Is it possible to for me to suffer a misfortune or a harm of which I am completely unaware? At first sight the idea seem ridiculous. It's like someone telling you they were suffering a toothache yesterday but were quite unaware of it at the time! If I am harmed surely I must undergo a disagreeable experience of some kind? On the other hand if I lose the chance of promotion in my job due to some malicious gossip put about by a colleague surely I have been harmed as I have been deprived of a benefit I would otherwise have enjoyed. This must be true even if I never know about it. Rob W. United Kingsdom

Is happiness really all that important? A lot of people think so, but that being happy just for happiness' sake is a waste. If there was a "happiness pill" that could make me happy for the rest of my life, I wouldn't take it. Because if I did, I'd get lazy and wouldn't accomplish anything. It seems like the pill would be cheating. But on the other hand, I'm not so sure I'd want to be the most successful person in the world if it meant I could never be happy. So I have to wonder: is it happiness or the things that make us happy that we should value?

In terms of a more universal perspective, what do you believe is the universal cause of all human actions? I believe self-gratification is the answer. I believe that in every action we make involves self-gratification in one way or another. I believe that on a subconscious level we analysis which actions will make us happier and most often choose the one that leads us to it. My only flaw that I know of about my assumption is service to others (via volunteer services). Yet I feel somehow some of the situations that arise during volunteer services can arise from someone else's need for self-gratification. I wanted a more professional opinion on the matter as well as perhaps an evaluation on my assumption.

This is a question about happiness. I am a student who is very serious about academics and is always looking for ways to challenge myself to do better. I take hard courses that require a lot of work. But I often find that I sit in the library reluctantly reading for long periods of time. I am not sure if I am having fun. I see my friends who are taking courses like photography and book-making, and are having loads of fun. (Note that I do realize that photography and book-making have their own merits as a subjects of study, but they are not challenging to me.) I remind myself that the skills I'm gaining in my difficult courses will contribute to my happiness in the long run. I do believe in living the happiest life one can possibly live. But I wonder if the friend who is taking photography has a better approach to living a good life (and that is my question). The reason I think that is because I feel she is living happily now, without looking to the future for happiness.

Much of philosophy seems to be concerned with one's world view and the stemming pursuit of happiness through various means, but is there any reason to strive for happiness? Other than the fact that we all want it, just because humans want it, is that the only reason we strive for it? Because, if so, there are other things that we are built do which we should theoretically strive for, is not our desire for happiness just as valid? Is there any reason not to live in pain, other than the fact that it creates unpleasant memories? Is that not a rather weak reason for existence (simply to create pleasant memories or because that is what we have evolved to do)?

If you are someone who likes to help others, is helping them actually a selfish act that is only done to avoid feelings of guilt that would otherwise occur? Is it really any less selfish than a sadist who hurts others for personal enjoyment, despite the happiness that may be felt in those who are helped?

Is it ethical for a depressed person to limit social interaction with friends, based on the idea that the friends might find such interaction unpleasant? Part of the problem is that friends often don't openly admit to not enjoying the depressed presence, but, if the depressed person finds it difficult to live with him-/herself, would it not follow that other people also find his/her company difficult? Increased isolation would undoubtedly have adverse effects on the depressed person. Would it be possible for a philosopher to explain the ethical position of the depressed person as regards to social interaction, please?

My question pertains to the idea of happiness being induced by a drug. If the drug--like modern anti-depressants--actually changes a person's neurochemistry such that for all intents and purposes the brain looks just like a "happy" brain, then wouldn't you consider that person happy? (Would you give a different answer for a drug like Ecstasy that alters the brain in slightly different ways than classic neurochemical happiness but still brings about a perception of happiness?) And what about the perception of happiness over the long haul? If someone is on anti-depressants for, say, fifty years, and has an over-all sense of peace, purpose, etc that they would NOT have otherwise had, have they, in fact, been happy?

Many elderly people I've met are extremely lonely yet somehow extremely strong emotionally. They often say that friendship today isn't the same as when they were young. Can we be too old for friendship? When the years fall and maturity reaches its ultimate heights does our heart turn into a shell?

Is it possible for one to be wrong about one's own happiness? In other words, could one think (and feel that) they're happy without actually being so?