A life that was constantly happy was not a good life. agree or disagree? explain as long as u can.?

Question

A life that was constantly happy was not a good life. agree or disagree? explain as long as u can.?

Answer 1

agree. it was not a good life because a life is a combo of good and bad happenings. it cannot be a constantly happy life unless the ones who experience it truely think anything and everything is 'happy'. in a life, the point of it (as far as i can see, so i may be wrong) is to experience it. if it was constantly happy, then the experiencer did not really experience anything, unless he/she/them/they/etc was happy with what happened. if only good things happened, then the person who experienced it will not have any idea as how to handle the worse aspects of life.  as my father says, 'you have to have the bad with the good, or you wont appreciate the good when it is present', so, the way i see it is that the experiencers of this 'constantly happy' life did not really have the happy of it much, because you need to know what unhappy is to be able to really call it happy. if you have not experienced unhappy, how can you say anything is happy? so, i think these experiencers of a constantly happy life, just lived or lives a very ignorant life, or they are just clueless.

i hope i made sense and helped.

have a great day!!!

-Angel

Answer 2

Depends on your definition of "happy". If it is contentment then your statement would be false by definition.

Answer 3

I think this is putting a stupid sort of slant on it. If you're HAPPY, then why is that BAD?  Happiness should be good--and constant happiness is the GOAL of most people!

I think the person who stated this does not have a good definition for the word "happy." He or she means something other than what it REALLY means.

Happiness is not bad. Happiness is what everyone strives for. A happy life is, (like DUH) a HAPPY LIFE. Not a BAD life. If your life isn't good, then it doesn't make you HAPPY.

To me it's an unnecessary and twisted play on the term happy and it's probably for the sake of the story line--but it fails in its attempt, as far as I'm concerned.

Answer 4

A life that is just constantly happy would eventually get boring because we wouldn't appreciate how wonderful it is, it would all feel the same eventually. Plus, without having some sadness in our lives, how could we truly know the meaning of real happiness. Constant happiness would be like living like a robot. So, yes i agree with u that a life of constant happiness is not a good one...

Answer 5

I agree. While eternal bliss might be a great thing to aim for in a perfect world, it would be dangerous in real life. If the situation calls for a fight-or-flight response, and you're too blissed out to care, then you're toast.

Maybe we would all be too content to put each other in danger, but the world itself would pose enough threats that we'd be better off having a healthy fear of.

Besides, if we were always happy, a gunshot and a child's laugh would be equally musical to our ears.

Answer 6

Intersting question!

I agree in the sense of meaning you wanted to arrived in your statement. Constant happiness has no challenge to do better. It is a monotonous situation of life where you could not see the other side of the coin. A better feeling of happiness requires loneliness to make a good life. I would say there must be a fulcrum of harmony in life to find goodness.

Thanks for asking. Have a great day!

Answer 7

Happiness is only a state of mind.

It is a well known fact that the mind is always wavering, as such the hypothetical condition, 'a life that was constantly happy' can never be true.

But, for the wise, the external conditions be it pleasant or unpleasant never make any difference, as they can find the equilibrium and be content.

Answer 8

disagree-life is difficult and there are definitely unhappy times, nothing worth having/obtaining is easy,and if your life is that simple ,then maybe your life isn't worth living and, you aren't taking risks/chances (which are stress inducing) or you died as a child and that wasn't a good life ,cause you never really had a real chance to live

Answer 9

YOu need to define good for me to answer this question.  I can say that for me, a "good life" would probably be considered one without suffering, but that does not make a life at all because suffering comes from attachment to ideas and desire..which is sort of what life is all about in many ways.  

Answer 10

I think this depends on what is was that made the life happy.  If a serial killer lives a long and constantly happy life, that is not going to be good for many other people.  If Gandhi was constantly happy, then this would certainly be a good life.  I doubt that a constant state of happiness is possible.

The person who answered that happiness is good by definition needs to read my answer again.

Answer 11

In classical understanding, "happiness" is the quality of a life lived as a whole. It is what happens if you get to look back at your life in your final moments and deem yourself satisfied with it THEN.

"Call no men happy 'til he is dead," Herodotus wrote. He wasn't expressing simple pessimism (i.e. the Schopenhauerian point that the dead suffer no more pain, so they are more happy than those who do). His point, rather, was that since happiness is something true of the whole of a life, for any living person there is the possibility of a reversal that will make the earlier good times seem just another element in the wickedness of the pattern. Call no man happy until you can judge of the whole pattern.  

In this sense, there is no such thing as "constant" happiness." One might talk of constant or inconstant pleasure or contentment. Happiness is just a yes/no for the life as a whole, the adjectives have no applicability.

And a happy life in the classical sense IS a good life.