Timeless Wisdom - The Problem With Happiness - Part 2

Welcome to Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Hear thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs. And to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles, go to DennisPrager.com. All right, uh, as is my, uh, habit, and I'm going to let you do the recording. As is my wont, I open up for questions, but let me just review last week. If you don't have questions from last week, it proves my theory that people ask only spontaneously and never ask through much thinking. If you heard the thing on male/female natures and have no questions, either you are remarkably enlightened by my views, or my original theory stands. But let me just review. I always do that at the very beginning. Oh yeah, a few actually opening procedural things. I usually do this later in the course, but it's silly. I'm always very hesitant unless it be associated with greed. But if you would like to subscribe to my quarterly journal, the latest issue of which— and that's why I'm doing it now and not waiting for 8 weeks from now— the latest issue does have the whole article, Men, Women, and Insatiability. I'm going to send these two around going in these directions. Also, through that, you'll be able to get tapes of all the things that I have done and anything else. And this is what it looks like so that you'll know it is real. And I think you'd enjoy it a great deal. But it's my way of staying in touch with people that I got to talk to. Anyway, here it is, Men, Women, and Insatiability. So you'll have it in— in black and white for you. Anyway, just to review last week, I'm not going to review the 4 opening or 5 opening comments. I'm starting on the obstacles to happiness. I mentioned genes, that we have genetic predispositions. I might even add that there are chemical predispositions later in life, not just genetically. But there are— what are they called? Endorphins? Endorphins. Endorphins, that's it. Well, I got the word, the letters right and the order wrong, which are actually apparently secreted or produced by the body which affect moods, for example. That is why people can be on drugs for happiness. I don't think that for most people that is the case, but certainly it is a possibility. But the genetic part, I have no I have no problem with and is worthy of repetition. Second was human nature. You recall there were 4 categories and they were physical appetites, body wants cheesecake, happiness does not want cheesecake. Body wants more sex, happiness says if you go and stray for more sex you will ruin your life. It just— if body wants more money and creature comforts, happiness says, wait a minute, don't you understand you're getting addicted to something? Learn to be happy with what you have and not live a life pursuing that. Second were psychological wants, specifically the love of mother, father, and spouse, and child, romance and security. Then emotional desires, especially what others have, the grass is greener syndrome. And that is where I told you that it's the thing that we don't have that we most want. Gave the analogy of the man who is bald who only sees hair. And the great story of Joseph Kalushkin teaching me what the most important trait in a prospective wife was: whatever that date that evening didn't have. And that was a classic example. And finally, I spent time on insatiability. To make everything worse, our natures are insatiable. There was never a time for the vast majority of us, and there's never a time for any of us, that our nature announces, "You have enough money. There's no need to earn any more. You are so happy with what you have." And it's true about food, it's true about your house, it is true about your car, it is true about love, it is true about sex, it is true about true about joy from the children, it is true about everything. There's just no time wherein your nature announces to you, I am satisfied, no need for more. I ended with the issue of the area of difference between men and women in insatiability of, for men, sexual partners and for women intimacy and how they work against each other, but thank God that they work that way. If both had the same insatiability, life would not progress. The human species, if it had all male sexual natures, would have never left bed and would have died being eaten by lions while copulating. If all species species had women's intimacy desires, they would also never move anywhere because they would be too busy being intimate. And of course always angry that the other one didn't love them enough. I get that, by the way, as I mentioned last week, from a good dear friend of mine who's a lesbian, who tells me that the great battle among lesbians is precisely that. One is always yelling at the other, "You don't love me enough!" Not, "You don't have enough sexual partners!" That is not the issue at all. It's that there's not enough tenderness, not enough intimacy, not enough love. And with male homosexuals, it is of course the opposite. It's, you know, you've already had 4 men tonight, why aren't I enough for you? And that is not exaggerated. It's exaggerated by quantity of one night, but it's not exaggerated in general. And neither in any way, shape, or form is meant to denigrate gay men or gay women. It's merely to say that they're the perfect testing grounds for the theory, for the thesis put forth of different natures and not having been produced by sociological forces. With those obstacles noted, I'll be happy to take questions based on the review and the essay. Yes?

Yeah, getting back to the insatiability of men as opposed to women, if a man's nature is to always conquer the next woman, would you say that a priest is denying his nature by practicing celibacy? Because, you know, I think that it's not impossible for a priest to be unhappy without sex, right?

Okay, the question is, if this is true, would I therefore say that a priest who lives a celibate life is acting against his nature?

Or the prostitute denying her—

or what?

Or the prostitute denying her Or is a prostitute denying her nature?

