support the show…


H36: Season Six Intermission - Happiness


While Daniel is off gallivanting around the world, back here in Philadelphia I continue to ponder.  Today’s show is a brief update on my latest thoughts about happiness, being a happiness consultant, the “gap” I sometimes perceive between Daniel and me, and thoughts about starting a whole new podcast.

Never a dull moment!

3 comments to H36: Season Six Intermission – Happiness

  • Erica

    GOODNESS. Hi. I’ve only listened to the first few minutes of this episode, but I had to stop to comment. The first few things on your list are EXACTLY what’s been bothering me the past few hours (I’m listening to all of the season sort of piece-meal as I go through some work).

    The “more fun” vs. “should do”, and the “uncertain” vs. “certainty”.

    I find “fun” and “uncertain” much more appealing, in part because “should do” and “certainty” have been such a large part of dealing with my own childhood trauma. They are what I would call my “primal addictions” – at least the ones that are at the forefront right now.

    Just…yes. Exciting. I’ll go listen to the rest now.

  • Derek Vernon Smith

    Congratulations for your very open and honest ruminations on these points. I get the impression that you are responding defensively to what you perceive as an attack, or at least a threat (and in fairness DM did criticise your definitions and approach – and he produced some pretty solid epistemology to support his ideas). This is why I find it so valuable, indeed priceless and irreplaceable, to use the filter of philosophy and epistemology when considering ideas, principles, propositions and axioms: in philosophy everybody wins when the truth is the goal. Different individuals regarding a problem from different angles is helpful in delineating the truth (as best as we are able based on current knowledge), but the idea that there are multiple and different truths is sophistry that leads to moral relativism, helpful, I would argue, because it can be used to allow us to retain historic relationships with angry and broken people without calling them on their bullshit. There is only one answer to the mathematical proposition 2+2. I think you both have much value to bring to the conversation, even if it emerges that, for example, your happiness consultant role is tinged with avoidance associated with your own history, and that Daniel’s rigour in avoiding emotional / physical connection to another (just one) human being is likewise rooted in history and avoidance. Listening to the pair of you, I have developed the fantasy that you are actually building a bridge towards each other and I think this was to some extent revealed in your latest chat – I hope you reach out and hold hands soon. It’s great that you challenge each others’ assumptions, but the most principled argument will always prevail in any debate (and quite rightly so).

  • Paul

    It occurred to me Derek, that while 2 + 2 always = 4, 2 + 3 always equals 5 and so on. In this sense are there are multiple and infinite truths.

Leave a Reply