The Joy of “Dissatisfaction”

In my philosophy, “love” is an extremely central concept. A detailed exposition of this concept has not yet been worked out; but to give a preliminary indication, one may say that before we get to the level of “overflow” and “outpouring,” that is, before speaking of “giving” or “offering oneself,” the most primitive and basic meaning of “love” is after all “desire” and “need,” and its root is “dissatisfaction.”

What I want to talk about here is precisely this “dissatisfaction.” People usually regard “dissatisfaction” as a bad state, associating it with pain and resentment; correspondingly, “satisfaction” is seen as a good state, associated with comfort and happiness.

Yet I say: not so. “Dissatisfaction” is not necessarily linked to resentment; on the contrary, it is precisely “dissatisfaction” that makes happiness possible.

“Dissatisfaction” and “hate” are entirely different. One can see their world of difference from the words themselves alone—“dissatisfaction” means feeling that something is “missing,” and therefore needing and desiring (loving) it; “hate,” by contrast, means feeling that something is “too much,” that some thing is offensive to the eye, and therefore rejecting, attacking, or trying to eliminate it.

Although these two emotions—as the phrase “a tangled mix of love and hate” suggests—often become entwined, it is obvious that “dissatisfaction” need not involve “hate,” and “hate” need not involve “dissatisfaction.” For instance, if I am hungry and want to eat, that is a kind of dissatisfaction, but unless I am hungry to the point of unbearable suffering, I will not resent anything because of it. Or again, if I hate smoking, that is a kind of hate, but I do not thereby feel that anything is lacking. This is true in the most primitive and simple sense, and it is equally true in more complex usages—for example, my feeling “dissatisfied” with the social status quo does not mean that I resent certain things, and my feeling dissatisfied with the current state of my life does not in the slightest mean that I am wallowing in self-pity.

“Dissatisfaction” makes sustained happiness possible. Let us still begin with the simplest case: enjoying delicious food is pleasurable, but such enjoyment is only possible when my appetite is in a state of “dissatisfaction.” Of course, after a hearty meal, I will feel “satisfied,” and at the same time feel happy; yet this happiness is less something brought about by “satisfaction” than a lingering aftertaste of the happiness felt in the earlier process of enjoyment—and thus in the state of dissatisfaction. If my appetite (my stomach) were forever in a state of “satisfaction,” I would never get to enjoy the happiness that eating and drinking bring.

You may say that I am merely playing with words, and that you can play even better: for example, you can interpret “satisfaction” as a verb, that is, the process of enjoying fine food is precisely the process called “satisfying,” and this process brings happiness; if that is how one wants to put it, there is nothing to be done about it. In any case, what is called “satisfaction” can become a process only because it is guaranteed by “dissatisfaction.” (A subtler case is “overflow,” which I will develop in later discussion.)

I am only saying that “dissatisfaction” is the basis of happiness, making happiness possible. But I have not said that dissatisfaction is necessarily happiness. If you have been hungry for three days, it is of course hardly a happy thing. The happiness of “dissatisfaction” still requires other conditions—for example, that one not suffer excessive discomfort in other respects as a result of dissatisfaction, because of unavoidable bodily or psychological fragility (such as the various discomforts caused by hunger).

On the other hand, human beings always have to do something—in other words, to pursue something: either to seek it through action, or to seek it through thought (which is also a kind of action)—in order to obtain sustained happiness.

Some happiness does not require one to do anything; one can enjoy it by thinking nothing and doing nothing. For example, after eating and drinking one may lazily lie down, or after taking drugs one may feel intoxicated and buoyant as if ascending to heaven. But such happiness is difficult to sustain, because states resembling “fullness” are always temporary. Of course, some people do not find ease through bodily satisfaction but through a so-called spiritual satisfaction—a state of “having no desires and no demands.” I do not deny those people’s way of life, including the simple life of eating and sleeping. Yet no matter whether those lives are more “noble,” at least they are not more “happy.” In fact, the life of having no desires and no demands may lead to a state of neither worry nor joy—neither painful nor happy. Perhaps some people, by playing with words, call that a kind of “higher” happiness; but why could one not also call it a higher sorrow? In any case, what I am talking about now is happiness, leaving aside for the moment whether it is noble or not.

More lasting happiness is often obtained through certain sustained actions, such as playing games. The purpose of a game is merely to achieve a certain state; yet throughout the entire process of pursuing and striving for that purpose, the participant obtains sustained happiness. The process of pursuing all kinds of “ends” is similar: without an end, the whole process has no momentum to unfold; and if there is no “dissatisfaction,” it is hard for us to find an “end.” “Dissatisfaction” means that something is lacking, that something is required, and this makes it possible to posit an “end,” and thereby makes possible the process of pursuing that end. As for whether that end is achieved, or even whether it is fundamentally impossible to achieve, this does not directly erase the happiness people derive from it. It is like a lost game still being able to bring delight. Of course, “hate” can likewise help us establish “ends,” and behavior driven by hate may even bring a certain pleasure. But if that pleasure is to be maintained over time, the existence of “dissatisfaction” is still required—namely, dissatisfaction with “release” or “venting.”

