Are You Really Happy?

[Rondy]

Religion, at least as I see it, is supposed to grant us what we look for, happiness and content.
Are you really happy? Or you feel there is something still missing?

[grotto]

define happy please

[Rondy]

Happiness, in my opinion, : is a state of inner peace that makes you stable emotionally (while having positive feelings) no matter what the outward circumstances are.

[grotto]

in that case, I'm happy

[billl]

Even, (to give just one example), if one were to become witness to a protest rally where a young girl is shot and killed in front of her father? I would be greatly disturbed to learn of anyone, especially a father, who might have trained his/her heart to allow positive feelings in such a situation.

[Rondy]

Of course, it does not mean being inhumane but there is a huge difference between being sad while still feeling "content" from within (which is a positive feeling) and feeling sad while being so angry and ready to take revenge...etc.

[billl]

Of course, it does not mean being inhumane but there is a huge difference between being sad while still feeling "content" from within (which is a positive feeling) and feeling sad while being so angry and ready to take revenge...etc.

I still wouldn't trust a "teaching" that desired that a person feel "content" under those circumstances. I think those techniques are appropriate to some circumstances, but life is too complicated for it to work all the time, for all people. It seems like the word "happy" is being re-defined, and I have to wonder why.

You make a good point: a blind rage, while completely natural immediately, would not be the most effective response over the long-term. But I think that acceptance and contentment would be an even worse response (over the long-term and over the short-term). We are capable of feeling anger and sadness. To eliminate anger, and leave only sadness, would be to reduce and distort our emotional capacity as humans, and leave us vulnerable to abuse and manipulation.

I get the feeling that self-delusion (positive feelings, no matter what) might be the key component of your original definition, rather than self-control.

[Rondy]

I still wouldn't trust a "teaching" that desired that a person feel "content" under those circumstances.
I totally agree on not trusting a teaching that asks its followers directly to feel content becuse it would be unjust since it would not be in one's hand, but here tell me what you understood from my usage for content.



I think those techniques are appropriate to some circumstances, but life is too complicated for it to work all the time, for all people.
Well, I strongly believe it is one's own perspective, and that is why people look for religions, ideologies...etc.



It seems like the word "happy" is being re-defined, and I have to wonder why.
Do not wonder why, if you feel it is a redefinition the simply do, no problem.




You make a good point: a blind rage, while completely natural immediately, would not be the most effective response over the long-term. But I think that acceptance and contentment would be an even worse response (over the long-term and over the short-term). We are capable of feeling anger and sadness. To eliminate anger, and leave only sadness, would be to reduce and distort our emotional capacity as humans, and leave us vulnerable to abuse and manipulation.
OK, so this is what you saw in content=acceptance, if you mean that acceptance is seeing wrong to be right then I totally agree, but this is something I did not mean by content.
About anger,
eliminating anger does not necessarily mean leaving us vulnerable to abuse.
Here is what I think:
If anger is built on a whim(I am not sure if this is the right word) what I mean is that if it is only built on "instinct" then it would not be of help.
Plus, if anger is about something in the past then it would make us "vulnerable".
But, if anger is built on rationality then here the person is the one who controls it not the contrary since it a result of thinking.and everything resulting from this if it is also built on rationality would be a good thing.(according to one's beliefs etc.)


I get the feeling that self-delusion (positive feelings, no matter what) might be the key component of your original definition, rather than self-control.
I believe it depends on the person but it does not mean falsifying the definition, I mean, some people pretend that they have positive feelings and that they are content and these people are even worse(in their status) than the ones who admit being angry etc.
But there are people who do feel content no matter what the outward circumstances are, and I have known lots of people of this kind.
But it is after all my perspective that is why I had to search for my road myself, and I do believe I am on the right way.
I don't claim to be happy in the definition I gave but I know I will be.
Thank you for giving your opinion.

[Beautifull]

to me happiness depends on if you're content, like you are in a position where you have everything you need.

[billl]

I totally agree on not trusting a teaching that asks its followers directly to feel content becuse it would be unjust since it would not be in one's hand


I don't think an indirect request for such a change in a person is any better. It would actually be dishonest/manipulative. If by "indirectly," you just mean that the teaching would just wait a bit, and then directly ask (or encourage) the person to be content with such abuse and tragedy, I would still expect a lot of people to retain their desire for justice and an improvement in their society--and I think, especially in severe cases of injustice/abuse, it would be natural for them to continue to feel anger about such situations. But it would be healthiest for people to eventually get past the anger in many of the cases (I think this is what you are talking about), but to maintain their desire for change.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I think life is complicated, and I certainly realize that a person who is consumed by anger and grief could benefit from calming and strengthening words/ideas. I just don't agree that people should be considered superior simply because they don't feel anger. It isn't something that needs to be fixed in people, it just has to be "managed" when it gets out of control (as you pointed out in your next couple of quotes below). Anger can help to produce positive change, it is a motivating force. But the best course of action will usually not be well-served by too much anger.