But back to the priest for a moment. Don't fill me with new ones. I'm trying to take the 4 parts of your first question. And the other part was, if a priest is denying his nature, how come there are, after all, some happy priests? Well, there are many answers to this. First of all, the answer is yes, one is denying one's nature. I have dear priest friends and they would be the first to say it. But so is a monogamous husband. He's also denying his nature. Any man who is not going around, any man who is not living Hugh Hefner's life, or at least his premarital life, which existed for 42 years, is acting against his nature. Well, of course that's true. So a priest— I, one of my dearest friends in fact is a priest, and I've often said to him, which he loves, I said, listen, the only difference between you and a Jewish married man, you, the Roman Catholic priest who's celibate, and a Jewish married man who tries to be honest to his religion is you are not allowed to sleep with any woman. A Jewish man is not allowed to sleep with any woman except his wife. It's a terrible way of putting it, I admit it. I am pleased to understand. And but when you— if the thesis is correct, there is an infinite difference between 0 and 1. Okay, infinite, both emotionally and numerically. But it is still arithmetically a difference of 1. And for the male nature, that is a factor. You know, it's so interesting. I'll be very candid with you. These are not easy things for me to say publicly because I suspect I'm being analyzed through everything that I'm saying on this. What is his life like? What does he have with his wife? How can he talk like this? Is he some Hugh Hefner in Jewish clothing? And all sorts of stuff. I know this from my radio show. I know from letters I've gotten to my Ultimate Issues article, all I'm doing, to be very honest, the truth is if I didn't have a beautiful life with my wife, I probably couldn't speak about this publicly because it would be too scary to do so. It would be too sensitive an issue. That's number 1. But number 2, one of my characteristics, if I may speak of a good characteristic about myself publicly, I have plenty of not good, but one of my good ones is that I am willing to put me on the line for the sake of helping a lot of people with a sensitive issue. And this is not the only one I've done it with. Well, I, you know, so you can be thinking, psychoanalyzing me through any Freudian prism you wish. The question is not, what does this tell us about him? It's, is it true? That's the question that I beg you to ask yourselves. It doesn't say anything about me except that I feel that I'm a normal male. Big deal. It should elicit a yawn from you, not an analysis. That's all. But it is so rarely spoken of, and I know why. Part of the reason is a lot of men are understandably afraid to say this to their wives. This is what I'm like. My classic, classic story. I used to play years ago, so you cannot possibly know who it is. He doesn't live in California even. But I used to play racquetball with a dear friend. And we would, and if you know what these workout places, I mean, it is almost a strip joint. I mean, it is absolutely mind-boggling. And he and I would talk, and I'm very, like, if I'm open to 250 people, you can imagine what I'm like with one. So I was, you know, we'd be talking and he would comment about someone who had just walked by in 3 millimeters of clothing. And, you know, not make vulgar comments. I hate vulgar comments, even behind someone's back, let alone out loud. It wasn't a matter of vulgarity, just say, "Wow, look at her, boy." Okay, and I would understand too. My mind was not purely on Maimonides. The key to the story though is, you know, that was the way it was. I then remember going out with him and his wife and the subject got to, came about, about men looking at other women, which I have other things to say about in a moment, by the way. And she said, Let's call him Elliot for the sake of our story. Elliot doesn't do that. And I have very good censorship devices on my mouth. I was about to go, Elliot, boo! But I totally refrained and said, I'm sure he doesn't. And he said, I don't. He told a pure lie for the sake of marital harmony. Harmony. Now, it is a very good question, and this I mean very seriously, how much truth needs to be told in a marriage. It's a very fair and good question. My own belief is that except for something that would gratuitously devastate the other, as for example if either one had a fling as opposed to an ongoing affair, where I think there is something clearly that has to be addressed. But if either one had a moment of weakness and did something, I don't think as a rule it is a wise thing to tell the other because it is so devastating to either sex that why do it if it has ended? I mean, if it's ongoing, as I said, and of course there could be exceptions, But generally speaking, outside of gratuitous devastating information, I think the more that a husband knows about his wife and the more that the wife knows about the husband, and I don't mean facts, you know, you don't need to write a bio for the person, I mean about your nature, your wants, your subconscious, your desires, the better. That's my own view. I mean, you have one person to be that intimate with, and it has always struck me that whatever you don't tell the person, you still want to talk about. And there is a real danger that whatever you're not intimate with with your spouse, you may want to be intimate with with somebody else. I don't mean physically. Just, there are many forms of intimacy, not just physical. So I generally believe in saying as much as possible. I don't believe that you do it to, everything is a matter of degree. But it is still nevertheless a fair question. I just think though that in this arena, for men to understand their wives, deep need, deep, deep, deep need for intimacy, that it isn't a quirk on her part, that it's part of what makes her female, and that she understands that he is conquering part of his nature to be his monogamous self, which he darn better ought to be, that it is a helpful thing for the two sexes to know. The one thing I want to say though about men looking at other women is even looking, though ostensibly not a dangerous or bad thing, it is something that is good for him and good for her that it be kept in perspective too, or kept in check. I find nothing more embarrassing as a man than to hear from women that their date or their husband at a restaurant is like a radar tower. I've seen men in restaurants, there's a woman across the table and they are like this. They're like the cross-layers of the ABN system. They don't even look at her. That's a terrible thing. It's a terrible thing. It doesn't help. And you can't act on it anyway. It's just frustrating for him and terribly rude to the woman. So, I mean, these are just things. Life is tough. It's the theme of this course. I tell you, some of them may lead to suicidal. I understand that. At any rate, that is— so yes, the answer is there is a Denial of nature is a very strong word. How about this? I think it is a denial, but I would use the Freudian term of channeling. But if you are monogamous, then you're saying that that's a positive trait for men? Oh, of course it's a positive trait, monogamy. But that's why the antidote to human nature is values. That is why I am so fanatical on values. The only thing that can answer your nature are values. There is no non-value-based response to the urges of your nature.

None.

And that is why in a secular world, wherein the belief is this is all there is, it becomes very difficult to answer the question, why not have as much fun and excitement as I can possibly We have— you only go around once. Yes.

In terms of women's sexual needs, can we infer from what you're saying that their nature has the capacity within them to be completely sexually satisfied, and it's just well within their nature that they can achieve that?

No, I don't think it's within anyone's nature to be completely anything satisfied. Absolutely. I don't. But I do believe that women's sexuality is so much more wrapped up in emotion and intimacy and a specific, whereas man's is just, it's generic, it's wild. The best example is women are perfectly capable of being sexually turned on by others than the one that they love. I'm quite aware of that. But the other has to have a face. For men, the face is not even necessary. She still has to imagine human traits for that man. He doesn't. Just the thighs alone are enough. That's a very big difference. Men, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, They objectivize the object of their sexual desire. Women don't. It is still a human, but for men it is a body. It is capable of being more, and in love it is much more, but it is— that is a capability that is developed. That is not the inherent, the inherent thrust. So whatever you will say about women in that regard, all I ask is that you multiply it 10 times. To begin to understand the difference. That is why billboards have such a different effect on each sex. They don't attempt to sell women items by showing men in bikini pants. They don't. Women would laugh. They would snicker. I mean, it is funny. A man in underpants is funny. A woman in panties is sexy. There's a very big difference. Imagine if, you know, on the sitcoms where it is overwhelmingly women who are watching TV at that hour, and they try to sell a fad with a guy in a bathing suit. Okay, they try to sell detergent with a funky guy coming out, all muscles, great body.

Bad.

It would be, it couldn't be done because no one would buy it. It would be laughed at. They would call your friend up and say, look at this hilarity on Channel 7. But they try to sell anything to men with a woman in a bathing suit. And that's the difference, and it's a very major one. Yeah.

I had difficulty making the comparison of compatibility between the man's sexual nature and a woman's need. I thought it would be far more accurate to compare a woman's sexual nature and man's sexual nature, and a woman's need and a man's need in the nurturing and the intimacy, and then say, see the imbalance in this one and Intimacy and Balance, and this one, I feel like we're comparing apples and oranges. I could hear men's minds in here last week going, "Okay, so I control my sexual needs outside my relationship with you. Now in the relationship, I want you to control your intimacy and your desires and your needs here." I mean, it was like click, click, click. And I give you that in the one paragraph towards the end of your article in your last newsletter, you did give a one-liner about you need to remember to give your white flowers and so on, but I didn't feel that that was emphasized last week enough because I could hear these minds clicking.

Good. No, no, it's very fair, and I had 5 women read my article, no men. 5 women read it before I published it. Thank God they read it. I would have been driven out of Los Angeles if it had not gone through women editors, and that was one of the points they said to me. Hey, wait a minute, You're telling your men have to control their nature. What about women with theirs? So what are men going to do? You want women to help men out in there. How are men going to help their women out? And it's absolutely correct. But what I didn't mention in the article, but would say now, is it goes in both directions. All of it goes in both directions. Just as a woman needs to understand his sexual nature, and that he has to control himself. An uncontrolled woman is not a good thing either. And I'm telling you, one of the interesting things that I'm working on as I think more about just, you know, these things, is that one of the problems— you know, a lot of people today say it is much harder to raise a daughter It's a general belief that I hear constantly. This was not true in the past. In the past, you ask, if you have a grandmother, ask which was generally harder in traditional society. Very frequently it was thought the man, because they're wilder and physically crazy and so on. It's changed, and part of the reason I think it is harder to raise a daughter in some ways is, and there are many other reasons, but the one I want to focus on is boys know from the onset of adolescence that they have to control themselves. Girls don't know that intuitively. Girls grow up thinking their urges are beautiful. What could be more beautiful than wanting to love and be loved? Wanting to have children and love their— and love children. I mean, Those are gorgeous urges. Women don't walk around fantasizing, you know, taking every man off the street, ripping all their clothes off, raping, which is a male fantasy after all. It means taking a woman that I want. Not the other stuff which gets into sick stuff. And the proof is how armies work when they can do whatever they want. Here is interesting thing. Boys know from the earliest age they can't act on their deepest impulse, their deepest drive. Even if their father doesn't tell them, they know they can't. Are they going to walk over to a fellow 6th grader and take her clothes off? They know they'll be arrested, if not given the judo chop by the girl, because girls are trained these days in self-defense. But where does a girl that age know that she has to control her desires, generally speaking? Generally speaking, I think that the woman's blossoms into a more beautiful one. Of course. It isn't, you're right, a quid pro quo. Just as he has to check his urges outside of monogamy, she has to check her urges. But, to a certain extent, it is true. And I think that it is a very helpful thing for a man to help a woman in that area. Help her in both ways. Both be more intimate, absolutely. I don't understand why get married if you're not— I say to a man, if you're not going to want to be intimate, that's the whole beauty of it. If it's sex, then Hefner's life in the final analysis is the better one. But if it's intimacy, which in the final analysis is more satisfying even sexually in many ways, which— so that even men are not the animals that are being made out to be here, because if they only knew it. But it is hard to find that out. Nevertheless, with all that, I think a man can help a woman in saying, hold on, hold on. Yes, we are intimate. I do love you. And don't drive yourself crazy. You're driving yourself crazy. A woman needs to be helped in that. Some parameters have to be set because the tendency of her nature may very well be to engulf. I've often said, I imagine I mentioned it last week, you know, mothering and smothering and not smothering, and it's, I think it's part of the issue. I think both sexes need to teach each other a lot. So that's why I would say there is some good programming quo. Though in the area of intimacy, there is just so much more that a woman generally can teach to a man, and he should learn it. But it should still not be unending. Otherwise, it'll never help. Let's have breakfast together. That's not— let's have lunches together. Let's have all day together. It never ends unless a woman puts an end to her urges in that area. It'll never end. Because her nature will never say, "I'm exactly as intimate with my beloved as I want to be." That's the way I said it in the article last week, and that's what I would hold to. This is the toughest part of 16 sessions.

I'm just curious about a number of things, but first of all, what would happen if you found out your wife did have a fling? So you kept it because you felt that was the better way to go about it, and she kept it to herself because she felt it was better but you found out?

Well, it's too personal for me to answer, so I'll say what I would like a man to respond. Okay. Um, how a man ought to respond?

No, I was asking—

he was asking me how I would respond if I found out my wife had a fling. I think I would be crushed. It'd be terrible. But I tell you this, there's no doubt in my mind I would not file for divorce. There is no question. I think any spouse who files for divorce because the spouse has been unfaithful If that is the only reason, I think they're foolish, profoundly foolish. That I will say categorically. I have passion on the issue. I think it is the classic example of Samson pulling down the temple on his own head so as to destroy everybody. We have 40— that's Woody Allen's film that I cited to you. That's the dilemma. He is certain after all those good years, 30, 40 good years with his wife, she'll find out he's had an affair and she will leave. Now why? Were those 38 good years a lie? Oh, your heart may say to you they're a lie. If he could do this— oh, but that's not true. Those 38 good years are as legitimate a goodness as the affair is a legitimate badness. Now, you hear passion coming out from me. I do believe in that, and I'm telling you, I'm putting myself on the line. You ask me how I'd react? I would be unbelievably sad. I would find out why, what is going on, what is wrong in this. I'd be angry, but I would never file for divorce on that, for that reason.

I just wonder why it's okay to have a little teeny lie, but it's not okay to have a bit— you can't have an affair.

I use the word gratuitous. I don't believe in gratuitous suffering. Life has enough suffering for reason, for cause, not to inject gratuitous suffering. What can you possibly gain? Man is on a business trip, he has a plane, he picks up a girl at a bar at his hotel.

So why would he do that in the first place?

Wait, wait, hold on a minute. And he doesn't. Why should he come home? You know what a lot of clergy tell me who give pastoral care to these people? And psychologists too, when I've asked about this. They say usually it is done purely on selfish grounds. To unburden the guilt from yourself. Man, you did that, you live with it. Don't burden me with it. I would say that to my wife, I would want Sharon to say that to me, I'd say that to you about your husband. What good could it possibly do? What good? So that every other time the spouse ever leaves the house for 10 minutes, you start thinking, 'Oh, is it another one?' That's why you shouldn't do it in the first place.

That's my point.

Well, of course, but it is done. The question— you know, there are two questions in life: how to prevent it, and once it's not prevented, what do you do about it?

But isn't it the limits of life that give you the freedom in life? It's the restrictions that—

Yes, I agree with you. That is right. By the way, in that regard, I think that a woman who doesn't hold her husband by a leash has a better chance of a faithful husband than one who does.

Right. It's always the freedom.

