A life that was constantly happy was not a good life. Agree or disagree? Explain

Question

think it's possible to way overestimate the importance of happiness.Part of the meaning of life is to have high& lows.

Answer 1

I agree. I think it's important to have lows because without a bad day, how would you know what a good day is? You need one to have the other. Someone who says they have had a consistently happy life might not have had a good life at all.

Answer 2

Agree!!!

  a   buddist..  is   neitther  though..  they  just  ARE!!..  

un..  or   happy..  is  irrelevent!

Answer 3

Depends on the definition of 'happy'.  Is it 'true happiness' in the sense of 'enlightenment'? Or does it just mean having all the pleasures of life (good food, not having to work, doing whatever you want)? Buddha was a prince and had everything he could possibly want, but was still not happy.

And I don't know about you, but I'm striving to attain a constantly happy life (in the enlighted sense).  Does that mean I'm striving to have a bad life?  I think that happiness, in the true sense, is the basic nature of humans.  Everyone is seeking 'happiness' in one form or another.  The problem is most people seek a happiness that ultimately brings them unhappiness.

Answer 4

It must have been pretty good for another person to take a bite of it.

Answer 5

Disagree. Lows are overrated.

Answer 6

This is a subjective question. One can only answer it from one's particular point of view, or at least from the point of a particular worldview that one chooses to adopt. The way I see things, happiness is like sunshine and rain. It comes and goes, it's not a permanant state that can be reached. It is merely a statement about one's frame of mind at any given moment. I cannot say whether any life is good or not because that is a subjective concept as well.  

Answer 7

I agree, if you have to much of one or the other you would tend to become bord or unhappy so balancing the highs and lows tends to help you get Thur life. Isn't that what's life all about anyway?  Does this make any seance?

Answer 8

Impossible to determine.

The problem with answering your question is that it assumes there is a rubric to measure lives against.  There isn't such a thing, that is, if someone tried to come up with a rubric it would be flawed.

Answer 9

A life that was constantly happy was a very fortunate life so therefore it should only be a good thing to be constantly fortunate in life, even into its best.

We can also learn from being steadily happy. However we may all know that there is no such thing as constantly happy in life. We adjust ourselves up to with those ups and downs...  

Answer 10

Frankly, no one can answer that question out of anything but ignorance.  I don't know anyone whose life has been constantly happy; knowing that everyone experiences some pain, some bereavement, some loss, I doubt anyone ever has.

So it's kind of like arguing about the natural evolution of the unicorn--the subject of discussion doesn't exist.

Considering my own life, I have concluded that pain is nature's way of telling us that something's wrong.  And what's wrong needs correcting.  Pain is inevitable and not at all desirable, and the notion that pain is a value in and of itself seems to me just a coping mechanism.

Answer 11

Disagree !

Only it is impossible on earth.

Remember life in Eden is constantly happy before human falls into sin.  

Answer 12

For a life to be constantly happy, the person must have tasted pain. True happiness cannot be judged unless the person has had a contrast to the happiness, for how can they know happiness if they have not known unhappiness?