If I were to name three books that have had the greatest influence in the way I think and lead life, one of them would surely be Fooled by randomness by Nassim Taleb. I have read the book one and a half times and have been fascinated by some of the stuff in the book. In some places, the book is extremely immodest but that is the author's style. Amidst all the positioning and holier-than-thou, there is a lot of sense in what he says.
I would like to bring to your attention a quote from the book: Solon's warning - 'The uncertain future has yet to come, with all variety of future; and him only to whom the divinity has guaranteed continued happiness until the end we may call happy'. Taleb builds on this in a way and combines the good and bad effects of randomness to bring about his views of success, luck, etc.
I do not agree to Solon's statement completely. Happiness to me is more a stock variable: at any given point of time, you can either be happy or you are not; and the argument ends there. The state of being happy can change quickly thanks to uncertainity of the future. But calling only those who enjoy perpetual happiness as being 'happy' isn't something I wouldn't agree with.
Here I am tempted to think along the lines of what constitutes happiness and whether it is an abosolute term at all. Does happiness derive from the change in one state to another (whereby happiness is a relative perception of the mind) or is happiness absolute and stand alone? My answer tends more towards the former than the latter.
I would like to bring to your attention a quote from the book: Solon's warning - 'The uncertain future has yet to come, with all variety of future; and him only to whom the divinity has guaranteed continued happiness until the end we may call happy'. Taleb builds on this in a way and combines the good and bad effects of randomness to bring about his views of success, luck, etc.
I do not agree to Solon's statement completely. Happiness to me is more a stock variable: at any given point of time, you can either be happy or you are not; and the argument ends there. The state of being happy can change quickly thanks to uncertainity of the future. But calling only those who enjoy perpetual happiness as being 'happy' isn't something I wouldn't agree with.
Here I am tempted to think along the lines of what constitutes happiness and whether it is an abosolute term at all. Does happiness derive from the change in one state to another (whereby happiness is a relative perception of the mind) or is happiness absolute and stand alone? My answer tends more towards the former than the latter.
My best effort would be to define happiness as a state of mind. A state of mind which can further be broken down into a specific mental chemical balance (do I love this line of reasoning or what!) To that extant, happiness is an absolute state. We can, in some form describe happiness as - 'a mind state where the subject has an endorphin concentration of xx gm/Litre'. Depending on how you are as a person, the value of xx will differ. But this is not the 'non-absoluteness' I want to talk about.
Happiness is derived from relative improvements in situations. Abolsute situations do not guarantee happiness. E. g. If you beat Usain Bolt in a 100m race, the first time you are happy. Your endorphine level shoots up to 10xx or something. The 100th time you beat him in a 100m race, the end state is still the same in an absolute sense but you don't feel half as happy.
Humans are greedy by nature. Our happiness circuits follow the law of diminishing returns. It's as if the gland releasing the happiness hormones says "I've seenenough of this. Show me something better!".
No comments:
Post a Comment