That's an example of— to answer her question about what can be learned by the woman in the intimacy area. Take one or two more and that's it. That's it? That's it. Okay. By the way, this doesn't mean that you can never ask again on something past, okay? This does not end the discussion for eternity, but it ends it for now. Next, obstacle number 3: comparing Comparison to others. A major obstacle to happiness is that we compare ourselves to a happy person. Capital H, capital P. It is very important to know, in almost no case when I give you an obstacle in this course will I give a solution as well. That's later. But in this instance, I have to hint at a solution because it is so ingenious and so helpful to explaining the obstacle that I have no choice. It comes from one of the best philosophers in America who is not known: Helen Talushkin. Helen Talushkin is my co-author's mother. And she put it brilliantly when we were in high school one day. She philosophized in the kitchen. We were having glimpses at the table in her kitchen in her apartment in Brooklyn, talking about life and happy people, at which point she noted, the only people I know who are happy are people I don't know well. Once you understand that truism, my friends, the rest is cake. It is so true that it really almost ends the issue there. But let me explicate anyway. Everybody has an image of somebody who's happy. And this is the way I am convinced it usually goes. One example is Cousin Larry. Larry, whom you see about twice a year at family get-togethers, seems to have everything. He's one of the few members of the family who's affluent. He has a nice wife, his kids seem happy and healthy. It seems he's got everything. And you know all the flaws of your husband or wife, kids, and your financial situation. So you assume that Larry is happy. Inevitably, you find out after actually having a real discussion either with Larry or another cousin who knows Larry really well. And you find out that in fact his marriage has been on the rocks for 10 years. His wife had an affair or he had an affair. It was pretty prolonged. One of the kids has been thrown out of school, is now in a new school, he went through hell. Anyway, I don't want to belabor the point. So what do you do? This is the beauty of of the issue. You admit, Larry, yeah, you know what, he's not so happy, and you're a little relieved, which is the part of it that's very humbling. It is a horrible feeling to know that you're happy that someone else is miserable. It is terrible. That's why people read the Enquirer. No, no, that is a real— it's not so— why are people interested in others' lives? Think about it. Well, to you feel better, especially if it's lousy news. To find out, it's never in the Enquirer, so-and-so is so happy, she gets up each morning, thanks God for her situation, kisses the children, puts the diapers on, loves the kids. God, that you would immediately aim for another article. Nobody would buy the Enquirer. You want to know that they're on drugs. Oh, if this beautiful actress's kids are on drugs, I feel better. I may not have a beauty, but my kids are only on marijuana. That is why there is relief. So you found out that Larry actually has terrible problems, so he's crossed off your happiness list and he's back to work. Now what do you do? You immediately assume that it isn't Larry, it's Uncle Ira. Uncle Ira is happy. Or, since you may know Uncle Ira, it's a second cousin whom you don't know at all. You find out the information, then you realize everybody in your family is equally unhappy. Okay. So what you do then is deflect it onto an image. And that is where actresses, politicians, and anyone in the public eye comes in very handy. And we all do that. It is the most— that is why these obstacles are built into us. We immediately assume that this public figure is happy. And why shouldn't he be? Why shouldn't she be? She's got everything. All the things we want. Money, glamorous spouse, great house, great car, and of course the most desired trait in America, fame. Just like Marilyn Monroe. This is a very, very important thing. By the way, this thing on fame is worthy of its own discourse. I don't understand the lure of it because it's particularly American. You may think that it is a universal thing, A certain degree of fame is liked anywhere. That is human, to be known. But in America, it is actually beyond anywhere else in the world. In America, it is so desirable to be famous that it doesn't matter what it's for. That's why in America it is so much more serious. I will kill the president, not because I have anything against the president. But to be famous. When you have assassinations in Europe, they're for political reasons. I want to get rid of this politician because he supports a policy I don't agree with. Makes sense. Evil, but it makes sense. In this country, however, it is to be famous. It is to be on the COVID of Newsweek. The gun show is a classic example. Certainly in its first incarnation, The more you humiliated yourself, the greater the likelihood of getting on. But all you wanted to be able to say was, "I'm on." How many women drool at the prospect of being— of lying on the beach for a Diet Pepsi ad? They say nothing. They are literally abodied. But in the thousands upon thousands Girls drool to have that, to be able to say, "Millions saw me." What do you get from it? Nothing, but that rush. There is a great rush to be seen. It is, uh, I'm not certain why it's there. It's not there in everybody. That is more of a culturally induced thing than it is a natural one. But in any event, there is a belief that the famous are happier. That is why I am so grateful to Hollywood stars for writing their memoirs. I am. I mean it. I mean it. I'm not facetious when I say I have gratitude to them because one after another after another reveals how unhappy his or her life was. If you see a gorgeous actor and a gorgeous actress and they get together, doesn't it seem like the quintessence of life? And then you read the memoirs. That is a very important problem in human happiness, comparing to others. I'm not that happy, and what kills me, what really makes me unhappy, is not that I'm unhappy. It's that others are happy. What I said in the last class, the problem in life is not suffering, it's unjust suffering. We're prepared to have everything so long as it's equal. That is why the communist ideal, despite its massive consequences of evil, is so deep in many people. Many people would rather have equal amounts of horrible misery. Than unequal amounts of happiness. That is what is happening right now. You gotta write it down, please. That is what is happening, and do please write it down. That is what is happening in the Soviet Union. If Gorbachev fails, and he probably will, which I am very sorry for, it is because the Russian people cannot tolerate an idea The idea is they want consumer goods, but they are not prepared for a handful of people to get rich in the process. And it is not possible, not possible, to raise dramatically the economic level of a country without economic inequality. It is not possible. Because the moment you say everyone must get the same amount of reward, people will stop working. Why should I plant more potatoes than I need for my family if I can't get a profit on my potatoes? Russia should be able to feed the world. The Ukraine alone could feed Europe, and they're importing food into the Soviet Union. Believe me, none of you in this room would work if you were on a kolkhoz. That's the Soviet agricultural commune. Why should you? Whatever you do, you get the same work. I've been to the Soviet Union twice, I speak Russian. I understood perfectly why waiters never came to my table. Why the hell should they? They got the same pay whether they were good or bad. But the moment you pay according to productivity, you don't have any quality. If my brain is sharper at producing potatoes at half the price, I'll make more money. If I know how to deliver potatoes at half the price than you do, I'll make twice as much money. Everybody will have potatoes though. Now no one has potatoes and everybody's poor. But people, it is part of human nature apparently, to prefer equality of misery to inequality of happiness. So this comparison with others is a major obstacle in very many people's lives. You compare yourself to an image of happy. It's not just yourself. A great example is marital happiness. One of my beliefs, I've always felt this, is that one great way for couples to be happier is to be intimate verbally. With other couples. But based on what I said earlier, since so many spouses hide their real feelings from their spouse, they're certainly going to hide it from another couple. But if people were more open about their problems and unhappinesses with other couples, who are confronted with the same obstacles, you calm down in your own unhappiness. But