I am reading some philosophy and psychology about happiness, and much of the work proclaims that we must act in order to be "happy" (Aristotle, William James, as well as more popular writers such as Napoleon Hill, Dale Carnegie and Mihaly Czikszentmihalyi). As you will notice, they are all men. Are there difference in how female philosophers describe and prescribe "happiness" (or subjective well-being or flourishing)? Thank you.

I am perplexed by Alexander George's recent posting (http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2854). He says "Your observation that we sometimes take pleasure in beliefs even if they have been irrationally arrived at seems correct but beside the point: it speaks neither to the truth of (1) nor to that of (2)." (2), in this case, is "(2) that actions guided by false beliefs are not likely to get us what we want. " I believe the science of psychology has shown us that we form many beliefs entirely irrationally. The mechanism for their formation is often a defense mechanism. The purpose of their formation is often to hide some truth about ourselves from ourselves - to hide some unpleasant information that we would have gleaned had we formed our belief rationally. I just can't see how the above information is "beside the point". The point is: 1) I want to be happy. 2) My beliefs are formed irrationally in order to reach that desired end. Perhaps what is beside the point is that the belief-forming mechanism is unconscious or subconscious rather than deliberate. Professor George also seems to take offense at the questioner's tone. Perhaps this is why he ignores the questioner's question: has the site lost some of its rigor since the days of 8 responses when the panelists routinely qualified each other's positions and called each other out when answers were not sufficiently rigorous? Regarding this offense at the questioner's tone: wasn't Socrates put to death because people were offended by his questions? It seems anathema to philosophy to take offense at questions. That the questioner did not display enough rigor in saying that a panelist's position "seems utterly preposterous" is to be expected - after all, the questioner is not a trained philosopher! As a frequent visitor to this site for many years I can say that, to me, it resembles Democracy: a place that should welcome critics as patriots.

A long time ago - Jan 2006 if I'm not mistaken - Alan Soble wrote (http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/875): "Finally, the heart and soul of philosophy is argument, providing reasons for claims, including claims about morality and duties. In the answer to the question above, I cannot find a shred of argument. We should also avoid, that is, pastoral or friendly counseling. Without rigor, philosophy is nothing." That was back in the days when there was routinely more than 1 response to a question. Today's responses seem more and more to be becoming "pastoral or friendly counseling" without rigor. The panelists do not argue with each other - the responses are just accepted. Here's an example: Peter Smith wrote very recently (http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2823): "For irrationally formed beliefs are not likely to lead to actions which get any of us what we want -- including a decent life, lived well in the knowledge of our all-too-explicable mortality." This statement - simply put out there, with no argument behind it - seems utterly preposterous. Beliefs will make us happy or not based on their content - not how they are formed. In fact, I might even choose to believe something JUST BECAUSE it will make me happy. They say the truth is often ugly and hard to take. Surely not the sort of thing that will make me happy. Of course it depends on what we mean by "happy". But Professor Smith doesn't think it's important to point this out in his friendly and pastoral and dogmatic response. Neither do any of the other panelists. Has the site lost some of its rigor?

I consider myself a compassionate person. Probably too compassionate, though. I have a hard time doing ANYTHING that causes death or harm to any other creature, even if it's as insignifigant as a bug, especially if it's something that is just 100% for my own pleasure, or satisfaction. Please forgive me because I know that this probably seems crazy, but this really is a problem for me. I've discussed this with other people and they have pointed out the fact that human beings seem to have a superior place in the world, and that bugs are just a part of an eco-system where they generally eat other insects, and or are food for other creatures. Even though I understand this, I find it impossible to do anything that causes them death or harm, especially things that are unimportant. For example, I have not cut my backyard all year because I know it will negatively affect the insects living there. I want to do it, but since it is only for my satisfaction I can't bring myself to do it. This is just one example of what I go through. Could you please help me to come up with some thought or idea that would enable me to do things, that would be only for my pleasure, while not leaving me with a bad feeling. Thank You!

When I get sad and depressed I am often told to "wise up" and stop moaning because people in Africa suffer far more than I do. Is this a logically valid point? Does the existence of vast quanities of human suffering in Africa necessarily negate my suffering?

Is there any philosophical consolation for someone who's depressed?

It is said that happiness comes from within - that no one can make you happy. However, some people do bring out the best in us (people we fall in love with) and others bring out the worst in us (people we dislike). So the statement that happiness comes from within is not entirely true. What is your opinion?

As far as I am aware most if not all religions promise the possibility of eternal happiness in the next life. However the concept of eternal happiness is impossible to understand. How could we be happy without our negative emotions - don't we enjoy our negative emotions sometimes (watching a sad or scary film)? Aren't our negative emotions a release? People who are happy for extended periods, e.g. people in-love or people suffering from mania cannot keep up being happy because it is exhausting and also people in these states become irrational. So why do we buy into the concept of eternal happiness in the next life so easily?

I was recently having a conversation with a friend about what should be the ultimate goal of life. I suggested that happiness (although this was not strictly defined) may be one of the most worthy goals to aim for in life since it is not a means to anything else but an end in itself. In response my friend argued that if happiness were to be the ultimate goal of someone's life then it would be best achieved by taking a 'happiness' drug or otherwise stimulating the brain in such a way as to induce a state of perpetual happiness. Although this seemed inherently wrong to me it nevertheless seemed to fulfill my criteria of the purpose of a life. It is an important point to bear in mind when answering this question that my friend tends to offer explanations in terms of reductionist science. He is an undergraduate biologist and for him even emotions, such as happiness, can be simply reduced down to chemical reactions and electrical impulses. As a result it seems to me that if happiness is seen in these scientific reductionist terms, and the goal of the life as being happiness is accepted, then there is no way round the conclusion that happiness obtained through drugs or other 'artificial' means is just as worthy or good as any other kind of more 'genuine' happiness. Indeed to my friend this kind of so called 'artificial' or induced happiness is the same as 'genuine' happiness because they all have their origins in chemical reactions in the brain. Is it appropriate to reduce happiness to nothing more that chemical reactions and are such 'artificial' or induced states of happiness as good or worthy a goal for someone's life as more 'genuine' happiness?

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