"You don't need anyone to be happy." True or false?

[Walker]

oh fuck off you stupid ****.

In other words, the direct cause of things that you perceive that are making you sad, is the intended result of Hamas' use of human shields.

I just noticed. An even 13000 postings. All of them excellent and appropriate to the situation, edited on the fly.

Given what I'm responding to, some things don't change much.

Time to pop the champagne!, and pause to savour and not spoil the symmetry of the number, and I will not be, tempted.
For numbers watchers, have a drink, but to go further with toast would be to invite a roast.

[Lacewing]

It's almost like I cannot live with myself, but I cannot live without myself. What an awful predicament to be put under.

Have you ever tried micro-dosing?

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/ne ... tudy-shows

[Sculptor]

oh fuck off you stupid ****.

In other words, the direct cause of things that you perceive that are making you sad, is the intended result of Hamas' use of human shields.

.. You don't care for or about anything or anyone. You are just like a shit magnet, and collect any old bollocks you can use to spew your brand of hate and idiocy.
"Human Shields" and shit words like "collaterol damage" is bollocks talk used by arressors to hide their crimes, and you are a fucking idiot that rpeats the moronic phrases.

[Atla]

"Darling, always remember. Your happiness doesn't come from other people. Your happiness comes from you. It is your choice to be happy. You don't need anyone to be happy with your life."

True or false?

But let's remove any other factor here. No co-dependency issues, no abandonment issues, no financial issues, no major personality flaws, no immaturity, no unresolved traumas, none of that. Let's just look at a really well-developed, mature person without any major issues, without any major problems.

(My opinion: definitely false.)

Of course a major part of what is required for "happiness" comes from within. And technically, we don't need anyone else to get through life.

But is that enough? Or do we need someone else to share the journey with, otherwise what's the point?

I raise this thread mainly because I suspect that the two genders will typically give opposing answers. But I'm not sure.

[Impenitent]

technically, one doesn't need anyone else...

then what is the point of language?

-Imp

[Peter Kropotkin]

that Hamas and Israel are wrong, can't be denied...

Kropotkin

Now then,

- That’s a bit illogical. You say that death, old age, and dying children are part of the world.
- Then you lump Hamas and Israel together, which makes a false equivalence between targeting civilians and targeting enemy military fotifications.
- Then you say Hamas and Israel are both wrong, based on your false equivalence.
- This contradicts your first assertion that death, old age, and dying children are part of the world.
- Unless ...
- Unless "part of the world" is a phrase meant to assert that the world is "wrong."

It just don't add up!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zjQ6FkofRI

K: I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the world doesn't add up,
it makes no sense, there is no logic to the universe..

Chaos, randomness, chance plays an important role in the universe...
and you cannot, cannot fit chaos or chance or randomness into
any sort of logical bracketing of the world.... more likely than not,
life itself exist because of chance and chaos/randomness.....
and we know that evolution is a one random event after another
after another.... you and I are here because of chance... nothing more...

so to say, this makes no sense or this isn't logical... ahhh, the world itself
makes no sense or isn't logical..... the question becomes, what is your response
to the randomness, illogical nature of the world? but Kropotkin,
these are two random events? yep... what of it?

You are seeking logical necessity in a world that has no logical necessity....

my advice, rethink your premise... and allow for the illogical, random,
chaotic nature of the universe...

it will and it won't make more sense......

Kropotkin

[Lacewing]

Of course a major part of what is required for "happiness" comes from within. And technically, we don't need anyone else to get through life.

A person could live on a deserted island and be happy. People can be surrounded by other people and be miserable. It comes from within each person... and it's probably different for each person. A miserable sort could be miserable even with a wonderful partner. And a happy person might discover that a partner derails their happiness. Best to figure out how to be independently happy, first and foremost, I think.

But is that enough? Or do we need someone else to share the journey with, otherwise what's the point?

Well, I had a wonderful time being on my own between my four relationships. The point was enjoying life thoroughly in so many ways... without anyone slowing me down. Still, I've always longed to find the right partner, as it seems that life is too fascinating not to share. But, in reality, all of my relationships have been much harder work than I would have thought they would be. There are so many variables that might not match up... or dynamics that might arise.

