What is the Definition of Being Happy?

The trick in this topic is the word definition, since it does not really mean what makes us happy or how can we be happy, but a description of the state that we identify as being happy.  In a way, it disconnects the state from our emotional perception of it.  We might argue that having the needs of Maslow's hierarchy met could be a definition, since having any of these worries can easily prevent the feeling of happiness from surfacing.  It was mentioned that people can have all their needs met and still not be happy, which is true.  All we can do with this definition is say those who meet the criteria should be happy, not that they are undoubtedly so.  Giving a definition is a bit limiting in this case.  Small arguments were had over the style the definition should follow and in the end the Leader questioned the possibility of ever arriving at any definition.  Other steps to take were put forward, such as removing the mind from thinking as much as possible, but I would consider this a confusion of correlation and causation; it is not the fact of not thinking that makes a person happy, but the situation in which this person does not have to solve problems.  Simply ignoring problems in the interest of not thinking will only cause more problems in the long run, if not sooner.  It also seems to be the case that conservatives, at least in the USA, rate themselves as happier than liberals.  A snarky response would be that they are simply refusing to think, but conservatives by definition have most of what they want already, they only need to conserve it.  They are not harried by desires.  Liberals, in contrast, want many things to change and long for some future when things will be as they envision.  Also, conservatives tend to have a path laid out for them, with few deviations.  Liberals like to have choices.  Lots of them.  While the feeling that we are choosing our own path can be empowering and a factor in feeling happy, too many choices only overwhelm us and make us more frustrated and unhappy.  Apparently the definition of being happy is also being a US conservative, although those who show up in the media do not seem to be very happy at all.

The Possible Permanent Guest stated that happiness is an individual experience, and not easily defined, besides which some people cannot be happy.  What makes us happy changes as we pass through life, as our priorities and motivations change.  We might start out coveting material things, but in the end we might want something more spiritual.  Those who come out as the happiest in worldwide polls are often from poorer countries, and poverty stricken areas of those countries.  The act of reaching a common goal can also make people happy, more than reaching an individual goal in some cases.  She was also of the opinion that the lack of responsibility for heavy thinking could help to produce a situation of happiness, and simplicity in life is a clear aid to create happiness.  As for biology, we know that certain chemicals are essential for a happy state in the human brain, and when the proportions of those chemicals are out of whack it is hard to be happy.

The True Philosopher pondered the possibility of defining "being happy" due to its inherent subjectivity.  It is a state that is personal, expressed in behavior and/or the statement, "I am happy," but it can also be shared by people with the same goals or tastes.  There can also be contradictory situations, when one person is made happy and another unhappy by the same thing.  Regarding thinking and happiness, he first laid out the need for verification of belief to make it knowledge, which requires thought.  The security in one's beliefs being true, or solid knowledge, can be a factor in happiness.  However, one of the social mechanisms that seems to grant a good deal of happiness is religion, which deals with knowledge not at all.  The truth behind one's religious beliefs is irrelevant, only faith matters.  The sense of security that not having to think through and reevaluate values and beliefs makes a great many people happy, to the point that they devalue the knowledge of others.  However, if religion is analyzed, faith can disappear.  The True Philosopher's experience as a seminary student took his faith from him, as it became an intellectual concept rather than a daily experience.  The question remains, though, of whether knowledge or ignorance is a better happy pill.

The Leader was not satisfied with attempts to reach a definition, pointing out that the conditions for happiness are different in each society, as well as the conditions for survival itself.  He struggled with the underpinnings of the cause, not just the effects, as noted in his short article.  The knowledge of what is available to us and our possibilities of acquiring it is important to our emotional state, as well as the awareness of how much control we really have over our own lives.  He finally was of a mind to throw out the likelihood of finding a set definition, but was willing to mull over a probabilistic one, since there are things that make large numbers of people happy, even if they do not work for every single person.  He was quite skeptical of the "no thinking for happiness" suggestion, being a strong proponent of knowledge acquisition.  Knowledge is not something to be acquired without some thought.  He later pointed out the folly of personalizing happiness to the point that we cannot conceive of what makes us happy as not automatically making everyone else happy, and repeated his suspicion that the bridge between the stimulus and the feeling is not as straightforward as we were trying to make it.

Someone Passing Through was critical of the language used to formulate the question, finally calling it a category error.  What we should be discussing is probably what makes us happy, rather than trying to define a subjective state.  We can judge mental states based on behavior or on neural maps, but interpretation is still involved with some room for mistakes.  We should even be skeptical of self-reporting, both because people can deliberately deceive us and also not interpret their own emotions in a meaningful way.  While knowledge can be useful to us, information overload is a typical stressor of modern life.  He was left wondering in the end if we are able to control our emotions to the point of making ourselves happy.

The Deep Thinker introduced simple reporting as a way to gauge happiness, and first recommended not seeking a universal definition in favor if individual experiences.  He gave the term a Buddhist spin, saying happiness is linked to absence of desire; when we do not want, we do not suffer; when we do not suffer, we are happy.  He promoted his view that thinking too much is a block to happiness, saying we should try to reach a level of mental activity that does not interfere.  We could even be happy despite other emotions, simply because we exist.  We should try for unconditional happiness.  He conceded that we need to think a little, but an excess of mental gear grinding was responsible, in his opinion, for much unhappiness.  He also showed himself as a big supporter of self-knowledge, insisting that we discover who we are to find a path to being happy.  We need to tackle our problems in a contemplative way, however.  He did not believe the analytical approach was worthwhile in this case, because of the subjectivity of the topic.  He chewed on the possibility of a scientific faith, an atheistic faith, that would allow people the flexibility to experience themselves and their environments without needing a higher power to force them to reinterpret their own lives.  In the end, we are left with nothing but intangible ideas or the fruits of our physical labor, and how happy we feel about that is what we can convince ourselves to feel.

Octopus Pie is the best