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

[Atla]

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.

What do you mean?

[Lacewing]

I'm ok with the awfulness of life as much as I am ok with when life is anything but awful.

Well, okay then. I, too, wait until it's absolutely necessary to take any sorts of medication or therapy for discomforts. Experience is not so bad, even when it's not the best.

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.

And having awareness of it... that's awesome!

[Gary Childress]

You need others to be happy as much as you need others to be unhappy. Without others, there only is.

[Lacewing]

I have the suspicion that women typically can feel complete on their own, and men typically can not.

That's interesting. It is true that in my own experience, I've known several women who can truly feel complete on their own, yet no men that can. That's not to say, of course, that there aren't men who can... it just doesn't seem typical, as you say.

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?

Well, it is truly fascinating to consider. Most men have such a strong desire for women -- maybe it is impossible to feel complete when one needs another to such a degree. Maybe that desire prevents them from experiencing the deeper parts of themselves, and the broader connection with all else. It's like an intoxicating obsession that blocks out all other 'connective awareness'. Which would be why certain religious orders insist on celibacy.

Might this inability for feeling completion also have something to do with why it is typically men who seem inclined to create such demanding and vengeful gods in their own image? It's like giving validation to the way they tend to be themselves, rather than experiencing far broader capabilities of connection and love -- and they seek completeness from their god.

[Atla]

I have the suspicion that women typically can feel complete on their own, and men typically can not.

That's interesting. It is true that in my own experience, I've known several women who can truly feel complete on their own, yet no men that can. That's not to say, of course, that there aren't men who can... it just doesn't seem typical, as you say.

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?

Well, it is truly fascinating to consider. Most men have such a strong desire for women -- maybe it is impossible to feel complete when one needs another to such a degree. Maybe that desire prevents them from experiencing the deeper parts of themselves, and the broader connection with all else. It's like an intoxicating obsession that blocks out all other 'connective awareness'. Which would be why certain religious orders insist on celibacy.

Might this inability for feeling completion also have something to do with why it is typically men who seem inclined to create such demanding and vengeful gods in their own image? It's like giving validation to the way they tend to be themselves, rather than experiencing far broader capabilities of connection and love -- and they seek completeness from their god.

Well my perspective is that all this connection with lots of people and all this love towards lots of people, and maybe the world in general, is generally a good thing. But it just doesn't fill that hole, it's not "that" kind of companionship. Still couldn't make me feel complete.

[Dontaskme]

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.

What do you mean?

Based on what I thought you meant, I meant, there could be something some of us, maybe not all of us, that inescapably drives us to form an everlasting mutual reciprocal love bond with another person. At the same time, being quite content and happy to live the singledom life and feel completely whole and fullfilled within themself if no prince charming ever showed up.

But supposing one did show up,I mean, what more could a girl ask for but to be loved by a man, she loves. The love pairing would simply mean the two of them have EVERYTHING. I mean, I cannot think of any higher purpose or reason to be alive than to have experienced this everlasting dual love bond with another human being.

[LuckyR]

"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.)

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.

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.

Edit: 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.

The key word in the OP is "need" as in: "don't need". Thus one example of happiness in the absence of others fulfulls the premise, whereas numerous examples of socially dependent happiness doesn't disprove it.

[Iwannaplato]

The key word in the OP is "need" as in: "don't need". Thus one example of happiness in the absence of others fulfulls the premise, whereas numerous examples of socially dependent happiness doesn't disprove it.

Except that 'you' I believe refers to everyone.

[LuckyR]

The key word in the OP is "need" as in: "don't need". Thus one example of happiness in the absence of others fulfulls the premise, whereas numerous examples of socially dependent happiness doesn't disprove it.

Except that 'you' I believe refers to everyone.

I'm not seeing the logical incompatibility between our postings.

[Lacewing]

Well my perspective is that all this connection with lots of people and all this love towards lots of people, and maybe the world in general, is generally a good thing. But it just doesn't fill that hole, it's not "that" kind of companionship. Still couldn't make me feel complete.

This Earth life seems like it launches us into a solo experience amongst all the others who have been launched into it. I've heard it suggested that we're all soulmates. I find that interesting to consider. A few are lucky enough to experience an extraordinary bonding with a partner. Most of us have to work at co-creating a compatible experience with another or creating a joyful experience on our own. I've always felt I'd rather be happy on my own than be with the wrong partner.

I met my boyfriend on elitesingles.com. I could never stand more than a few weeks of being on an online dating site. I'd give it a try about every 6 months. I had never tried that site before -- I don't know how I discovered it -- and I was just about to get off of it when he contacted me. He was a genuine, kind, easy person. We just hit it off despite differences that I would have thought would be deal-breakers. Here we are, 3 years later. It seems so random... and yet, so familiar and perfect at times.

Who knows what kinds of agreements we may have made with ourselves or others for experiencing this life journey? Or whether we're all the same ONE playing with itself?

[Atla]

This Earth life seems like it launches us into a solo experience amongst all the others who have been launched into it. I've heard it suggested that we're all soulmates. I find that interesting to consider. A few are lucky enough to experience an extraordinary bonding with a partner. Most of us have to work at co-creating a compatible experience with another or creating a joyful experience on our own. I've always felt I'd rather be happy on my own than be with the wrong partner.

I met my boyfriend on elitesingles.com. I could never stand more than a few weeks of being on an online dating site. I'd give it a try about every 6 months. I had never tried that site before -- I don't know how I discovered it -- and I was just about to get off of it when he contacted me. He was a genuine, kind, easy person. We just hit it off despite differences that I would have thought would be deal-breakers. Here we are, 3 years later. It seems so random... and yet, so familiar and perfect at times.

