On the Pursuit of Happiness

Is the pursuit of happiness the ultimate goal in an individual’s life? Should we be constantly striving towards achieving happiness for ourselves and those around us?  These questions are very important from a theoretical standpoint on happiness. At first glance, the answers to these questions seem obvious. After all, why would someone not want to pursue happiness and be as happy as possible? However, it is not as simple as it seems. To fully explain the pursuit of happiness, one needs to consider the following questions: how often can we expect to be happy, are happiness and sadness mutually exclusive, and how much control do we have over our happiness.  The subsequent argument based on these questions will portray that happiness should not be our ultimate goal in life.

First, we must consider how often we can expect to be happy. Is expecting to be happy all the time feasible? Can we even expect to be happy the majority of the time? Or must we settle for being happy just some of the time? To begin, nobody can adequately argue that we can be happy all of the time in all possible situations. There are always going to be outside influences and events that will diminish or completely remove all of one’s happiness and there is nothing that the individual (or collective group) can do to stop it from happening (without using various undesirable methods).  For example, one cannot prevent the eventual death of those one cares about. Such an event is out of the realm of control for humans and therefore we cannot expect to feel happy all the time in all possible situations. In reference to achieving happiness in all situations but also attaining this happiness through undesirable means, we can consider the ideas put forth by Aldous Huxley in ‘A Brave New World’. In his novel, Huxley creates a drug called ‘soma’ that all the citizens take daily. This drug makes the people feel happy all the time. This is a prime example of achieving happiness through undesirable methods. It is true that the people may be happy all the time (or at least most of the time), but in order to achieve this, the people’s freedom of choice is removed. This example is not adequate in pursuing and achieving happiness and neither are other similar examples. Moreover, it is also possible to experience sad emotions despite an individual not wanting to feel such emotions. That is, we as humans have a lack of control over our emotions to a certain extent (this point will receive further consideration below).  As a result, anyone who claims that happiness can be achieved at all times and in all situations is either simply choosing to be ignorant towards sadness, is using undesirable methods to achieve constant happiness, or is just completely delusional.

Before we can continue on, we must note that there is no specific definition of happiness since individuals all experience happiness in different ways and at varying degrees. That is, the exact same event could elicit completely different responses from different people. For example, the birth of a child may elicit feelings of happiness for an individual who has been trying to have a child for a long time. That exact same birth may bring sadness to someone else in that it may produce feelings of greed and disappointment based on the fact that he/she also wants a child but has been unable to up to this point. This aspect of happiness, however, does not change the overall argument though as one’s specific experience of happiness is not important when considering the overall pursuit of happiness. Moreover, it is not important for this discussion to get into the morality surrounding happiness.

With that settled, we can move on to the idea that happiness and sadness are mutually exclusive. Many people may disagree with this idea and therefore we require some clarification. Many people may argue that happiness and sadness exist on the same spectrum but just at opposite ends. That is, when one feels happy one is simply leaning more towards the happiness side of the spectrum, and when one is sad one is leaning more towards the sad side of the spectrum. It follows that when individuals are around the middle of the spectrum they will feel just fine or okay. However, this notion of happiness and sadness does not adequately express the feelings and, therefore, is problematic in considering the overall pursuit of happiness. In truth, happiness cannot exist on its own completely void of all sadness (and vice versa). Even in one’s happiest moment, there are still various events that can and are causing sadness in an individual. However, the individual may be focusing more on the happiness than the sadness, but this does not mean that the other feelings are completely negated. Being completely void of sadness (or happiness) in every capacity is, therefore, impossible. We can conceive of a situation in which one experiences both happiness and sadness from the exact same event but to varying degrees. For example, a student who got accepted into a post-secondary institution that requires her to move away from home may experience both happiness and sadness from the same event. She may experience happiness for being accepted into the institution of her choice, but she may also experience sadness in having to leave home and move away from her family. Hence, it may be better practice to think that happiness and sadness can be theoretically quantified in some manner within one’s brain. For example, when one experiences a very happy inducing event we can attempt to quantify this happiness by saying that this specific event provided 10 units of happiness. Therefore, it follows that the individual may also be holding onto sadness from some previous event – let’s say that they still possess 2 units of sadness from yesterday. Since the new, happy event outnumbers the previous sad event, the individual experiences the feeling of happiness despite also possessing some units of sadness at the exact same time.