“Dissatisfaction” means “possibility,” making it possible for people to have hope and expectation, and also to choose and pursue. Even if one does nothing in action, “dissatisfaction” at least guarantees the possibility of “fantasy,” because it is only through the existence of “dissatisfaction” that people can imagine the good; if reality were already complete and flawless, the human imagination would find it hard to spread its wings, and philosophy and religion would both have nowhere to begin.

In short, when you feel “dissatisfied,” enjoy the happiness, go pursue, go love, do not hate.

October 12, 2008

最新评论

• Yunzi 2008-10-12 19:00:39 Anonymous 124.205.78.160 

  ——“Dissatisfaction” means feeling that something is “missing,” and therefore needing and desiring (loving) it; “hate,” by contrast, means feeling that something is “too much,” that some thing is offensive to the eye, and therefore rejecting, attacking, or trying to eliminate it.
  In that case, dissatisfaction can also be said to be a kind of hate, though a rather special one. In fact, if something is offensive to the eye, one does not necessarily reject it, attack it, or try to eliminate it. For example, “dissatisfaction” can also be interpreted as feeling that one has an extra desire, which is very troublesome, so one tries as much as possible to satisfy it. Of course, one can also say that once a desire is satisfied, it is thereby eliminated. It’s just that the way the desire is eliminated is rather special.

• Gu Xi

  2008-10-12 21:36:06

  Love and hate are always entangled beyond clear separation; you can interpret love as a kind of hate, and you can also interpret hate as a kind of love. Yet the way one interprets one’s own emotions will guide the development of those emotions.
  Once “dissatisfaction” is interpreted as hatred toward some “superfluous desire,” it is thereby steered toward hate; but my interpretation is precisely an attempt to avoid the tendency toward “hate.” Why should you regard some desire as “superfluous”? Why should you think that the increase of desire is a bad thing? Isn’t the existence of desire precisely the precondition for hope and lasting happiness? If one interprets things in this direction, then the “superfluous desire” will no longer be offensive to the eye; on the contrary, it will be something exciting.
  The emotion of “dissatisfaction” seeks “satisfaction,” but here at most I am only speaking of “satisfaction” as a verb. “Satisfaction” as an accomplished state does not make one happy. In other words, why should you seek “the elimination of yourself once desire has been satisfied”? Why eliminate desire? Desire itself does not negate itself; it needs to be “continually” satisfied, but it does not require being satisfied “once and for all” (eliminated).
  Hatred and negation of other things often go together with self-hatred and self-negation. As the above comment shows, people often negate their own “desires.” This self-negation takes two forms: one is refusing to seek satisfaction for some desire of one’s own; the other is trying to satisfy it once and for all. Both forms are attempts to eliminate desire. Yet what I want to offer is precisely a third path, namely the path of self-affirmation—not asceticism, and not indulgence, but coexistence with desire, striving to satisfy it while never granting it final satisfaction. It is like saying “seven-tenths full is best when eating”: neither dieting nor overeating, but always maintaining the appropriate state of “dissatisfaction,” is the healthiest and the most capable of yielding lasting happiness.

• Yunzi

  2008-10-13 23:35:01 Anonymous 124.205.78.244 

  What you say is very good. But in “not ascetic, not indulgent, but coexistence with desire, striving to satisfy it while never granting it final satisfaction,” there are some desires that can indeed be handled as you say. But there are some desires that are either satisfied or not satisfied—for instance, you want to have a girlfriend; either you really find one, or you are still single.

• Gu Xi

  2008-10-14 00:32:51 

  Hehe, that is a good example. This involves how desire is interpreted. “Wanting to have a girlfriend” is a very complex statement, and it is hard to say that what it involves is merely “one” simple desire; rather, it is an intertwining of a series of desires. For instance, the desire to be cared for, the desire to care for others, the desire for stability in life, the desire for more excitement in life, and of course the most simple sexual impulse, and so on. A girlfriend can comfort a series of my desires at once, but it is hard to say that “wanting a girlfriend” is an independent desire that is either wholly satisfied or wholly unsatisfied; it is “one” demand that contains “many” desires.
  For example, social ideals such as communism should likewise not be seen as a single desire; in fact, behind this ideal lie many kinds of needs, and some people believe that the realization of “communism” can satisfy this whole series of demands at once. But we cannot simplify matters, ignoring those more basic demands and talking emptily only about whether communism as one thing is realized or not; otherwise, in the end, we probably won’t even be able to figure out why we originally wanted communism in the first place.
  As “one” demand, “wanting a girlfriend” is indeed something that may be realized once and for all. Yet this does not mean that the series of desires connected with it are simultaneously satisfied once and for all. If that were really the case, then after finding a girlfriend, would there not be no further story? After finding a girlfriend, the desire for caring and being cared for, the desire for stability and excitement, and sexual desire, and so on, would not be eliminated; all the desires would remain, and perhaps even become stronger. Then, after that one-time event of establishing a relationship, it becomes possible to build a lasting bond. If, after that one event, the relevant desires were eliminated, I cannot imagine how the relationship that follows could possibly be sustained.

