ive pretty much turned being a sad sack into my 'method'. this is because, as briefly as possible, happiness is supposed to be a self-sustaining state of existence that cannot be defeated by circumstance, but it is 'suffering' that sustains the production of meaning in my life circumstances.
I've cped up passages from a critical perspective on the concept of happiness for your viewing pleasure:
"Of course, we cannot conflate happiness with good feeling. As Darrin McMahon (2006) has argued in his monumental history of happiness, the
association of happiness with feeling is a modern one, in circulation from the eighteenth century onward."
"It is useful to note that the etymology of "happiness" relates precisely to the question of contingency: it is from the Middle English "hap," suggesting chance. The original meaning of happiness preserves the potential of this "hap" to be good or bad. The hap of happiness then gets translated into something good. Happiness relates to the idea of being lucky, or favored by fortune, or being fortunate. Happiness remains about the contingency of what happens, but this "what" becomes something good. Even this meaning may now seem archaic: we may be more used to thinking of happiness as an effect of what you do, as a reward for hard work, rather than as being "simply" what happens to you.
Indeed, Miliary Csikszentmihalyi argues that "happiness is
not something that happens. It is not the result of good fortune or random choice, it is not something that money can buy or power command. It does not depend on outside events, but, rather on how we interpret them. Happiness, in fact is a condition that must be prepared for, cultivated and defended privately by each person" (1992, 2). Such a way of understanding happiness could be read as a defense against its contingency.
I want to return to the original meaning of happiness as it refocuses our attention on the "worldly" question of happenings. What is the relation between the "what" in "what happens" and the"what" that makes us happy?"
"I would suggest that happiness involves a specific kind of intentionality, which I would describe as "end orientated." It is not just that we can be happy about something, as a feeling in the present, but some things become happy for us, if we imagine they will bring happiness to us. Happiness is often described as "what" we aim for, as an endpoint, or even an end in itself. Classically, happiness has been considered as an end rather than as a means. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle describes happiness as the Chief Good, as"that which all things aim at" (1998,1). Happiness is what we "choose always for its own sake" (8). Anthony Kenny describes how, for Aristotle, happiness"is not just an end, but a perfect end" (1993,16). The perfect end is the end of all ends, the good that is good always for its own sake.
We don't have to agree with the argument that happiness is the perfect end to understand the implications of what it means for happiness to bethought in these terms. If happiness is the end of all ends, then all other things become means to happiness."
"If we think of instrumental goods as objects of happiness then important consequences follow. Things become good, or acquire their value as goods, insofar as they point toward happiness.
Objects become "happiness means."Or we could say they become happiness pointers, as if to follow their point would be to find happiness. If objects provide a means for making us happy,then in directing ourselves toward this or that object we are aiming somewhere else: toward a happiness that is presumed to follow."
"We can note here the role that habit plays in arguments about happiness.Returning to Aristotle, his model of happiness relies on habituation, "the result of the repeated doing of acts which have a similar or common quality"(1998, vii). The good man will not only have the right habits, but his feelings will also be directed in the right way: "a man is not a good man at all who feels no pleasure in noble actions; just as no one would call that man just who does not feel pleasure in acting justly" (11).
Good habits involve work: we have to work on the body such that the body's immediate reactions, how we are impressed upon by the world, will take us in the "right" direction."
finally, there can be much subtle cruelty in the production or pursuit of the objects that promise happiness:
"A relation of cruel optimism is a double-bind in which your attachment to an object sustains you in life at the same time as that object is actually a threat to your flourishing. So you can’t say that there are objects that have the quality of cruelty or not cruelty, it’s how you have the relationship to them. Like it might be that being in a couple is not a relation of cruel optimism for you, because being in a couple actually makes you feel like you have a grounding in the world, whereas for other people,
being in a couple might be, on the one hand, a relief from loneliness, and on the other hand, the overpresence of one person who has to bear the burden of satisfying all your needs. So it’s not the object that’s the problem, but how we learn to be in relation."
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/unhappy
I love this comic, "I'm not happy because our definition of happy isn't very
good."