How would you define HAPPINESS?

[turtle]

I think this question is very important. And it is a question that many people have often been confused and not sure on.

I was originaly going to put my view on happiness, but I'll wait until a few people post theirs, because I don't want to give away anything, incase someones view on happiness is somewhat... off.

So, what do you all think happiness is and why?

Another way to ask is: What makes you HAPPY and why?

[Sétanta]

Happiness, in my opinion, is the ability to be free from stress and do things that you enjoy. If getting shot at doesn't stress you out and you enjoy it, than maybe thats your happiness. It is also accepting things you know to be true and living with it.

It differs for everybody, in all likelyhood. There are societal norms at what being happy is, but everybody can define it themself.

[Ulf]

Endorphines. And being full of them. Either from natural causes, chocolate, sexual release, or any personal method that brings them to you.

[Fenris]

To each his own.

[Sétanta]

To each his own.

Exactly.

[turtle]

Good points all.

Yes everyone does define their own happiness, but what is often confused with happiness is pleasure.

Happiness is a state of being, not a feeling you get when you are enjoying yourself or endulging in the pleasures of life. Happiness is eternal and cannot be taken away from someone. Activities, pleasures, things, people etc can all be taken away at any moment. But a persons choice can't be taken away, only by that person can it be stripped.

Happiness is a choice made by the individual about how they live, feel, know their life and everything in it. Happiness is the pain you feel, it's the pleasures you taste, it's the good times you share, it's the hard times you dispair, it's the people you know, and the people you don't, the stars in the sky and the sand on the beach. It is all of the previous and your choice about those things. Happiness... true happiness comes from a good person looking at life and all in it and deciding to be content. Content with nothing and content with everything. One must make the choice to love and hate life, depending on their views.

Yes, happiness is different for each person, but it's essence remains the same.

Happiness is a state of being that comes from looking at the bad and good, but being completely content despite the bad or good; knowing things are going to be bad, knowing they will be good, knowing you will die and feel pain, but being able to accept those truths and remain content. You could be tortured, maimed... you could have your family destroyed before your eyes... you could see the world turn into hell and despite those horrible things, remain content and know you're happiness is full and complete. That is true happiness.

For me, my happiness comes from my existence. I am completely content with having the chance to exist; having the chance to be great, to be hurt, to be sad, to feel pleasure. I'm completely content and happy knowing I was given (by who or what, I don't know) the chance to experience my life and all it's horrible greatness. For this I am content and I know, no matter what happens in life, I'm glad I was given the chance. Because what would I be without that chance... nothing.

So, I think most people confuse pleasure with being happy, but pleasures are only momentary feel goods... Happiness is something that will be with you until you die, and possibly after too, I don't know, because I haven't died, yet.

Endorphines. And being full of them. Either from natural causes, chocolate, sexual release, or any personal method that brings them to you.

That's just pleasure, not happiness

[vikrant]

satisfaction

edit:- corrected @ fenris are u satisfied now??
i mean are u happy now??

[Fenris]

saticefaction

A one word post has more impact when the only word it contains is written correctly.

[Da Skinna]

“Who is healthy in body, resourceful in soul and of a readily teachable nature” -Thales on what a happy man is.

Though I'm not sure what the readily teachable nature part is about...

[Tom Paine]

According to Herodotus we can only be happy when we are dead; he was quoting a tale from Solon, I believe. Until then live can be bad and so on; once we are dead if we had a good life, we get to be happy, but until then no.

[Bovril]

I think Herodotus was merely displaying his respect for the concept of hubris. If a man thinks himself happy, and those around him do the same, then in Classical Greek philosophy he will be punished for his arrogance. Therefore, it is only sensible to call some one happy after they have died, since only at this point can you be sure that nemesis has been avoided.


On the subject of the original thread, I'm not so sure that hapiness is a usefull concept in the analysis of human experience. Satisfaction or placation surely have some meaning in terms of immediate mental states, but the idea of hapiness (at least in the terms in which the question positted it) is surely a reification of a culturally specific notion of the aim of existence which really has very little relevance to anything a human being can actually experience. Therefore to me, hapiness, in the reified ancient Greek sense, should be ignorred, and instead we should discuss things such as life goals, satisfaction, enjoyment and other actual mental states, rather than mythical states of being which a human can never actually experience.

[turtle]

I think Herodotus was merely displaying his respect for the concept of hubris. If a man thinks himself happy, and those arounf him do the same, then in Classical Greek philosophy he will be punished for his arrogance. Therefore, it is only sensible to call some one happy after they have died, since only at this point can you be sure that nemesis has been avoided.


On the subject of the origianal thread, I'm not so sure that hapiness is a usefull concept in the analysis of human experience. Satisfaction or placation surely have some meaning in terms of immediate mental states, but the idea of hapiness (at least in the terms in which the question positted it) is surely a reification of a culturally specific notion of the aim of existence which really has very little relevance to anything a human being can actually experience. Therefore me, hapiness, in the reified ancient Greek ssense, should be ignorred, and instead we should discuss things such as life goals, satisfaction, enjoyment and other actual mental states, rather than mythical states of being which a human can never actually experience.