As a result, we can argue that happiness and sadness do not coexist on the same spectrum. That is, there is no spectrum where complete happiness is on one side and complete sadness is on the other and you simply move up and down the range depending on various events and experiences. Instead, happiness and sadness exist independently from each other and yet still compete against each other to be the overall emotion one feels. To further the argument that happiness and sadness are mutually exclusive we must consider the passing of time especially when attempting to quantify happiness and sadness. No matter how happy or sad an event is for an individual, the happiness and sadness will fade as time passes. I will refer to this fading as the increasing of ‘unhappiness’ and ‘unsadness’ respectively. The degree of fading is obviously different for each individual just as the increasing of happiness and sadness is for each individual even when experiencing the exact same event. To clarify, an individual can think of a past event in her life that brought her a lot of happiness at the time. The memory of that event still can bring her happiness in the future but that happiness will never equal the exact amount of happiness that was experienced at the time of the original event. Time has a way of muting or fading the happiness. It may not completely dissipate into nothingness, but the feeling of happiness does slowly fade. Therefore, we can again see in the increasing of unhappiness and unsadness that these two opposing feelings must be exclusive from each other since they also deteriorate at different degrees.

Finally, we must consider the amount of control we have over our emotions, specifically our happiness and sadness. The simple fact is that we cannot always control what makes us happy or sad. Certain events will occur despite our best efforts to avoid them. Furthermore, it is possible for one to experience feelings of happiness (or sadness) from an event in which the individual knows that she should not be having such feelings. That is, rationality does not always influence our emotions and many times individuals feel emotions despite their rational minds telling them that they should not be feeling such emotions. For example, it is possible for someone to experience feelings of happiness when seeing an ex-lover even though the person knows that being with that ex-lover leads to very sad and horrible feelings. Rationally, they know that they should not be with the person, but emotionally it is extremely difficult if not impossible to stop themselves from feeling somewhat happy when thinking about their ex. It is important to note here that control over what we choose to think about does not constitute control over our emotions. We can choose to focus on certain events and ignore others events. However, this does not adequately deal with the overall problems of pursuing happiness. Rationality cannot train someone to stop feeling happy when a cute, little puppy licks their nose if they have always experienced happiness from such an event, and the same goes for sadness as well. Furthermore, it is the case that sometimes people will have to consider sad events for any random purpose (such as a decision needs to be made for example). It is obvious that completely ignoring all possible sad events is not an adequate way to achieve happiness. Nor is it practical as we established above because happiness and sadness coexist, and therefore one cannot completely avoid or get rid of either one. Such an endeavour is doomed from the start.

In conclusion, the pursuit of happiness is a faulty enterprise for the following reasons: it is impossible to experience happiness all the time (and therefore avoid sadness all the time), happiness and sadness are not mutually exclusive and therefore we must experience both almost at all times, and we lack the overall control of our emotions to strive for constant happiness. The pursuit of happiness alone is inadequate because it leads one to simply ignore sadness and that is not the best way to deal with sadness. It sets you up for failure in the long run. Our best pursuit should be that of acceptance of happiness and sadness in an equal and rational manner. We cannot avoid sadness forever and nor is that healthy. We cannot experience happiness forever either as that is just ignorance and/or delusion. Hence, an adequate acceptance of both is required in order to be truly happy in life.

Where Are We Going: A Critical Analysis of the Direction of Humankind (Part 2)

                To consider where we are going, we must consider where we came from. Humans are naturally gregarious. We are sociable and we enjoy living in groups. That is to say we are similar to a pack of wolves in that we care for each other and look out for one another. This was the staple of our original dominance over other animals. Individually we fell short physically compared to other animals, but together we flourished.

                Consider our origins compared to now. We have grown well beyond a pack of humans struggling for survival. Our group dynamics have changed dramatically. Human beings no longer function as a pack of wolves – we are more closely related to a colony of ants. The level of over-organization in our world today demands us to function on a level which is counter-productive to our own biology. Civilization itself is “the process of primitive packs transformed into an analogue...of the social insect’s organic communities” (Huxley). We have been trained to live inside this colony and in the process we have been torn away from our natural direction. Sure, for a while everything seemed great. After all, human beings are ruling the world now. However, with great power comes great responsibility, not only for us and our future generations, but for every living organism on the planet.

                Our cities and provinces and countries function as organizational tools. Within them, we are made to function like automata. City life is anonymous and abstract. Our relations with each other have deteriorated as a result. We see each other as either the “embodiments of economic functions” or “irresponsible seekers of entertainment” (Huxley). Our feelings of loneliness and inadequacy are on the rise and our overall search for meaning is becoming unbearable. The fact is meaning is decreasing under these circumstances. It is no secret that the amount of cases of depression and mood disorders are increasing. Even very serious disorders such as schizophrenia are on the rise and such cases are more likely to arise in large cities. Our highly organized lives are only furthered by our advancing technologies. Humans have now been forced into a process of de-individualization in order to better fit into our new social roles. We are no longer the pack of individuals working together to survive – now we are merely part this unnatural whole where our individual significance is immaterial or worse – unnecessary. All our work of creativity and freedom has led us to the point where it is now being stifled for the betterment of...what exactly? It is obviously not for individual pleasure because we are more depressed now than we have ever been. Why are we forging on in this direction without asking where we are going? Has society as a whole reached some special level of existence? If anything, we have reached a point in time where our over-organization has taken precedence over everything else. Being on time for work overshadows stopping to help an old woman in need of help on the street; supplying myself with consumer goods trumps sacrificing in order to preserve the environment; having ripe fruit from some exotic country eclipses the need to feed a starving country somewhere on the other side of the world.