If anger is built on a whim(I am not sure if this is the right word) what I mean is that if it is only built on "instinct" then it would not be of help.

I think this is often true, but not always, and that is why we have adrenaline rush and anger instincts. In an extreme/brutal/irrational situation, the anger can bring about an appropriately strong response, and one that would have a deterrent effect. I have, for example, seen an angry woman scare off a dangerous man. But I do agree that sometimes it would not be of help. And, as the events become less immediate, the anger instinct probably becomes less useful.



Plus, if anger is about something in the past then it would make us "vulnerable".
But, if anger is built on rationality then here the person is the one who controls it not the contrary since it a result of thinking.and everything resulting from this if it is also built on rationality would be a good thing.(according to one's beliefs etc.)


If we are going to combine anger and rationality, then I think that it could be "rational" to be angry about a past event. In fact, I think that rationality is much more likely to apply to emotions about past events, than it is for present or future events. Also, I think it would make us vulnerable only if we were unable to manage the anger.

In every case, it would be best to avoid intoxicating desires for revenge, etc., and to show as much compassion as possible for the objects of our original anger.



But there are people who do feel content no matter what the outward circumstances are, and I have known lots of people of this kind.


Would you say that such people are happy? Or would you only claim that they are content?

In reading about Buddhism, etc. I have heard of people who seek/experience such contentment--but they also value very highly honest and spontaneous emotional responses, such as grief, anger, and joy. I remember one story in particular about a Zen Master who burst into tears over the death of his friend. We have to limit ourselves in our limitations.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You cleared up a lot with your last post. I was relieved to hear your more nuanced position on anger! I am not trying to promote anger, by the way. :) I just think that we should not be too simplistic about emotions and human experience. I think anger can be bad for us if we let it take over. But I think it can have a positive role in bringing about positive change in negative/abusive circumstances. Encouraging "contentment" could be bad for us, if it dulls our desire for positive change. But I think promoting "contentment" can sometimes have a good role in managing anger.

I think that the ability to achieve a "non-passionate" contentment can benefit anyone, at least to a certain degree--but I would really not want to live in a society where everyone was like that all the time. Especially young people. ;)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This thread began with a question about happiness, but the idea of "contentment" has become much more important to the discussion. I think it would be great if you could try your best to explain what you mean by "content".

Also, do you think that happiness is unnecessary, if one is "content"?

[Virgil]

I am really happy and my religion is part of that happiness.

[Tsuyoiko]

Happiness, in my opinion, : is a state of inner peace that makes you stable emotionally (while having positive feelings) no matter what the outward circumstances are.

This definition worries me a bit. Do you mean to imply the converse, that anyone who's emotionally unstable can't be happy? If so, that would seem to imply that the mentally ill can't be happy.


to me happiness depends on if you're content, like you are in a position where you have everything you need.

I agree. I think a lot of people are unhappy (discontent) because they don't realise how little they actually need.


But there are people who do feel content no matter what the outward circumstances are, and I have known lots of people of this kind.

I think this kind of person fits with the definition Beautiful gave above. If having what you need makes you content, then someone who's happy regardless of the outside circumstances must be someone who's free from desire. But people like this must be incredibly rare.


I am really happy and my religion is part of that happiness.

I'm mostly happy, and my Atheism is part of why I'm happy. Searching for god was one of the things that used to make me unhappy.

[muhsin]

I am very happy with my journey with religion--Islam.

[NikolaiI]

Happy and sad are ups and downs... most philosophical or religious ideas say that being happy because of external events is not a good path. Then we begin to associate ourselves with external objects, and we lose touch with our inner self. Emerson's Self-Reliance is a really good read with some great ideas about this kind of thing.

[sc9108]

I think I'm happy inside but my outside life isn't a happy one, To many things that need to be done until I'll be completely happy.

[carayuyu]

I don't think unhappy is sad and hatefull.I enjoy my happy and unhappy life.

[Rondy]

to me happiness depends on if you're content, like you are in a position where you have everything you need.
Content=having everything you need<<defining it this way is a problem simply becuase you do not always have everything you need.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.


