My example was to illustrate the point that happiness is fickle. We may well experience moments of happiness, but they are ephemeral and can neither be willed into or perpetuated by hope, to some degree happiness is out of our hands. Jung noted that, the goal of life is not happiness but meaning.
I see a group of families of the bereaved have organised a plane towing a banner to fly over the camp today. Not sure what was on the banner, but I am sure who it was directed at.
James O'Brien doesn't agree with your views on Matt Hancock and Boy George, and I must say, neither do I.
"The only thing Matt Hancock is doing on I'm a Celebrity is reminding us all of what we lost, how much we suffered, while they made shedloads of money and partied. Any feelings that had calmed have now been reignited."
It still doesnt alter the fact that most marriages in the 19th century and before then were not about love and romance, the concept of love and marriage is a faily recent thing, which is what I was pointing out in my reply to the poster.
Maybe you could post about the exploitation of women somewhere, but there's really no need to attach it to my post.
Marriages were contracted arrangements made to produce, protect and nurture the young, this would preserve the tribe, to transmit social and religious values, not to mention channel anarchic libido in useful directions. No, despite what the song says, love and marriage seldom went together like a horse and carriage.
It's only fairly recently, about that marriage and love have been synonymous. Up to as little as around 150 years ago the purpose of marriage was to bring stability to the culture rather than make the individuals happy. Probably the vast majority of history's marriages would by todays standards be described as loveless.
bodleing2 Forum Posts (6,132)
RE: Do you want me to be happy?
Yep, but even those who choose to wallow in misery, deep down really want to be happy.....everyone does.