Indeed. And I would argue that if you're not, on the whole, living a happy life then something is broken and needs to be fixed.
> I don't think anyone genuinely holds the belief [...]
Oh, lots of people hold this belief, at least in the US. I think it's reductionist in the extreme (if you aren't a productive drone, you have no value as a person), but it's not all that rare.
My response is "if that's the sort of life that makes you happy, who am I to argue?"
> I always hear the situation put this way, but it rings false to me. If you gave me a perfect happiness drug, I wouldn't want to sit in bed all day and take it.
Reason is a poor way of estimating behavior, in special, your own.
> What makes you happy today might feel miserable tomorrow.
Not to get too philosophical, but I honestly don't think that things make people happy or unhappy. Happiness appears to be a choice. I say this based on my observation that I've known people who've lived in objectively awful circumstance, but were genuinely happy -- and I've known people who've lived in ideal circumstances, but were miserable.
> The happiest people I see are the ones who live communally.
I think we should be very careful here. Are you sure this isn't just grass-is-greener syndrome? By which I mean to ask: How have you chosen to live? Are you happy with that? And if not, are you making moves to get into a situation in which your beliefs about happiness (communal living) line up with your actions?
Why not? Let's bet a few people do. There are certainly people who live their life in a permanent joyous state, no matter what. Rare, perhaps but I wouldn't dismiss their experience as a condition.
> [...] it's more about a good life than a happy life.
I would argue that you cannot disaggregate the two. Only the person living a life can truly make a value judgement on it and if they value it as "good" they are quite literally saying they are happy.
Maybe we're getting caught up by different meanings of happiness. I'm working from happiness being a deep seated contentment (very much "living and faring well") rather than an active effervescent joy.
>If I worked for my own happiness, how would I look at myself in the mirror knowing that my happiness is based on an unsustainable lifestyle?
Clearly you have goals/values other than just "maximising own happiness". If your goal was purely that (not suggesting it should be), then those other values would just stand in the way of happiness.
>Most people desire to be happy. I don't believe I need to prove this.
Happy isn't a long term state of being. It's a short term emotion like anger or sadness.
If you expect to feel that way all the time, and think you can achieve that through some kind of changes to your life you are setting yourself up for failure.
You should aim to build a life that is in line with your values, and accept that you're going to have down days. If you were to rate each day on a 1-10 scale, you're going to have 2s and 3s and probably some 8s and 9s. But if you've done the work, most days will be a solid 6 or 7.
And therapy. Therapy really helps. I think everybody should go to therapy.
If you really want to change things for the better, you should stop asking questions that have no reasonable answer. All you are doing is amplifying the dissonance of the article with your comments.
Happiness is a relative term. Everyone experience suffering, but it's how we deal with that suffering that defines our overall state of well being. If one holds onto something that causes suffering to long, it becomes inefficienct. If one lets go of suffering to early, it's an indication there is a lack of sacredness.
> I've started to appreciate the religious outlook more that has a mature attitude to suffering rather than this honestly pretty childish avoidance of negative emotions.
People look at me like I'm nuts when I tell them (honestly) "I don't believe in happiness".
I mean that honestly. I believe in emotions like contentedness, elation, joy, jubilation, etc. Things that many consider 'happy'. But this notion of happiness as a permanent state of being. I've never experienced it or seen it. It does not exist. Those pursuing it have some religious attachment to it.
Moreover, even if I did believe in it, I am unconvinced of its utility or whether it's a worthy goal to pursue. Seems completely wasteful to me.
> Now you’re changing the goalpost to “reason”. My god. There’s a reason for everything.
What goalpost?
> Who cares what “well-adjusted” people think?
I imagine the person claiming universal knowledge of the human condition would care. If well adjusted people are an exception to your rule, it's not a great rule.
> The only claim that I care about is if it is possible to think that basically everything that you have to do suck
Oh, if that's the claim then sure. I thought the claim was "everything you have to do sucks", not "it's possible to believe everything you had to do sucks."
Totally agree then. I've met lots of unhappy people that believe that. 100% true.
> As far as I'm concerned, "being happy" is about how your baseline level of emotion is. When nothing in particular is happening, let's say if you lied down for a minute, are you stressed, depressed, worried, miserable, feeling like you are wasting time idling and really should be doing something else?
Nope. I love doing nothing. Have no care in the world. Don't feel stressed. Don't feel miserable. I don't feel anything. Should I think about my life, I feel content. But contentedness is different from happiness, because I am content even when I am quite obviously suffering or in pain. For example, I recently sprained my back quite hard. Was I uncontented? Not at all. Even while in pain, I was perfectly fine.
> Alright, so maybe your idea of what others mean by happiness is not what I'd expect. I don't think most people would define happiness as a permanent state of being.
But this is the very definition of happiness I believe is pushed on us by the pschology-industrial complex, and is the one I reject. Certainly, the fleeting feeling of 'happiness' exists. I just don't believe the psychobabble version of happiness exists. Moreover, I think it would be extremely depressing if it did.
> . It doesn't mean you can't have a bad day, or that you take bad things with a smile. It means you take neutral things with a smile!
I guess I find this strange, because even when I have a bad day, I'm typically extremely optimistic. As I've said elsewhere, I'm an eternal optimist.
> I don't feel like happiness is something you chase, or some out of reach goal that requires years of devoted training.
I think you're arguing against a strawman. You call happiness, what I call neutrality or maybe contentedness. This article is not about that. It's about something else.
This is how I see this argument.
reply