what happens? It is classic. Troubled couple A has dinner out with troubled couple B. Troubled couple A acts like they are the happiest couple in the world. Troubled couple B acts like they are the happiest couple in the world. Troubled couple A goes home doubly troubled. Look at how happy that couple B is, honey. Troubled couple B goes home double troubled because of how A looked happy. So since they both acted so happy, they made it worse for the other. Whereas if there would have been the slightest hint The slightest hint at a certain trouble, the other would have rushed in most cases to say, "Yeah." We do? That's right. Since the baby was born, we also haven't slept together in 3 months. Read about what babies do to couples' sex lives. It's one of God's greatest tricks. People think he doesn't have a sense of humor, though. The product of sexual union prevents the repetition of the act. There's nothing more inducing of intimate sexual relations than yah, puking, belching, and so on. And just, what's— I love when psychologists say it doesn't matter. Even if you have a baby, you just have to make time, a set time for lovemaking. What do you do? Gag the baby? 5 o'clock, sorry Junior, suck your face. It doesn't work. Life is tough. But it's so helpful to know it. It's such a good thing to know that. It's good to know in advance when the baby comes, there's going to be a very tough period sexually. For you. Unless you are the rare— those are 5 full-time helpers who take the baby down the block. But you see, what happens is the couple starts not to think it's the baby. The couple starts to think, what's happened to us? We used to love hugging. We used to love making love. What's happened to us? And then you start thinking, what's happened to us? It's getting bad, it's getting sour, going the way of all flesh. Instead of thinking, yes, we are going the way of all flesh, but that's okay, that's okay, that's part of it. And you'll take a vacation somewhere and you will renew it one time. Now, if you take a vacation and it still doesn't help, then I think there is a crisis in that particular arena. That is a fair statement. And not even every vacation, but at least you know there are times when that passion can be reintroduced. That to me would be the guideline as to whether there's a problem or not. Not the day-to-day problems. Guy comes home and he has had a bad time financially at the office. Woman has had a miserable day in the house. The house becomes, for women with children, hardly a place of romance. It's a hellhole. So people have this image of the happy couple, and of course people also have the image of that wonderful husband. My husband, but Jim, you see the way he treats his wife. And that's what they're going home saying in each of the cars. Henry, did you see how Jim treats his wife? And he says, "Did you see how she doesn't disagree with a thing he said?" And everybody then has their thing. It's a problem. So we compare ourselves to a happy cousin. Cousin's excluded, happy famous person. Famous person is excluded, we shift to another famous person. If there's no individual then we have the fantasy. The ability of our natures to fantasize is infinite, which is a good thing. I think fantasies have a real role to play. They're good to let off a lot of steam and so on. You want to escape a little. The world is tough. But don't confuse your fantasy for reality. People have a picture of a perfect spouse. They do. We all do. I'm not above any of this. I don't think now. One, because I have one. And B, because life has sobered me. I was divorced. I learned a great, great deal. I could never have written this book without that divorce. One of the ironies of life. Truly one of the ironies of life. Not to commend to all those budding authors here to get divorced and then you'll have a book in you. But it is to say that some people need to be hit on the head to learn in certain areas. I hate that about myself. I have always prided myself in being able to learn from hearing. It's always been my belief, if 100,000 people in front of you fall into a ditch, there really is a ditch. Most people do not have that view. Most people, they say, 100,000 people in front of me fall into a ditch, I won't. I don't have that view, but in certain areas only life teaches. You can't learn it by theory, by common sense, by good thinking, from friends, or whatever. At any event, this, the fantasy world, is horrible. The fantasy world is I imagine a perfect husband. I imagine a perfect wife. The examples there are, are, uh, I'll give you an example in both directions. First, I'll give you the male example. I was in my early 20s. I met a 35-year-old religious Jewish bachelor, which is a very uncommon thing. Religious Jewish guys are told to get married early, and they do, certainly before 30. And here he was, 35. So I remember asking him, "Why aren't you married?" He said, "I haven't found the right woman." I said, "Do you know what the right woman would be like?" He says, "I do." I was really interested. I said, "Oh, well, could you describe her?" "Yeah. I am waiting to find a Playboy playmate who studies Talmud." There you go. Now this guy is still single. Because he's married to a fantasy and he can't be unfaithful to his fantasy. A woman I, oh, about 10 years ago, I was on a date with a woman. I married the first time at 32, so I had a long dating career. And I was on a date with a woman. We were discussing these issues. This is one thing I always did. I didn't discuss movies, cars, business. I discussed men and women. What's the most interesting thing in the world? Discuss with the opposite sex. The opposite sex. So we were talking about all these things and I asked her, we were talking about the male sex drive and about about, you know, some of the things that are mentioned here. And she said that she knew the type of husband that she wanted. And it was, she wanted a man with a really strong sexual drive, really passionate, really sexually alive, but he only was attracted to her. And I wished her good luck, just as I wish the guy who wants the Playmate So he's almost good luck. They should both have good luck. But if neither of them drops this fantasy, neither will ever get married. Fantasy of what the person should be like is terrible. It causes such— that's gratuitous pain. Life has enough regular pain, as I say, not to have gratuitous pain. Why isn't my husband like— like— and the two examples are The two comparisons are: another man, whom you don't know at all what he's like, or the image that you have. And of course the identical thing works with wives. And this is a society with television that so plays up the fantasy, it's much worse. One of the reasons I'm so, so anti-television is because it reinforces the fantasy life of people, and that doesn't doesn't contribute to happiness. The women are all perfect, the men are all perfect, and none of them are real. They're balloons. And it's worse, it's worse than reading fantasy. You know, it's funny, I did not know this until I read about it in a book by Barbara Ehrenreich, because it's just, it's a section that I would never look at in a bookstore, but the romance section at any of your bookstores are among the largest single sections of books. And that is the women's fantasy section. But since they're so not my fantasies, I just look at the title and my eyes drift. They glaze over in boredom. It's just so directed to female fantasy. The male fantasy is the usual animal stuff in the front of the magazine rack. It doesn't want to fall for reading. Reading, bleh. Read all day. Now, we're not done with comparisons. Not only do we compare ourselves to a person we know, or we don't know, or a person whom we never met, or a fantasy. There is another area in this that I wish to bring to your attention, and that is comparison with societal perfection, not just individual perfection. One of the— if it is a major cause of individual unhappiness to compare one's state with the state of another individual, multiply that by vast numbers and you will understand the cause of unhappiness happiness by fantasizing a perfect society. Fantasies of perfect people cause divorces, cause unhappiness. Fantasies of perfect societies cause revolutions. As a general rule, I know that this will not be received beat with great gusto by many of you, and I'll be happy to drop it. I mean, it's not a passionate desire of mine. As a general rule, this individual has found that liberals, my liberal friends, tend to be a little less happy than my non-liberal friends. And it makes sense. This is not a put-down at all, because there's I'm not saying that they're worse human beings, I'm just saying they tend to be unhappier. But it makes perfect sense. After all, liberalism today, not classical liberalism, but liberalism today, and the further you go left of center, the truer it is, is a sense