What if that characterization is right? Sad but right?
Let's suppose that you feelings are summed up by a score, happiness is just score 0 and normality being between 0 and a very small negative interval; also suppose that you cannot go over zero and everything that can happen can either:
- decrease that score (you feel bad about something, and that feeling is related to a certain, possibly temporary, disorder);
- increase that score, but only up to them maximum value of zero (you feel bad, but that friend helped you and her jokes are actually funny).
It may be that positive traits and strengths do exists, but it is also possible that they are limited to being able to only putting you back on track once you have a problem, not making you more happy or "normal" that you can possibly be.
What makes you believe happiness (or any positive feeling) is limited, but sadness (or any negative feeling) is not? Because that's quite a radical hypothesis, and as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Please, I did not wrote that I never experienced happiness, neither that it is illusory. I am just playing devil's advocate here, the comment started with a "What if".
The reply from ordinary got my intent right: maybe it is right that happiness is limited but sadness is not.
I think we could strike a parallel with perfection. Let's think about bowling. From the DSM-5 point of view, happiness is scoring a "clean game" with all strikes, i.e. the lack of mistakes. Isn't this the same as "happiness is the absence of disorders"? You can win a bowling game even if you make few mistakes, just as you can live a successful life with some small minor disorders.
As you can see, perfection is very limited and corresponds to a single value: zero mistakes.
Comments
What if that characterization is right? Sad but right?
Let's suppose that you feelings are summed up by a score, happiness is just score 0 and normality being between 0 and a very small negative interval; also suppose that you cannot go over zero and everything that can happen can either:
- decrease that score (you feel bad about something, and that feeling is related to a certain, possibly temporary, disorder);
- increase that score, but only up to them maximum value of zero (you feel bad, but that friend helped you and her jokes are actually funny).
It may be that positive traits and strengths do exists, but it is also possible that they are limited to being able to only putting you back on track once you have a problem, not making you more happy or "normal" that you can possibly be.
What makes you believe happiness (or any positive feeling) is limited, but sadness (or any negative feeling) is not? Because that's quite a radical hypothesis, and as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The fact that you have never experienced happiness doesn't mean everyone else's experiences of it are somehow illusory.
Please, I did not wrote that I never experienced happiness, neither that it is illusory. I am just playing devil's advocate here, the comment started with a "What if".
The reply from ordinary got my intent right: maybe it is right that happiness is limited but sadness is not.
I think we could strike a parallel with perfection. Let's think about bowling. From the DSM-5 point of view, happiness is scoring a "clean game" with all strikes, i.e. the lack of mistakes. Isn't this the same as "happiness is the absence of disorders"? You can win a bowling game even if you make few mistakes, just as you can live a successful life with some small minor disorders.
As you can see, perfection is very limited and corresponds to a single value: zero mistakes.
You may be interested in modern concepts of "recovery" - a patient may not be conventionally well, but may consider themselves to be 'recovered'.
The team should help that person achieve meaningful recovery, and not just reach some checklist target of wellness.