I don't think an indirect request for such a change in a person is any better. It would actually be dishonest/manipulative. If by "indirectly," you just mean that the teaching would just wait a bit, and then directly ask (or encourage) the person to be content with such abuse and tragedy, I would still expect a lot of people to retain their desire for justice and an improvement in their society--and I think, especially in severe cases of injustice/abuse, it would be natural for them to continue to feel anger about such situations. But it would be healthiest for people to eventually get past the anger in many of the cases (I think this is what you are talking about), but to maintain their desire for change.

Content does not mean acceptance, you clarified it better.
What I meant by "indirectly" is that feelings are again things we do not control which means I can't go tell someone while he is at a rage: Do not be angry<<this is unjust BUT when I give the same person some steps to avoid anger then this is a just request whether I accompanied the steps with" Do not get angry" or not, and this is what I consider indirect and this is what would be just of a religion, as another example, the topic we are talking about which is happiness,
a relgion that is just would be a way of life that makes you happy, not order you to be happy and that's it, got my point?



I think this is often true, but not always, and that is why we have adrenaline rush and anger instincts. In an extreme/brutal/irrational situation, the anger can bring about an appropriately strong response, and one that would have a deterrent effect. I have, for example, seen an angry woman scare off a dangerous man. But I do agree that sometimes it would not be of help. And, as the events become less immediate, the anger instinct probably becomes less useful. No comment, well written and I agree.



Would you say that such people are happy? Or would you only claim that they are content?
I believe they are niether happy nor content, becuase they will be getting "sick" psychologically and then physically.



In reading about Buddhism, etc. I have heard of people who seek/experience such contentment--but they also value very highly honest and spontaneous emotional responses, such as grief, anger, and joy. I remember one story in particular about a Zen Master who burst into tears over the death of his friend. We have to limit ourselves in our limitations.
I wrote before happiness does not mean being inhumane, as for spontaneous responses, I do believe not all of them are of a "high value"




I was relieved to hear your more nuanced position on anger! I am not trying to promote anger, by the way. :) LOL




This thread began with a question about happiness, but the idea of "contentment" has become much more important to the discussion. I think it would be great if you could try your best to explain what you mean by "content".

Also, do you think that happiness is unnecessary, if one is "content"?
Contentment mmm : well, this is really hard but I can say it is a feeling that precedes happiness.
Since happiness is a more positive status than contentment then It is something we should aspire to get.


I am really happy and my religion is part of that happiness.

part?
which religion did you embrace?



I'm mostly happy, and my Atheism is part of why I'm happy. Searching for god was one of the things that used to make me unhappy.
What if you feel "comfortable" not "happy" as an Atheist?
Doesn't you, searching for god mean you had hope you would find something "good", what if you were searching in the wrong place?


I am very happy with my journey with religion--Islam.Good for you.

[NikolaiI]

What if you feel "comfortable" not "happy" as an Atheist?
Doesn't you, searching for god mean you had hope you would find something "good", what if you were searching in the wrong place?

I would say that's a little invasive. If Tsu said he is happy, um, I would never in a million years say, "really? Are you sure you're happy?"

[Rondy]

Happy and sad are ups and downs... most philosophical or religious ideas say that being happy because of external events is not a good path. Then we begin to associate ourselves with external objects, and we lose touch with our inner self. Emerson's Self-Reliance is a really good read with some great ideas about this kind of thing.
Thank you for the recommendation, and you're right, for lots of people, the hard thing is to search for the religion that is capable of showing them the right way but, it is worth it.

[NikolaiI]

to me happiness depends on if you're content, like you are in a position where you have everything you need.

I agree with this, and with what Virgil said. And with what Tsu said, about people not realizing how little they need.

[NikolaiI]

Thank you for the suggestion, and you're right, for lots of people, the problem is to search for the religion that is capable of showing them the right way BUT it is worth it.

I am a student of religion though until I was 17 I was an atheist, and I know religion is not for everyone.

[Rondy]

I think I'm happy inside but my outside life isn't a happy one, To many things that need to be done until I'll be completely happy.
Sometimes, we know the way to happiness but we do not trust it enough and that is a problem.

[Rondy]

I am a student of religion though until I was 17 I was an atheist, and I know religion is not for everyone.
Good for you, God is the best I have ever got to know nd know about.
I am a student of religion as well, still at the beginning though.
May I ask, what did you exactly mean by "not for everyone"?

[NikolaiI]

Good for you, God is the best I have ever got to know nd know about.
I am a student of religion as well, still at the beginning though.
May I ask, what did you exactly mean by "not for everyone"?

