Why Is One Happy? (An Analysis)

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
1

As much as this emotion has boggled my mind, I feel I now have a better grasp of it. Hopefully you too may share my opinion. Before this analysis became a realization for me, I spent some time thinking about it and even brought it up to people I knew. The best answer I got, was that happiness is

. It appeared to be a sufficient answer as far as I was concerned. But then I began to apply all sorts of situations of happiness to the definition of happiness and the definition cracked and finally crumbled. Here is what I came up with…

…before I delve into the intricate details of why one feels one of the most complex emotions human beings experience, I feel an urge to explain my attempt at defining why one becomes happy. I wish to conceptualize a general principle that agglomerates all conceivable experiences and degrees of happiness so that it can be applied to all situations and states of happiness in order to understand ourselves better.

Happiness comes from a state of focus (awareness and attention) for one or more variables in any given situation. This focus (awareness and attention) is the persons understanding and attachement to a situation.

(((sub-topic to the above))) - I put emphasis on ‘persons understanding’ because one comes to understand in their own way what is happening. It is through this personal understanding that a happy person is able to see a situation in a positive light. Since people do not become happy from a state of confusion. Hence, many fear the unknown. This understanding is one’s ‘thought’ of the situation, but it in no way means they ‘know’ what is really going on, it is only to mean that this is what they ‘think’ is happening. Ie. A guy may take a girl out for dinner. The girl may ‘think’ he took her out because he is a gentleman who likes her, and hence she will become happy (hopefully). Although, the guy may be a scumbucket who took her out for dinner only to get her in bed.

(((sub-topic to the above))) - The attachement is a realization of one’s place, position, and role in a given situation. Ie. One may not necessarily be happy with their occupation, but may be happy with the title they hold. A CEO of a company may be happy he/she works for a respectable company (place). The same CEO may also be happy with the title of CEO and the power it brings or how it will look on their resume (position). The CEO may yet again be happy that they are very important to the company and that many people depend on them, they are a figure of authority (role). Nevertheless, what this CEO actually ‘does’ as a CEO may not make them happy at all.

The reasons for this focus are relaxation (peace of mind) and fulfillment. Fulfillment of a need or want whether it be material, physical, or mental in nature. These two reasons can be set into a person together, or, the fulfilling of one’s needs/wants can lack relaxation (peace of mind) while still being happy. But relaxation (peace of mind) cannot lack fulfillment. Both relaxation and peace of mind are fulfillments by definition.

This principle of why one becomes happy is meant only to explain the ‘why’ one becomes happy. It is in no way suppose to explain the emotion or the physical attributes associated with a happy person. For as I stated earlier, happiness has many degrees.

Having read the ‘Concise posting’ post I feel the need to apologize for the lengthiness of this post. I do apologize. I assure you that I summed up as much as I could.

What’s your take?

2

ask sivakami.

she could give you a detailed scientific explanation on emotions.

3

Actually Magius, I agree with most of what you said there, but I believe that what you are describing there corresponds more with the notion of contentment rather than happiness.

I suppose that it all comes down to the semantic interpretation of how happiness and contentment differ, but I would argue that contentment is simply the deep-seated feeling of “peace of mind/relaxation” you spoke of there, where as happiness has a slightly more “euphoric” connetation: that is, there is a sense of tangible pleasure involved, not merely the absense of pain (which would be my simple definition of contentment).

I would also agree that the sincere focus (or reflection) on ones situation can aid the arrival of happiness or contentment (particularly the latter), but that it is not a pre-requisite for such a state of mind. I’m sure that ignorant people are just as capable of attaining such a state of mind (as false or misguided as it may be). Similarly, such focus could just as easily bring about a less optimistic perspective: how would such a focus, for instance, work for someone who has just been diagnosed with a fatal tumour? Can any sort of focus make them more rather than less happy?

As I said before, I do agree with much of what you said in that post, but couldn’t stop myself from asking those questions.

4

Good thoughts Magius and JP,

I always come back to Aristotle’s definition of happiness:

“Happiness is an activity of the “soul” in accord with perfect virtue.”

