The Dreams Problematic. Should People Follow Their Dreams?

I asked this rather simplistic question on Facebook yesterday:

Should people follow their dreams?

The resulting discussion thread generated from the questions was somewhat overwhelming for me, positively so.

One the first things I noticed in the many responses to the question was the level of honest in people's approach to engaging with the question. People did try to answer the question, but the overall "doings" of the respondents was that of an engagement with a philosophical idea, something that I felt hit rather close to home for everyone who responded. It seemed like a question that fueld a sense of exploration in the answers, such that, even though the replies provided were exact and determinable, they were also expressive of the respondents current self-exploration of the problematic of personal dreams and aspirations. In other words, it's a question being asked by all who had an answer on some level or another, whether answered or in the process of being answered, it means something to them on a very subjective level resonating as something outside of their social objectified identities. I must note, that as a researcher and writer I place myself into the role of respondent and participant as well in the discussion and discourse. I firmly believe that there is no such thing as objective viewpoints or research, and only research and exploration from within can ever truly be possible, so my personal engagement with the question is not to be left out and placed on some observant level as a social scientist, but is to be part of the mix or else the meaning of what this exploration is will be lost.

The question of dreams was highly connected to terms such as practical, power, follow, chains, failure, despondent, dwelling, happiness, open-minded, existential, goals, worldview, contentment, abstraction, alternatives, society, the here-and-now, instinctual needs, stripping down life to it's bare bones, happiness as a social construction, contentment, human condition, advanced modernity, advanced capitalism, consumerism, and sadness.

Perhaps, for me as both writer and reader of the discussion thread, the exploration of the human capacity to be happy vs. the human capacity to be content was of much importance in this discussion. I question whether happiness is something achievable in life, certainy as something mutually exclusive to any other form of emotion or state of mind. But I do not necessarily conceptualize happiness as an emotion, but as a state of being, or Dasein, positionality in the self as a social, political, intellectual, and contextual entity. Happiness is above all else subjectively interpretational for it can only ever have a differentiated character between social subjects.

Yet critically, happiness is tied strongly to the notion of advanced modernity within the discussion thread. There seems to be a substantial amount of energy utilized in the process of defining happiness in society, for it takes on a character akin to a reward model of consumerism. What I mean is, happiness seems to be the desired end result in work, relationships, and power relations, yet possibly, this end result is finite and never worth the sum of it's parts or of the actions done by actors seeking it.

I know personally, I feel I lose parts of myself when I strive to be happy. I gain some things of course, but overall, I lose aspects of my identity, or at least moments of clarity, which are to me very very valuable.