The Happiness Space

1. The vast multiplicity of things that exist which are related to happiness cannot be reduced exclusively to the “field of happiness”. Among other reasons, this is because the field of happiness is not a homogeneous field, since it involves other fields and spaces as well.

The field of happiness as a gnoseological field refers us to a set of operations that take place with sets of given terms that maintain relations with each other. These give rise to a series of “transformations” of certain terms into other terms, always in the context of a given domain. In this sense, we could equate the field of happiness with the field of certain positive sciences, such as Geometry or Thermodynamics.

However, we must bear in mind that a gnoseological field is immersed in a “gnoseological space”, which means that no science exhausts its field. Each gnoseological field is limited by other scientific fields or non-scientific disciplines (pre-scientific disciplines or antecedent disciplines).

In any case, we will assume the gnoseological space as a “three-dimensional” space constituted by three axes (syntactic, semantic and pragmatic), each of which is in turn formed by three sections, which would be the “terms”, “operations” and “relations” in the syntactic axis; “phenomena”, “references” and “essences” in the semantic axis; “autologisms”, “dialogisms” and “norms” in the pragmatic axis.

2. Therefore, we must speak not only of “happiness field”, but also of “happiness space”. The happiness space (and the field of happiness) could be understood as a field included in the gnoseological space. If we understand happiness as a field that refers us to certain techniques or positive sciences, and even to non-scientific disciplines, there would be no problems with such a consideration.

In any case, it must be taken into account that there is no scientific discipline that can claim exclusive authority over the field of happiness, as if happiness were its own object. And if this is so, then it must be recognized that the intersection of the field of happiness with the gnoseological space is an indirect or oblique intersection, in a critical or negative way – an intersection devoid of value.

3. Now, although the field of happiness may not fully intersect with gnoseology, the same cannot be said regarding Ontology. In fact, the field and space of happiness are directly and essentially related to the field and space of anthropology.

The way of considering this direct and essential relationship with the anthropological field and space will depend, in any case, on the happiness doctrine that is presupposed. There will be doctrines that reduce the field of happiness to the ‘anthropological’ field, and different ones that consider the field of happiness in relation to others such as the ‘zoological’ and the ‘theological’.

However, it is necessary to note that from the methodological coordinates of philosophical materialism, we assume that it is not possible to start from a set of zero premises, or from a perspective that is assumed to be neutral. It will be necessary to start from a determined ontological field, without prejudice to this ontological field being incorporated into the rest. Another perspective that seeks to salvage “a little” of each field is pure fiction.

From our coordinates, the field of happiness is confined to the “anthropological space.” Thus, according to this, happiness does not relate to Zoology nor Theology, but to Anthropology: «Neither actually existing animals nor God (with, at most, only an ideal existence) can be considered happy or unhappy.» (Gustavo Bueno, The Happiness Delusion, p. 41).

It must be stated, categorically, that the field of happiness must be understood as an area within the “Anthropological Space”. Consequently, the anthropological space –a space not comprised of one dimension, not even of two, but of three (the circular, the radial and the angular)– would serve as an ontological platform from which the field of happiness would be polarised around one of its axes: specifically, the circular axis, although the radial and angular axes also intervene.