Let me hasten to add that I view the word “soul” only as a figure of speech. I think the two important points that Aristotle is trying to make is:

  1. Happiness is primarily associated with activity. Happiness might be thought of as the journey rather than the destination. We say that someone is happy. It makes less sense to say that someone has achieved happiness. This might help explain why it isn’t possible to buy happiness, in the sense that an unhappy man tells himself that he will achieve happiness when he finally owns a BMW sportscar.

  2. Happiness is bound with the Virtues. Mafia bosses who’ve made their fortune from the misery of others (prostitution, wacking the competion, etc.) might be content with their success, but they rarely live happy lives. They fear daily for their own lives, and for the possibility that the government might throw them in prison. They are not unlike the Hare in the field that must forever keep a watchful eye looking skyward for Hawks. The degree to which their knowedge and understanding increases is the degree to which their feeling of guilt increases. Their only hope of escaping guilt is to remain eternally ignorant of the same virtues in which good men discover tranquility.

A persistant theme among the ancient Greek philosophers was that a life of happiness accompanies a life of contemplation. This concept does have a good feel about it. Tom Morris wrote:

“The smarter you are, the more you can suffer. Until you wise up. Then you can put things into perspective and endure what would have been unendurable.”

Likewise, we remember Jean De La Bruyere’s famous quip:

“Life is a tragedy for those who feel, and a comedy for those who
think.”

But really, is it any wonder that Philosophers have traditionally viewed a life of contemplation as the one best fitted to sustain a life of happiness? Wouldn’t baseball fans just as vehemently insist that a life spent watching baseball games is the surest way to sustain happiness? :slight_smile:

Michael

5

JP,
you compare contentment to happiness and argue that contentment is a deep-seated feeling only with a more euphoric connetation.

But remember, I stated as the title says:

Focus in the way I described it in my first post is a pre-requisite for happiness, and as I described this focus; all are capable of focus in their own understanding of it (as I explained in my previous post). Focus for someone who has just been diagnosed with a fatal tumour may be extremely sad. That’s the wonderful thing about this focus, is that it appears to be the cause of not just happiness but all emotions. Perspective is a focus on one or more variables of any given situation. If you see them as negative, you may be sad, if you see them as positive, you may be happy. But this is apart from what actually is. Moreover, it is possible for types of people to be happy, whether good or bad. Too many people live in a dream world thinking that bad people are not happy. Selfish people aren’t happy, etc, etc. This just isn’t so, and this explanation of focus also explains how crooked, corrupted, and mean spirited are also happy from the bad things they do to others, themselves, or just in general.

You asked if there is any sort of focus that can make a person more rather than less happy: Pleasee refer to the above quote from my previous post, and check the last sentence. Again, this isn’t about how one is happy or to what degree, but an analysis of ‘why’ one becomes happy.

What’s your take?

6

Polemarchus,
Aristotles definition of happiness is Eudaimonia and the perfect virtue is the Golden Mean. It is not true that Aristotles Eudaimonia is PRIMARILY associated with activity. To Aristotle, reason was the primary first and foremost important thing to making a person happy. But reason alone is not enough. One must put into action this reason, or as Polemarchus stated, activity. But even this gets more complicated since Aristotle proposes that we must act from habit, this habitual acting is to come from instinct and not from contemplation. Yet, to become one who acts from habit within the Golden Mean one must first contemplate in situations and not necessarily act. Once the person has watched situations and reasoned them out, he/she is to act upon this new found knowledge without thinking, but from instinct. This Golden Mean is debatable aswell, since to Aristotle the Golden Mean is doing the right thing, at the right time, for the right person, in the right way, in the right state of mind - when my fellow classmates and professor broke it down in university philosophy class it turns out that the possibility of a person acting within the golden mean, the highest virtue, is harder to get than winning the lottary times ten! Anyway, Aristotles point is that if a person was able to act in habit to the Golden Mean this person would truly be happy.

Polemarchus stated:

I disagree, the thought of buying a BMW sportscar (Z3, M3, 900series? The only BMW sports cars. I love BMW’s sorry) would make the guy happy. The trip to the dealership would make the guy happy. The excitement of actually buying the car would make him happy. Driving it off the lot would make him happy. Hence you are correct in your assessment of happiness being in the journey, but it also lies in thought, anticipation, purchasing, and ending. Happiness can be bought, figuratively speaking, why do you think women shop so much? Why do people marry for the money?

