It appears that the votes went against Socrates. Collective wisdom has concluded that the unexamined life is indeed worth living. At least from the perspective of the being living it, if not from Socrates'. (I had no idea he was such a manipulative, self-serving, and arrogant bastard.) There appears to be some controversy, however, as to whether the examined life is a happier life -- or conversely, whether examination itself is the cause of all misery.
Still searching for the answers to life's persistent questions, and risking my own happiness, I am propelled to examination no. 2:
Blaise Pascal posited: "All men seek happiness. There are no exceptions. However different the means they may employ, they all strive towards this goal.... The will never takes the least step except to that end. This is the motive of every act of every man...." A random scripture (I refuse to identify the source) proclaims: "Men are, that they might have joy."
Are the above sentiments correct: Is happiness the end all and be all of existence?
Or, is the pursuit of happiness merely one of two or more other unalienable rights with which we have been endowed (by the Creator, or whomever)?
Or, is the pursuit of happiness and the avoidance of pain itself the source of suffering, as the historical Buddha concluded?
Or is the answer none of the above?
If the answer is choice number 1, then if a person attains a subjective feeling of well-being, has the goal been reached, game over? Or does it require a subjective feeling of well-being that lasts for some pre-ordained period of time? If so, how long? Does a 45-year euphoria induced by a lobotomy qualify? If it lasts one's entire life on this earth, is that good enough, or do you have to be happy in the hereafter as well? Is "happiness" really a code word for something else? If a no-account, loathsome and immoral human being is happy, by his or her own report, has that individual hit the bullseye?
If the answer is choice number 2 -- the pursuit of happiness is just one of many unalienable rights -- is it waivable? Or are we stuck with it, whether we want it or not? Can we trade it in for something we deem more valuable?
If the answer is choice number 3, then shouldn't Buddha and Jefferson engage in a sumo contest to see who wins?
What is the goal (or non-goal) anyway?
14 comments:
Well I am going to go for #1 because happiness is not just a given. Look at criminals in jail? Are they happy. They definitely are not happy. If they are happy then they are really weird. So that is why I am going for #1.
I think Pascal's posit is right - that seeking happiness is the motive behind all men's actions (i.e. self-interest). However, the interesting part in my mind is why "happiness" for some is mostly focused on their individual person (I want more for me - $$/time/etc - narcissism) and for others, more in activities or contributions outside self (the do-gooder). And, I think it's fair to say, the more outside personal self one's motivations/actions are, the more "self"-sacrifice is required.
However, the inherent dichotomy in the happiness/self-interest question is that contributions to others are far more satisfying (happiness) than mere "self" interest. However, I wonder whether this is really true or just the way I was taught and what our culture reinforces (why we respect Abe more than George). Or is service to others really at bottom, just an interest in survival (the ultimate self-interest) because it's a lot easier to survive, and you will survive longer, with the help of others instead of being out there on your own.
I think a lot of us think we don't need others for survival in our modern world where so many of our needs/wants are but a few blocks and a credit card away. How long would we last if we all had to grow our own food, build our own houses and heat them ourselves in the winter. In fact the more I think about this, it becomes more apparent that our self-interest in survival is critically dependent on others to help us out. So, perhaps this is a bit circular with the vital self-interest in survival requiring help from others. Of course, the prerequisite to receiving help from others is a willingness to also give help. And further, regarding human nature (the product of millions of years of evolution), what is more deeply human than our need to have contact (at least some contact) and interaction with other humans.
In short, our greatest self-interest is in helping others around us so they can help us. Perhaps that explains why we sacrifice so much of our "self" interest on behalf of our children and family (the closest humans to us once we get outside ourselves).
Pascal posited: "All men seek happiness. There are no exceptions. However different the means they may employ, they all strive towards this goal.... The will never takes the least step except to that end. This is the motive of every act of every man...."
