What is happiness?

Serenity595 said:
No need for apologizing. :) It's your opinion on happiness, and all opinions are welcome. I haven't researched the science behind our emotions much, but I would assume your description of the process of emotions in our brains is correct.

But let's consider the word "happiness" for a second... by your definition, it would appear to be the fleeting kind - the type of happiness that comes and goes depending on circumstances and external stimuli. But what about joy? By "joy" I mean the type of "happiness" that is long-lasting... that seems to exist in some people or at certain times despite the circumstances (I'm not trying to get into semantics here; I'm just trying to distinguish the two types of happiness that come to mind: temporary happiness and then enduring happiness).



So, I assume you believe the key to happiness is also complex? Then don't you think a mere scientific approach is a bit too simplifying? I'm not saying that science is simple by any means, but can science really explain everything? Can it always explain the "bigger picture"? What about love, for example?

Yes, there are different levels of happiness that can be any combination of the philosophies listed or something that was not covered. It is also unique for each person, yes. But to what extent? Is there something out there that could give someone true joy, no matter who the person is (I'm sure you already know my answer to this, but I'm curious to hear your response)?

:)
Click to expand...

I believe that science can eventually explain everything. Science explains feelings in terms of chemical reactions within the brain. This, as far as I am aware, is a fact. You have to understand, however, that each person is in control of his or her own thoughts, and each person's brain is different. It is not up to me or science to know why someone is feeling happiness at any given moment. But I can say for certain that some chemical reaction has taken place to make that person feel that way. Some people get happiness from slaughtering children. Others get it from video games. For this reason, I don't think it is appropriate to discuss "why" people feel emotions, because there is no single answer and it is different for each person. It is appropriate, however, to discuss "how" people feel emotion, or in other words "what" emotions are, and that has been proven by science.

I would not go as far as to say that happiness is “complex.” We understand why we experience the feeling of happiness, but it is complex only in the sense that what causes each individual’s brain to send out the message to the pineal gland to produce more serotonin is different for each person. That variable is impossible to define, which is why science can’t address it. I may even go as far as to say that a person could condition their brain to raise serotonin levels during times of prayer, or religious or spiritual reflection.

You have asked me to apply science to love. But what is love (baby don’t hurt me)? Love, as I understand it, is a set of feelings that society has generalized into a common term. It sucks to hear it, but humans created love in the same way that humans created what we know of as “race” (shout out to anyone familiar with anthropology and the dissection of race). When you “love” someone, the way you interact with that person likely causes chemical reactions in your brain and other releases of hormones that change your mood and feelings. We generalize those changes as “love.”

I was unaware that this long lasting feeling of happiness (what you call joy) is a proven thing to exist. I have personally never experienced joy that lasts for an extended period of time. I doubt you could find a scientific study or documentation of someone who felt “joy”.

To answer your last question, it depends at what point in life you are talking about. For adults, I do not believe that there is a universal cause for happiness or a release of serotonin in the body. We are all a product of the environments we grew up in respectively and the experiences we all have. Those factors directly influence what causes our bodies to release serotonin. Those factors can never be universal to every human being and therefore there can’t be a universal cause for happiness. For a baby, however, Freud is credited for outlining the 5 stages of psycho-sexual development. Infants seek to satisfy their drives, which include oral, anal, phallic, latent, and genital drives. It may be possible that all babies feel joy when they poop because it satisfies their anal drive. (Please be mature about this. I know we have a lot of immature 13 year olds on this forum. This is legitimate science and not bathroom talk for you kids)

Hopefully I have explained every angle of emotions and happiness that I believe exists according to science. If you have any further questions, by all means ask away.
 
Stratadon said:
I believe that science can eventually explain everything. Science explains feelings in terms of chemical reactions within the brain. This, as far as I am aware, is a fact. You have to understand, however, that each person is in control of his or her own thoughts, and each person's brain is different. It is not up to me or science to know why someone is feeling happiness at any given moment. But I can say for certain that some chemical reaction has taken place to make that person feel that way. Some people get happiness from slaughtering children. Others get it from video games. For this reason, I don't think it is appropriate to discuss "why" people feel emotions, because there is no single answer and it is different for each person. It is appropriate, however, to discuss "how" people feel emotion, or in other words "what" emotions are, and that has been proven by science.