Polemarchus stated:

You said it yourself, rarely, but they are happy. That is why I think my definition works, it doesn’t discriminate against good or bad people. It is wishful thinking that people who do bad things are not happy. It is true that they have tough lives given the nature that our legal system and way of life is mostly against people doing bad things, but this does not mean that they are not happy or that they are incapable of being happy.

What’s your take?

7

Hi Magius,

The Greek word “eudaimonia” (eu = well meaning, and daimon = soul) is generally translated as “happiness.” Aristotle acknowledged that among the Greeks of his day the meaning of this word was rather vague. As you know, Aristotle had specific ideas about what happiness is. As a result, his own definition of “eudaimonia” is more specific. Aristotle specified that eudaimonia must meet two criteria. It must be complete (it must always be chosen for itself) and it must be self-sufficient (it should be able to stand alone). Thus, Aristole’s happiness is an end. It is a truth. Happiness does not exist for something else. It is complete in itself.

My understanding of Aristotle’s notion of eudaimonia is that it is associated with a life of virtue and involves the exercise of the best activity of which humans are capable. Yes, of course I agree with you that Aristotle stresses that the proper function of a human is the exercise of right-reason. But please notice that word “exercise.” Aristotle believed that concepts such as happiness and right-reason were meant to be lived, rather than put into glass display cases and admired. You might also remember Aristotle’s stress on the idea of moving “potentiality to actuality.” Again, the idea is that we don’t just talk about Virtue but actually live Virtuous lives. I see woven throughout his writings, the idea of action, or activity.

As I understand Aristotle, virtue is the mean between two vices. The often used examples are that Pride is the mean between Vanity and Humility, as Courage is the mean between Rashness and Cowardlyness. So to my mind his concept of Virtue is found as the mean between extremes, but the exact mean is different for each person.

My quote: “Happiness is an activity of the soul in accord with perfect virtue,” is rather famous. It comes from his Nicomachean Ethics, and speculation over its meaning almost became a cottage-industry at times. My reading of Aristotle leads me to the notion that the important words in this phrase are “activity” and “virtue.” Again, intelligent men have disagreed as to the exact meaning. I suppose not unlike a work of art, we each might read into it what best suits our own nature. In other words, there is no single correct answer. If an idea is of use to you in living a good life, then that idea has served you well.

I understand what you are saying, this is why I alluded to the idea that a baseball fan would think that a life spent attending ballgames would be a catalyst for happiness. A BMW aficionado might feel the same about going to BMW show rooms and reading magazines, etc. These things are activities, however. Women shop as an activity. Only in respect to the the seeking out, the purchase or the use of a thing might aid a happy life. The car itself, or the pair of expensive shoes itself is not the basis of happiness. Again, the distinction is between the active and the static.

Yes, of course a mob boss can have a big house, an endless supply of young and attractive blondes, expensive cars and nice clothes. Animals are seen to be happy as long as their animal needs are fufilled. The mafia boss is no different. The happiness that I 'm speaking of is something far greater than having a full belly and empty testicles. Were the men that ran the rape-camps in Bosnia happy, by any reading of Aristotle’s definition? Men that act like pigs are privy only to a pig’s happiness. Men who aspire to a man’s happiness could scarcely do better than to culitvate “an activity of the soul in accord with perfect virtue.”

Michael

8

Greetings Polemarchus.
I agree whole heartedly with your first paragraph.

You stated:

Yes you are quite right, but I never stated that we should be talking about virtue, although that I think Aristotle would find virtuous itself. But part of living a virtuous life is to spend time in theoretical contemplation; there is no action associated with it, atleast not at the time but later. You are quite right about the examples you have chosen in defining the golden mean, but those aren’t the only examples. Using only the one’s you provided I would draw the same conclusion as you. You may remember Aristotle’s classification and definition of intellectual virtues as being the highest virtues. These virtues are also broken down into degrees, of which theoretical contemplation is the highest form of eudaimonia (Nicomachean Ethics X.7). Once again, I am not arguing that you are wrong, just that action or the excercise of virtues is not the soul purpose for Aristotles eudaimonia. It’s a part of it, but it is not the chief impedus behind his meaning. Since, you said yourself that eudaimonia is complete in itself, one is not in a state of eudaimonia if they are doing things so that they can go out and use them in action, or excercise them with others. It is more of a by-product, since one puts it into action in order to stay virtuous in habit of doing virtuous things.