It seems that Pascal is saying that happiness is more than a casual pursuit – rather it is more of a drive. There are certain human drives that are easily recognized, like hunger, sex or sleep. I suppose I have a happiness drive, but it is less obvious to me. Pascal says of seeking for happiness, the “will never takes the least step except to that end.” So does that mean that whether we recognize it or not, the goal of happiness is always lurking when we act. I don’t know. Our will results in lots of actions that we don’t recognize, but does the happiness drive underlie them all? I think the search for happiness informs a lot of actions but it is just one of many motivators.
It seems to me that as far human existence is concerned, the goal to reproduce is the most fundamental drive. Those who lack that drive get weeded out and those who remain are left to reproduce and pass it on the next generation. Do you get weeded out if you lack a happiness drive? If not, there must be a reason for it unless it is like an appendix, something we possess but is of questionable necessity. So what do you do with? I guess that is part of what you are asking.
There are quite a few interesting theories out there on the evolution of altruism (and happiness, for that matter). One of my favorites is that altruism evolved as a survival mechanism in response to the dominant alpha male. When the alpha killed (i.e., denied access to females) to all challengers, some challenges stumbled on a new strategy. Rather than challenge, they placated and pleased the alpha. They became altruistic in that they put the alpha's needs on par with their own. In response, the alpha tolerated their survival because it benefitted him -- long enough that the non-alphas were able to successfully reproduce (sneakily or otherwise).
As for me, at this point in my blogging life, I find myself engaged in the lesser pursuit of avoiding pain. Blaise, obviously, never knew me. If he could comment, he would probably say that he was happy about that.
Sanford said . . . the goal to reproduce is the most fundamental drive
how about the individual "survival" drive as the most fundamental? if given a choice between sex and survival . . . bonking or bolting . . . in the presence of danger most of us probably bolt. Of course bolting in the presence of danger just allows for more bonking (reproducing) in the long run.
Jules, isn't avoiding pain just another way of seeking happiness?
First of all, I'm commenting only in hope of winning the grand prize, a moment of fleeting happiness at having won.
Happiness, you see, is ephemeral and perishes quickly in the harsh sunlight of human existence in the 21st Century. To directly pursue happiness is to be disappointed by its absence. The wise person will have the skill to recognize happiness when it arises, observe it with dispassionate calm while it's there, release it freely when it swims away, and court it's presence by working at dissipating the endless reasons for unhappiness.
mike, sanford, julie: is there a human drive / motive that transcends nature? What explains the seemingly anti-reproductive course taken by religious zealots such as Buddha, Gandhi, Christ, and Mother Theresa? Is there a biological explanation? Do we find vows of celibacy taken in the natural, non-human world?
To complete Pascal's quote:
"Yet for very many years no one without faith has ever reached the goal at which everyone is continually aiming. . . . A test which has gone on so long, without pause or change, really ought to convince us that we are incapable of attaining the good by our own efforts. But example teaches us very little. No two examples are so exactly alike that there is not some subtle difference, and that is what makes us expect that our expectations will not be disappointed this time as they were last time. So, while the present never satisfies us, experience deceives us, and leads us on from one misfortune to another until death comes as the ultimate and eternal climax. What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace? This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself. God alone is man's true good, and since man abandoned him it is a strange fact that nothing in nature has been found to take his place..."
terrazoic: You say a wise person courts the presence of happiness by working at dissipating the endless reasons for unhappiness. Could you be more specific? What would be the nature of this work? What are the endless reasons for unhappiness? Are they external, internal, or both?
Dearest Mike: Your answer to sweet Sanford is my answer to you. Their is a hierachy of happiness and avoiding pain is certainly on there, somewhere above bolting but below bonking.
I think that one of the interesting things about being human is that we have the ability to change and shape our lives, our destiny and our world. (I have faith that this is the case. I understand that it is an arguable point.) I also believe (and again I understand that it is arguable) that it is possible to choose something over (or in addition to, or instead of, even if only for a time) our own happiness. I believe I make that choice on occasion. I also believe I have seen others make that choice.
