On defining felicity in terms of something else

Perhaps felicity (happiness, bliss) should not be defined in terms of anything else but the experience of felicity itself. Inherent in our being, immaterial. I think of those who reduce it to neuroscientific terms, or who reduce it to other ideas or emotions, or who want to give quasi-mathematical explanations (one is happy when one tends to unity…). A state of the soul can not be universally explained by a rule (my soul is happy if it finds peace or simplicity…). It can not be explained why «felicity» suddenly arises with a combination (where did felicity come from with that state that supposedly generates it?). There can not be explanations of emergence in a theory, to say that something emerges is not to explain.

Felicity has always been there, infinite felicity in my eternal soul, it is only affected by the diverse circumstances.

Anyway I know that:

  1. Whether it is a state of my soul in general or a specific part, it is in me always, it is my soul itself. And therefore…
  2. I do not obtain felicity from things and it does not emerge and is not given to me. Only circumstances affect it, as they usually affect my whole soul. But the ultimate form in which I shall «obtain» felicity shall be the circumstance which limits it the least, not the one which gives parity or unity or peace or anything like that. The union or any phenomenon does not generate felicity, but in that circumstance felicity is less limited.






Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *