This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 16th, 2008 at 2:10 am and is filed under Misc.. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Pages:
Feeds
Categories:
- Administration (6)
- Apologetics (22)
- Church Growth (13)
- Culture (139)
- Devotional (21)
- Media (10)
- Misc. (31)
- Philosophy (19)
- Podcasts (22)
- Question (10)
- Scripture (21)
- Testimony (6)
- The Church (74)
- The Outlaw Church (3)
- Theology (82)
- Uncategorized (149)
Archives:
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
Meta:
Reflections on Happiness
07.16.2008 by Chad McIntosh
You can be joyful whilst not being happy and happy whilst not being joyful. And, of course, you can be joyful whilst being happy. Happiness is based on your happenings. It therefore depends on what is external to you. Joy is based on an internal hope, conviction, or promise. Joy is therefore also derivative, but is secure in a way happiness is not. “Can’t you be happy because you’re joyful?”, you might ask. Yes, but only when your happenings permit such. Positive or neutral happenings permit happiness to be derived from joy. Naturally so. But if your happenings are lugubrious, then happiness shouldn’t be derived from joy.
Joy is necessarily a virtue; happiness is not. If your happenings are lugubrious, then happiness is probably a vice (hence, shouldn’t). Depressiveness (as opposed to depression) is the opposite of happiness. Depressiveness isn’t necessarily a vice, but it is necessarily not a virtue. If you’ve joy whilst your depressiveness it isn’t necessarily a vice. However, if you’ve no joy whilst your depressiveness it’s a terrible, terrible vice. When you’ve joy, when is depressiveness a vice? It’s hard to say. Perhaps when your happenings are equally conducive to happiness. Given that happiness is a virtue and depressiveness is not, the former should be preferred.
On that note—happiness is a discipline—a discipline I need to work on.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
You used “lugubrious” just ’cause you could, and you know it.
I agree completely, though.