It's very comforting to me to know that I can be happy on my own. I know I am choosing to work together with a partner right now (we're not married)... and sometimes it's difficult exactly because I know I can easily be happy on my own. But I think my current partnership is truly an opportunity to grow/expand in new ways for us individually and together, and it feels like the right thing to do right now. Although we're very different, we don't seem inclined to shrink away from the challenge. On we bravely go... trying to stay in the present moment together as much as possible. Life is really a moment-to-moment journey... and when lived fully, each moment can be enough.

[Iwannaplato]

technically, one doesn't need anyone else...

then what is the point of language?

-Imp

Yes, good latter point. And if someone is talking to him/herself only, they are creating two personalities to get by. And if they read novels, watch movies, etc., they are likely creating social dynamics with non-existant people to get by.

We are a diverse lot and there may be people who truly have no interest in others. I think they're missing out on the best stuff, but they probably think that way about me. There aren't many of those people though. A smattering.

And, in a sense, I'd say they aren't human. I don't mean that in a perjorative sense, but we're social mammals, and if they are really content without a social life, even a pretend one, then they are not social mammals.

[Dontaskme]

It's almost like I cannot live with myself, but I cannot live without myself. What an awful predicament to be put under.

Have you ever tried micro-dosing?

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/ne ... tudy-shows

Thanks for the help Lacewing. No, haven't tried anything to treat depression. I'm ok with the awfulness of life as much as I am ok with when life is anything but awful. I do like to give my thoughts and feelings about life a good old venting off. I like to express to myself and the world about the way being alive makes me feel inside, but I've noticed that how I feel about something doesn't actually bother me that much really, it doesn't kill me, or cause my body any physical pain, it's just emotions and feelings that come and go. I understand that these are not something I can stop from happening not unless I stop thinking. And stopping our thinking is not something anyone can do permanently, so I always accept thoughts are a part of what it means to be alive, and that even though they come and go, they also are here to stay. In other words, there is no permanent cure for eliminating our thoughts from our life.

Depression doesn't cause me any physical bodily pain, so it never bothers me much, not the way physical pain does, if and when I'm in physical pain, I automatically reach out for some treatment for it, because physical pain is just something I really hate with a passion, I just want all pain gone when it arises.

Depression doesn't cause my body physical pain, and so it never bothers me when it's experienced.
I can experience moments of intense pleasure and joy at being alive as well, it all depends what I choose to focus my attention on the most. Sometimes I can even feel depressed and elated at the exact same time, it seems I can juggle quite a lot of mixed feelings all at once, and still live to tell the tale. I haven't yet died of emotional experiences, not yet anyway.

[Dontaskme]

Edit: Of course a major part of what is required for "happiness" comes from within. And technically, we don't need anyone else to get through life.

Personally I believe I am happier when I am experiencing close relationship with people I like to spend my life with. But at the same time, I am happy being on my own, but only comfortable with being on my own already knowing the people I have close relationship with are still alive. If the people I have close relationship with died, I would be incredibly sad and unhappy at their absence. So for me, other people do make me happy, but they make me sad as well, when they die. My experience of being alive is like a double edge sword in my opinion.

But is that enough? Or do we need someone else to share the journey with, otherwise what's the point?

We need other people to share our journey of sadness and happiness, because we do not want these experiences to come to an end, that's why humans are still procreating. That's the point, if there was no point, life would be pointless, and that's not what we want, we want there to be a point, as you have pointed out.

[Atla]

Of course a major part of what is required for "happiness" comes from within. And technically, we don't need anyone else to get through life.

A person could live on a deserted island and be happy. People can be surrounded by other people and be miserable. It comes from within each person... and it's probably different for each person. A miserable sort could be miserable even with a wonderful partner. And a happy person might discover that a partner derails their happiness. Best to figure out how to be independently happy, first and foremost, I think.

But is that enough? Or do we need someone else to share the journey with, otherwise what's the point?

Well, I had a wonderful time being on my own between my four relationships. The point was enjoying life thoroughly in so many ways... without anyone slowing me down. Still, I've always longed to find the right partner, as it seems that life is too fascinating not to share. But, in reality, all of my relationships have been much harder work than I would have thought they would be. There are so many variables that might not match up... or dynamics that might arise.