I would not go as far as to say that happiness is “complex.” We understand why we experience the feeling of happiness, but it is complex only in the sense that what causes each individual’s brain to send out the message to the pineal gland to produce more serotonin is different for each person. That variable is impossible to define, which is why science can’t address it. I may even go as far as to say that a person could condition their brain to raise serotonin levels during times of prayer, or religious or spiritual reflection.

You have asked me to apply science to love. But what is love (baby don’t hurt me)? Love, as I understand it, is a set of feelings that society has generalized into a common term. It sucks to hear it, but humans created love in the same way that humans created what we know of as “race” (shout out to anyone familiar with anthropology and the dissection of race). When you “love” someone, the way you interact with that person likely causes chemical reactions in your brain and other releases of hormones that change your mood and feelings. We generalize those changes as “love.”

I was unaware that this long lasting feeling of happiness (what you call joy) is a proven thing to exist. I have personally never experienced joy that lasts for an extended period of time. I doubt you could find a scientific study or documentation of someone who felt “joy”.

To answer your last question, it depends at what point in life you are talking about. For adults, I do not believe that there is a universal cause for happiness or a release of serotonin in the body. We are all a product of the environments we grew up in respectively and the experiences we all have. Those factors directly influence what causes our bodies to release serotonin. Those factors can never be universal to every human being and therefore there can’t be a universal cause for happiness. For a baby, however, Freud is credited for outlining the 5 stages of psycho-sexual development. Infants seek to satisfy their drives, which include oral, anal, phallic, latent, and genital drives. It may be possible that all babies feel joy when they poop because it satisfies their anal drive. (Please be mature about this. I know we have a lot of immature 13 year olds on this forum. This is legitimate science and not bathroom talk for you kids)

Hopefully I have explained every angle of emotions and happiness that I believe exists according to science. If you have any further questions, by all means ask away.
Click to expand...
"As much as I love philosophies, they are pretty useless. They are single sided answers to very complex questions. The truth is happiness can be any combination of those philosophies or things not covered by those 4 philosophies and is unique for each person. This holds true to everything from religions to theories in international affairs. By attempting to look at the world through the lens of a single theory or philosophy, you subject yourself to tunnel vision and blind yourself to the bigger picture."

You seem to be quite fixed on the scientific explanation. Don't forget that there are other 'lenses' besides science, and that science is imperfect. (I personally suspect it always will be. My bet is on humanity wiping itself out before we understand the universe.)

---

Serenity595 said:
Introduction

What is happiness, exactly? Is it a purely physical pleasure that can only be experienced by the senses, or is it a state of mind that is the absence of pain? Is happiness simply a way to survive the troubles of life or is it the sum quality of a lifetime?

Or is it something else entirely?

There are many definitions and philosophies regarding happiness, so I will only go over the four that tend to be the most prevalent in culture and society.

___

Hedonism

Simply defined, it's the philosophical view that happiness is pleasure. In this context, pleasure is only physical. The Greek philosopher Aristippus (435 - 356 B.C.), an advocate of Hedonism, believed that there was no satisfaction in even the memory or anticipation of pleasure. Rather, only what was experienced in the moment could be considered true happiness.



2344680472_08a37cd9f3.jpg


Diego Velazquez's (1599 - 1660) Los Borrachos (The Drunkards), depicting the philosophy of Hedonism through laughter and social drinking​


___

Epicureanism

This philosophy regards that happiness is avoiding pain. Contrary to a Hedonist, an Epicurean mainly derives his happiness from being in a state of mind that is absent of pain, rather than simply feeling pleasure for a few brief moments. An Epicurean usually deals with pain by hoping for good in the future. The Greek formulator of Epicureanism, Epicurus (c. 341 - 270 B.C.), was against the beliefs of Hedonism and saw them as being illogical and insufficient. He believed true happiness came from a peaceful outlook rather than a mental euphoria.



