Talk:Happiness
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives |
[edit] Mystical (religious, spiritual, and mythological) view
The first paragraph of this section requires reworking. The word "advanced" may indicate bias, and the sentence structure makes it difficult to understand which traditions are being described. It also needs to be fleshed out to include a wider range of spiritual and religious traditions. - Okelle 2007-08-21 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Okelle (talk • contribs) 18:03, August 21, 2007 (UTC).
In addition to quoting various paths to happiness from various religions one ought to state the obvious conclusion which can be inferred by reading the existing text. The section, as it stands, is a bit disjoint. I'm not terribly good at wording things, but something like: "Nearly all religious and philosophical tenets seem to hold that happiness comes about with the abandonment as self interest as a primary motivator of action." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simultaneous (talk • contribs) 12:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Important distinction
This article does not really distinguish between happiness and pleasure. The drug addict gets lots of pleasure, but he is probably not really happy. -- ???
I second the above observation. Under the "Biological basis" heading, Happiness and Pleasure are used interchangeably. Many people and traditions treat these as separate. Furthermore, the assertion that "A person's overall happiness is objectively measurable" strikes me as not a neutral POV. I'm on the fence myself, but many people certainly think that happiness is beyond the grasp of empirical results. wanderingstan (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Happiness and Thermodynamics
Without a proper discussion of happiness in the context of modern thermodynamics, this article is just a set of opinions based on incorrect observations. A proper analysis has been done and presented here, which correlates with our current known models of lifestyle factors that influence happiness, and disease models of addiction. The person who removed this is doing a great disservice to many unhappy people, who sit inside on their PC's and read Wikipedia....the need to go out from some fresh air.....
While throughout history, thinkers have tried to frame happiness subjectively, in modern science the concept of energy can be used to understand the emotion of happiness. The natural energies that exist in the outside world (solar power, capillary action, oxygen combustion) are all accessible when people live an active, healthy outdoor lifestyle. This energy, when used, changes form according to the laws of Entropy and becomes less concentrated. Thus the "expansion" of "free" energy due to its use through a positive belief system of healthy, outdoor living allows one to experience "happiness" as an emotion.
Because modern thermodynamic principles can explain how happiness operates at the statistical level of energy exchanges, we can see that the roots of happiness are based in belief systems which allow people to spend a high percentage of their time in the "great outdoors". As a result, any other types of behaviors such as the pursuit of wealth for its own sake, forming relationships in the hopes that they will improve happiness, gaining extra credentials or spending money for satisfaction/gratification, only create micro-bursts of feel-good energy and as a result can be classified as "addictive behaviors". Modern neuroscience thermal brain modeling and biochemical pathway energy diagrams have confirmed experimentally that our brains are wired to "feel good", and so without the outside energies to drive the feel-good energy reactions through healthy lifestyle, addictive behaviors will predominate.
The inability of unhappy people, who simple hold belief systems that keep them inside for great amounts of time, to recognize the true happiness in others whose belief systems are dominated by outside, active living means that the minority (who live for the most part to enjoy the great outdoors) view those who live for the most part indoors (and this is a large percentage of modern society) as in denial, and suffering from forms of dementia. The unhappy, who cannot change their belief systems because they have roots in habitual behaviours, denial, and addictive energy process, try and make those around them happy through their actions and behaviors; of course this fails as happiness is only transiently transmitted this way and is method is actually a form of addictive obsession.
If two unhappy people are together, a relationship may survive. If two happy people are together, a relationship will survive. If an unhappy person is with a happy person, the relationship cannot survive for the reasons explained above, and often the authorities are called in.
Being "happy" is therefore a condition of nature, which is readily explained by thermodynamics and the concept of entropy-inflation of energy use. Since true happiness cannot be gained any other way, all of our efforts to reach it through other means have failed and we have the epidemics of unhappiness (obesity, depression, attention deficit, fatigue, divorce, crime, violence) all around us. In this situation, we can ask what use money may be, because it is thermodynamically impossible to buy happiness with money. Money is just a form of security, and is used to protect us from unhappy people. So the truly happy can gain wealth, because they can see it for what it is, security that protects them from the apparently demented unhappy all around them. For the unhappy, money is believed to be something that makes them happy, which is again thermodynamically impossible based on modern science. So their obsessive, addictive behaviors around money and all other forms of property, security, wealth, and relationships only serve to reinforce their addictive attempts to feel good, and true happiness and wealth/security cannot be achieved.
Recommendations by competent authorities, that citizens of developed nations lead a "healthy, active lifestyle" are undermined by the habits which have developed generations of looking at possesions, credentials, money, income, etc... as helping to "create" happiness. Since in nature, energy can never be "created or destroyed", again this misguided belief system serves to undermine the experts, who urge everyone to just relax, go outside, and enjoy life.
Commercial interests cater to the unhappy majority, and assist them in their pursuits of physical wealth and higher education; even though a simple look at the lifestyles of the truly rich and happy show them at the beach, on their yachts, sitting by the pool, playing golf and polo, out hunting, living on the ranch, etc... And yet through the warped belief systems that believe the possessions of the rich create happiness, their true source (active, healthy outdoor living) is seen as a luxury. The lack of vacation time in North America is a symptom of this warped system of beliefs, and the epidemics of unhappiness as described earlier are growing and threaten the security of what we used to call the "Free World". A quick review of the loss of liberties, due to the current state of international tensions which are resulting from behaviors that are based on belief systems (instead of true natural energy that drives happy feelings) shows we are losing our "freedoms" faster than at any time in history.
