[orgaelin]

GSM,

I personally do not agree with the first statement. In fact, your question(s) also imply that absolute happiness is something we should be aspiring to, with which I also disagree.

See, if I give someone a gift then it makes them happy. In order for that to happen, they have to not have had that item in the first place. Now that gift might not be as simple as a piece of jewellery. What if the gift being given was a heart for a child who desperately needed a transplant? The recipient and his family would be almost immeasurably happy. BUT, that happiness relies on the patient having a heart problem in the first place - they certainly wouldn't be happy if you gave a heart to someone who was fine and healthy!

The more obvious argument is simple story-telling - every story has to have something bad happen for it to be entertaining. Otherwise what's the point of a happy ending?

My point is that you don't want to be always happy, because that too is an absolute, and absolutes suck, to be frank. For happiness, there must also be sadness.

The exact same thing applies to freedom. If there is nothing to be free from, there is no freedom.

As for the second quote, that freedom can only be achieved in death, I would also disagree. You might well say that death does provide absolute freedom, but you could also argue that it is absolute constriction. If I were to invent a prison that could freeze time within a room, and place you inside, preventing you from even thinking, much less moving, then that would be total imprisonment, and also, experientially, indistringuishable from death.