You further postulated:

I think your first word ‘only’ is a little bit of a strong assumption in this case, many people are happy with the car they have, for some it even changes them because their ego get’s a boost as long as they have the car. People act differently, usually more confident in the clothes they wear (when they are wearing exactly what they want) and in both cases it makes them happy. Happiness can come from both the active and the static. I also believe that happiness can come from having potential to do something for which happiness continues or even escalates when morphed into actuality. For example, a young child watches many things in amusement, let’s say car’s racing and they feel a potential to do the same, they are happy to watch cars racing. But when they actually race (either in the arcade or a real car when they get older) with a car they are also happy or even more than from the potentiality.

You continued…

:laughing: Yes, Aristotle is famous for drawing this distinction of types of people and relative happiness. But, those who love to eat, are they not happy when eating or thinking of food? Philosophers like Aristotle and Plato among others, didn’t draw the distinction between fulfillment and mental fulfillment. All fulfillment was seen as desires (physical), I think the error lays in the very mental states that bring you and I to this message board. We are happy to communicate and share views and opinions with others, to ancient philosophers this would be seen as a virtue. But we are just fulfilling yet another one of our desires, only it is based in the brain which doesn’t have nerves (so it cannot achieve physical pleasure). We are social creatures, hence we have a desire to socialize. Since all pleasure whether physical or not only becomes pleasure within the brain. Ie. If a really ugly girl touches you in a caressing manner you may cringe or even hurl, but if a beautiful girl caresses you, you may blush or maybe even jump her. So whether physical or not, pleasure comes from one source and our perogative is to achieve fulfillment.

What’s your take?

9

yep happiness is the key to life that is every bodys goal.i just hate it

10

Sublimed,
I never said that the key to one’s life is everbody’s goal. I was sharing my analysis of ‘why’ one becomes happy. I have actually felt neglected since no one really focused on what I wrote, but instead wrote about who I should ask, or they spoke of what others have said happiness is - even though that wasn’t what I was talking about. Nevertheless, I am curious why you hate happiness as a key for all people being their goal?

What’s your take?

11

I’ve come to realize that my initial analysis of happiness is a good elucidation of how and why we come to feel emotions (generally). Unfortunately, I think I have failed to demarcate happiness from other types of emotions and explain its unique quality.

Any suggestions?

12

Hi Magius,

I found this topic quite interesting, but I’ve always associated happiness with the fulfilling of a want or need. Like the example of the BMW, the person is happy because first they wanted a car and now they have obtained it. If they wanted the car but couldn’t have it they might be sad or upset. So I believe we have to have a need for something before it can make us happy.

Like your example of the Beautiful and Ugly women, we want beautiful women to be interested in us, but not ugly women. So when the ugly woman does what we want the beautiful one to do it upsets us, as this is not what we want, we don’t want the ugly woman.

An extreme example would be the rape camps mentioned above. The men who commit the act want to have sex, so they’re initially happy to have their sexual needs met. Of course if they at a latter date they realise just how wrong they acted, they could start to feel sad or disgusted by what they did. So even diabolical wants can bring us initial happiness, if we are meting a short-term need or want. Or another example could be punching someone who is making fun of us; again short-term it makes us happy to have hit the person.

Now, long-term happiness is a completely different thing to short-term. The short-term happiness doesn’t take into account virtue. So both good and evil acts can make us happy if we fulfil the want. The short-term desire to fulfil a want can be so great it can cloud our judgements. Meaning our long-term happiness could suffer, as when we look back and see without the blinding desire want we did, we become unhappy. This is why I believe most philosophers say we should always only act out of virtue, as virtue is a long-term need, while the passions are short-term. Personally I think virtue is the wrong word, I believe we should always act the way our conscience will let us look back on an action and be happy or content with what we have done.

So using my conscience to judge my actions good or evil, I break down happiness like this:

Short-term “evil happiness” adds to long-term sadness.
Short-term “good happiness” adds to long-term happiness.