1440532995_1089607189.jpg


Michelangelo's (1475 - 1564) The Creation of Adam, depicting the philosophy of Epicureanism through man's desire for no more pain​


___

Stoicism

While Hedonism tells us to plan ahead for a life of many pleasures and Epicureanism advises us to avoid pain through discipline of the mind, Stoicism offers no such "illusions". Instead, a Stoic expects pain and rolls with the punches. However, even amidst such chaos, a Stoic can still believe that such pain happens for an orderly reason, even if that reason is not entirely understood. The first major advocate of Stoicism, another Greek philosopher by the name of Zeno (335 - 264 B.C.), would have believed in human reason and the assumption that mankind was a higher form of life in order to come to such a conclusion about happiness.



attachment.php


Leonardo da Vinci's (1452 - 1519) Ginevra de' Benci, depicting the philosophy of Stoicism through the woman's look of indifference​


___

Aristotelianism

Though a Stoic would view life by the measure of his ability to deal with pain, an Aristotelian would reflect on his life by examining the sum quality of his entire lifetime, whether they were influenced by Hedonistic or Epicurean tendencies. In this context, happiness is defined by a summary of one's life rather than fleeting outbursts of joy. Aristotle (384 - 322 B.C.) concluded that things such as money, health, or love were provisions for happiness, but not happiness themselves. Rather, they were a means to an end.



1227818246b.jpg


Carvaggio's (1571 - 1610) Narcissus depicting the philosophy of Aristotelianism through reflections​


___

Conclusion

Now that you have learned about several philosophies regarding the subject of happiness, which do you believe best describes your outlook on life? Do you live for the moment or plan for a stable and content life? Do you use happiness as a strategy for survival or as a way to measure the sum quality of your life? Or perhaps do you do something differently?

I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Thanks for reading.
Click to expand...


My personal view on happiness? I don't know yet. I have no comprehensive answer, but I see the ideas you are tossing around. This is a question that will require a great deal of pondering before I could even think of responding. :laugh:
 
BMWAce said:
What happens when you post a philosophical thread in a gaming community
Click to expand...
David said:
>enters gaming community website
>goes to their gaming forums
>see's philosophy threads
>X's out of the browser
Click to expand...
Shitposts like these in these threads piss me off. (Ironic coming from me I know hur dur). Its mature discussion, not point out that you did not read the mature discussion cause you aren't mature enough to discuss in it or mature enough to not post at all and leave the thread be cause it provides no interest to you.

12.png
 
rsmv2you said:
Shitposts like these in these threads piss me off. (Ironic coming from me I know hur dur). Its mature discussion, not point out that you did not read the mature discussion cause you aren't mature enough to discuss in it or mature enough to not post at all and leave the thread be cause it provides no interest to you.

View attachment 139465
Click to expand...
Dude chill ;_;
I was joking just like most of the people in this community.
 
MiniCacti said:
"As much as I love philosophies, they are pretty useless. They are single sided answers to very complex questions. The truth is happiness can be any combination of those philosophies or things not covered by those 4 philosophies and is unique for each person. This holds true to everything from religions to theories in international affairs. By attempting to look at the world through the lens of a single theory or philosophy, you subject yourself to tunnel vision and blind yourself to the bigger picture."

You seem to be quite fixed on the scientific explanation. Don't forget that there are other 'lenses' besides science, and that science is imperfect. (I personally suspect it always will be. My bet is on humanity wiping itself out before we understand the universe.)

---




My personal view on happiness? I don't know yet. I have no comprehensive answer, but I see the ideas you are tossing around. This is a question that will require a great deal of pondering before I could even think of responding. :laugh:
Click to expand...

...Please don't just tell me to not focus on science. Give me a real reason, such as fault in my logic or your own opinions. Feel free to "remind me" what those other lenses are and how they can help us explain happiness. I have shown why science works and verifies/proves my explanation and you can look up the facts and research that accompany my perspective on your own. As I said, "I may even go as far as to say that a person could condition their brain to raise serotonin levels during times of prayer, or religious or spiritual reflection." I believe that religion can bring happiness, but that the happiness, no matter what form it comes in, will always be caused by serotonin in your body.

You are absolutely correct in saying that science is merely one lens, but the lens of science is incomprehensibly vast, well-rounded, and based on observation, research and testing that anyone can attest to or look at themselves to verify or repeat.