Who knows what kinds of agreements we may have made with ourselves or others for experiencing this life journey? Or whether we're all the same ONE playing with itself?

I honestly cannot imagine "happy on my own". Feels like an oxymoron, looks like an oxymoron. If I'm alone then what's the point of anything? I'm OK alone but not truly happy, not really complete. I can distract myself and be fine, but that's all.

I thought a lot about it and arrived at basically the same answer I arrived at earlier: it probably comes down to differences between the male "I" and the female "I".

Also, it's almost as if women had this... umm... (how do I say this without looking ridiculous) shared female mental space, or in other words, collective female consciousness. Where there aren't really individuals mentally, in the sense that men think of individuals mentally. There are still individuals, but not that much.
So it's kinda like, women are always part of something bigger, something shared, mentally. Men don't really have an equivalent for this. They have brotherhood, "bros" on one hand, but then are also often pitted against each other on the other hand.

[Lacewing]

I honestly cannot imagine "happy on my own". Feels like an oxymoron, looks like an oxymoron. If I'm alone then what's the point of anything? I'm OK alone but not truly happy, not really complete. I can distract myself and be fine, but that's all.

I thought a lot about it and arrived at basically the same answer I arrived at earlier: it probably comes down to differences between the male "I" and the female "I".

Hmm. Well, aren't there many wise men, sages, yogis, who have said that happiness and completeness are a potential for everyone? Granted, it may be harder for men because of all of their programming.

Also, it's almost as if women had this... umm... (how do I say this without looking ridiculous) shared female mental space, or in other words, collective female consciousness. Where there aren't really individuals mentally, in the sense that men think of individuals mentally. There are still individuals, but not that much.

That's interesting. I've often wondered if all different species of animals and creatures have a 'shared mental space', so-to-speak... which is how they know how to cooperate, using their 'channel'. And if a person makes a strong connection with any other beast, like cats, I've wondered if then all cats can sense upon meeting 'this person is a friend' or tuned into that beastie's channel?

So it's kinda like, women are always part of something bigger, something shared, mentally. Men don't really have an equivalent for this. They have brotherhood, "bros" on one hand, but then are also often pitted against each other on the other hand.

I dunno. I still think the potential is there for just about everyone for tapping into something bigger, whether or not it comes early or easy. So many shifts can happen in a person's life if they welcome and attune to that... and I think we can see lots of examples of it if we look around.

There probably is something to your idea of the collective woman-brain, as well as a collective man-brain, with distinct differences. I'm just not sure how much it's used. I feel like I can resonate more easily with thoughtful men. I'm a little wary (at first) of women being into drama.

[Iwannaplato]

The key word in the OP is "need" as in: "don't need". Thus one example of happiness in the absence of others fulfulls the premise, whereas numerous examples of socially dependent happiness doesn't disprove it.

Except that 'you' I believe refers to everyone.

I'm not seeing the logical incompatibility between our postings.

If one person finds happiness without others it does not confirm the premise if the premise is aimed at everyone. It would simply mean that guy or gal didn't need it. IOW it would not demonstrate a general truth, which the title seems to be asserting.

[Atla]

I honestly cannot imagine "happy on my own". Feels like an oxymoron, looks like an oxymoron. If I'm alone then what's the point of anything? I'm OK alone but not truly happy, not really complete. I can distract myself and be fine, but that's all.

I thought a lot about it and arrived at basically the same answer I arrived at earlier: it probably comes down to differences between the male "I" and the female "I".

Hmm. Well, aren't there many wise men, sages, yogis, who have said that happiness and completeness are a potential for everyone? Granted, it may be harder for men because of all of their programming.

Quite frankly I found those sages to be emotionally stunted narcissists, and/or married to the concept of some kind of enlightenment. I'd prefer a real person.

Also, it's almost as if women had this... umm... (how do I say this without looking ridiculous) shared female mental space, or in other words, collective female consciousness. Where there aren't really individuals mentally, in the sense that men think of individuals mentally. There are still individuals, but not that much.

That's interesting. I've often wondered if all different species of animals and creatures have a 'shared mental space', so-to-speak... which is how they know how to cooperate, using their 'channel'. And if a person makes a strong connection with any other beast, like cats, I've wondered if then all cats can sense upon meeting 'this person is a friend' or tuned into that beastie's channel?

So it's kinda like, women are always part of something bigger, something shared, mentally. Men don't really have an equivalent for this. They have brotherhood, "bros" on one hand, but then are also often pitted against each other on the other hand.

I dunno. I still think the potential is there for just about everyone for tapping into something bigger, whether or not it comes early or easy. So many shifts can happen in a person's life if they welcome and attune to that... and I think we can see lots of examples of it if we look around.

There probably is something to your idea of the collective woman-brain, as well as a collective man-brain, with distinct differences. I'm just not sure how much it's used. I feel like I can resonate more easily with thoughtful men. I'm a little wary (at first) of women being into drama.

I mean, I wasn't talking about a shared mental-space that literally exists somewhere. I meant that women seem to have this psychology where it's as if they all participated in such a space. Well it's just the impression I get, maybe I'm just imagining it.

[LuckyR]

Except that 'you' I believe refers to everyone.

I'm not seeing the logical incompatibility between our postings.

If one person finds happiness without others it does not confirm the premise if the premise is aimed at everyone. It would simply mean that guy or gal didn't need it. IOW it would not demonstrate a general truth, which the title seems to be asserting.

If anyone can perform an action without something, that thing is not NEEDED to perform the action. You may need it, but that's because of some detail of your situation NOT because it is a requirement (needed) of the action.