What Is Happy (again)

It occured to me that (though it is astract) the distinction between thinking and belief may have more far reaching consequences than I thought in philosophy of langauge.

If the difference is (more or less) the distinction between ability to think and actual individuated belief, then the case can be made that the latter state is required in order to function successfully.

We discussed how all philosophers had to have one unmovable, fundamental if they are going to express any kind of dogmatism (for Rand this was life). But above this one unmovable, philosophers could then construct second-level absolutes. In this, so far, our method is not that different from Descartes'. Our second-level theory here is that one moral absolute is success. To be happy one must be successfull. To be successful, as we have said, we must hold individuated belief.

So, we can say that the latter concept, real belief, is required for action and success.

As always, we must take a moment to make sure we have the terms right. If Reid is right that most of the failure of thinking

"There is no greater impediment to the advancement of knowledge than the ambiguity of words." Reid, Beginning of IPM

it is necessary for us to elaborate. If our unmoving fundamental is "reality and objectivity" we use a commonsense evaluation of the word "success." It is no better defined by other terms than it is already known. Success is ... well success. A commonsense thinker is always of the belief that things are as they are, that over-elaboration leads to obscurantism, and in this we can only attempt to compensate for centuries of hyper-critical thought. "Success" is the achievment of goals produced by a healthy and active mind. It exists socially but benefits individually. It is always cognizant of the real world and the complexities inherent in our part in this world, cognizant of the dialectic and the irony. It is NOT however first-person testimony or subjectives wants or perceived needs.

Real belief needs to be parsed from perceived belief. Real belief is individuated by the process mind. To attain belief - or what might better be called randomness - by rote methods alone, by, for example, authority or chance, is insuffficient. Belief is an evidenced and unique entity that an individual holds and which has discernable boundaries. It is alone in its place but can be tested against reality. It can exist in the CCS system wherein there is dialectic and irony. It is an individuated reality unto itself that when expressed (ironically) garners universal agreement among all mankind and especially those that were initially opposed to it.

If we can get even a rough sketch of real belief it might help then when we attempt our goal: to show that happiness is the exercise of this belief. It occured to me that most of the misery in the world is found in the error of mixing what we have called "thinking" with "belief." Humans hold fast to mere thoughts. They start wars over ideas that they have created within the social-moral fabric and which shows no character of individuation or clarity or proof. The confusion over what it means to think "merely" and to think intentionally and with wisdom is the confusion that lies at the heart of all dissatisfaction.

The misery that comes to process thinkers with real ideas is a very different misery than that which plagues the horde. These simple untrained humans have no way to define happines and thus launch into a full life of repeating this loose thinking, this chaos of the mind. They cannot introspect because to do this successfully requires the process method and real belief. To belief truly is a skill and a life-long commitment to reality.

It is here that we see that misery is nothing like what we imagine. It does not come from the difficult nature of a real life. It does not come necessarily from "other people." It is not the fault of people outside your mind unless you're held prisoner somewhere never to escape. It is just the inability to draw a distinction between what it is really like to guess and to know. It is the mistake wherein simple people launch into unwise lectures daily about what they think they know. When it is seen that their "belief" is merely random thought, it can be discarded. The temptation to accept it on testimony and authority can be discarded.

Perhaps someday the wise will rise to power. That's what this means. So far it has not happened. But perhaps keeping in mind that we must work diligently to understand belief is the first step in reversing the entirety of human history in this regard, that state of unexamined misery.