I miss spoke when I said that all philosophies are useless. I was referring to a certain kind of philosophy such as the 4 that serenity posted that are often fragmented and inflexible. In other words, each of those philosophies was written as if it was the one single truth in the universe relating to happiness, and it would be totally impossible for any other explanation to coexist with it. That is flagrantly blasphemous because you can see plenty of overlap in their explanations and ways for combinations of them to exist at the same time. Whereas science attempts to become infinitely broad in its explanation for the universe around us, the majority of philosophies try to do the exact opposite, and narrow in and focus on a single part of what I consider to be the "bigger picture." That is why I find most philosophies frustrating and useless.
 
Stratadon said:
...Please don't just tell me to not focus on science. Give me a real reason, such as fault in my logic or your own opinions. Feel free to "remind me" what those other lenses are and how they can help us explain happiness. I have shown why science works and verifies/proves my explanation and you can look up the facts and research that accompany my perspective on your own. As I said, "I may even go as far as to say that a person could condition their brain to raise serotonin levels during times of prayer, or religious or spiritual reflection." I believe that religion can bring happiness, but that the happiness, no matter what form it comes in, will always be caused by serotonin in your body.

You are absolutely correct in saying that science is merely one lens, but the lens of science is incomprehensibly vast, well-rounded, and based on observation, research and testing that anyone can attest to or look at themselves to verify or repeat.

I miss spoke when I said that all philosophies are useless. I was referring to a certain kind of philosophy such as the 4 that serenity posted that are often fragmented and inflexible. In other words, each of those philosophies was written as if it was the one single truth in the universe relating to happiness, and it would be totally impossible for any other explanation to coexist with it. That is flagrantly blasphemous because you can see plenty of overlap in their explanations and ways for combinations of them to exist at the same time. Whereas science attempts to become infinitely broad in its explanation for the universe around us, the majority of philosophies try to do the exact opposite, and narrow in and focus on a single part of what I consider to be the "bigger picture." That is why I find most philosophies frustrating and useless.
Click to expand...
Fail. I just clicked a link and lost my writing - hold on.
 
Stratadon said:
...Please don't just tell me to not focus on science. Give me a real reason, such as fault in my logic or your own opinions. Feel free to "remind me" what those other lenses are and how they can help us explain happiness. I have shown why science works and verifies/proves my explanation and you can look up the facts and research that accompany my perspective on your own. As I said, "I may even go as far as to say that a person could condition their brain to raise serotonin levels during times of prayer, or religious or spiritual reflection." I believe that religion can bring happiness, but that the happiness, no matter what form it comes in, will always be caused by serotonin in your body.

You are absolutely correct in saying that science is merely one lens, but the lens of science is incomprehensibly vast, well-rounded, and based on observation, research and testing that anyone can attest to or look at themselves to verify or repeat.

I miss spoke when I said that all philosophies are useless. I was referring to a certain kind of philosophy such as the 4 that serenity posted that are often fragmented and inflexible. In other words, each of those philosophies was written as if it was the one single truth in the universe relating to happiness, and it would be totally impossible for any other explanation to coexist with it. That is flagrantly blasphemous because you can see plenty of overlap in their explanations and ways for combinations of them to exist at the same time. Whereas science attempts to become infinitely broad in its explanation for the universe around us, the majority of philosophies try to do the exact opposite, and narrow in and focus on a single part of what I consider to be the "bigger picture." That is why I find most philosophies frustrating and useless.
Click to expand...
I am not trying to disprove your view, I am asking that you not toss these other ideas out. Perhaps I read it in an incorrect tone, but your first post has a "These are non-sense; science says this." feel to it. You start out by apologizing for your view, which sounds like "Sorry to burst your bubble, but..." Then you lay out a sound explanation for happiness; all is well here. Afterward, you move on to your since-then-withdrawn statement; giving a chiding sense of "look at the bigger picture, people." (Thank you for withdrawing that, btw.)

Now onward to the replied post. As said above, I am not trying to find fault with or disprove your view as I have no "real" (scientific, I presume) reason to; I don't disagree in other words. Not sure what the following bit with religion was about.

