Like many things, the problem is about assumptions and perception.
First, most people assume that “unhappiness” is the opposite of “happiness”, but that may not necessarily be the case. This isn’t merely a semantic argument, but something more fundamental. Must “happiness” be a binary state, on or off?
Perhaps one can be both happy and unhappy simultaneously or neither.
There’s also the issues of duration and range. Does a moment of either category count or must it be all encompassing? Can I be happy with some aspects of my life and unhappy with others? How does one solve for X – the “happiness factor” – in that equation?
Even ignoring that, Chaza”l said some very cryptic things about “simcha” (again, it’s often translated to mean “happiness”). For example, there’s no “simcha” except through meat and wine (pardon my simplistic translation). Just for the sake of argument, let’s just focus on the physical experience.
One may very much enjoy the taste, texture, resulting satiety and other sensory aspects of consuming these food items, but would the usual understanding of the term “happiness” best describe one’s emotional state? In my reading of some of the most glowing reviews written by culinary experts of wines, restaurants and chefs’ dishes, I don’t think I’ve ever encountered the word “happiness” (or its variants) among the accolades. Odd, no?
As to perception, we also tend to fill in the blanks. When we presume that unhappiness is the lack of external “happiness” ingredients or the presence of “unhappiness” ingredients, we conclude that “happiness” is achieved by “correcting” the balance.
While it may sound logically compelling, is it true?