of malcontent over the society. Who, after all, are constantly speaking about the ills of America? Is generally left of center. Conservatives— and now I'm not talking communists or fascists, I'm talking responsible left of center and responsible right of center— the responsible side, right of center, far more focuses on individual factors as problems, namely, for example, the values of individuals, so that you will have Indeed, one of the defining elements of contemporary liberalism or conservatism is whether you focus on such things as socioeconomic forces for the ills that occur, or you focus on individual flaws for ills that occur. Conservatives tend to focus on the individual, and liberals on the society being the flaw. One of the things that is most animating, and the further left you get, the more more it is animating is a vision of a perfect society. "I have a dream." That was Martin Luther King's great statement. And it was a dream that I share with him. But that idea of having a dream and that America is a failure until it achieves the dream is what is characteristic of liberal, left-of-center thinking today. And therefore, to the liberal, what is the term he always associates with a conservative? Loves the status quo. Right? That's the big knocking of a conservative. Because unless you hold into the liberal's eyes a vision of beauty and perfection, then you are saying the status quo is fine, and you are capable of living within justice and inequality, etc. That's about as dispassionate and honest a description I can give because obviously I side with one of those views much more than the other. But I think it's an honest description. The further left you get, however, towards the radical world, that is where revolution comes from. Revolution never comes from the poor. Never, ever, ever. They're too poor to make revolutions. One of the things you need to make a revolution is a guarantee of eating. Very hard to make a revolution when you have no food. That is why overwhelmingly it is made by a limited number of people who are usually more affluent and more educated. Anywhere from Nicaragua to the Soviet Union with Lenin to Cambodia, Pol Pot, that the Hitler of Asia, was educated in the Sorbonne, France's Harvard. How many Cambodians have attended the Sorbonne? And one of them made the revolution, the most radical revolution with 2 million dead in Cambodia in the late '70s. And why? What was— you know what the Khmer Rouge did? They had a vision of a perfect Cambodia. No, in the perfect Cambodia, it would return to its truly rural past. Cities are vestiges of Western imperialism. Get rid of cities, go to a substance economy, and go back to the land. So they did was they emptied cities, and if you died on the way out of the city, They literally took people out of surgery and wheeled them into rural areas. They were guided by a vision, a fantasy of Cambodia. This idea of the perfect society can create terrible, terrible unhappiness and change, radical change. That is why it is very important important, I believe, not to compare your husband to an image of a perfect husband. But if you must compare him, do so to the 5 husbands you know best. And as I say on my radio show to those who dump on America, I say name a place that's doing better morally. They say, that's a stupid question. Of course we're better than Hungary. But I have a dream about what America could be. It's good to have a dream about what America could be. But it's terrible if you believe that A, the dream is attainable. That is why, by the way, religious people tend to be more conservative. Religious people don't believe that this world can be perfect. Secular people do. Religious people believe— I'm speaking specifically now of Judaism and Christianity, because those are the bases of American— America, religiously speaking. Both believe in a messianic age. One of the great values of the belief in a messiah is only God can make a perfect world. So the religious Christian and the religious Jew want to make a better world, but they don't want to make a perfect world. There's a very big difference in trying to make things better than trying to live up to a fantasy of perfection. And that fantasy can cause you terrible rupture and unhappiness, whether it's of individuals or of society. That is why this comparison issue is so important. Comparing to whom? And stop it. But we'll talk about solutions another time. Next. This is the least accepted of all the, uh, All my— the guidelines of this whole course, last time I taught it, first time, it was the least palatable to the class. The fourth obstacle is expectations. I love giving credit where it's credit is due, so I'd like to now give credit to Buddhism, which I disagreed with in the last class on suffering. But ironically, the very same idea which led to a view I rejected on suffering has helped me in my life immensely in terms of happiness. I truly, of all the things you will hear from me, have worked on myself the most in this area because this is not a natural thing, I think, for an individual to have. The Buddhist teaching that I learned was all pain in life comes from expectations unfulfilled. Think about it for a moment. All pain in life comes from expectations unfulfilled. There are so many examples that I'll just give a few, including some that are so dramatic you wouldn't, you wouldn't have thought of them. You expect to live till at least a certain age. You don't. It's painful. You're unhappy. None of you, I hope, is unhappy, walks around consistently unhappy because one day you will die. I never met anybody like that. Now why not? Nobody basically wants to die, so why aren't you all unhappy about dying? And I suspect that most of you have made peace with that. Maybe the joggers here haven't. Well, I'll speak to you later. But by and large, the vast majority of people, certainly adults, know they'll die. And yet it doesn't cause them grief. This is a perfect corroboration of the Buddhist principle. You expect to die, no grief. You don't expect to die tomorrow. That would bring you grief. It's all a matter of expectations. It's a very sad thing that you expect to die, but it doesn't cause you sadness. Tell you a worse thing: you expect your children to die, but well after you do, so it doesn't cause you any grief. The most painful thing in the world I believe, emotionally, is the death of a child. You all know your children will die, and it doesn't cause you any grief because you expect it to happen, and expect it to happen well after you die. If God forbid it should happen sooner, then you will have a shattering experience. That is extremely important. Important that expectations cause unhappiness. Anywhere you want. You go to a job interview, if you expect to get the job, not want, you should want, not plan, you should plan, but expect to get it, then, uh, I dare say you are probably in for great unhappiness. And if not you, think of all the others applying. Only one of you will get it. In this regard, our expectations are increased by two very powerful groups in America. Madison Avenue and mental health professionals. I'll give you an example, first of the latter. My favorite example was the newspaper ad I saw in the Los Angeles Times a few years ago. Read as follows: If you are not fully satisfied with your sex life, 'Give us a call.' I was about to turn the page when I realized the ingeniousness of that ad. Anyone who took it seriously would have to call. Who, other than Bob Guccione at Penthouse and Hugh Hefner at Playboy, Who would not answer that affirmatively? Gee, I'm not fully satisfied. What is happening in America today is, in many arenas, people are taught not to be satisfied. In the past, all wisdom concentrated on teaching people to be satisfied with what they have. In America today, and in much of the West, it is the opposite. The opposite. Expect more, and if you don't expect more, I should say if you don't get that more that you expect, you should be dissatisfied. The opposite of traditional teaching, which was, don't expect so much. You'd ask your grandmother from the old country, you know, listen, Grandma, I gotta tell you about my sex life. And I'm really unhappy over it. She would probably laugh that this is bothering you to that extent. "What do you expect?" she would add. Remember, that's what the older generation— "What do you expect?" Our answer is, "Everything." Once it was, "What do you expect?" Today the answer is, "I expect everything." And the other culprit is Madison Avenue. Your satisfaction satisfied with your 1985 Ford? What the hell is the matter with you? You don't have overhead cam, twin-jet suspension, 4 on the floor, 5 on the floor, overhead, overdrive, over everything? You only have 4 speakers in your car? They now come with 24 of me. It's like a floating Carnegie Hall. Capitalism has many great virtues. I'm a big supporter