There is no wonder that after reading the history of philosophy, one must be compelled to seek a critical evaluation of all the opinions that one had encountered. Above all, and fundamentally happiness, a contempt notion induced by virtue as Zeno of Citium thought, or a trait induced by specific external events like Franklyn had thought?
Primarily, happiness has been the subjective consequence to the meaning of an individual’s life. Additionally, adding science into the view, it is just a few neurotransmitters that overflow in our bodies due to certain events; like good weather would release dopamine, making you feel romantic. Thus, would it be okay to say that “to be happy” is not in your hands?
Yet, that very question would make us ponder, why is it so that a trait that belongs to us should be not in our own control. It is like saying, that my hand flinches at times and slaps someone, but I am not responsible because I was not in control. Perhaps the Zeno held more rigor of thought than most of the psychologists today.
On the other hand, there is no denying the fact that science is also true, and our emotions are induced by certain triggers. That brings us to a fundamental question; what does science say about we learning to control our emotions?
To sum up, science supports it, and yet the psychologists do not encourage it, because it seems like a hard-enough task. Thus, happiness is a reaction to what we see, understand, and to all the other actions in life. Thus, if an individual can bear the pain, they can also learn to control their happiness.