The often elusive, but always sought after concept: Happiness.
Websters says that Happiness is defined as a: a state of well-being and contentment: joy. b : a pleasurable or satisfying experience.
That seems so incredibly oversimplified. Is that even a good definition? Yes, my boys love semantics, but let’s face it – so do I. So….
I don’t think of ‘happiness’ as a state of ‘contentment’. I might actually argue that happiness and contentment are at odds with each other. Where happiness says ‘this is awesome’ contentment says ‘this will do’. Then there is ‘joy’, which seems to be better suited to ‘elation’ than ‘happiness’, and ‘pleasurable’ seems to imply something physical, not emotional.
So I am struggling with the idea of happiness these days.
Oh, did I give you the wrong idea? It isn’t a lack of happiness that has me questioning the concept, and delving into this random existentialist conversation about an intangible ideal, it is the opposite: I’m happy. Gabe is happy. Nick is happy. Matt is happy.
And somehow that’s kind of confusing.
When I think about happiness it conjures thoughts of my sons, my life, my marriage, and of course, the future. Because when anyone asks you what you want for your kids, the answer is ‘happiness’. When my husband and I agreed to be divorced, it was, essentially, because we weren't ‘happy’.
How can so many things be so precariously balanced on a single abstract concept?
I’ve always thought about my sons' happiness. Ok, maybe not in a present tense, but definitely in a future tense – I want them to have whatever it is out of life that makes them happy. Truly, completely, happy.
But I never spent any time thinking about my own future. My own happiness. Was I living what I wanted for their lives? Would they watch my example of how to live a 'happy' life, and be able to emulate it? Simply: No. But that changed when I separated. I was forced to confront those ideals, and build around my own happiness.