Fooling yourself sort of

What you think becomes what you believe and ultimately what you do which leads to who you become. THINK->BELIEVE->DO->BECOME. Fooling yourself properly means garbage in hence garbage out. If you believe, without the universe telling you otherwise. the garbage that is going in is "true" then the garbage out MUST be true. And believing the garbage in can never be absolute as it'd require one to cross Hume's fork.  (footnote below)

     "Hume's fork is an explanation, developed by later philosophers, of David Hume's aggressive, 1730s division of "relations of ideas" from "matters of fact and real existence".^[1] On the necessary versus contingent (concerning reality), the a priori versus a posteriori (concerning knowledge), and the analytic versus synthetic (concerning language), truths relating ideas (abstract) all align on one side (necessary, a priori, analytic), whereas truths on actualities (concrete) always align on the other side (contingent, a posteriori, synthetic).^{[1] "}
    
     "
The first distinction is between two different areas of human study:

All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic ... [which are] discoverable by the mere operation of thought ... Matters of fact, which are the second object of human reason, are not ascertained in the same manner; nor is our evidence of their truth, however great, of a like nature with the foregoing.

- An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding^[7]

Hume's fork is often stated in such a way that statements are divided up into two types:

• Statements about ideas. These are analytic, necessary statements that are knowable a priori.
• Statements about the world. These are synthetic, contingent, and knowable a posteriori.

In modern terminology, members of the first group are known as analytic propositions and members of the latter as synthetic propositions. This terminology comes from Kant (Introduction to Critique of Pure Reason, Section IV).
      The results claimed by Hume as consequences of his fork are drastic. According to him, relations of ideas can be proved with certainty (by using other relations of ideas), however, they don't really mean anything about the world. Since they don't mean anything about the world, relations of ideas cannot be used to prove matters of fact. Because of this, matters of fact have no certainty and therefore cannot be used to prove anything. Only certain things can be used to prove other things for certain, but only things about the world can be used to prove other things about the world. But since we can't cross the fork, nothing is both certain and about the world, only one or the other, and so it is impossible to prove something about the world with certainty.
      If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.^[8] - An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Noun plus Y vs with Noun

     So if one were supposedly teaching someone of the subtleties of language, who never or very rarely spoke the language, we'd expect odd but correct encounters. Take for example the notion that adding a Y to a noun makes it an adjective, a noun describer. Cloud, a noun to cloudy, a describer of the sky. Dirt, a noun to dirty, a describer to a noun.
     If I were to ask, how's the weather? Possibilities would be local weather? Wind speed? humidity? Pressure? A correct  answer of 'cloudy' answers how does the sky look but really tells no one of the correct answer to the initial weather question. And why 'cloudy'? Why not 'with cloud' ?

vignette

      He was about 5'11 200 pounds. Definitely not ripped but fit.  Probably, to my eye, too big to run optimally and too small to be strong.  " I don't mean to be arrogant", he said ironically, " but if the whole army were as strong and fit as me, It'd be an awesome army." He was commenting on our discussion of his occupation in the military as a signal core sergeant.  A general gym douche-bag, but I liked him. He carried on a bit more, a possible promotion in the next few months, on his recent child, his wife and even his wealth.  He was arrogant but in a amusing way to me. Perhaps because I didn't really think joining the military was an endeavor in riches or family. I mean pay for the military sucks and the divorce rate is high. I was more beholden him for his duty in spite of these things, not because of them. He was in no way trying to measure up as I think he thought I was unemployed or at best near that. It was maybe a self convincing deception at his lot in life. Anyways, I chalked him to being at a level of competency equal to his tasks, an idea which says more about myself than him.
     A few months later, I learned from another gym member that he was passed over. No promotion. I chuckled. Not out of spite but because in his mind, advancing the military's ability to "awesome" would require all people be at his physical acumen, according to him, yet a simple promotion wasn't even fitting evidently for those in charge. Talk about being out of sink with the organization. Lord knows I've been there. 
    

Career choice

   He yawned. He had finished the day and he had also finished with his youth. Various well-bred moralities had already discreetly offered him their services: disillusioned epicureanism, smiling tolerance, resignation, common sense stoicism - all the aids whereby a man may savour, minute by minute, like a connoisseur, the failure of a life.

• L'âge de raison (the age of reason)  (1945)- JP Sartre

  Numerous long thought out philosophies were proffered up for their services. Stone faced stoicism, smiling tolerance, resignation, all aids one may savour, minute by minute, like a connoisseur, the regret of a choice of a degree.

hunger

     Hunger is a companion most people dislike. She is not evil, just demanding of attention. She does have some virtuous attributes though. Her huge ability to demand attention ensures a refocus from other bad companions, fear, worry, envy, jealousy, greed, despair,  etc. and what we give attention to means not giving attention to these other things. Other things that may lead us down a road to unhappiness. Hunger, although unpleasant, does not lead to unhappiness. In fact, being virtuous to hunger often lets us visit other stygian companions knowing or not that hunger will soon call us home. She is not acute but ever chronic. Although most people try to soothe her, tis better to encourage her to grow as best as she can. People may state that it is not good, physiologically, to do this, and to extreme degrees this is so. But it is far more likely that most people despise her so much that they hurt themselves physiologically repelling her. Encouraging her is likely far safer (except to the vain who use her solely for alleged aesthetic ends)  physiologically, psychologically and maybe even empathetically as we are reminded of many peoples chronic valley of tears.

science of happiness

Besides being a ripoff of existentialism, which argues ideas through philosophy,  it seems to practice very soft science to confirm questionable axioms. The "science" of happiness is over ambitious, sloppy and reaches questionable "truths"and will certainly deceive many minds to what is "truth". Herein lies the problem because what we believe to be true, affects how we think. What we think leads to what we do an who we become. Certainly most religions follow this recipe, and they're not wrong in a sense, but higher education is supposed to be a quest for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Sciences strive to the precept that it is better to know an ugly truth or even remain ignorant than to be enamored by a beautiful lie.

recipe to happiness

-Type 2 fun-enduring unfun (training for a marathon, fixing up an old car etc.) to complete a passion and finding passions (like marathons and old car restorations) that can fulfill one`s interests.
-Satiating wealth, health and family buckets in a manner that is not burdensome.
-remembering that you enter and leave this world with nothing.
-knowing that one chooses what they think which leads to what one does and who one becomes.