“Happiness is only real when shared”

I believe a shared happiness is only can be defined as real happiness

Also there are different ways to feel happiness. Some people feel they are happy when they compare their financial condition to other people’s condition. Even though a man has a lot of money, the man cannot feel that he is happy without any comparable object. It is why money, wealth, honor, and power are not the key points of realizing real happiness. Of course, those are optional things to feel happiness. However, those do not have direct relations to have real happiness. Some people who think real happiness comes from material possessions mistakenly think they need more things in their lives, when really, they simply want more things. To realize the real happiness, people need to share happiness. People who volunteer their time to help others think they should share their happiness to others to be happier. For instance, people who volunteer to help others say they are happy when they help and share. Even though they do not have to help and share their property and happiness, they do it because they know sharing makes them happier.

To begin with, there are no people who can be happy alone. Christopher McCandless is a man who traveled and ventured into the wild. He is a great example to describe the real happiness. Christopher McCandless had been alone for a long time during his adventure. Before he died alone in the wildness, he realized happiness is valuable when shared. He thought he could be happy without his parents, brothers, and friends and he thought that he was happy enough. However, he became aware that he was wrong, and he regretted his lonely traveling right before he dies. He said “happiness is only real when shared”. It indicates the real happiness is valuable when it shared. Even though people have enough property, it is not valuable without someone to share it with. When I saw this great statement, it became my belief. In my case, I had to stay home alone without my parents for a long time because of their job. Although they gave me a lot of toys, I was lonely. Because I was not happy when I stayed home alone, I could understand and agree with the statement.

Even though everyone wants to be happy, they cannot always get their wish. For real happiness, materials are not necessary, but sharing. People should know how to share their happiness to be happier such as the social volunteers. Because nobody can be happy alone, they should share their happiness with others. I believe this because I understood and recognized what real happiness means.

~George Bernard ShawReal elation is when you feel you could touch a star without standing on tiptoe.

People have different ideas about real happiness. Some people believe happiness comes from money, wealth, honor, and power. Some people believe happiness exists with love. Simply, all of these beliefs and ideas are wrong. The beliefs are incorrect because those things are not essential to realize real happiness. I believe a shared happiness is only can be defined as real happiness.

He said “happiness is only real when shared”

Brittingham and other have worried that postmodern leftism may yet win. If so, the victory would be short-lived. One of the clearest lessons of recent times (exemplified not just by kaffiyeh-wearing western leftists but by Hamas’s recent clobbering of al-Fatah in the first Palestinian elections) is that po-mo leftism is weaker than liberal individualism in one important respect; it has only the weakest defenses against absolutist fervor. Brittingham tellingly notes po-mo philosopher Richard Rorty’s realization that when the babble of conflicting tribal narratives collapses in exhaustion, the only thing left is the will to power.

Happiness is only real when shared, or is it

Christopher McCandless: Happiness only real when shared

Actually, the word was Fame but she later wanted to rewrite it as Happiness when she realized that Fame was disappointment, disillusion, and incompleteness.

"Happiness only real when shared" - Christopher McCandless

You MUST be willing to engage in genocidal-like attacks in order to break the will of the enemy to fight. There is no other way, and this has been proven throughout history. You MUST be absolutely merciless right up to the point when the enemy realizes there is no way to break your will to destroy them. Only AFTER full and complete ideological surrender is there room for mercy and reconciliation. You CANNOT wage a humane war. That is the epitome of an oxymoron. It is foolish to even try. Either avoid war entirely, or pursue it with the absolute highest level of venom, hatred and violence. There is no middle ground.