Yes, science is awesome. Imperfect, but that is besides the point. Moving on-

Shouldn't this thread be about ALL the ideas of happiness, rather than the ones we as individuals hold? Also, I don't gleem the same sense of absoluteness from the opening four that you do. Where I see "Happiness could be this" you are seeing "Happiness IS this"?


~~~
Edit: Grammar fixes due to a rushed re-write, but original is below for integrity purposes.
I am not trying to disprove your view, I am asking that you not toss these other ideas out. Perhaps I read it in an incorrect tone, but your first post has a "These are non-sense; science says this." You start out with by apologizing for your view, which sounds like "Sorry to burst your bubble, but..." Then you lay out a sound explanation for happiness; all is well here. Afterward, you move on to your since-then-withdrawn statement; giving chiding sense of "look at the bigger picture, people." (Thank you for withdrawing that, btw.)

Now onward to the replied post. As said above, I am not trying to find fault with or disprove your view as I have no "real" (scientific, I presume) reason to; I don't disagree in other words. Not sure what the following bit with religion was about.

Yes, science is awesome. Imperfect, but that is besides the point. Moving on-

Shouldn't this thread be about ALL the ideas of happiness, rather than the ones we as individuals hold? Also, I don't gleem the same sense of absoluteness from the opening four that you do. Where I see "Happiness could be this" you are seeing "Happiness IS this"?
 
Happiness?
HAPPINESS!?

HAHAHAHA.

You see, happiness to me in an interesting concept. I've self diagnosed myself with Bi-Polar last year and I recently got that check up on, and got properly diagnosed with Bi-Polar.
Now, happiness to me is /weird/ mainly because I don't need to do something to make me happy, it just happens sometimes. And when it happens...
IT HAPPENS HARD!

Now, on the flip side, I'm also depressed as all fuck for about 3/5ths of my life, and it's not the most fun thing in the world... more like I'm happy 2/7, I'm depressed 2/7 and I'm just apathetical about everything that comes my way 3/7 of the time I exist, awake. Which kinda sucks.

MOVING ON.

What is happiness to me? Well, as I just said It's different to me, and it's different to everyone. But that's the /point/ of the thread is it not? To understand what my idea on happiness is?
Happiness to somepeople might be going out to do something, might be having a laugh with friends, it might be photoshopping peoples faces from badly drawn ms pain pictures into people you know.

But yes, it's all different, for everyone. And for Me? Personally? Well, probably my girlfriend. In all honesty, she's my role model, she's what I aspire to be like, (Exactly like me but a talented artist and actually gets work done.)
 
rsmv2you said:
Shitposts like these in these threads piss me off. (Ironic coming from me I know hur dur). Its mature discussion, not point out that you did not read the mature discussion cause you aren't mature enough to discuss in it or mature enough to not post at all and leave the thread be cause it provides no interest to you.

View attachment 139465
Click to expand...
I see you quoted me as a shit post, then proceeded to remove it. Mind explaining?
 
Pixiel said:
I see you quoted me as a shit post, then proceeded to remove it. Mind explaining?
Click to expand...
Probably because you said
Pixiel said:
I, actually, do not know happiness. Never have.
Click to expand...
Which is probably a bit thick.

For one, I'd say that Chiba would find that a bit harsh.

EDIT: Fuck you Willy and your ninja posts, go to bed.

Also let's get this back on track with some Serenity,
feel the serenity.
 
rsmv2you said:
I accidentally quoted you, my apologies. And I dont want to start conflict as you seem to be instigating by responding...
Click to expand...
Not looking for conflict, was curious, sorry if it came across that way, long night and a lot of pain.
Vorsprung said:
Probably because you said

Which is probably a bit thick.

For one, I'd say that Chiba would find that a bit harsh.

EDIT: Fuck you Willy and your ninja posts, go to bed.

Also let's get this back on track with some Serenity,
feel the serenity.
Click to expand...
Chiba knows I'm not happy. With the amount of shit in my life, I cannot say I've truly been happy. I've had times where I enjoy what's going on, but it doesn't change the overall unhappiness I live with.
 
Stratadon said:
I believe that science can eventually explain everything. Science explains feelings in terms of chemical reactions within the brain. This, as far as I am aware, is a fact. You have to understand, however, that each person is in control of his or her own thoughts, and each person's brain is different. It is not up to me or science to know why someone is feeling happiness at any given moment. But I can say for certain that some chemical reaction has taken place to make that person feel that way. Some people get happiness from slaughtering children. Others get it from video games. For this reason, I don't think it is appropriate to discuss "why" people feel emotions, because there is no single answer and it is different for each person. It is appropriate, however, to discuss "how" people feel emotion, or in other words "what" emotions are, and that has been proven by science.