So too much short-term “evil happiness” will lead eventually to long-term sadness, even though we were making ourselves happy, all the time. If you can live without a conscience you will have a better chance at a happy life. Virtue in the real world is actually a liability to long-term happiness, as it becomes vitally important to control our passions, so we don’t commit any actions our conscience will look back on with regret. Only if there is some type of afterlife, which uses Virtue as a measure for a reward would a life of Virtue be necessary.

As for what types of needs and wants we desire; all we have to do is look to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

13

Often, at least for myself, I find that my transient needs/wants/desires are merely bandaids for what would really offer me true happiness/contentment/fulfillment.

Yes … the BMW may make me happy … in the anticipation, purchase, and pleasure of driving it… but … if I have no-one to share that pleasure/happiness/excitement with … then does in become merely an ‘empty’ or ‘transitory’ happiness? I beleive that happiness has more opportunity for continuity when it comes from immaterial means… love, friendship, a sense of belonging and purpose etc.

What do the majority of humans want? I believe that most humans have an inherent need to share their feelings, thoughts, hopes etc with other humans… I beleive that the affirmation (and self-definition) received in the ‘sharing’ and ‘reflecting’ between friends/romantic partners/family means the reality of emotions (such as happiness) can be better achieved and maintained.

Thoughts…?

14

I’m not sure what I’m trying to say here but I’ll try…

I believe happiness is not in the BMW (or possessions)
I do not believe it (happiness) is the means of aquiring this possession
I think it is the action of sharing, like navelgazer said that makes us happy. Could it be that as humans we crave attention, and even the greediest and most self endulgent, selfish person in the world could not be happy unless they had someone to see that they (the selfish one) had many possessions? And would it be that reaction that made the selfish person happy?
I believe happiness is controlled by people
-I can make myself happy by communicating with people
-People I am communicating with can make my unhappy
(and vice versa for both)
The reason it is controlled by people is because it is a view, an opinion, some bad/unhappy news for one person could be good/happy news for the next.
Also, something that would’ve made me happy yesterday could make me unhappy today.

15

I know this is off the point, but I don’t see how that makes him a scumbucket, unless maybe he tells her he wants a long term relationship or something. He might be a good lover and be doing her a favour for all you know, and anyway he might still “like” her and want to engage in sexual intercourse with her that night.

16

Oh boy,
Redjames, the example was used in order to illustrate the problem within the original post and why it led me to a certain finding in reference to happiness. In order to address your point I have only the following to say in response…I choose my words very carefully. Notice the word may within the last sentence. I was not out to make an assertion that all males who take women out to dinner are scumbuckets. It usually helps to read the post the quote was made in reference to. Although, your point may be viewed to address this very point, if true, to not entail the guy to be a scumbucket. If according to you, a guy who takes a girl out for dinner ONLY to get her in bed, is not a scumbucket - so be it. In my book he is. But again, your post doesn’t CLEARLY say this either. In order for us to understand each other you need to either stay focused on what it is I actually said, or come out an elucidate your point more clearly.

Furthermore, if you think that he would be a scumbucket if he told her he wanted a relationship, I assume (correct me if I am wrong) that you mean to say that he is scum because he is lying to her or leading her along the dishonest path apart from what he really wants. If I am correct, I would ask you to draw this same logic on the act of taking a girl out ONLY to get her in bed and please explain to me how the general pretext is different. Whether it’s a promise, a dinner, a poem, a rose, or whatever - if you purposefully lead a person to believe in one thing for the purpose of using them as a means to your own end, I am of the opinion that they are scum.

What’s your take?

17

Pax Vitae stated:

Reading your above quote I come to think of all the times that I didn’t have a need for a thing but it made me very happy. Furthermore, there are many times when I didn’t even KNOW this or that could make me happy but it did. Now that I think of it, how would anyone ever begin to be happy if they needed to have a need for something before it can make them happy? We would never move past the stage of eating, mating (Sex), and taking care of our other instinctive amenities. In fact, I believe it works exactly opposite to what you say, I think we come to have a need because something has made us happy, it is this feeling of happiness that we come to need once we find it attributed to different things.