                This overpowering will to order is encompassing everything we know. It can be found in politics, science, and art alike. We have strived for intellectual, material and political progress all at the expense of mental health. Humans are not made to be automata. Such a notion runs in contradiction to our mental health. This kind of uniformity we are being subjected to is incompatible with mental health. This kind of uniformity is incompatible with our notions of freedom. We are all being imprisoned by the powerful elite who control the governments and the means of production and the mass media of communication. We are told what to like and dislike. We are told what to value and not value. We have sat back and let ourselves be manipulated into thinking that the direction we are heading in is indeed towards some beneficial end. This giant organizational machine has simply steamrolled right over us and left us floundering it its wake. Where should we turn to in this time of need? Our very own social ethics, which are supposed to exist for this very reason, cannot even relate to this organization. The notion itself is absurd. “An organization cannot be good in and of itself; it can be good only to the extent that it promotes the good of the individuals who are the parts of the collective whole” (Huxley). The ‘ideal person’ has now become one who values their job over everything else. I ask you, where is the humanity in that?

Where Are We Going: A Critical Analysis of the Direction of Humankind (Part 1)

                We are constantly using words such as “progress” and “evolution”. We use these words to describe our superiority over other animals and past generations. We use these words to describe our actions which harm others and the environment. We use these words to defend and/or disavow our feelings. Yet all the while we ignore the possibility that such words can breed arrogance and ignorance. There is a dark shadow over what these words actually mean. They both suggest a “bettering” or an “improvement” to what has come before[1]. As humans, in technology and in morality, we have furthered our understanding which has been built on the past – and now, at this very moment, we are at the pinnacle of progress as we know it. We are at the apex of evolution. From micro-organisms to genetic alteration, from stone hammers to I-Phones, from savages to civilizations, we have achieved this current state of being. We have struggled and fought, warred and died, dragged our own species kicking and screaming, and we have finally reached this zenith from which all our past toils have been pushing us towards.

                Now I ask you, in the wake of the post evolution era, where are we going? As humans, as the ‘superior’ species, as the rulers of our world, we have directed our development for hundreds if not thousands of years. We have sought to control our destinies. We have denied nature of her own plan, and we have stepped out from under her command. We have grasped the reigns and now we are alone to decide which way to turn, which direction to take, which way to lead ourselves into the future.

                What is our collective answer to this question? Where do our governments stand? Society is preoccupied with money and wealth and consumer goods. We seek pleasure from bigger houses and faster cars. We look for enjoyment from instant communication and information. The world population is at its largest ever and yet the world has probably never felt smaller than it does right now. Our sharing of information is reaching a fevered pitch and it almost seems impossible to keep any secrets. It is here where these questions must begin. It is precisely where our values lie that we should be asking the most questions. Sure, we all want a roof over our heads and food on the table. We all want enough money to live comfortably and to take care of our children. However, we must ask ourselves at what cost – is my dinner worth the starvation of others? Are my foreign made clothes worth the subordination of the poor? Is my false sense of freedom worth the deaths of millions?

                It is at our base needs that we must consider what has went awry. For the majority of our existence on this planet, survival was our be-all and end-all. In our modern age in the developed world, this is no longer the case. Our goals as living, breathing organisms have taken a dramatic step off the standard path. We no longer strive towards what nature intended. We now exist outside of this understanding, and we have never been more alone. 

To answer the question of where are we going will be an arduous journey, but it is a journey we must take. For centuries, we have yearned for this moment – a time where humanity could subsist beyond our set limitations. We had our eyes so focused on this objective for so long that we never considered asking the most important question thus far – once we get there, where do we go now?

---

[1] Progress: an advance; growth; development; improvement (Canadian Dictionary). Evolution: any process of formation or growth; gradual development; theory that the human race makes constant progress socially, politically, spiritually, etc. (Canadian Dictionary)

The Value of Philosophy

For anyone who has seriously studied philosophy, there is one question that you will hear time and time again. What is the value of philosophy? Despite the many writings of philosophers on this subject over the ages, the question still remains for many of those outside the discipline. Such questions as what does philosophy do for us, what benefits have we gained from philosophy, what definite answers has it given us, and so on are commonplace. These questions are quite valid in modern times because the concept of philosophy has changed greatly over its history. In the beginning, the goals of philosophy were clear. However, as time went on and philosophy evolved its over-arching ambition has become hazy.

