It is said that happiness should be attained from the "inside out". That it should be unilaterally seeked, and not externally determined. On a philosophical standpoint, is this view tenable, considering that we do not live in a vacumn? It is, to a large extent, true that we can choose the way we respond to a situation. But wouldn't undesirable or negative events (or even harassment) trigger the need to choose to respond in a way that does not allow for the event to determine one's happiness, and that that itself connotes that external events have a role to play? I may be stretching the notion too far, in which case, a rephrasing of the question would involve asking the extent to which happiness should/could be unilaterally determined? On a general level, is happiness a concept that is consensually determined (a social construct) or is it a subjective pursuit, such that one can "choose to be happy" for real?

If the market for certain entertainment media - films, video games, television, etc. - prefers to consume media that is sexist, racist, heteronormative, or otherwise prejudiced against certain groups, should the creators of such media nevertheless try to produce "fair" media? Why? As a consumer who wants fair depictions in media, what right do I have to demand that media be fair to minorities, if that means denying the majority what they want?

In the bhuddist religion, the aim is obviously to become "enlightened" or as it could be redefined "a state of inner unwavering happiness" however along with being englightened one must take away his/her desires for material objects, relationships, negative emotions etc. So if ones family was to be brutally be tortured and killed, one would see it as a change of energy, and feel no pain. Assuming that this is the only way to be permanently happy, could it be considered that to become enlightened would be to deny being human, and so would become like a machine that does not care. Year 10 - Hale Highschool

If philosophers are asked, "What makes people happy (eudaimonic)?", why do they sit around and speculate on what should make people happy, instead of walking out into the street and checking people out? "Hey, are you happy? If so, tell us why!"

If there were a a good reason to believe that irrational thinking--or at least a certain train of irrational beliefs--leads to greater happiness and prosperity (and I think there is a bit of psych research that suggests this is true), could a rational person decide to think irrationally--to adopt irrational beliefs--and would that itself be a rational decision?

Is it a paradox to be at one time happy with our lives and at another time sad with our lives even if there is nothing different?

I'll try to make this concise, but will probably fail. Many ancient philosophers across numerous cultures recommended moderation or even elimination of the desires and passions as a/the way to deeper understanding or, in the case of Buddhism, enlightenment, whatever that is. I'll assume that the panelists here will be familiar with at least a handful of examples, such as Socrates, Pyrrho, Epicurus, Siddhartha Gautama, Lao Tzu, etc. I apologize for listing several questions, but as they're so closely related I hope that their number will help triangulate on exactly the point I'm hoping to learn about: Is this advice still relevant for modern humans? Is there any reason to pay heed to this aspect of ancient philosophy, other than as an academic topic? Is there any evidence to support the claim that the control, reduction or elimination of desires and passions leads to greater happiness or deeper subjective understanding of the nature of the human experience? Many thanks in advance and in hopes of getting...

What would be the better choice: truth that will make you bitter or a lie that would make you happy? Let's say truth would be the better choice. Now the follow-up question: what is there to truth that makes it more valuable than happiness, even if this happiness is produced by a lie?

Considering that the primary drive which motivates human behaviour is the ubiquitous drive to reproduce; does happiness to a significant extent depend upon how physically attractive you are? From personal experience it seems like this is indeed the case; but how can we make sense of a world in which the ultimate goal of life (happiness) can be dependent upon such a superficial thing as physical attractiveness?

“The House of Pleasure” I have often been baffled by what seems to be a relatively straightforward problem which I call The House of Pleasure. I was wondering if: a) a trained philosopher could shed some light on it; and b) whether anything similar has been discussed in the academic literature. It goes like this. It’s a Saturday night and a guy is walking to a party. On the way, he notices something he hasn’t seen before: a neon sign obnoxiously blinking “The House of Pleasure.” Intrigued, he approaches the doorman. “That’ll be $100, sir.” “What? That’s crazy! What is this place?” “Oh,” the doorman says with a glimmer in his eye, “you’ve never been to The House of Pleasure? Let me explain. After you pay me and walk in, your brain will be scanned to identify everything that you subjectively enjoy: physically, sexually, emotionally, and intellectually. You’ll then spend the next four hours experiencing pure, untainted pleasure based on your personal desires. Whatever you enjoy most about...