> it seems somewhat presumptuous to call these categorizations the "proper names" for the kinds of happiness Maybe so, but all kinds generally fall into one or

> it seems somewhat presumptuous to call these categorizations the "proper names" for the kinds of happiness Maybe so, but all kinds generally fall into one or both of these kinds (there's grey area as there always is). My point though was to show that the author didn't even scratch the surface in examining what happiness is and because of that the article just seemed like filler.