Comments on: How to Be Happy, Confucian Style

By: William Lu

William Lu — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:44:00 +0000

The Dalai Llama once said it's not about being happy. It's about find meaning. Happiness is only a byproduct.

By: dogen

dogen — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 00:44:00 +0000

Zen recommends withdrawal from society so that practitioners can fully focus on mindful awareness. This is very different then just not having friends. Zen is a special case in which practitioners develop a relationship with themselves using the same mirror neurons that handle social relations with others (Siegel, 2007)

By: rebecca

rebecca — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:43:00 +0000

I think there are other more biological components that also contribute to happiness. In terms of living healthy, when one performs vigorous exercise, endorphins (substance similar to morphine) are released which stimulate the feeling of happiness. Ergo, physical activity should be emphasized if one's goal is to be happy.

By: kyle

kyle — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:53:00 +0000

I am curious as to what Confucian himself would say to your entry on "success." Stating that "the wealth earned from working is also seen in a positive light" is rather assuming, as I am sure there are just as many happy poor people, as there are sad rich people in 2008. Implying that Confucious believed in a correlation between monatary earnings and true happiness seems wrong, and surely such an enlightened individual would think otherwise.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:37:00 +0000

Sir,

first of all, compliments on this blog - I've been reading it for about an hour or so and thorouhly enjoyed it!

second: I am rather surprised that there is an interpretation of Buddhism which doesn't emphasize schooling as a good thing. From my own personal knowledge, what Budha rebelled against was the mechanical, rote memorization practised by Hindu Brahmins. But he did admonish his students to "think for themselves" and "train their minds". Might it be that Chinese BUddhism is not an accurate representative of Buddhism at all?

By: Jeremy (PsyBlog author)

Jeremy (PsyBlog author) — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 10:44:00 +0000

All, thanks for your comments. I'm happy to see these ideas being challenged - it shows people are interested and engaged. Happy to hear from you all!

By: DrBob

DrBob — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 08:24:00 +0000

Hi Jeremy, just discovered your blog and am really enjoying your articles. I especially like this one about Confucius but looks what's happened! All your commenters are challenging your comments about Buddhism, Taoism and the logic of allocating value to ancient wisdom because it's ancient.
So far, nobody has commented on your really helpful short explorations of Confucius in the light of modern studies of happiness. That's a shame because this is SUCH an interesting collection of points.
"The one who would be in happiness must frequently change" is so good in itself. Change is an inescapable fact of life. As a doctor, I often find patient's are in the deepest suffering because of their inability to accept this and to embrace change as a way of dealing with change. Trying to deny or resist change seems to me to be a key factor in unhappiness.
Your first two points about relationships and society are arguments for engagement. I'm pretty sure this is an equally important fact of life. We are all embedded beings, all living our lives inextricably woven into the environments and contexts of our existence. Fully embracing an engaged way of living is likely to be both more successful and also more happy.
Devotion to occupation sounds a bit like Czisentmihayi's "flow" work - the idea that when you're completely absorbed in achieving a task, goal or activity you're happy.
Yeah, having fun, being healthy and learning might seem obvious but good to put them in here.
It looks like the one principle you're not so sure about it the obligations. Is this the same as duty and responsibilities? If so, isn't the collectivist argument a red herring? Aren't the principles of responsibility, duty and obligation just as relevant in all societies? Maybe it's because if nobody in society rates these values all individuals suffer?
Anyway, thanks for this great post, and I'm sorry to see it got side-tracked, but I think you'd have headed that one off the pass if you'd passed on the Taoist and Buddhist comparisons.
Issues of engagement and adaptability are at the heart of my blog - heroesnotzombies.wordpress.com - you'd be most welcome to come and have a read.
Bob

By: HoverHell

HoverHell — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 11:02:00 +0000

It's still possible to be happy going buddhism way, ancient one as well. But it probably requires much personal effort, not just 'prefer to do it that way'.
And, it is possible to stop the strive for happiness through philosophy...

By: Chris Marshall | Martial Development

Chris Marshall | Martial Development — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:58:00 +0000

Jeremy,
In my understanding, it was common to layer multiple meanings into the individual words, phrases, and stories of the Taoist canon; meanings which frustrate a reductive analysis or interpretation. What the authors wrote was usually less than (or in some cases the opposite of) what they actually meant!

This is not to say that attempts at comparison are necessarily futile. But I am skeptical that conclusions such as "Education is partly endorsed by Taoism" can be justified from the source literature (having read many of the translations and commentaries myself).

By: Michael Meadon

Michael Meadon — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:45:00 +0000

Thanks for the reply. And good form conceding so quickly - it made me respect you even more. :-)