Well, it seems that you said what you meant to say, because your clarification still leans pretty heavily on the notion of happiness vs. depression.
>I'm not arguing that depression is "naturally" common. Only that reliable happiness is perhaps not naturally common.
Here's the problem. Statements about "reliable" or "unreliable" happiness in response to a discussion about depression reduce depression to, essentially, a period of unhappiness. Your suggestion is that consistent happiness may not be naturally common. The corollary (in this context) is that the intermittent periods of unhappiness represent depression.
So, I'm really not sure how the response that you're repeating here about "reliable happiness" can be construed than anything other than an erroneous framing of what depression is.
This is not to pick nits, but I think it's a common misconception that reduces depression to a mental state or emotion on par with "happiness" or "sadness". That characterization does a disservice to sufferers, even if unintentional.
Depression is an ugly, dark beast that attaches itself to the depressed person and refuses to let go. In situations that should generate "happiness", the depressed person is often unable to feel it. Depression can be wholly orthogonal to "regular" emotions.
>I'm not arguing that depression is the opposite of happiness; however, I do not think it's unreasonable that if people are overall less happy, this will increase the incidence of depression.
None of what you say contradicts this. You point out
> Depression can be wholly orthogonal to "regular" emotions.
which is certainly true, but it also can be quite parallel to them. In my experience, my worst episodes of depression were usually triggered by periods of profound unhappiness, even if during these episodes the experience is not the same as being continuously unhappy.
(Characterizing depression as coming in "episodes" is also misleading, as it is generally ever-present to some extent; but any characterization less than several pages long is misleading. I'd appreciate the benefit of the doubt that I understand the other issues and subtleties in play even if I do not discuss them.)
Well, I'm in no position to deny you the benefit of the doubt with regard to what you intended. I can only take you at your word there. I'm only pointing out that what you've written doesn't seem consistent with it.
>None of what you say contradicts this.
It actually does in that I've effectively stated that the sentence has no meaning in this context.
Replying further would only belabor the point and I don't want to be antagonistic. I'll just chalk it up to miscommunication. Thanks for the discussion.
Well, it seems that you said what you meant to say, because your clarification still leans pretty heavily on the notion of happiness vs. depression.
>I'm not arguing that depression is "naturally" common. Only that reliable happiness is perhaps not naturally common.
Here's the problem. Statements about "reliable" or "unreliable" happiness in response to a discussion about depression reduce depression to, essentially, a period of unhappiness. Your suggestion is that consistent happiness may not be naturally common. The corollary (in this context) is that the intermittent periods of unhappiness represent depression.
So, I'm really not sure how the response that you're repeating here about "reliable happiness" can be construed than anything other than an erroneous framing of what depression is.
This is not to pick nits, but I think it's a common misconception that reduces depression to a mental state or emotion on par with "happiness" or "sadness". That characterization does a disservice to sufferers, even if unintentional.
Depression is an ugly, dark beast that attaches itself to the depressed person and refuses to let go. In situations that should generate "happiness", the depressed person is often unable to feel it. Depression can be wholly orthogonal to "regular" emotions.