Is happiness a social phenomenon or a personal activity?

[blazeofglory]

I oftentimes mull over this issue. Can a recluse or somebody who chooses to be happy on his own be really happy? Is happiness is a shared value or totally personal. I have frequently come across people, books or discussions who believe and articulate that happiness is a shared value. We all know for sure that we generally tend to share if we are emotionally swayed. When a woman begets a baby how impatient she would be to share the joys she came upon with her spouse. Sharing the joys will redouble it. It will electrify the mind of the other.

I do not here to mean that I am writing a dissertation on happiness. There are plenty already. The point here is just to say can man be happier all alone or in a group. We know if we want to keep to our sense of freedom in every respect, uncompromisingly in point of fact we must be very individualistically oriented. On the contrary when we are in a group and want togetherness a little of the individuality we assert must be given in to the group. Then family values, social values and degrees of sacrifice come to the fore front.

Of course ideas, opinions and values differ subject to the society or system one is in and needless to say there are people here to express their core values differently and the way they rate states or bases of happiness in their own way.

[mayneverhave]

People can be influenced by those around them to feel anger or happiness (to use just two emotions), but ultimately, happiness is an individual feeling.

For example, we could say that the 9/11 attacks caused a sort of "national anger", but if we look closely, we see that there is no such thing as "national anger", but merely a large group of people that are individually angry, that feel anger unites them in some way.

We see when a baseball team wins the World Series (as my Phillies have just accomplished...), the whole city seems to feel one united happiness, but communal happiness is just a shortcut to categorizing large groups of people.

[Trilaque]

In essence, I believe that boredom is the lack of emotional stimulation and that all the other emotions are manifestations of said stimulation.


That being said, I believe that happiness is just a social phenomenon because, without said society, we probably wouldn't know what true happiness would be.



Also, I would like to point out that some emotions are critical to survival and may very well be a part of us regardless.

[AshleyMare]

Happiness really depends on each individual I think. For some people need another, or multiple people to be happy while others can be perfectly happy when they're alone. It really depends how strong the need for love and companionship is in each individual. Some one who longs to be in love, or married, ect. will most likely never be happy on their own. While someone else who care less if they have partners or friends can be happy all alone, and in some cases is happy only alone. Did that make sense?

[MattG]

Happiness is fleeting and not a state of being. It's like anger or sadness.. it comes and goes in short bursts. People looking for a suspended state of happiness will instead sentence themselves to a constant state of disappointment.

[Delta40]

Are there different strains of happiness? collective and singular? What I mean to say is, must happiness be defined on its own such as the colour green cannot?

[caddy_caddy]

basically it is personal because if I wanna make myself joyful (at least for a short time ) I can do it . But as u said when I share it with two it redoubles ; when I share it with three it triples and so on.
Joy is like love , it increases when divided; it is a great bless , isn't it?

The point here is just to say can man be happier all alone or in a group.

On the other hand Blaze , I don't think in reclusion or isolation we are completely alone. The COMMUNICATION with the other always exists; wether it is an intellectual communication or emotinal communication.
When u are happy and alone don't u think of whom u love and wish that they are here? ;or at least that they know about your status so they would be happy for your happiness.

[skasian]

Labelling the noun happiness into a box as a social phenomenon or as a personal activity is not possible, therefore invalid. Have a simple example and consider this logically. For instance happiness is only felt by a stimulant, and it is this stimulant that decides whether this type of happiness is social phenomenon or a personal activity. If the stimulant is a person, (ie entertainer) it is a social phenomenon. But if the stimulant is something that doesnt include a secondary person then its a personal activity. For example you draw something funny and you feel happiness, theres no social phenomenon happening.

Becareful in structuring your questions, the noun happiness cannot be allocated into a category like this.

[V.Jayalakshmi]

Dear Members,
Happiness is social when the 'feeling of happiness' is percolative like a community rejoicing over a feast.

Happiness is personal when you dig inside yourself and find it blossom like a flower.This is possible only when one stops being happy with material possessions alone.

[aBIGsheep]

I live in an apartment by myself. I make just enough money through websites to live under my means. When I'm not working on my websites, I usually spend my time playing video games or reading forums.
The only time I ever leave my house is to go do my laundry or visit my parents. I live on take-out.

I think about how happy I am. I've scrounged out a successful life for myself, preparing for the future and leaving under my means. I look at myself, and I feel so proud and happy.

Then the loneliness kicks in.

Read it online somewhere.
:]

[cheerupfyodor]

isnt happiness, or any other emotion for that matter a product of interpretating a situation.

one could feel happy about being alone, it gives them time to think.

one could feel sad about being alone, because all they can do is think.

[xtianfriborg13]

I believe happiness is a social phenomenon. Why, because first, a person's state of thinking depends on what is the norm in the society. No matter how complex and unique every individual is, I think happiness is still affected on what we saw from the people who surround us. Secondly, a person would not feel happiness unless it was triggered with something, and most likely, the trigger will be someone or something in his/her environment.

[E.A Rumfield]

Happiness is never more than a fleeting state of mind. Sometimes very small things make me happy. I think happiness can be described as a state of comfort. Some people are only comfortable around other people. Some people are only comfortable around themselves. Both types of people will experience conflict even in their own most natural setting. And happiness cannot be measured against a social norm but against sadness. Without sadness there is no measure of happiness. Without night what is day? I also think that such emotions can only be evaluated by the person experiencing them, so they only belong to the individual. Think about this, have you ever had an idea in your head that you couldn't communicate to another person. However eloquent; you say the right words but something is lost in translation. I don't think we as human beings can ever completely and totally convey our deepest feelings to another. We can come close but there is no way to make someone understand exactly what you mean. The receiver will hear your message but through their own filter of experience. Your words mean something to you but take on even a slightly different course in their mind. Not necessarily less important but different. In that way we are all alone. Even your best lover will never fully understand you. You may wake up in forty years and realize you weren't speaking of the same things.

[E.A Rumfield]

I believe happiness is a social phenomenon. Why, because first, a person's state of thinking depends on what is the norm in the society. No matter how complex and unique every individual is, I think happiness is still affected on what we saw from the people who surround us. Secondly, a person would not feel happiness unless it was triggered with something, and most likely, the trigger will be someone or something in his/her environment.

Our emotions are cyclical. We do something or something good happens and we feel good. We feel good about ourselves, we are full of positive ideas. Our ego has been inflated. Soon something happens to us that knocks us from this pedestal. You start to evaluate yourself and your situation. Soon you find some kind of solution and you pick yourself up and begin to climb that mountain again. Depression has to be a kind of evolutionary tool to spur progress and development. Everyone wants to rid themselves of hardship but if it wasn't for struggle we would never grow, we would remain children.

[cacian]

Happiness is overated. I tend to believe that there is something in between happiness and not.
A fine line. Stability of thoughts and a reason to be can be a great motivator to feeling good.
I think having a purpose in life is happiness.