The Field of Happiness

1. By using the term "field" in the expression “the field of happiness”, we are referring to a kind of “theatre of operations” – such as a workshop, a laboratory, or a “grain field”.

The term "field" has numerous connotations: it can refer to a farming field, a battlefield, and many others. A general definition of field might be “a terrain bounded in terms of defined actions and operations or as a set or group of discrete but related contents within contours that separate them from other adjacent terrains."

Hence, the term field appears in numerous contexts, such as scientific (field of view of the microscope), linguistic (semantic field) and even in the realm of entertainment (football field). From this point of view, the field of happiness could be understood as a scientific or para-scientific field, by virtue of which it would encompass a series of subject-specific terms as well as operations and transformations derived from these terms.

2. The expression "field of happiness" should not be understood or interpreted from a strictly linguistic and lexical plane, as if our aim was to put forward the breadth of the semantic field pertaining to happiness.

The reason behind this is easy to understand: the field of happiness is more than just a constellation of words. If we were to presume that the field of happiness is reduced to the different linguistic terms related to happiness, we would be falling victims to the methodology behind “analytic philosophy" – according to which, Wittgenstein proposes, the limits of the world are the limits of language.

On the contrary, the field of happiness contains much more than words, spoken or written. That is, of course, language is part of the field of happiness, but this field also contains other things: even if these were just considered to be the instruments used to express and represent these words (such as the paper cuff or the printer).

In conclusion: the field of happiness is not reduced to a linguistic field, and because of this it is necessary to keep in mind the following formula: it is not language that establishes the limits of the World, it is the World that determines the limits of language.

Thus, the field of happiness refers us not only to “words” but also to a very heterogeneous set of “things.” Indeed, words (names, verbs, &c.) and things (statues, coins, temples, industrial tablets, cornucopia, &c.) constitute the field of happiness, but so do actions and operations.

3. Consequently, the field of happiness or “happiness field” is, first and foremost, a dialectical “battlefield”. That is, the happiness field refers to a terrain where a singular dialectic exists: that of a gnoseological field occupied by the positive and other such sciences.

This gnoseological field is, in turn, enveloped in the “anthropological space”.

All these issues considered, it seems plausible to affirm that it is not possible to speak of anything related to happiness without connecting it to a philosophical conception that takes into account the structure of the field of happiness.

A conception that, consequently, defines its involvement in the gnoseological field and anthropological space. Therefore, the task that follows is to establish which terms define the “happiness space".