What do you do when ethics and happiness collide, as I find they often do? I have chosen ethics some times and happiness others. I have found that an ethical choice can lead to happiness because it makes me feel good about who I think I am or want to be. I have also found that an ethical choice can lead to overwhelming sadness, a depletion and waste of resources, and a sense of futility, emptiness and stupidity. Not a happy place. And I've made the ethical choice knowing it was going there.
Finally the concept of "happiness" as a motivation is a complex one. Maslow's heirachy often comes into play for me. Trying to explain that here starts making me feel confused. Just google it.
I do think it is possible to view and explain all acts as ultimately self-interested. But I have not found that to be true (or contain the whole truth), or very helpful to me in understanding motivations, situtations, behavior or people. Although, at some point, I acknowledge that our difference in perception could come down to semantics.
I do not think that Sanford's drive to reproduce helps me understand very much about him or my relationship with him. If I approached him from that perspective, I would miss a great deal. I would say this is less true for for my relationship with you. Your pursuit of happiness seems more pure (less diluted). And I think you achieve happiness on a larger scale than most people that I know, me included. In the scheme of things, I would rate you as higher on the happy scale. You set a good happy example for those seeking happiness and I dig that about you.
Since this chain seems to be a Chuck-o-Rama of philosophical Big Life Questions, I'll point out that over by the soft-serve yogurt is the overcooked yearning question. No matter its source--self-serving, biological, the absence of God in our life (in Pascal's opinion), or merely wanting to keep up with the Joneses--desire and drive for more than we have is nearly always present. Even the Buddhists yearn--they just happen to yearn for no yearn.
Terrazoic says that to directly pursue happiness is to be disappointed by its absence. Far as I know, Buddha himself didn't accidentally run into enlightenment (which I'm assuming is a type of happiness). I'm no expert in Buddha, but it seems to me that he pursued happiness/enlightenment more doggedly than most.
My undergrad Philosophy 101 opinion is that yearning just is. It can lead to good and to happiness. We create better lives because of it, we improve our being, and invent hybrid Toyotas and natural gas Hondas. Of course, it can be bad too. And beyond bad, it can be evil. I can't think of a single war not conceived from the yearning for more.
And, while I'm high-horsing it, I'll add that it's easy to be haughty about this, to make it about high pursuits and lowly desires. But, really,(to keep going with the car analogy) is my friend's new bad-ass, 0-to-60 in under five seconds such a bad thing to yearn for? It gets him to happiness really fast.
kpeaslee asks:
Is my friend's new bad-ass, 0-to-60 in under five seconds such a bad thing to yearn for? It gets him to happiness really fast.
I can get you there in under 4. There's a reason Craig has that car and you have, uh, a piano. Obviously . . . happiness.
kpeaslee: I agree with you that Buddha pursued "happiness" (if this is taken in the big sense, i.e., enlightenment or lasting contentedness or the permanent end of suffering) more doggedly than most. But the difference is is that he claims to have attained it, whereas I haven't heard Craig making that claim. The way I understand it, from a cursory review of "Man's Search for Happiness," the mormons also promise lasting, permanent happiness if you follow the laws that God has established for you. And Pascal, as well, seems to be saying that there is a lasting happiness, beyond the happiness that a new car gets you -- that transcends the cycle of yearning, attaining, and yearning again -- that is only found in faith. I wonder if these claims are true, and if these folks are onto something. Or whether a person is just born with a biological alotment of happiness -- and I would agree with Jupee that Mike seems to be somebody blessed with a high degree of it -- and that's it. I also agree with you that the desire to improve our circumstances, presumably because we're thinking that by doing so we'll get happier, seems to have resulted in better cars, better houses, better lots of things. I'm not sure it has resulted in happier people. (This is a tired observation, I know, but its my blog so I get to make it if I want to.)
How do you know if you've attained happiness? Is it possible that Buddha had lower expectations than I do?
You asked me about Buddhism, but you never left a an email or any way that I can answer you.
Post a Comment