The title question of this message may seem a bit surprising at first. Should 'happiness' really be defined? After all, we all seem to know very well what it is. We know when we are happy and when we are not.
But on closer inspection it turns out not to be that simple. The indication of selected moments where we feel great or terrible are only example states in which we would use the terms "happy" or "unhappy". They do not really define what it is (for requirements of a definition see below) and leave a number of questions unanswered, eg can it be considered "happy" if we do not feel significantly positive or negative?
For the purposes of this blog (and any discussion about happiness for that matter), I think it is important to ensure that we have a solid definition and a common and clear understanding of what we mean by happiness.
Existing definitions
I have researched definitions of happiness that are used today and found that most of them are not suitable as a basis to analyze happiness for any reason. For example, a general type of happiness definition is the following, found on wikipedia.org:
"Happiness is a state of mind or feeling characterized by satisfaction, satisfaction, pleasure or joy."
The problem with definitions like this is that they use expressions that need definitions themselves. For example, what does 'joy' mean exactly in the above definition? Defining "joy" is also not a simple task, and we run the risk of using the term "happiness" again when defining "joy" (Wikipedia actually leads to the "Happiness" article when you "Joy" "enter", ie go inside circles.
Another common form for defining happiness is to mention examples. For example, when people were asked what happiness was for them, they answered in the style of ...
"Happiness is when what you think, what you say and what you do is in harmony."
"Happiness lives in a state of free choice to create and exchange someone's rational values with others."
"Happiness is when you balance your emotions with your mind, constantly face the challenges of life with the thought that" something better "comes at you." Happiness is able to face challenges and overcome them with a smile on your face and a smile on your heart. "Etc.
These examples certainly point to different elements of happiness, but are not comprehensive definitions, at least not in a scientific sense (although it is interesting to hear what makes different people happy ...).
Requirements / criteria for a good definition
So what is there for a good definition, that is, what is the definition of a definition? To serve the purpose of the discussions on this blog, the definition of happiness must be analyzed in a scientific way, which means that the following criteria must be applied:
Measurable and scalable: the degree of happiness must be measurable and - in principle - be able to put different happiness states on a numerical scale
Similarly, the "points on the scale" must be comparable to each other, that is, answer the question of how many "slightly positive moments" are needed to compensate for one "very positive moment". This is already implied by the first criteria, but it may be worth mentioning explicitly
All-encompassing: every moment we live through must be attributed to one point on the scale, implying that it is not only the "positive direction" but also includes unfortunate moments and suffering
"Pleasant": it must reflect our existing notion of what is happiness and not entirely different
The key question is, of course, how a subjective feeling like happiness can ever be placed on an objective scale as mentioned above. Can happiness be completely 'objectified'?
Before we think about how we can make this shift, we need to be clear about where we are trying to go, that is to say what 'objective' actually means. Different world views can collide at this point, bu