[JohnPlace]

It seems we have two separate "passion" philosophies being expressed here.

The first philosophy treats passion as an unalterable effect associated with meaningful, fulfilling activity.

The second treats passion as malleable cause -- we control what we're passionate about, which causes us to perform that activity well.

While I agree that happiness is a mental state that we have great control over, I subscribe to the first philosophy, not because it's the only correct philosophy (this is debatable), but because it's the most productive philosophy with regard to my own life.

There is a life philosophy that holds that passion does not come merely from within us, but instead comes from something higher -- insert theology here.

In this context, the ability to feel passionate at will about whatever activity we choose would actually be counterproductive, since such an ability would disguise the the directive qualities of passion -- so essential if we are to become everything we can be.

Although some great men were true masters of all trades, history points to many who would never have produced their great masterpieces if they'd been able to feel passionate about whatever work preceded their signature accomplishments.

For example, if Tim Burton had felt passionate about being part of the cell-shading assembly line at Disney Studios, he would never have moved into directing.

A need for deeper levels of personal fulfillment has driven many men to seek higher causes.

Of course, it's also driven many men into the arms of vice. So the real question, then, is whether or not you will find passion in a productive way, or a counterproductive (and ultimately disappointing) way.