I would not go as far as to say that happiness is “complex.” We understand why we experience the feeling of happiness, but it is complex only in the sense that what causes each individual’s brain to send out the message to the pineal gland to produce more serotonin is different for each person. That variable is impossible to define, which is why science can’t address it. I may even go as far as to say that a person could condition their brain to raise serotonin levels during times of prayer, or religious or spiritual reflection.

You have asked me to apply science to love. But what is love (baby don’t hurt me)? Love, as I understand it, is a set of feelings that society has generalized into a common term. It sucks to hear it, but humans created love in the same way that humans created what we know of as “race” (shout out to anyone familiar with anthropology and the dissection of race). When you “love” someone, the way you interact with that person likely causes chemical reactions in your brain and other releases of hormones that change your mood and feelings. We generalize those changes as “love.”

I was unaware that this long lasting feeling of happiness (what you call joy) is a proven thing to exist. I have personally never experienced joy that lasts for an extended period of time. I doubt you could find a scientific study or documentation of someone who felt “joy”.

To answer your last question, it depends at what point in life you are talking about. For adults, I do not believe that there is a universal cause for happiness or a release of serotonin in the body. We are all a product of the environments we grew up in respectively and the experiences we all have. Those factors directly influence what causes our bodies to release serotonin. Those factors can never be universal to every human being and therefore there can’t be a universal cause for happiness. For a baby, however, Freud is credited for outlining the 5 stages of psycho-sexual development. Infants seek to satisfy their drives, which include oral, anal, phallic, latent, and genital drives. It may be possible that all babies feel joy when they poop because it satisfies their anal drive. (Please be mature about this. I know we have a lot of immature 13 year olds on this forum. This is legitimate science and not bathroom talk for you kids)

Hopefully I have explained every angle of emotions and happiness that I believe exists according to science. If you have any further questions, by all means ask away.
Click to expand...
Science can explain a lot of things, especially technicalities. Science is about facts; studying the natural and observable world and trying to make sense of it through hypothesis and experimentation. But there are questions that cannot be answered with an experiment: such as "Why is the universe here?" among the other "big" questions. You are right in that science can explain how the physical emotion we call "happiness" works or what it is exactly. But it can't explain why we desire happiness on a daily basis, why our interpretations of happiness are so varied, and why the main goal for many of us is to obtain happiness.

Again, science can explain how happiness works and the chemical processes that take place, but that's pretty much it. Am I saying that we shouldn't pursue science? Not in the least. But it's also not the end-all answer, especially since science is fallible and constantly evolving.

Even Haddaway didn't quite understand what love was. You say it is a human concept, and that is completely true, because we humans are the ONLY animals on this planet who experience this type of love. Every other animal in known existence cannot love the way a human does. Animals only seek the propagation of their species; humans desire for something far more complex.

"Joy" seems like such a foreign concept to a lot people because many of us know that happiness comes and goes like a flower; here today, gone tomorrow. But I've seen joy in people. Despite their circumstances, they endure. This is closely related to Stoicism, mixed with a dash of Epicureanism. Is there a scientific study? Most likely not. But that does not disprove its existence. Of course, I can't really prove its existence either just as much as I could explain the reality of wind to someone who has never experienced its affects.

Yes, we all have different things that make us happy. But there are universal qualities about happiness. For example, I cannot think of a single human on this planet that does not desire - in some extent or form - love, peace, kindness, and goodness (as a moral state). All of these lead to happiness, and they are not different from person to person.

My mind is kind of in a whirl right now so I think I will stop here so I can ponder on the matter. :)
 
hap·pi·ness [hap-ee-nis]
noun
1.the quality or state of being happy.

2.good fortune; pleasure; contentment; joy.
 
Serenity595 said:
Science can explain a lot of things, especially technicalities. Science is about facts; studying the natural and observable world and trying to make sense of it through hypothesis and experimentation. But there are questions that cannot be answered with an experiment: such as "Why is the universe here?" among the other "big" questions. You are right in that science can explain how the physical emotion we call "happiness" works or what it is exactly. But it can't explain why we desire happiness on a daily basis, why our interpretations of happiness are so varied, and why the main goal for many of us is to obtain happiness.

