Talk:Contentment

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Unassessed

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Findsourcesnotice

Contentment is a paradox. By definition contentment is true happiness with one’s situation in life. Discontentment is a longing for something better than the present situation. There is nothing wrong with wanting to make one’s life situation better. As Carl Jung puts it “while balancing heaven and earth”; in other words, “remaining alive to life’s struggles and others’ needs”. Hinduism points toward learning to live with what we have rather than ceaselessly straining for more. Jesus had no worldly possessions "or place to lay his head". Early Christianity was much more anti-materialistic than it is now and almost communistic in regards to possessions. “Contentment is natural wealth, luxury is artificial poverty.”-Socrates / “Do not spoil what you have by desiring what you don’t have; remember that what you now have was once among the things you only hoped for.”-Epicurus / “We tend to forget that happiness does not come as the result of getting something we don’t have, but rather recognizing and appreciating what we do have.”-Frederick Keonig / “Unhappiness follows happiness whenever the well of suffering runs dry.”-Mahabharata / “There is no end to craving. Hence contentment alone is the best way to happiness. Therefore, acquire contentment.”-Swami Sivananda / Happiness should not be mistaken for contentment for one can have the later in the absence of the former. One can be content in the worst of circumstance, though they may not be "happy". It is a treasure for those who find it.

Mark Powell

(the above was left unsigned) Contentment, a "neuro-physiological experience"? Positivist bias, to the point of sounding ridiculous. Why not just write "feeling", for example? Positivists will understand "feeling" as "neuro-physiological experience", others will interpret it as they please. 80.14.181.162 (talk) 07:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That this page is so short shows that people have no idea how to be happy, and it is sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.73.146 (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complacency redirects here. Is it only me feeling that there is an abyss of difference between Complacency and Contentment? Both are feelings of satisfaction but whereas complacency is "a feeling of smug or uncritical satisfaction with oneself or one’s achievements" (OED Pro), there is no smugness or being uncritical in contentment. 130.195.146.77 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for templates

I am seeing opinions and personal conclusions. This article reads like a non-fiction book about the subject, which means that there is editorializing and original research. References are concentrated near the end of the page, so almost none are in the first half.

Wikipedia is not a science journal. Wikipedia is not a publisher for original thought. Wikipedia is not a place to be editorializing. Wikipedia is not a place for non-cited info. That is the reason why I added those templates.

--Mr. Guye (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking consensus

This article is such an essay that I can't add Wikipedia approved secondary-source dictionary definitions to the lead without pretty much subjecting the lead to fire and brimstone. I don't really feel like doing such an audacious, risky edit, especially without consensus.

Citations for these dictionary citations:

"Contented." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 28 May 2014. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contented>.

"Contentment." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 28 May 2014. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contentment>.

I also need consensus on what definition to choose, and where to use appropriate synthesis.

--Mr. Guye (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the page look like this?

"This may be a harsh reality for some to accept..." This writing doesn't line up with Wikipedia's style. It reads like a blog post. Secondplanet (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]