Pax Vitae stated:

Not so, in my opinion. We still want what you consider ‘ugly’ women to want us because it makes us feel wanted, despite the fact that we have no intention of becoming sexual with them. Furthermore, I would like to think that atleast some guys are like me and sex isn’t the only thing they look for in a women. I have female friends, some of them I find attractive and some of them I don’t, but I am friends with all of them and spend an equal amount of time with those that I am not attracted as those who I do find attractive. I think too many guys don’t know how to differentiate their feelings between finding a person attractive and actually wanting them. When I see an attractive girl I don’t automatically think of sleeping with her or being with in any way shape or form. But I have come to understand that many guys do. I think it’s a problem. It may be prudent to ask you if you have any male friends, and if you do I might ask why you have them. Unless you have friends only for the things they give you, advantageous resources, etc. - otherwise, ask yourself why you are friends with them and transfer this logic onto females that you don’t find attractive. Lastly, you word usage leads to some uncomfortable situations, remember, just because you don’t find a girl attractive that doesn’t mean she is ugly. For this reason it is better to say that you don’t find this girl or that girl attractive, instead of saying that she is ugly. It’s a relative thing.

Pax Vitae stated:

I do agree that there are differing durations to happiness, some happiness lasts a short while, while some last a long time. But I think you need to get off this fulfilling a want or need thing. Although it may be what is actually happening, we do not become happy from our conscious fulfillment of a desire, want, need. I can be miserable sitting on a curb and all of a sudden I will take notice of a tree and its beauty. Now I can’t say that I look at the tree in order for it to make me feel its beauty, it just happened. In the same way, there are things we do that make us miserable and we don’t really want to do them, but after some time we sometimes find that it makes us happy and is actually something we want to do. I also agree that both good and evil acts can make us happy, but I think we differ on our understanding of this claim. See, I believe this because morality is relative to each person and was made up by human beings, it doesn’t really exist. So ofcourse, if something I do and think it to be good and you find it to be bad, will still mean I am happy. Even all of society may think it to be bad, but as long as I find it good, I will be happy. A more relavent example, to my life atleast, is the very opposite. I keep doing things that society coerces me into and tells me it is good, yet I always feel like I am nothing when I am doing it. I feel like I am doing something bad, yet everyone is doing it, everyone complains but take it to be a part of life that will never change.

Pax Vitae stated:

Interesting, if you haven’t already, you should definitely read some Locke, Hume, and Berkeley. They share a similar view.

Pax Vitae stated:

What exactly is ‘evil happiness’? Furthermore, short term anything does not necessitate a long term anything. Don’t get me wrong, it can lead to that, but it doesn’t necessitate it. It can have the opposite affect as well. I may do something that makes me happy and I think it to be good, but society finds it evil and punishes me. I may never do the thing again and this short term happiness I experienced has not led to long-term happiness.

Pax Vitae stated:

DO you really think that Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is sufficient in defining our happiness and our needs and wants - especially their intrinsic workings?

What’s your take?

18

True, it could be seen as unseen want, a repressed desire, or happy chance of faith. Something we do want but are unaware, a subconscious longing. From reading your first paragraph it seems the feeling of happiness comes from being in the right place at the right time, a case of luck more so then making it happen. I agree the some of the happiest things come about by chance; because it’s unforeseen it tastes all the more sweeter. But I don’t believe happiness is all about luck, we can make ourselves happy if we want to.

I hope you don’t think I was being sexist, as I just wanted to paint a mental picture in black and white, but the view can quite easily be reversed. I do have many female friends, and I’ve heard lots of stories. Over 90% of the advances they receive are unwanted, either because the guy is creepy, ugly, or stupid. So what I said goes both ways. But I’ve only ever met one ugly woman and she was physically attractive, yet the crewless creature I’ve ever met. I don’t use the word beautiful to mean physically attractive, but in an overall sense. This sounds corny, but if a woman doesn’t have a personality, it’s very difficult to build a meaningful long-term relationship. I need to be able to share myself with a woman and know that she understands where I’m coming from, just as much as I want to know the complete gamut of who she really is. To allow the relationship’s synergy to make us both better people for knowing one another. But of course this isn’t easy, as it’s quite difficult to find the right person.

The main point I was trying to make in that passage was we are more interested in people who we find attractive (general sense) then the ones we don’t. Its one thing to be in a friendship with a woman, and another for a relationship, as different qualities are needed. I don’t know about you, but there are people I know who I don’t always enjoy the company of, but I’m still friendly towards them. It’s possible for me to be friendly with a person I don’t necessarily ‘like’, but I could never have an intimate friendship or relationship with them.