It needs explaining? Some do not believe in God or a soul, because they see no reason for the existence.

No one should speak of what they haven't experienced. I mean, it would be wrong of me to say the soul exists if I never felt this, never had any beatific vision.

[Rondy]

I would say that's a little invasive. If Tsu said he is happy, um, I would never in a million years say, "really? Are you sure you're happy?"
I did not mean any offense, and I really apologize to Tsu if my expression conveyed such a thing, but sometimes when you know something is good, you do your best so that everyone would know about it, not only that but also feel kind of "selfish" if you do not do so.

[NikolaiI]

I did not mean any offense, and I really apologize for Tsu if my expression conveyed such a thing, but sometimes when you know something is good, you do your best so that everyone would know about it, not only that but also feel kind of feel "selfish" if you do not do so.

It's okay, I'm just over-sensitive toward people trying to say things like that. I mean I'm on the other side, I'm with you, I believe in God, single and infinite; and I have been called quite ugly things, even on this respectable forum, just for saying that.

So if someone says they're happy then I wouldn't doubt them for no reason, especially if it was the first time I knew of their existence or heard anything they had to say.

It's because of the things I've been called that I am very careful not to say anything similar to others.

[Rondy]

It needs explaining? Some do not believe in God or a soul, because they see no reason for the existence.

No one should speak of what they haven't experienced. I mean, it would be wrong of me to say the soul exists if I never felt this, never had any beatific vision.
But what about facts? I mean I believed, and still do, God exists based on reason, I never felt any vital positive feelings towards this fact except recently, and it was with the help of some people around me and thier own experiences were also of so much help.


It's okay, I'm just over-sensitive toward people trying to say things like that. I mean I'm on the other side, I'm with you, I believe in God, single and infinite; and I have been called quite ugly things, even on this respectable forum, just for saying that.

So if someone says they're happy then I wouldn't doubt them for no reason, especially if it was the first time I knew of their existence or heard anything they had to say.

It's because of the things I've been called that I am very careful not to say anything similar to others.

Again, I do apologize to Tsu, I was not doubting him or his honesty at all, I was trying to put all the possibilties.
Tsu, I apologize for what I wrote.

[grotto]

One who needs to justify their belief is uncertain.

[NikolaiI]

One who needs to justify their belief is uncertain.

What, or who, was this remark directed at, may I enquire?

[billl]

I did not mean any offense, and I really apologize to Tsu if my expression conveyed such a thing, but sometimes when you know something is good, you do your best so that everyone would know about it, not only that but also feel kind of "selfish" if you do not do so.

Rondy, any good religion will respect other people. I assume that, if someone does not want your guidance, that you would respect that. I assume that you would not try to influence them, even indirectly, once they made their position clear. That wouldn't be "selfish". It would be a case of respecting another person.

A good path would not be arrived at via pressure (direct or indirect) from others who are on the path. A good way is sought for. A good way would not require recruitment of any kind.

[grotto]

Just a general statment, same as, are you happy?

[Tsuyoiko]

I don't think unhappy is sad and hatefull.I enjoy my happy and unhappy life.

Beautifully put I think. It seems we are really dealing with two definitions of "happy" here. There is happy in the sense of content or able to enjoy life; happy in a broad sense. And then there is happy in a narrow sense, happy as in feeling good in the moment.

So we really have four possibilities:


Happy at the moment and happy in my life
Unhappy at the moment but happy with my life
Happy at the moment but unhappy with my life
Unhappy at the moment and unhappy with my life



What if you feel "comfortable" not "happy" as an Atheist?
Doesn't you, searching for god mean you had hope you would find something "good", what if you were searching in the wrong place?

By the definition most people seem to be using in this thread, "comfortable" is pretty much the same as "happy".

I think that the hope I had when I was searching for god was a false hope, and I'm happier with what I'm now convinced is the truth than with holding onto that false hope. As it turned out, when I gave up that search I found something much more amazing to me than god.


Again, I do apologize to Tsu, I was not doubting him or his honesty at all, I was trying to put all the possibilties.
Tsu, I apologize for what I wrote.

No offence taken :)

Apologies for offtopic comments below:


One who needs to justify their belief is uncertain.

Actually, I think it's more likely that someone who is unable to justify their belief is uncertain. If I ask someone why they believe in god, and they say, "I don't know," or are unable to give any reasons, I would doubt whether what they had was really a belief at all. If they answered, "I don't need to justify my belief," I would most likely think that they lacked confidence in their ability to give any good reasons for their belief.