Again, science can explain how happiness works and the chemical processes that take place, but that's pretty much it. Am I saying that we shouldn't pursue science? Not in the least. But it's also not the end-all answer, especially since science is fallible and constantly evolving.

Even Haddaway didn't quite understand what love was. You say it is a human concept, and that is completely true, because we humans are the ONLY animals on this planet who experience this type of love. Every other animal in known existence cannot love the way a human does. Animals only seek the propagation of their species; humans desire for something far more complex.

"Joy" seems like such a foreign concept to a lot people because many of us know that happiness comes and goes like a flower; here today, gone tomorrow. But I've seen joy in people. Despite their circumstances, they endure. This is closely related to Stoicism, mixed with a dash of Epicureanism. Is there a scientific study? Most likely not. But that does not disprove its existence. Of course, I can't really prove its existence either just as much as I could explain the reality of wind to someone who has never experienced its affects.

Yes, we all have different things that make us happy. But there are universal qualities about happiness. For example, I cannot think of a single human on this planet that does not desire - in some extent or form - love, peace, kindness, and goodness (as a moral state). All of these lead to happiness, and they are not different from person to person.

My mind is kind of in a whirl right now so I think I will stop here so I can ponder on the matter. :)
Click to expand...


I actually do believe that given enough time, science will be able to prove why the universe exists. And I also believe that the scientific chemical explanation for emotions and feelings actually does answer why we desire to feel happiness. Feelings are an addictive drug, just like heroine or cocaine. The chemical reactions and hormones racing through our bloodstream physically and mentally make us feel awesome, for lack of any other description of what happiness feels like. It is the most natural high there is. We desire to repeatedly achieve that high, so we do whatever it is we like to do that will give us that feeling of happiness, because it beats any alternative, such as feeling sad or angry. What each person can do to achieve that high is different and varied because of differences in our experiences and the environments we each grew up in.

As to love, I believe that feelings are dependent on the sheer power of the brain that constructs them. Other animals can not feel the same feelings that we do because they simply can’t process them. They do not have the same brain capacity, and because there is no other organism known yet that has the same mental capacity of a human, we can’t actually know if they would or wouldn’t be able to feel the same feelings or other different feelings from us. They are not developed enough. They can’t communicate in a way that allows them to share a set of feelings and give it a name, such as “love”. I think that dogs are a perfect example of how animals are capable of understanding more than just how to propagate.

“But I've seen joy in people. Despite their circumstances, they endure.”

Perseverance through bad times is a quality that many people develop when they grow up in difficult situations. I do not know, however, how you could have seen this long lasting joy in someone. Maybe you saw a smile and talked to someone in a terrible circumstance. Maybe they told you that they persevere and always stay positive. That does mean, however, that they are in a constant state of happiness. Joy, in this case, is merely not letting anything get you down. It means waking up, smiling and telling yourself that today will be a better day. If someone can do this and achieve a happy state of being with raised levels of serotonin, props to them. They have figured out how to maintain a the high of happiness. There is no trick, though. There is no magic formula or spiritual connection. They figured out what it is they have to do to stay happy despite their circumstances, and I admire that whole-heartedly. I, in fact, wish I could develop that skill in myself and rid myself of all negative emotion.

I simply do not see any aspect of happiness that cannot be explained through scientific means and easy logic and reasoning. I agree with you that there are many qualities that humans strive to achieve through which they can achieve happiness. You listed some of those as peace, love and a moral state of goodness. Although they do seem universal to humans, I am willing to bet that those are a result of globalization and a result of the similarities of all societies in which almost all humans are raised. Although this is pure speculation, I think that it would be possible to create a society that values things like killing and torture, and someone raised by that society would gain happiness from a very different set of circumstances as do “normal” human beings. I think that a scientific study on this would be fascinating, but highly unlikely to happen for logistical and ethical reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top