I disagree, I believe a person can be happy, it just depends on the person. True, my definition of happiness is a very subjective one, but just because something is subjective, doesn't mean it's mythical or non-existent. Happiness is a choice that launches you into that state of being based off of who you are as a person, and who you are as a person comes only from your life's experiences. I don't understand why, in the long run, anyone would want to concentrate their live's on something so easily destroyed such as enjoyment, satisfaction, goals etc... that's just setting yourself up for failure. A person is not happy if they get depressed at the thought of loosing those things. I think happiness is a very real state and I believe anyone can find theirs, but it is not easy. Of course, one can say they are happy, but not be truly happy. The only time I was able to be sure about my happiness, was when it had been put to the test, quite viciuosly I might add.

[Bovril]

I would dispute whether such a broad concept of hapiness could concievably corespond to any psychological phenomenonon. You see, mental states are extremely transigent, and do not last olong enough to exist in the sense that you say that hapiness exists. So what you are left with is the idea that hapiness is some sort of either a) aggregate of experience, which in the final reckoning tends to be positive or b) achievment of a static set of life goals which, in total, can be said to be an achievment of hapiness. Of course botrh are, as I have said, a reification of cultural ideals. But they are more flawed that that simple analysis sugests. Idea A is not the measurement of actual human experience, it is merely a way of summing up its mean, which is a tragically simplified, and essentially useless, way of describing the mental states of a human's life. Idea B assumes the validity (and therefore reification) of a specific set of ideals, and what is more, does not describe the actual mental states experienced by the person in question.
Therefore, under both your possible theories, a person could be clinically depressed for a majority of their life, and you would still be able to call them 'happy'. To me, this seems absurd. I could be wrong though, and I await proof of the possibility.

[turtle]

I would dispute whether such a broad concept of hapiness could concievably corespond to any psychological phenomenonon. You see, mental states are extremely transigent, and do not last olong enough to exist in the sense that you say that hapiness exists. So what you are left with is the idea that hapiness is some sort of either a) aggregate of experience, which in the final reckoning tends to be positive or b) achievment of a static set of life goals which, in total, can be said to be an achievment of hapiness. Of course botrh are, as I have said, a reification of cultural ideals. But they are more flawed that that simple analysis sugests. Idea A is not the measurement of actual human experience, it is merely a way of summing up its mean, which is a tragically simplified, and essentially useless, way of describing the mental states of a human's life. Idea B assumes the validity (and therefore reification) of a specific set of ideals, and what is more, does not describe the actual mental states experienced by the person in question.
Therefore, under both your possible theories, a person could be clinically depressed for a majority of their life, and you would still be able to call them 'happy'. To me, this seems absurd. I could be wrong though, and I await proof of the possibility.

No, I don't agree with the statment that someone could be clinically depressed for a majority of their life and still be happy, that IS absurd. If they are constantly depressed about their life, the things that go wrong, the things they loose or whatever; that would go against my entire philosophy on happiness. You must be able to look at the (sorry) crap and still turn around the next second and know you are happy, not just feeling good, but completely content. You must be able to see, feel, know all the b.s in this messed up world and still be content.

Also, I never said happiness was a mental state, it is a state of being and that is much more than simply a mental state, because mental states can be taken away from you in an instant. Mental states come from the simple pleasures and circumstances one finds themselves in, whereas a state of being comes from all of those mental states, along with personal morals, ethics, etc put together to form an honest choice, which will help launch you into that state of being.

[Bovril]

I'm afraid I don't understand what this 'state of hapiness' is according to you. You say that a state of being is different to a mental state, and is also different to the sum or agregate of a person's mental states. I'm not able to conceive of a human experience that is seperate from a person's mental state, or a way of evaluating a person's overall life experience that is anything other than an attempt to find the central tendancy of a person's mental states.
Excpet, of course, I can conceive of a state of intellectual being that simulates the idea of happiness, without actually experiencing a positive mental state or an aggregate of positive mental states, though I would argue that this intellectual state was the result of poor or misinformed reasoning, and is not a proper reflection of that person's experience of being.

I think you have a concept of a state of cognition that is in some sense 'beyond' immediate experience, and is empirically vallid. If this is so, could you please explain the nature of this state, because if it exists I need to radically reform my ideas about human experience in a way that would be vital to me since I am training to be a psychotherepist.

[Taxman]

Contentment. Being content with your circumstances and feeling that you don't have to change anything because things are fine.

[Bovril]

Surely such a sense of satisfaction could spring more from accordance with social norms, or personal expectations than from an actual experience of enjoying your life or benefitting from the situation you are in.

[Da Skinna]

“Happiness resides not in possessions, and not in gold, happiness dwells in the soul.” -Democritus.

He was said to be mad because he laughed at everything.

[Katrina]

It seems to me, these two things:

Happiness, in the sense that you (Turtle) described it, is the opposite of depression. While depression is not neccisarily the lack of happiness, nor is happiness a lack of depression, as they are both caused by different influentials, they seem to relate.

Neither happiness or depression are due to singular short term emotional or mental reactions to external or internal influence. Positive influences create pleasure, comfort, etc, whilst negative influences cause annoyance, anger, etc. This is where one's happiness differs from, say, a 'happy time'.

It seems that a general state of mind within a person is produced overtime through development, exposure and mental/emotional reactions to this exposure. Happiness is not instant, nor is it produced from a single positive experience. Rather, through development of one's concious, these certain experiences are accumulated into your overall state of being. Your happiness. Or, in regards of the opposite; your depression.

[Siblesz]

A release of endorphins. It's as simple as that. Of course, the true art of happiness is not as simple. The art lies in prolonging the release of endorphins to a stable extent. And that is an individual journey.... there's no one answer. Chocolate does help, however, as Ulf has said.