It's very comforting to me to know that I can be happy on my own. I know I am choosing to work together with a partner right now (we're not married)... and sometimes it's difficult exactly because I know I can easily be happy on my own. But I think my current partnership is truly an opportunity to grow/expand in new ways for us individually and together, and it feels like the right thing to do right now. Although we're very different, we don't seem inclined to shrink away from the challenge. On we bravely go... trying to stay in the present moment together as much as possible. Life is really a moment-to-moment journey... and when lived fully, each moment can be enough.

Yes this is exactly the issue that I'm trying to investigate. I have the suspicion that women typically can feel complete on their own, and men typically can not. I'm trying to understand where this difference is coming from. Usually I thought it's probably because the male "I" and the female "I" take such different forms. But could it be something else?

Or maybe I'm wrong and men can typically feel complete on their own too. In which case there is something entirely different going on here for the people who can't do that.

[Iwannaplato]

Yes this is exactly the issue that I'm trying to investigate. I have the suspicion that women typically can feel complete on their own, and men typically can not. I'm trying to understand where this difference is coming from. Usually I thought it's probably because the male "I" and the female "I" take such different forms. But could it be something else?

Or maybe I'm wrong and men can typically feel complete on their own too. In which case there is something entirely different going on here for the people who can't do that.

This isn't my experience. There seem to be many male loner types. And men who want to head out into nature or whatever, alone. At least in my life. There do seem to be differences. I am not saying men and women are the same around this (in my experience). I just see both as wanting both. And often the dynamic in couples is the woman wanting more connection and the man wanting to be left alone - more than she wants to be left alone.

Anectdotal and a sample of 1 - my experiences, but there it is.

[Atla]

Yes this is exactly the issue that I'm trying to investigate. I have the suspicion that women typically can feel complete on their own, and men typically can not. I'm trying to understand where this difference is coming from. Usually I thought it's probably because the male "I" and the female "I" take such different forms. But could it be something else?

Or maybe I'm wrong and men can typically feel complete on their own too. In which case there is something entirely different going on here for the people who can't do that.

This isn't my experience. There seem to be many male loner types. And men who want to head out into nature or whatever, alone. At least in my life. There do seem to be differences. I am not saying men and women are the same around this (in my experience). I just see both as wanting both. And often the dynamic in couples is the woman wanting more connection and the man wanting to be left alone - more than she wants to be left alone.

Anectdotal and a sample of 1 - my experiences, but there it is.

I hope you're right, actually. That would mean there's something else causing the inescapable need for companionship in some people.

[Dontaskme]

Yes this is exactly the issue that I'm trying to investigate. I have the suspicion that women typically can feel complete on their own, and men typically can not. I'm trying to understand where this difference is coming from. Usually I thought it's probably because the male "I" and the female "I" take such different forms. But could it be something else?

Or maybe I'm wrong and men can typically feel complete on their own too. In which case there is something entirely different going on here for the people who can't do that.

This isn't my experience. There seem to be many male loner types. And men who want to head out into nature or whatever, alone. At least in my life. There do seem to be differences. I am not saying men and women are the same around this (in my experience). I just see both as wanting both. And often the dynamic in couples is the woman wanting more connection and the man wanting to be left alone - more than she wants to be left alone.

Anectdotal and a sample of 1 - my experiences, but there it is.

I hope you're right, actually. That would mean there's something else causing the inescapable need for companionship in some people.

Maybe that something else is the need for everything.

[Iwannaplato]

I hope you're right, actually. That would mean there's something else causing the inescapable need for companionship in some people.

Well, to throw out a dry Darwinian response off the cuff. Some animals that cooperated and hung out did well. So, over time this hanging out urge got selected for and strengthened. If it gives us pleasure to hang out and complicated close bonds with parents lead to smarter young adults. And neuroplastics brains need this and neuroplasticity has advantages, well then we have two reasons the urge to hang out and the pleasure from this might get selected for: cooperative, trained adults who work in teams and learn new stuff.