How does one go about dealing with this, at a personal level. Just spend most of your time outdoors, mood will stabilize and happy "energy" will return slowly, but surely. As our current education, business, and social systems are all based for the most part on the opposite behaviors, changing them will only follow changes by the unhappy majority who want a better lifestyle. So as we can see, the only "change" in life that is possible is to move from inside to outside. Just as a leopard cannot change its spots, neither can a person change themselves. They just have to change where they are. The opposite change, from outside to inside, is belief system driven and self-reinforcing through denial processes that arise.
[edit] Important Question
Why isn't this article just a picture of a ducky and a kitty playing together?
Serious question here. A picture is worth a thousand words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.221.211 (talk) 01:33, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Because we're explaining what happiness is, not filling people with happiness. :P --Partymetroid 03:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Horrible World Happiness Picture
The colour coding on the figure illustration world happiness distrubtion is completely hopeless - the colours aren't arranged in any sort of logical order and it is thus very hard to follow.
Different shades of one colour [dark red->light red], or cold to hot colours [blue->red], or the traffic light range [green->amber->red] would all be acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.123.128.114 (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I also thought the colour choices are odd, but I am happy with it anyway. I guess I am just a happy person. I went to this page to learn more about happiness, the feeling I have. I didn't expect the map, but now (after looking at it) I have a better understanding of why I am happy. I live in Canada. Look at how happy the nation is! I wanna go out and be happy with the rest of the happy people. 24.72.113.212 (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Minor change
I have changed the opening paragraph very slightly. I have changed the word "universal" in "This reflects the universal importance that humans place on happiness" to "huge". I am sure there are better words to use here, but universal is inappropriate because not all human beings place importance on happiness. At least, not all of us admit is importance as universal. Epictetus, for example, (with other stoics) place more importance on duty and integrity. Nietzsche refers to happiness as "intellectual hedonism" and calls it "unimportant". Some Christians believe that happiness of certain kinds is fleeting and the only thing to strive for is grace or forgiveness.
With these thoughts in mind, I thought it important to downgrade the wording used. Obviously not all people agree on the place of happiness in ethical and psychological thought. I look forward to seeing a better descriptor than "huge" in that place soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spozmo (talk • contribs) 14:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Csikszentmihalyi missing?
Strange, no mention of Dr Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's "Flow" theory of happiness yet. This approach probably deserves some kind of summary here.
Of course, there are plenty of other psychologically respectable theories of happiness which need to be added too.
Jonathan Headland 11:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Centainly. As someone involved with happiness research, the whole entry seems strange. Torally missing all what we iknow about happiness. feels unbeleivable!
- Anyone is invitged to broaden the sceintifical scoop of this entry YechezkelZilber 01:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism!
The entire page has been vandalised shamelessly. It should be sorted out as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.219.95 (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Mystical (religious, spiritual, and mythological) view
The first four lines is one man thoughts. I suggest to clean it at once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.222.3.5 (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Cheerfulness" merits its own article
I suggested a new article Cheerfulness and it just got redirected here. Cheerfulness is rich in definitions, including “Encouragement of a positive state of mind/emotions to others (motivation) in the now moment: it encompasses more qualities of encouragement of a positive state of mind/emotions to others than almost any other word in the English language, including motivation.” SourceDhammapal 07:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I might be shallow, but these 2 terms are the same to me, and anyway, we can not afford to write an article about every concept (or word for that matter) in the english language, but if we were to start such an article "Cheerfulness", many of its sources and context would be simply a copy and paste from this article, ot it would simply end up as a stub. AuaWise -Talk- —Preceding comment was added at 14:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Overall Structure of Article
I think the article needs an overall cleanup and reorganization. Some subsections should be merged or grouped (e.g. all the science and measuring stuff should be grouped) and lot of the paragraphs are akward. I did a few edits myself, but think some more thought needs to be put into it. My quick idea for an outline would be:
- Overview, basic definition and explanation
- Philosophical views of Happiness (aristotle, bentham, basic history of thinking about happiness etc...)
- Religious and Mystical views of Happiness (christianity, islam, mystic traditions, etc..)
- Correlation of Happiness and Religion
- Scientific view of Happiness (latest research, drugs & brain regions involved, etc..)
- Measuring Happiness
- What causes happiness
- Happiness and Economics
- Happiness and Psychology
- Positive Psychology
Even that doesn't seem completely correct, so I'd appreciate feedback. E.g. I'm torn as to how to order the big 3 traditional approaches to happiness: Philosophical, Religious, and Scientific. Thoughts? wanderingstan (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Since happiness is a biological state of mind characterized by certain hormones, I think we should start first with the scientific approach, away from human interpretation. Then, you could start with philosophical then religious. I think the ordering of the latter 2 makes no difference.AuaWise -Talk- —Preceding comment was added at 14:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Since happiness is FIRST and FOREMOST a concept, I think we should start first with the philosophical approach, defining the term, examine the alternative. Then, you could continue with the scientific approach (its insistence of subjective well-being). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.28.167 (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed link
Apparently I have to propose external links here rather than just adding them. I would like to propose the following journal article: http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=400&issue=117 It's a serious piece by an academic. He critiques the use of the "science" of happiness, which is often politically motivated. Piquant (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] a site with lots of happy stuff
http://www.thingstobehappyabout.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.0.67 (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Happiness vs. Joy
In Christian circles, happiness is viewed as transient and goverened by circumstances, while joy is permanent. Like the peace of God, which transcends all understanding (Philippians 4:7), joy is a fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22). Paul sums it up as follows: "I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want" (Philippians 4:12).72.159.176.130 (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cyanide -
I think it should be mentioned that happiness is one of the main ingredients, the other being cyanide, in really good cotton candy. 81.228.148.6 (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)