of it. But it isn't all a picnic. One of its downsides is it tells you to be unhappy. Because folks, if you're too happy, you don't buy more. You see? You're happy with that dress? It's out of fashion! But I only bought it last year! You're not up to date. Did you see what's coming from Paris? They're not wearing that today. I love it, even men have it, much less, but the area I know it best It is absolutely hilarious. When I go in for a tie, the width is always changed. So I got smart about 15 years ago. I keep them. And about 12 years later, that exact width is back in style. But most guys, they'll throw it out. So that— they teach me to say, this width is good, it's a terrible width. Now it's wider, now it's narrower. And it's true with everything. Your car isn't good, your house isn't good, your cold cereal isn't good. That is why everything in Cap is new and improved. How do you improve Corn Flakes? Be honest. What is there to be done? What, do you paint them? I love when they say crunchier. I would like to know, how do you know? What does it mean crunchier? Also, if it keeps getting crunchier, at some point you'll lose its system. It has to be the end to crunchiness. But it is a given. And that is essential to the workings of the economy that you not be satisfied. What would you do with your money? Put it in a bank? Put it in a bank? What contempt people have for anyone with a bank account in this economy. It's not invested, you didn't buy, you have all that money and you didn't buy anything with it? You're sick. And it works. It works on me too. You think I'm not immune to it at all. I am an advertising sucker. As I say these words to you, I know if I saw two— what is the toothpaste I use? Colgate. If I saw two Colgate toothpastes and one had on the box "new and improved," that's the one I'd buy. As I stand here, I know it is a big along. They probably improved the box. Maybe the same box improved. Who knows what's improved? Even if it were more expensive, I would have bought it. How could I be satisfied and happy with the old Colgate? No, this is a very important thing. That is part of expectations. I expect more. I expect a perfect sex life. I expect a perfect toothpaste. I expect a better car. And you are taught not to be satisfied. It is the opposite of the Jewish teaching in the Talmud, "Eizehu ha'ashir ha'sameach kefal kol." Who is the wealthy or happy man? The one who is content with what he has. In America today, it's who is the jerk? He who is content with what he has. The big difference. That is why expectations are a very serious problem. Unfulfilled, it causes me pain. The answer to it is what will disturb you, but I want to leave some minutes for questions on anything added today. Does anybody have any? Yes. The difference between expectations and goals. Difference between expectations and goals. It's not difficult. Expecting to have something means I assume it will happen. Goal means I aim for it. Aiming for something and assuming it will happen happen are two very different things. And that will be the mode of solution that I will offer in that regard. Yes? The logical conclusion from what you're saying is that the more that society has to offer, the more unhappy the people are in that society. That's a very serious problem in capitalist society. It is. That is why one has to establish to follow me. I think it's tension. I'm happy with what I have, but it's also nice to enjoy life. It's a very difficult tension. It is. You know, I like a nice car. I like an '89 more than an '85, but I will not allow myself to let it gnaw at me. You get the difference? In other words, what you're really— how do you enjoy the material parts of life and at the same time be happy with not having it? It's a— that's a tension. It's easy not to be seduced by advertising in a monastery. It is difficult not to be seduced by advertising outside of a monastery. Okay? That's a tension in life. It really is, and it's one that we all have to deal with. That is why one of the things I'm going to offer as a sine qua non to happiness is gratitude. Be grateful for being able to have a better car, but don't make your happiness contingent upon its receipt. The other way, the other antidote I will have to that, which we will develop much later is depth and satisfaction in life from non-material things. The more that one can achieve that, the less these things play a role. Okay, but you are absolutely right, there is a built-in tension, and that is a tension that is— that could overthrow Gorbachev. It's a tension that will happen there. It is a tension that happens here, where it is more and more and we want more and we want more. On the other hand, if we were absolutely satisfied, the engines of the economy might grind to a halt. It is a real dichotomy. I am convinced— another thing that foreshadows a lot of points— I am convinced that you must make peace in order to be at all happy in life, is to make peace with the fact that there is constant tension. There are two types of people who will not have tension on this particular issue of the material. The ascetic. The ascetic. An ascetic is one who renounces all pleasure in life. So the monastic individual, the theoretical individual out in the wilderness, eating bread and water, does not really care that there is Spago's having a special pasta day. Doesn't really do much for him. And the other one is the absolute hedonist, the one who lives solely for pleasure. There's no tension there. I know what I want, and it is more and more and more and more. They're not happy They're happy, but they don't have tension. The tension comes for the rest of us who know that it won't bring us happiness, but we would like to increase our material pleasures anyway. Because they may not bring happiness, but they make life more enjoyable. And I believe in that. If life is a journey, it is better to be in the luxury suites than on the bottom of the hull. Okay? It's a little something. You get seasick in both. But I, you know, I'd rather get seasick in a luxury room than in a miserable room. And I understand that. And it's very understandable. Judaism, incidentally, has a very interesting statement that when you die, you will have to answer to God for every permitted pleasure that you did not partake That is why asceticism is a sin in Judaism. It's a sin. A person who takes a vow of asceticism, it's called the Nazarite vow, must bring a sin offering after he completes the period of time that he's done it. It is sinful to renounce permitted pleasures. If you live on bread and water, you have committed a sin because God will say to you, a Chaim, why do you think I made pears? So the Jews should ignore them and eat bread and water? And what about raspberries and strawberries? And how come you never stop to look at the flowers? I put out 10,000 varieties of flowers just in your area and you don't even look at them. That's why it's an insult to God not to enjoy life. How's that? But it is also a recipe for misery to spend all of your time trying to do so. It's a problem, it's a problem, it's a real tension, yes. I have to admit I have to take difference with the vision that you implied about the difference between the conservative and the liberal. I think to me that the conservatives It's so not because he accepts society. It's more because he's so self-centered and so concentrated, myopic on his own world, that he doesn't care what happens with the rest of society. And even though liberals may on occasion make mistakes when they try to change society, no society would change without the liberal trying. My favorite characteristic of liberals is how they They always give the benefit of the doubt to their adversaries. Listen, this is not a class on politics, but I want to tell you a rule that I have adopted on radio, and it's been unbelievably helpful in the rest of my life. I never assess my adversary's motives. I only assess their actions. I don't know. I just think it's unfair to say conservatives are animated by X and liberals by purity. I ascribe equally pure and equally selfish motives to both. The only thing that I care about is which makes a better world. That is my only— God can assess motives. People can only assess consequences of actions. And so that's what I do, and I just don't think it's fair to do And so that's my only reaction. I just know too many people on both sides who are selfish and too many people on both sides who are altruistic. And if you think that sounds odd in light of what you said, I'll give a very simple example. I would like to compare equally affluent conservatives and equally affluent liberals on their personal giving to charity. Theoretically, liberals should give far more. I argue, no, they don't. Not only won't they give more, I bet you conservatives give back. So that would be a real challenge. Zap their children. Hmm? It's all they get. Oh, yes.