I do agree, we don’t agree about where happiness comes from. Again this seems to indicate that happiness comes from chance and is not obtainable by other means, which I don’t agree with. I like to have goals, and when I achieve my goals I’m happy. This is where I see long-term happiness coming from. If happiness is just a lucky accident then its no wonder so many people in this world are sad. I agree that some of the happiest moments in my life came by chance. But my mom is always reminding me about the happiest day in her life was when I was born. I was planned, my birth the fulfilment of the plan and it created untold happiness for my mom. So happiness is about wanting and having a desire fulfilled, but I acknowledge there’s more to it then just that.

That’s pretty much what I meant by evil happiness. It was enjoyable and made me happy, but then sometime after the fact I look back on it and begin to see it in a different light. (e.g. “It made me happy when I punched the person making fun of me, but now when I think about it again I shouldn’t have done it.”)

To an extent, but they are general, so different people will always want different things. But fundamentally the principles he puts forward I would agree with. We need food, then housing, then security, and ultimately the power to fulfil ourselves in a way that makes us feel whole. While we always want what’s at the top we can’t get it unless we first have the other items beneath it. That is, unless someone’s idea of fulfilment is living on the street, not knowing where their next meal is coming from.

19

Pax Vitae,
I’m glad we have come to an agreement on some of the items from previous posts, but I am a little confused as to your disagreement with…what you address as me, but I never postulated anything of the sort. My point being that right from the start your post took on an argument with yourself, or what Argumentation Theory calls ‘Scare Crow Fallacy’. Meaning, you took what I said and misinterpreted (unintentionally) and argued against that, and not what I had actually said. I’ll point out:

In the beginning of your post you quoted me as follows:

All is well and good so far. But you go on to say:

Now this I never said, nor do I see why one would get that from my quote. I understand where YOU would get that, but you must try to realize that my general statement was just that, general. I didn’t go into specifics, your experienced derived faith, change, etc for YOU, but I meant for than just that. The rest of your post hangs on the above quote and keeps coming back to it as if it was actually a quote of my words. For example you later say:

In reference to your first sentence, it seems to focus heavily on my usage of examples and not the points themselves. I usually pick one example to help illustrate a general statement, as I did in my previous post, but that doesn’t mean that my statement IS the example. The example is only there to help you to have a mental picture in order for you to comprehend quicker (or so psychologists believe). Next, your next sentence agrees with something I didn’t say, then you say that you don’t believe happiness is ALL about luck, as if I had said it was ALL about luck.

You also said:

But I haven’t said anything about where happiness comes from, my original post was about, and I can’t stress this enough, WHY one becomes happy. The where is misleading, as though there is a direction or location for you to direct yourself in order to be happy - this obstructs self-awareness and the belief in believing in oneself and finding happiness within yourself.

You continue:

Here you say the same argument again, only this time you take a further step and make it sound like I said that THE ONLY WAY ONE CAN BE HAPPY IS BY CHANCE, now I can see that you are swirling down the drain into the cave of shadows (allegory of the cave).

You don’t sound corny at all (about the woman thing), it’s actually good to hear from someone who has a similar perception of women as I. I use to have a saying that I would marry any women that could make me feel whole and could make me happy, no matter how ugly she is. That statement is a little too general and hardcore, looks do mean something - but the point, same as you made, is that looks should never be the primary reason or primary good thing in a relationship.

Please don’t take this as a berating or anything of the sort, instead its more of a constructive criticism. I actually enjoy exchanging conversation with you, I wish to point out your going off on tangents so that we may focus on the interesting parts of the conversation and everything will go more smoothly, clearly, and understandably.

P.S. I like your signature.

What’s your take?

20

That’s what struck a cord with me and started my fingers a type’n.

Yes, sorry I’ve misrepresented you through my own mistake. I took the beginning of your first paragraph of that post to be what you thought. But I can see now this is not the case after re-reading this topic:

I agree with your definition of why. But I’m still puzzled by the part in bold…

Just to make sure I’m not misreading this: Is this where you think our need for happiness comes from, not the happiness itself? So our need is just a by-product of happiness and the catalyst to continue the search for more? (e.g. Happiness creates need, and fulfilment of need creates happiness. So the circle continues)