>
> I was addressing Ted, not you. :)
>
> But but but... that wasn't really my point. The Greeks and pre-Christians
> in general did not define "being a happy person" (Diogenes notwithstanding;
> we're speaking generally) with one's internal "feelings" at all. The
> Christians defined it as being related positively to God (again, not a
> subjective state -- often in fact in contradiction to that state). The
> run-of-the-mill post- or late-Christian (let's be honest -- everybody in the
> modern Western world is a Christian in their fundamental outlook, especially
> and most amusingly Carrol Cox) views it as "experiencing pleasurable
> sensations."
>
>
Here's the real "feedback loop" though...
The ancients, whether so-called pagan or Christian, viewed this as an ideal, something which should be striven for. (Again, I think that Freud's notion of the "ideal-ego" captures it perfectly).
But in my opinion so does the modern notion of "happiness". The funny thing about this is that its claims that its an "inner" emotional state - whatever that actually means. But its the same old [impossible?] ideal; ill-defined and this time put less down to a social pattern of behavior and more towards something which the person should reach by themselves. Its and imperative disguised as emotion. Love, Hate, Anger, Courage, Anxiety - these are emotional states; happiness is a cultural scam which the ancients purported as much as we do today (without the sophisticated cultural apparatus, of course). You want ideology? Here you go!