From: venu@cirrus.com (Venu Nayar)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
Subject: Re: Individualism...
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:44:56 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.

In <1992Nov16.193450.12087@athena.mit.edu> tyadav@athena.mit.edu (Tapesh
Yadav) writes: 

damn, a week away from here and one misses some real good stuff :-).

>>>>>"I, and I alone, am the only one responsible for my own happiness" 

>>>>however, sometimes it is also possible that my happiness is the result of
>>>>someone else's happiness and well-being. 

>>>Who is this "someone else?"

> samaddar@siemens.com replies:
>>How does this individualism of yours reconcile with the "submission" to
>>a "soul-mate" that you mentioned in another post? MAYBE this "someone else"
>>is your "soul-mate". The point that Venu (PERHAPS) made was that it is
>>possible to feel happy by just making someone else happy. That someone else
>>can be more than one people.

> Well, you are not Venu. Arguments and followups, should not be based 
> on MAY BE or PERHAPS like assumptions. Appears to me as a way to incr 
> INTERNET noise. Why should we assume what Venu (or anyone) means when
> all we need to do is just ask.

well, here i am to answer the question. i would have thought it was pretty
much clear. i meant anyone whose happiness, well-being or comfort makes me
happy. let's see, my SO, my folks, my friends, my dog etc. i just meant to
clarify that a human being does not live in a stasis and so his life is
influenced by other people. as such, it is easy to envisage a situation
where someone else's discomfort makes you unhappy. 

> Contextually, this particular question: "Who is this "someone else?" is a 
> relevant and generic question. And as your post implicitly suggests, has many 
> different answers:
> - the "someone else" is someone you love
> - the "someone else" is a stranger, an arbitrary stranger

i meant someone you know (not necessarily love).

> If you love that someone, then anything you do would make both of you
> happy - your values, tastes, personalities have a lot in common. You 
> are happy both ways: in the act of making someone happy, AND because 
> the "someone" is happy. This someone, then, could be 
> the soul mate(tm) /kid/parents/friend/math equation/.......

> If the someone else is stranger, then we are talking about "living for
> others ala altruism" stuff. And, if Venu or you meant that, then we just
> have to respectfully disagree and leave it there. Because, IMO,

since i didn't mean that, okay.

>  Each human is responsible and capable of his/her own happiness.
>  No if and buts.

i don't see how you have established that. you say (in the quoted paragraph
above) that the actions of someone you love makes you happy. you say that
you have a lot in common. so? that does not make the other person you,
right? their actions are not dictated by you, and something they do (or
something unforeseen even that happens to them) can cause you unhappiness.  

so, everyone responsible for his/her happiness? no.

capable? of course.
-- 
Venu Nayar			|		Internet: venu@cirrus.com
Cirrus Logic Inc.		|		(510)-226-2100 X3737 
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat,
and wrong.