Proposal to classify happiness as a psychiatric disorder

here is just the abstract, for the ones suffering from lethargy

"It is proposed that happiness be classified as a psychiatric disorder and be included in future editions of the major diagnostic manuals under the new name: major affective disorder, pleasant type. In a review of the relevant literature it is shown that happiness is statistically abnormal, consists of a discrete cluster of symptoms, is associated with a range of cognitive abnormalities, and probably reflects the abnormal functioning of the central nervous system. One possible objection to this proposal remains--that happiness is not negatively valued. However, this objection is dismissed as scientifically irrelevant."

This was published ten years ago...

Sorry, 20 years ago. I'm a little slow today.

haha whoops

except that being happy all the time could indicate an underlying medical cause ...

It's fucking unfair that's what it is

Has no one else in the thread read this yet...?

What's the issue?

No, but you can happy yourself stupid. I forget who wrote this, might have been Pascel. It goes something like this

the human condition is inherently miserable, there are those which God has put in particularly heavy situations (Pascal himself), but to be in such unfortunate situations is good because even those who do not think to be in this situation there are at the same way, but they can not to realize it: they cannot realize it because they are distracted, amused by other things that do not allow them to concentrate on the human condition

Every employee at Yankee candle suffers from this.

"ZOMG DID YOU TRY THIS SCENT?!?! IT'S LIKE MY FAVORITE, MMMMMMMM!!!"

I would feel no shame placing them in an institution.

It was published 20 years ago, and there is no follow-up research. I'm pretty sure everyone realized it was bullshit.

Well any emotion you have is a chemical reaction in the brain and too much of any chemical happy, sad or mad Is bad for you.

I know this has been talked about before on NS, but I still think it's crazy how no human action is a decision if you view life in a certain way. We're just a bunch of chemical reactions caused by electrical signals coming from external stimuli. Trippy as shit if you can get yourself thinking in that way.

Definitely plausible, but I don't think we can fully rule out free will yet.

Lol, existential battle gonna go down.

You can't prove much of anything (or so Kant tells us). Those metaphysical statements transcend the limits of human cognition. Á priori intuitions are much more prevalent than one would think. Surely we can deduce time as empirical intuition. Time provides meaning to matter. And which matter is a expressed by á priori mannerism. Pythagoras did not discover the right triangle, that would be absurd. Yet matter is our own pure intuition. Epistemolgy debunks the ridiculous metaphysical enterprises. It also suggests, which many mistake it for total phenomenonism, that some much larger is at bay. I am concluding there is an external reality, but possibly unforeseen laws. We have learned through studying birds, that our pure unaided perception shows us very little. We can not see heat like our winged relatives.

What I am suggesting is that we could never possibly understand what is required to properly ask and discuss these questions, nor will our naked perception ever allow it.

whats the problem? you'd think it was a mental disorder to be mad all the time. what's the difference really when it comes down to it?

interesting but isn't there something else (consciousness) other than neurons firing? if we were simply chemicals reacting to external stimuli we would be instinctual, reactive creatures. we use some form of meta-cognition when we weigh different external variables in our though, rather than simply reacting to a situation immediately. i think we think. at least, I think i do...

Wtf I wrote a long argument befor and all posted was one line. But my point in that was that, we can not dispute free will vs deterministic ideologies. It is a simple metaphysical question that extends beyond our ability to understand.

And we don't know if our cognition allows for thought, but we do know that our we can differentiate the á priori from the á posteori. Our knowledge comes from two places the empirical intuition and the pure intuition (as you described, external stimuli. Epistomelgy suggests that we do form synthetic judgments of our pure intuitions, whether it is human or not is hard to determine. Time and space are two seperate intuitions, yet both synthetic. Time in cognition makes sense of dimension as an á priori judgment, yet dimension is a character of space, something we can experience. Pythagoras did not discover the right triangle, that would be absurd. Yet we can perceive blue as blue through experience. Our meta cognition is pure, yet comprised of synthetic judgements.
This is beyond our ability as humans. Something inconceivable is at bay. I am not suggesting phenomenonism, external realities, or unforeseen laws. I am suggesting that we do not have the ability. Do we think? I don't know, do we exist? It's a question in the metaphysical enterprise that is too outlandish for our naked being