absolute.

This seems reasonable.

Something that seems germane here is the James Clavell book I read a while ago, set in feudal-era Japan (400 years ago) where society is stratified in an incredibly rigid caste system - anyway, people in the eta class ('untouchables'), and perhaps even the normal peasant class immediately above them, don't even have proper names, they're just called 'Third Maidservant' or 'Junior Butcher Guy' or whatever, according to their allotted task.

 

[vimothy]

And how (to steer conversation back to the dog) is this related to pretentious crap?

If identity is a negotiation, and happiness is a function of identity, and the internet allows a greater fluidity at the margins (more anonymity and more identity)... is there a link between pretention and happiness? Between the internet and happiness?

 

[vimothy]

the James Clavell book I read a while ago

Shogun? I have also read it, years ago -- for some reason the memory of it has stuck with me, even though, IIRC, it was rather less than mind-blowing. It periodically comes up in conversation: quite a weird phenomenon.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

I doubt that we would turn up many memoirs from 'Third Maidservant' to inspect the happiness hypothesis.

Happiness comes from the fulfillment of one's desires - these days we are led to desire without limits. And so, our desires frustrated, we become unhappy.

Pretension sees us fulfilling our desires imaginatively, staving off inevitable frustration.

 

[vimothy]

Pretension sees us fulfilling our desires imaginatively, staving off inevitable frustration.

And so trolling (another kind of pretence) would be the puncturing of that imaginative fulfilment of desire, ruining our cosy fun and bringing us back to the harsh realities of IRL.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Shogun? I have also read it, years ago -- for some reason the memory of it has stuck with me, even though, IIRC, it was rather less than mind-blowing. It periodically comes up in conversation: quite a weird phenomenon.

Yeah, I wouldn't call it mind-blowing exactly, but I enjoyed it enough to finish it, which is saying something because it's a dirty fat fucker of a book.

I think m_b is OTM about limitless desires, that's a very good way of putting it.

 

[zhao]

I always find this hard (basically impossible) to accept, I don't think that individuality is a 20th century construction at all.

notice i said "the 20th century construction of", meaning a particular kind of individuality in the 20th C, meaning that it is not exclusively a 20th C phenomenon.

I don't think it is an easy matter to compare "our" happiness to the happiness of some other subject (who?) in the past.

what about comparing our happiness to the happiness of other subjects in our time?

i've said this before but it can be postulated that all humans want 2 things: autonomy (freedom to do as you like) and community (intimate connection with others). and our modern society gives us neither. compared to, say, the Dobe Ju/'hoansi, who have both (and a lot more than that besides: health, leisure, food)

 

[IdleRich]

"But our current conception of what individual is..... is not a transhistorical absolute."

Maybe not but it's quite a large step to go from this to refering (as Zhao did) to

"the 20 century construction of individuality"

Which seems a very strong and surprisingly definite claim.

"Some concept of individuality probably always existed - but very different from what we have now."

Probably on what basis? I want to know why people think this.

"I think in terms of power relations, state constitutions and national and international law, the individual is more at the centre than at any time in the past. Does this mean people are more individual than they were in the past? Not necessarily"

I agree with this.
And more cautiously this

"I find it hard to imagine (I suppose, for obvious reasons) that humans of 10,000 years past weren't essentially the same as people now."

- or at least I do until I see an argument for why people are more individual now.