You said that an obstacle to happiness is comparison to others, and your answer was that if you really knew the person, you would see that they really weren't happy. Well, I reject that as As a person who I'm embarrassed to say Joseph Telushin's mother knew me, she would admit that I was happy. And I think that what you're saying is that rather than say what's the nature of that happiness and that it can exist and therefore how can I approach it, you're saying that it is not existing.

No, it's a very good argument. Let me ask you a question. You claim to be happy. And by the way, I don't claim there are no happy people. I don't, even though I submit that Helen Polanski's quote is brilliant. It's obviously not literal. But let me ask you, do you ever compare your happiness to others? Do you walk around thinking others are happier than you? That's exactly why I think that— one of the reasons I think you're happy. So my rule would still apply.

Oh, I agree with the premise, but not the—

No, well, no, no, no, you agree with the solution. Don't compare yourself to others. Whether or not they really are happier or not happier, it's a source of unhappiness. One of the reasons I submit if you are happy and you agree is you don't go around comparing. How you learn to do that is something you ought to ask yourself. It might be natural, just a natural tendency on your part, not conscious. But it would be a very interesting thing because I submit that the vast majority of us do it all the time. And so, you know, if you would have said to me you do compare yourself to others and you're still happy, you would have deflated my argument. But this way worked out very well. By the way, I don't want you to get the impression— I don't walk around thinking everybody is miserable. And by the way, I'm not. The funny question is, am I happy? It's funny, when my article was printed in Redbook, the identification of me at the end of the article was— I don't know, about KVC and my books, and then it said and his wife, Fran, thinks he is the happiest person she knows, which is probably true. On the other hand, I have deep pain, which is going to be a question later: does pain mean unhappy? So it's a very— it's, you know, all of these questions foreshadow what's going to happen later. In the final analysis, it's probably best that not to walk around wondering if you're happy. I once asked a guy, an Orthodox rabbi, whom I'm sure nobody ever bothered asking, "Are you happy?" You know, they asked him about something in the Talmud. I said, but I'm, you know, very open, we were together, I said, "Rabbi so-and-so, are you a happy person?" He looked at me like I had asked him what he thinks of zippers. I mean, I don't know, has he been to Tibet recently? It was so obvious he doesn't, the question doesn't consume him. To a certain extent, this is a very American question. Only we have in the Declaration of Independence the pursuit of happiness as one of the purposes of life and of the country. So anyway, we'll talk more about that at a later time. But I don't want you to think I think everybody is sad. And I certainly don't find a great correlation between pain and unhappiness. A lot of people have a lot of pain and are happy. A lot of people have minimal pain and are unhappy. So anyway, it's very complex. Yes? You mentioned earlier this evening about money being the primary motivator, food service in restaurants, etc. And on the radio the other night, you were talking about penalty for financial crimes versus penalty for a crime toward another person, a murder, i.e., the M&M theory. And it leaves me feeling like, what about altruism? What about just knowing you've done something to make this world a better place, this planet?

It's kind of like saying, that's why you don't win, because I'm too hideous.

God forbid. I spend my life appealing to values and altruism. My greatest search in life is to find out how to make good people. But if I found out that something non-noble prompted people to be more kind, kindness is more important to me than motive. I always say in the Jewish community, it is very well known, almost to the point of— not almost— to the point of often being humorous how often Jews will give charity to Jewish institutions and have a plaque put up. Barry Bernstein toilet. I mean, it's endless. It's endless. There was a movie in Israel, the first Israeli movie hit was Sala Shabbat. And it was about, one of the things was, it was a spoof on American Jewish tourists. And this Salah, his job was that whenever rich American Jews would visit Israel, he would change the name on the tree. So it would be, you know, the Muriel Greenbaum Forest. Anyway, he blew it once and it was really the Goldmans who showed up and it was terrible. However, when all was said and done, them, one of the things that Christians frequently cite, and non-Jews generally, as a remarkable trait among Jews is how much charity they give. It is. It's a remarkable thing, now surpassed by Mormons.

End of tape number 2 on happiness, given October 31st.

This has been Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Visit DennisPrager.com for thousands thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs, and to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles.