Is happiness a legitimate life goal?
Many a time I’ve seen people post questions like is happiness real? How does one find true happiness in life? Can everyone really be happy?
I find this puzzling. Personally I don’t believe happiness is anything more than a transitory emotion. You can feel it occasionally but it’s not permanent and so it leads to a lot of unwarranted hardship and grief when people can’t seem to find a means to sustain it.
I think the confusion lies in a false dichotomy. We know people can be sad longterm. We call it depression. But longterm happiness is somewhat elusive. I think there is a very important distinction to be made between happiness and contentment.
I think longterm contentment is entirely possible.
To me being contentment doesn’t mean you always feel happy. I would define it as more of a feeling of inherent peace or a lack of stress / tension or turmoil despite current circumstances. For me contentment differs from happiness in that it encapsulates both negative and positive emotions. It is as it were a state of not being dragged down by the inevitable adversities that we are all bound to face in life but rather simply observing both the good and the bad as they happen with more reserve.
For example I could say I feel sad at the moment but in general I understand that this is temporary, normal and required and therefore I feel content as I can limit its impact on my “bigger picture” or general mood. I am not frustrated in this case.
It’s when we grasp onto happiness desperately in the moment we feel it, hoping that it won’t disappear, that we are ultimately disappointed and disenfranchised when we start to feel sad.
I read an interesting simile once that went a little like this “emotions are like clouds, they’re here for a moment and then they are gone. You wouldn’t attempt to grab hold of a cloud because you know you cannot, so why should we ever try to arrest and detain emotions as they too float through our awareness on their journey.
So I would conclude that happiness is not a reasonable life ambition. No one can feel happy all the time. After all if there was no sadness, no antithesis, how would we ever appreciate happiness for what it is?
I find this puzzling. Personally I don’t believe happiness is anything more than a transitory emotion. You can feel it occasionally but it’s not permanent and so it leads to a lot of unwarranted hardship and grief when people can’t seem to find a means to sustain it.
I think the confusion lies in a false dichotomy. We know people can be sad longterm. We call it depression. But longterm happiness is somewhat elusive. I think there is a very important distinction to be made between happiness and contentment.
I think longterm contentment is entirely possible.
To me being contentment doesn’t mean you always feel happy. I would define it as more of a feeling of inherent peace or a lack of stress / tension or turmoil despite current circumstances. For me contentment differs from happiness in that it encapsulates both negative and positive emotions. It is as it were a state of not being dragged down by the inevitable adversities that we are all bound to face in life but rather simply observing both the good and the bad as they happen with more reserve.
For example I could say I feel sad at the moment but in general I understand that this is temporary, normal and required and therefore I feel content as I can limit its impact on my “bigger picture” or general mood. I am not frustrated in this case.
It’s when we grasp onto happiness desperately in the moment we feel it, hoping that it won’t disappear, that we are ultimately disappointed and disenfranchised when we start to feel sad.
I read an interesting simile once that went a little like this “emotions are like clouds, they’re here for a moment and then they are gone. You wouldn’t attempt to grab hold of a cloud because you know you cannot, so why should we ever try to arrest and detain emotions as they too float through our awareness on their journey.
So I would conclude that happiness is not a reasonable life ambition. No one can feel happy all the time. After all if there was no sadness, no antithesis, how would we ever appreciate happiness for what it is?
Comments (20)
Good post. And you have also talked about contentment. That said:
Happiness is a sensation (with biological implications). It's sought by humanity as a sensation.
The underlying situation isn't if happiness is a reasonable or a legitimate goal, but rather the quest for happiness seems to instinctual and therefore the demand for it is universal.
Here i will like to distinguish between happiness and joy, where the latter isn't a sensation and cannot be a result that is sought. We may loosely say joy is the "long term" variant of happiness.
You said : "If someone literally knew everything you could ever ask would people feel defeated and worthless in their presence and resent the fact". Yes.Most will resent.
You then said: "that there’s no longer a need to explore discuss or discover anything or would we cherish them as the source of all answers". No. The resentment has other deeper psychological reasons.
Only few will "cherish" them as you say. Because to be able to cherish will first require a recognition. Which implies the person recognizing already has some similar qualities. Our inability to appreciate the gifts of other people is essentially a failure of our own intelligence, for the prerequisite for appreciation is comprehension.
If history is a factual indicator, as it is is (if it hasn't been distorted), then one finds a pattern in how humanity reacts to the kind of people you mention. First, they will be ridiculed and made fun of. If that doesn't work, and these people stand ground, then they are seen as teachers and people start approaching them to glean and live off them. If these teachers still don't fall for this game, then people will try to bring them to their level, as in "after all he is human and like us". If that doesn't work then they are ultimately killed.
Quoting Benj96
There's an asymmetry between the amount of happiness and sadness people experience? This is something I'm on the fence about myself.
There is an error in in my initial/first post. In the 2nd sentence. Please read "happiness" as 'pleasure'.
The quest for pleasure (sensation), which is what we really pursue, is mistakenly called the pursuit of happiness.
So we have 3 distinctions going on here, pleasure, happiness, and joy.
No I don’t believe it’s strictly an asymmetry what I was getting at is there’s an asymmetry between our use of the pair: the two opposites: we tend to use happy as the opposite of sad and we think of sad = depressed when really happy and sad are one thing (short term) and contentment and depression are another (long term).
It’s the way we use them synonymously despite them being different entities altogether that builds a “false asymmetry” where it seems very difficult to be happy all the time but quite common to be sad all the time (depressed). When people perhaps shouldn’t be focused on the idea of continuous happiness (a sort of nothing can go wrong for me) and focus more on contentment (things will often go wrong for me but it’s okay I’m not adverse to it and won’t try to control things as I’m peacefully anticipating both good and bad).
Agreed hoy is more of a sensation in that it has a certain immediacy that ca be directly attributed to a singular act - eating chocolate, meeting a friend, a sexual encounter, while joy (but I would prefer contentment personally as my term of choice) is an atmosphere or mood developed gradually from a general sense of longterm satisfaction with ones circumstances.
But again it’s confusing because we use the term joy as a synonym for pleasure. When I saw my friend for the first time after several years I was filled with a sudden sense of joy. In this case it seems more immediate and reactionary.
Actually it's other way around. What you are describing is pleasure. A pleasure, that is immediately derived from all the actions you have enumerated.
Quoting Benj96
See previous para.
Happiness is the only reasonable goal in life since death exists. As you mention Happiness can't be a permanent state. Happiness is a feeling. Life is a time line so the purpose is to feel happy as many moments as you can. For me is so simple as that. The state that human should chase is balance. To feel calm and peace which is different than happiness. The more you feel calm and you have balance in your life the more happy moments you will have. Since you can't avoid sadness you should take it as it is when it comes. To tolerate it and understand (as you also said) that it will pass so you have to be patient and not feel "panic" when it comes. You should just let it pass, observe it and try to reduce its bad feeling. Although Happiness can't be a permanent state Peace can be(at least more permanent) and when you are in that state you will have more happy moments. In conclusion Happiness is the ultimate goal in life. Happiness is feelings. So you have to chase them! Whatever gives you these feelings you should do it. But you also have to realize that you will never avoid totally sadness. When it comes just don't panic. Let it pass like a cloud as you say! If you do that it will pass quicker and sad feelings won't be so intense either. The secret for me is to find peace and balance in your life (that's totally personal thing there isn't any recipe).Peace will make you attract more happy moments and feelings. And Happiness is nothing more than feelings and yes it is the ultimate goal in life. The more time in your life you have peace the more happy feelings you will have.Happiness is just the final result of adding all these moments (time) in someone's life. Nothing more.
Quoting Benj96
As a very pessimistic person, I would love to be able to accept the bad. However I don't know if I could change my character.
I don’t believe character is very concrete / set in stone. Sure there are some traits that seem to be a part of our deepest identity and are difficult to shift but if you dislike a particular part of yourself or maybe desire a specific trait for yourself, there’s nothing but some hard graft between you and it.
Though I can’t prove it necessarily, I have the belief based on intuition that people say they can’t change/ “one cannot truly change” because they either don’t want to, don’t understand how to, or don’t need to.
Also pessimism or cynicism can be hard to endure sometimes especially for the more upbeat optimists of the world but some of our best analytical or critical thinkers were pessimistic. I wouldn’t be too hard on yourself about changing it, don’t be so pessimistic lol
Quoting Benj96
And if anything is worth the effort, happiness and contentment are.
Quoting Benj96
I wonder how many of them would have traded it in for a more contented life. :chin:
Quoting Benj96
I'll try not to be so pessimistic about my pessimism :wink:
Nothing at all. The term dates from the 1500's.
There are important differences between happiness and eudaimonia that are relevant to the OP.
- SEP on Aristotle.
No, it is about eudaimonia.
Stop being so defensive and consider how much more interesting the OP would be if the title were "Is flourishing a legitimate life goal?"
What emotion isn't transitory? One thing: people who are happy don't spend a lot of time discussing it. They get on with their lives. And getting on with one's life probably helps keep one happy.
I'm happy right now so I don't want to discuss this any more.
Quoting Benj96
But not so, eudaimonia.
SO either we ignore Aristotle and restrict Ben's discussion to a 'transitory emotion', or you are correct at least int hat we ought extend the notion of happiness to more like eudaimonia - perhaps "flourishing"...
Flourishing is not an emotion, after all.
The adverb “??” as a prefix is inherent as a synthetic in many words. Specifically, eu means "good", as we find it in the words like eulogy, euphemism, euphoria and euthanasia.
The word demon has a long history and today it is used as an oxymoron in relation to its meaning in antiquity which contained semantic piety. In Homer "demons" were originally called the gods, while in Hesiod "guardians of mortals". Thus, the first meaning is "god, goddess". It follows the meaning "fate, destiny, adherent, luck". Therefore, a demon is one who "shares", gives fate to every human being or otherwise who defines it. As is well known, the gods were numerous, but also anthropomorphic. Despite their coexistence, however, the demon declared, above all, an impersonal and indefinable impersonal force, an intangible form. Plato distinguished them from the "visible gods" according to the previous poets, as children of gods in Timaeus. Diotima in Plato's Symposium, speaking of Love, refers to the "genus of demons" as the "intermediate between the mortal and the immortal", that is, in the middle between the two and fills the gap, so that the universe is an indivisible whole ". Through the mediation of demons, the communication between gods and men takes place. Plutarch refers to Socrates the Demon as a kind of higher life guide. Plato, in Socrates' Apology, identifies the demon with a voice within him, "preventing him from doing something, but never urging him". The demon contributes to his faster completion or deification, as long as the mortal perceives the "percussions" and "hears his voice". The demon is commanded to bring back to heaven the fallen man on earth. Plato the Demon is characterized by the immortal-divine part of the soul located in the upper part of the human body and aims through wisdom and truth to lead to blissful life and immortality.
In summary, Eudemonia means that a man has plenty of demons (spirits) that bring him closer to the divine, and while happiness can be a part of this, most remarkable works of our lives will not always bring us joy and satisfaction, but they are well worth pursuing. Actually, Aristotle does not say we should seek eudemonia, but takes it for granted that we already do.