• Yunzi

  2008-10-14 16:36:40 Anonymous 124.205.78.24 

  “But it is hard to say that ‘wanting a girlfriend’ is an independent desire that is either wholly satisfied or wholly unsatisfied; it is ‘one’ demand that contains ‘many’ desires.”
  Then you are still making a distinction between “demand” and “desire.” Can it be said that, in your view, the characteristic of “demand” is that it can be satisfied once and for all. But at the same time it can be broken down into a series of desires whose realization can never be completed.
  However, in daily life, what often appears is some kind of “demand,” and perhaps even we ourselves know nothing about the sequence of desires behind it. In your view, should one first decompose one’s own “demand” before pursuing it? Of course, most people probably cannot do that.

• Gu Xi

  2008-10-14 19:20:42 

  Of course. Otherwise, what is philosophy for? Isn’t the work of philosophy precisely self-reflection? What is it that I actually want? This is certainly a question a philosopher cannot avoid. “Most people” often only reflect on their demands when they are frustrated, and lack conscious reflection, being blinded by an overweening reason.
  More precisely, “desire” in its basic sense should be uncountable; any way of making desire “objective” or “concrete” through formulas like “demanding XX,” “needing XX,” “longing for XX,” “pursuing XX,” and so on is a function of reason. Desire itself, as something nonrational, has no judgment of right and wrong; only when one speaks of a particular object or idea of desire does the distinction between right and wrong arise, because reason can make mistakes.
  Most people lack rational self-reflection, and thus are often governed by external rational forces; in severe cases they fall into fanaticism. This state is often called irrationality and regarded as being governed by one’s own desires, yet in my view it is precisely the opposite.
  A person’s “natural” desires are actually quite limited, basically nothing more than appetite and sexual desire, but the body itself sets limits on these natural desires. Because of bodily constraints, a person cannot eat or make love without limit; even if these desires are completely indulged, without the aid of reason, and relying only on human capacity as an animal, they will not lead to terribly excessive consequences. Only when these desires are improperly guided by reason do they become dangerous. For instance, once primitive bodily desire is redirected toward a concept like “money,” and that concept is allowed to take the driver’s seat, causing the demand for money to obscure the original primitive desires that prompted us to pursue money in the first place (desires that were themselves limited), so that one ends up pursuing money for money’s sake, then this will lead to uncontrollable frenzy—because this abstract concept of money, compared with those primitive desires, has lost all bounds and restraint: the amount of money can increase without limit; once you have one thousand yuan you want ten thousand, once you have ten thousand you want one million… The body itself can no longer provide spontaneous restraint, and if reason also fails to restrain it, this abstract and illusory desire may expand without limit.
  Of course, insofar as an endlessly expanding desire is concerned, along my line of thought, it preserves “dissatisfaction” as “dissatisfaction,” and can also provide lasting happiness; therefore in fact I can offer a certain defense of money worship (I wrote related articles a long time ago). Yet this kind of “dissatisfaction” is distorted, because once a desire with a specific direction expands without limit, it will obscure richer and more diverse pursuits, making one’s thought and life narrower and more monotonous.
  More dangerous than money worship is what I call “keyword fever.” For example, pursuing “science,” pursuing “democracy,” and the like. If one merely treats these concepts as simple “labels” to pursue, no longer asking what content they actually have, forgetting which desires led us to yearn so much for “science” and “democracy,” and instead rigidly treating them as some single label-like thing that is either obtained or not obtained, and then shouting “we want science,” “we want democracy,” then all of that becomes empty slogans; if one then goes so far as to resort to all means regardless of everything, that becomes extremely dangerous.
  The mission of philosophy is of course to reflect on and analyze those seemingly plausible demands, to see what content they actually contain, to recognize the sources of these demands, and what their realization would mean.

• Yunzi

  2008-10-14 23:56:39 Anonymous 124.205.78.24 

  Very well said.
  Also, I would very much like to see an expansion of this sentence, because for the moment I do not think it is like this:
  “Love” is after all in its most primitive and basic meaning “desire” and “need,” and its root is “dissatisfaction.”
  Maybe you want to start a new piece, or to let it simmer for a while before writing about it?

• Gu Xi

  2008-10-15 00:09:51 

  Yes, this philosophy of “love” has been brewing for a very long time, but I still haven’t managed to squeeze out an article. When I actually write it out, perhaps my wording will be revised. I’ll try my best to get it written in the near future…

Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.