Can you be happy alone on your own?

[cacian]

This is simply not true, nor would it matter even if it were. Solitude is not 'unnatural', and even if it were, why would that mean you can't be happy in solitude?

Well Volya I thought about it and I see it this way:
happiness is an expression a form of being that transfers from one person to another. I am happy because I know I made someone happy. I am happy I see someone smile and I know that makes me happy. I am happy because someone tells me they are happy. happiness is a kind of feeling that is shared rather then owned.
Solitude does not communicate feelings and happiness does. when alone one is faced with a solemn silence a way of life that rings not bell of laughter and smile but more of a still unsounded environment. I cannot see how one can achieve happiness by being on their own.
Again this is my interpretation of things.
How do you interpret happiness?

[Volya]

Happiness varies depending on who you are. One persons idea of happiness could be very different to anothers.

[kasie]

You are off the subject. Boring.

Absolutely not - please re-read both the OP and Shaman's reply which is apposite, thoughtful and thought provoking.

[Shaman_Raman]

Absolutely not - please re-read both the OP and Shaman's reply which is apposite, thoughtful and thought provoking.

Thank you kassie, but it's okay. No one can be exalted to Cafolini in all his wisdom, so I chose not to respond anymore.

[tinybore]

and the answer is no one cannot possibly achieve happiness on one's own.

Doesn't matter if there's people near you or not, if you want to reach happiness. Once you realize everything and everyone is one, connected to each other one way or another, there is no possibility to be completely alone, even if you live in solitude :-)

Just my thought...

[Shaman_Raman]

Doesn't matter if there's people near you or not, if you want to reach happiness. Once you realize everything and everyone is one, connected to each other one way or another, there is no possibility to be completely alone, even if you live in solitude :-)

Just my thought...

It's post likes this that I wish the Admin would upload a "Like" button. Well said.

[cacian]

Doesn't matter if there's people near you or not, if you want to reach happiness. Once you realize everything and everyone is one, connected to each other one way or another, there is no possibility to be completely alone, even if you live in solitude :-)

Just my thought...

You said it. so to reach happiness one needs an abject a reason to want to reach it. if you are on your own living in solitude what reasons are there for happiness to be fulfilled? what would be the motives for one to want to reach out to be happy if one is living on their own?

[Volya]

You said it. so to reach happiness one needs an abject a reason to want to reach it. if you are on your own living in solitude what reasons are there for happiness to be fulfilled? what would be the motives for one to want to reach out to be happy if one is living on their own?

Possibly because it is quite nice to feel happy...?

[tinybore]

You said it. so to reach happiness one needs an abject a reason to want to reach it. if you are on your own living in solitude what reasons are there for happiness to be fulfilled? what would be the motives for one to want to reach out to be happy if one is living on their own?

Well, if you would be in the state as I mentioned, then you wouldn't feel loneliness nor the need to be around people. You'd see and feel the beauty of life itself, and that would be enough. That is not to say that you want to avoid people, it doesn't matter. I'm just saying you don't necessary need someone else to feel pure happiness. :-)

[soundofmusic]

I wonder whether we can or not when we have no one to specially take care of us. Some people have parents to take care of them; others have their spouses or boyfriends or girlfriends or some close relatives in their lives. Yet there are others who might have their close associates like friends and at times cyber-friends too in the age of the internet. Life living on without anybody to turn to or to feel at one with is uninteresting. It is my opinions and of course opinions vary. It is interesting to know how others loot this issue from their own experience in life.

Interesting thought, Osho. For myself, I find as I get older, I am fatigued by taking care of others needs; so while I would enjoy intimate companionship, I am reminded that it is a two-way street. When we become a friend, we have a debt to that person to be there for them: to always be interested and supportive. Many times, I find myself so preoccupied with friends, or in the day, lovers and husbands, that I lose myself. When that happens, I have to shut myself off, turn away from others conversations, their needs and be selfish for alittle while to restore myself.

[ennison]

No one is alone! Maybe not enough experience of life there. There are degrees of loneliness. I guess Alexander Selkirk had his parrots. Great conversation there.

[cacian]

This is simply not true, nor would it matter even if it were. Solitude is not 'unnatural', and even if it were, why would that mean you can't be happy in solitude?

I think one can be satisfied if not comfortable on their own for quite a while but safety is one measure that is not. When humans feel pressured they could not achieve happiness. Worries about one's comfort is unhappy.
The other thing is that when one lives on their own one does not communicate any more. In order for humans to understand that they are happy they need to hear it either through their actions or their voice telling others or someone telling them because they had noticed they looked or behaved happily. Humans like reassurances from other people to tell them that they are or look happy. Some people tend to not believe themselves because they lack that confidence about them and so people are a reliant to them. They need people around them to tell they are good or happy.
It is very hard to judge happiness when one lives in solitude because there is no communication about it.

if you look at the word 'solitude' it is often quoted with 'loneliness' which is a negative word.
take the definition of the word solitude:

'Solitude is a state of seclusion or isolation, i.e., lack of contact with people. It may stem from bad relationships, loss of loved ones, deliberate choice, infectious

It is littered with 'lack' 'bad' 'loss' 'isolation' these are all negative receptors to the word solitude.
take this next one:

the state of being or living alone; seclusion: to enjoy one's solitude

The expression 'to enjoy one's solitude' , it makes me think of the book 'A Hundred Years of Solitude/Marquez, means one is only happy when one is living in solitude. It does not necessarily mean one is happy within oneself.
It is a bit like saying I enjoy a game of card which means I am dependant on something else to make me happy. Happiness is not a codependency on something, it is not a contract between two things/people, it is a feeling from within. I am happy regardless of what I do and that is the essential of happiness. I do not need to go to the extreme of solitude to achieve it . I can be with people or without I can be reading or chatting I can be anywhere and everywhere and I am happy. To dependent on something to feel happy is not happiness it is needy and that is a totally different ball game.

[Eiseabhal]

To deny that people can be lonely is to fly in the face of real life and common sense. It is odd that Ennison mentioned Selkirk because I thought of the same fellow myself and these lines sprang to mind: Better dwell in the midst of alarms/ Than reign in this horrible place. But the same man who suffered from much loneliness said There's mercy in every place. So I suppose he was being philosophical/theological about it.

[MarkBastable]

Cacian, you took that definition from Wikipedia, which goes out of its way to distinguish between 'solitude' and 'loneliness', although you suggest one shouldn't.

About three lines below your selective quote, it says this:

A distinction has been made between solitude and loneliness. In this sense, these two words refer, respectively, to the joy and the pain of being alone

Perhaps, thinking you'd got the definition you wanted, you didn't read that far.

[Delta40]

On another forum I visit somebody has posted that a group she attended recommends in order to have a healthy balance you should have at least 7 interactions with people per day. It's such an over simplified equation and does not take into account the uniqueness of the individual. One can prescribe 5 fruit and veg but I fail to see how the same principle can be applied to social interactions, especially when it doesn't consider the context or quality of those interactions. For people who struggle with loneliness this raises the bar of perceived healthy living to the point where it becomes out of their reach and impossible to attain.

Saying hello to 7 shop assistants as opposed to having one friend over for coffee is a no brainer in my book but also allowing for the fact that solitude itself is not to be construed as a negative - the prescription is waffle.