In the very beginnings of philosophy, its main focus was educational. In ancient Greece, the first schools were schools of philosophy and math. If one wanted to be educated and learn, one would attend these philosophy schools and be taught by the philosophers of the day. Over the years, these schools would produce and create the information and eventually the disciplines of many other subjects. In general, most subjects, once they acquired enough information to exist on their own merit, would then separate from philosophy and create their own discipline. Therefore, in a sense, philosophy began as encompassing practically all educational knowledge at the time, and slowly bled out the more standardized disciplines. As a result, what we have today is very different from the origins of philosophy. However, there are many aspects which have remained and are still central to many philosophical theories and branches. 

One of my favourite modern philosophers, Bertrand Russell, attempted to answer the questions about the values of philosophy in his book “The Problems of Philosophy”. He dedicated a chapter to explaining what he thought was the modern value of philosophy which I will attempt to explain here.

One of the main arguments against philosophy being useful is that we cannot outright see any possible benefits from it. Obviously, as I stated above, this is not the case with philosophy throughout all of history, but specifically in modern times one may put forth this argument. People are “inclined to doubt whether philosophy is anything better than innocent but useless trifling, hair-splitting distinctions, and controversies on matters concerning knowledge which is impossible” (Russell). From a scientific standpoint, the physical sciences are very useful to everyone even if they are completely ignorant of it. However, this type of utility is not part of philosophy for obvious reasons. The value of philosophy for those who do not study it is quite limited and may only indirectly influence them by means of those who do study it.

Russell does reference what he calls ‘practical men’ and their prejudices. Russell states that “if all men were well off, if poverty and disease had been reduced to their lowest possible point, there would still remain much to be done to produce a valuable society” (Russell). Therefore, science alone cannot adequately provide value to our lives. In Russell’s opinion, that was one of philosophy’s aims; the aim of knowledge which results from critical examination of our convictions, prejudices, and beliefs. However, he quickly points out that philosophy was originally not very successful in this regard. As mentioned above, once definite knowledge of subjects was possible, they ceased to be called philosophy and became their own disciplines (for example, the study of the cosmos became astronomy; the study of the human mind became psychology; etc.). As a result, all the questions that we had no definite answers for remained and are what we call philosophy today.

This is only part of the overall picture however. There are also questions which “are of the profoundest interest to our spiritual life” (Russell) that fall into the realm of philosophy. For example, does the universe have any unity or plan or is it just a bunch of fortuitous atoms; and are good and evil important to the universe or only humans. It is not necessarily philosophy’s goal to find a true or final answer to these questions. Instead, it should work to continue asking such questions which helps to make us aware of their importance, helps us examine all the approaches to them, and possibly most important, keeps alive that interest in the universe which Russell was afraid would be destroyed if we were to confine ourselves to only the definitely ascertainable knowledge (Russell).

Therefore, it is precisely in the uncertainty of philosophy where its value lies. “The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or nation, and form convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operations of consent of his deliberate reason” (Russell). In other words, without philosophy there really isn’t much thought outside of what one has been told to think. Despite philosophy not supplying definite answers, it is “able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom” (Russell). In that sense, it does increase our knowledge as well as relieve us of arrogant dogmatism.

Philosophy goes even further and creates a greatness of the actual objects of contemplation themselves. Russell compares those who don’t philosophize to “a garrison in a beleaguered fortress, knowing that the enemy prevents escape and that ultimate surrender is inevitable. In such a life, there is no peace, but a constant strife between the insistence of desire and the powerlessness of will” (Russell). This suggests that such a world for those who do not philosophize is quite small and based merely on instinctive wishes and interests. Someone thinking in such a way can only wait for the great and powerful world outside to eventually come crashing down over them. 

Therefore, it is Russell’s contention that knowledge works as an enlargement of ‘Self’ and this can be reached through philosophical contemplation. This concept lies in direct contrast to the theory that “man is the measure of all things, that truth is man-made, that space and time and the world of universals are properties of the mind, and that, if there be anything not created by the mind, it is unknowable and of no account for us” (Russell). This knowledge, Russell argues, is only a group of prejudices, habits, and desires which works to create a veil of lies between us and the world outside.

In conclusion, I will leave you with Russell’s words which, in my opinion, perfectly sum up the value of philosophy in our modern times:

Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good (Russell).

*all quotations taken from Bertrand Russell – “Problems of Philosophy” Ch 15 The Value of Philosophy