A bit of amateur philosophy
Happiness can be described in as many different ways as the number of persons asked for a definition.
Chamber's 20th Century Dictionary describes the state of happiness as being: lucky; fortunate; contentment; well-being; apt; felicitous and the state of unhappiness as bringing misfortune; not fortunate; miserable; infelicitous and inapt.
From across the Atlantic, Webster's Dictionary takes much the same view; delightedly pleased and glad; contentment; joy; lucky; apt and felicitous, with the contra as; sad; miserable; wretched; unfortunate; unlucky and infelicitous.
Discussing their meaning of happiness with younger people it would appear that most equate the word with a feeling of euphoria. Not that they use the word or even are aware of its meaning or existence. Chamber's defines it as; an exaggerated feeling of well-being, and Webster's as; a strong feeling of happiness, confidence or well-being.
To the young it certainly means the pursuit of a "high", anything less not being happiness.
Experience tells us sooner or later that peaks of emotional elation do not last, and that a natural corollary of such peaks is a swift descent into a slough of despond, so we must look for a more lasting definition towards which we can strive.
Turning now to the older person the majority view is heavily weighted towards contentment as their definition of happiness, either as meaning acceptance of the status quo or tranquility borne of a tailoring of ambition. Neither standpoint reveals an understanding of what should be striven for as a positively sustainable achievement.
The peak and trough situation may initially suit youth in its search for the ultimate truth but must eventually result in extreme dissatisfaction, which is one definition of unhappiness not offered by either Chamber's or Webster's.
The acceptance or tranquillity situation is equally unsatisfactory, implying a placidity amounting to a willingness to accept life's vicissitudes without question. There is, I believe, an alternative to the foregoing approaches, and that is the pursuit of not-unhappiness. A play on words? - perhaps, but I would like to persuade you that it is not.
Looking at the suggested definitions of happiness in Chamber's and Webster's Dictionaries we can see that that state only comes about in the absence of the definitions of unhappiness and therefore is a passive state. Should we not then actively abjure passive acceptance and seek a state of mind where we are alert to the onset of negative thoughts and seek positively to combat them.
If you are not happy I would suggest that you must be in the grip of one or other of the definitions of unhappiness, perhaps a combination of definitions, which should be identifiable. Once identified, an analysis of causes should suggest a reasoning process to rationalize the state of mind which brought about the symptoms and thereby persuade ourselves that we no longer suffer from the malady.
This may not make us happy but, having decided to face our problems in a positive fashion we may consider ourselves "not-unhappy". Amid the trials and tribulations of our present world surely a permanent state of "not-unhappiness" is preferable to the pursuit of an unattainable state of permanent happiness.
In the words of Bertrand Russell "Happiness is not best achieved by those who seek it directly".
