Is it Beneficial to Anaylze One's Happiness?

          Human beings like to analyze things; one might even say it is part of human nature. However, at what point does analysis result in negative consequences? In the case of happiness, analysis starts to become a problem when it starts to prevent happiness. Over analyzing happiness can result in frustration and misery, because happiness is conditional and subjective. What makes one person happy differs from individual to individual. Also, what makes one happy at the time might not make one happy later on. For instance, if someone is happy one day in English class, it does not mean that he will necessarily be happy in English class tomorrow. Unfortunately, there is no set equation for happiness.
         Another problem with analyzing happiness is that the focus is on the past. Instead of living in the moment, all one's attention is honed in on happiness achieved prior to the moment. When this occurs, one often idealizes and fantasizes the prior memories of happiness, making the memories better than what they truly are. If an individual tries to recreate these memories, disappointment ensues because reality cannot live up to the fantasy created in one's own head.

Some say a better alternative to analyzing happiness is to look into the causes of unhappiness. This way, one can locate the sources of unhappiness and remove them. The only problem with this is that many individuals latch onto the unhappy memories and cannot stop themselves from spiraling into a depression. Instead of identifying the sources of unhappiness and trying to change them, they instead focus just on their unhappiness. Initiating change is the key factor in balancing the want for happiness and actually achieving happiness. Obviously, change happens overtime so problems arise when one's actions do not seem to be producing positive results fast enough. So the question comes down to is there a way to analyze one's happiness while remaining happy in the moment?

Can A Philosophical Question Ever Be Answered?

This is in response to Jenny Beers question, "What is one philosophical question that you think can be answered and what is one that can never be?"

The philosophical question that I believe will one day be answered is "What is good and what is evil?". In my opinion, no one is innately good or evil. Good and evil arise with intentions. If someone intentionally commits an action that is positive in manner, then the person is said to have done a good dead. Yet, if someone intentionally acts maliciously, that person is said to have an evil disposition. Good and evil, just as right and wrong, are often matters of opinion. Someone can have evil thoughts and commit evil actions, but the person himself is neither good nor evil.  Good and evil do not exist naturally; they are the creation of the human mind.

The philosophical question that I believe will never be answered is whether there is a God. It is impossible to prove rationally something that is contingent on faith. The supernatural, such as God and the Devil, does not exist in the natural world. One cannot scientifically prove that there is a God because there is not a method of how to go about proving God's existence. The concept of God is so much greater than anything human beings can conceptualize. It would take something beyond the powers of the human mind to validate the existence of a higher power.

The Importance of Truth in Regard to Opinions

 Many people would argue that there are no right or wrong opinions. Yet, many would also say that they crave validation for their opinions; they want their opinions to be proven true. Right and wrong, in this case, remain separate from the truth. In society, instances occur all the time where truth is either validated or dismissed by people's opinions. An example of this is when a person goes to trial for murder. There can be substantial evidence to prove the defendant guilty of the crime and still the defendant can be found not guilty based on the opinions of the jurors. The truth, in this instance, is not as important as what the jurors believe to be true.

Truth and opinion are often in conflict over the existence of a higher power. Since the dawn of religion, people have tried to prove, scientifically, the existence of a supernatural being. While the existence of a higher power has yet to be proven true or falsified, people's belief in their opinions drives the debate. However, if for instance, it is proven that their is no higher power, would it even matter to the people of faith? Is their ever an instance where faith transcends truth? In human society, is the truth within oneself more important than the actual truth?