[Paleopsych] True happiness.
waluk at earthlink.net
Thu Feb 24 03:54:59 UTC 2005
I honestly doubt it. I think that people who need a
happiness pill don't give a hoot....happiness is
happiness in whatever dosage be it pharmelogical or
religious. I'm so pleased I'm not a happiness freak.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Rauh" <christian.rauh at uconn.edu>
To: "G. Reinhart-Waller" <waluk at earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] True happiness.
> But is there a difference between types of hapiness
> such that people will diferentiate between, for
> example, the pharmacological hapiness and religious
> And is there one which can be called true?
> Can they be compared at all?
> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote:
>> Happiness like most other emotions is truly in the
>> eyes of the beholder. Many psychiatrists have
>> discovered the secret for creating an operable world
>> for their patients and it consists of the new brands
>> of Happy Drugs. Prosaic has become standardized in
>> America just like Apple Pie. If the patient
>> responds favorably, both psychologically and
>> physically, then I'd say prescribe Prosaic. But not
>> all individuals have the same reaction to drugs nor
>> do they have the same psychological problems. Every
>> tub on its own bottom.
>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Rauh"
>> <christian.rauh at uconn.edu>
>> To: "The new improved paleopsych list"
>> <paleopsych at paleopsych.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 8:19 AM
>> Subject: [Paleopsych] True happiness.
>>> Is religion *true* hapiness?
>>> I know many people who are oblivious to world
>>> events and are definetely more happy than the ones
>>> who follow what is going on. Are these people
>>> *truly* happy?
>>> Is the spouse who doesn't know of their partner's
>>> affair *truly* happy?
>>> Should we create an artifical environment of
>>> This has been a long debate in philosophy.
More information about the paleopsych