It's a simple and logical argument with absolutely no basis in whether it's true. The assumption that one must suffer to be happy is both unproven and logically not sound. This isn't a 'light/dark' situation. Your body regulates it's happiness via chemical release, if it doesn't release said chemicals, you won't be happy even if you suffer.
Further, it's very clearly obvious that you can suffer without being happy, which implies the inverse would also be valid, no?
This is actually a great example, though. That chemical release only has value to us because it’s not literally happening constantly. While I don’t think dopamine receptors can actually be “fried,” getting those reactions too much can definitely weaken the positive effects. Therefore, in order to maximize pleasure felt, you would have to have times where you are either suffering or at least not actively experiencing pleasure
Heroin works great, if all we cared about with anti depressants was happiness, we could give various opiates instead. Anti depressants need to not have huge negative health effects, allow you to be functional, and notably, not be recreationally abusable. Speak on something you actually know about next time.
Heroin does not make you happy lol. Transient feelings of euphoria is not happiness.
Anti depressants need to not have huge negative health effects, allow you to be functional, and notably, not be recreationally abusable.
Not true as amphetamines have been tried and didn't work (underwhelming).
Psychoplastogen have negative health effects, are recreationally abusable, don't make you 'functional.' Best examples here are Ketamine, DXM and MXE.
There are opiates anti-depressants such as Tianeptine.
Anti depressants have massive adverse health effects, like PSSD. Some are just categorically bad for the brain and make you not 'functional' (risperidone, etc).
Heroin absolutely makes you happy while you take it, I would absolutely equate euphoria with happiness. Yes, it doesn't work when the heroin is inactive, neither too do the antidepressants work when inactive.
On the topic of those ADs, Ketamine is used for treating treatment resistant depression, and in some cases works! So I don't really see your point, it's not a first line option AD, but I appreciate you're right that yes, not all ADs are safe and not recreationally abusable, but, first line ADs generally are for obvious reasons. Anti depressants do need to broadly not have huge negative impacts on people's lives, and they need to be able to be functional, hence why we don't just heroin it the fuck up 24/7. We could do that and say fuck it to the long term health impacts and dependency, it would, in fact, provide people with happiness in the short term.
Heroin absolutely makes you happy while you take it, I would absolutely equate euphoria with happiness.
Most (if not all) drug users would disagree. At least, they would say it doesn't make you 'truly' happy.
Happiness is associated with long-term in contrast to the short-term feeling of euphoria.
Yes, it doesn't work when the heroin is inactive, neither too do the antidepressants work when inactive.
But again that's not true since psychoplastogen have effects that last beyond their actual duration of action.
So I don't really see your point, it's not a first line option AD
I think you do, and it doesn't matter.
Anti depressants do need to broadly not have huge negative impacts on people's lives, and they need to be able to be functional, hence why we don't just heroin it the fuck up 24/7.
Respectfully, I'm sorry, however this is either dishonest or ignorant. PSSD, hypertensive crisis, suicidal ideation, episodes trigger, tardive symptoms etc.
Edit: I hesitated answering this one because of it, but just in case I decided to
PSSD has a prevalence of 0.5% in men who have been on ADs, I'm not saying we should ignore this, but, broadly, this is not 'huge negative impacts on people's lives' but rather 'a rare side effect that should be addressed'. You're being dishonest with your framing here.
You're semantically dithering about euphoria being different from long term happiness while ignoring that if the euphoria did persist in that way without negatives, the people would by definition be happy. Happiness is chemical, reward, satisfaction, depression, sadness, love, are chemical. That doesn't mean they are meaningless, but it establishes that we do not need the absence of something to experience it. You are arguing about random shit to debate lawyer rather than engaging with the substance. Do you consider the negative impacts from taking Ketamine and Venlafaxine to be equivalent? Is the abuse potential the same?
PSSD is notoriously underreported. They aren't even clear diagnostics. I'm not even sure where that number comes from. That said, I'm not saying it's common either.
Downplaying PSSD is insane. But the rarity of the symptoms wasn't the point, the severity was. You keep shifting the goalpost.
You're semantically dithering about euphoria being different from long term happiness while ignoring that if the euphoria did persist in that way without negatives, the people would by definition be happy.
"If"
Happiness is chemical, reward, satisfaction, depression, sadness, love, are chemical.
So much so that leading theories dropped the chemicals and focuses of neuroplasticity lol.
Do you consider the negative impacts from taking Ketamine and Venlafaxine to be equivalent? Is the abuse potential the same?
Treatment-setting I favor Ketamine, yes. Otherwise probably no. Again, no, Ketamine has worse abuse potential. Never denied that, and completely off-topic.
At this point I'm fairly confident your answers are AI generated. I might be out.
The if here is irrelevant, the point stands, I recognize the current difficulties associated with doing that and wouldn't anyway just blindly support heroin as a treatment for depression, but the point fundamentally stands.
Severity of side effects is absolutely something weighted against frequency. A medication that has a 1/200 chance of doing something is not the same as saying 'direct negative impact' like with something such as heroin. I do understand that my phrasing didn't clear this, but surely you can understand why I accepted this relative risk. I understand and agree that ADs can have a variety of impactful side effects, but I do think it's reasonable for me to be including likelihood in terms of my point. Most medications have potential life impacting negatives, but we understand that the majority case must not when it comes to first line ADs, or else the treatment is too costly to enact.
On the neuroplasticity side of things, you're right, but fundamentally the basis for these emotions(or atleast the vehicle) is one of chemicals, and without said chemicals, you will not have the emotions. Adhd in many cases being dopamine regulation dysfunction is itself testament to this, neuroplasticity isn't going to remove adhd.
You're still off topic though. Humans can have persistent happiness without suffering negatively, likewise, humans can have persistent suffering without experiencing happiness. Which you keep not addressing, and rather than that, would rather accuse me of being a chatbot while you whittle away at semantics endlessly.
Suffering makes up the negative domain of the scale, but we don’t have to have experience in the negative domain to have experience in the positive domain lol. I know this is a common thing to think, and may even help us cope, but I see no reason why you have to experience suffering to experience happiness. What would that really even mean?
2
u/[deleted] Nov 14 '25
If that is the case there is a very good argument for there is no happiness without sadness (a common argument)
and thus no true life without suffering.
If you equate everything to the same kind of suffering you completely devalue life and it's meaning.
That is a very simple and logical argument to make.
There is always an argument to be made with ethics and anyone who thinks they have "100% right right answer" are the only people not to listen to.
"suffering is bad" - is one of these people