Would you rather have a completely happy life, or a meaningful life? And are the two mutually exclusive? The topics, as well as recent neuroscience research, is addressed in a fascinating podcast over at Governomics. The podcast is here, with the transcript here.
As mentioned in the podcast, Aristotle had certain ideas of what ideal happiness was:
[He]...thought that eudaimonia was the ultimate goal of all purposeful striving. Greek for "happiness," the word eudaimonia comes from"eu" (meaning "good" or "well being") and "daimon" (meaning "spirit"). For Aristotle, "well being," or "happiness" in the objective and general sense, is human excellence. Pointing out that society's rich aren't necessarily its happiest or most excellent, Aristotle reasoned that true happiness isn't just material wealth and physical pleasure. In his Nicomachean Ethics, he suggests a set of moral virtues that he believes are better correlated with eudaimonia.
The podcast goes on to suggest (as per the TV show 'Heros') that a life which is happy and a life which has meaning is mutually exclusive, since being happy is living in the moment and purposefulness is thinking of the past and future. While this dichotomy makes some sense at first glance, what it suggests is rather unsettling: that people who chose to use their lives to make a difference cannot be happy. I wager that this point is meant to be a thought-provoking simplicity rather than to be taken at face value, but I'll bite.
I would hope, as would most idealists, that the people who feel spurred on to use their life in a meaningful way can ONLY feel happiness when this is the case. Certainly, that is true for me. That is not to say that any other life that I might have chosen wouldn't have been meaningful, but I believed that my interests and abilities led me to be best suited to make a difference in science. However, acknowledging this while taking a job as a model or parking attendant would have left me unfufilled and unhappy, despite whatever charms those lives would have held. I think this works in reverse too: that many people who do "live in the moment" find that moment pretty unsatisfactory. Those who can't plan for the future can't maximize their interests IN that future, so how could one be guaranteed happiness from one moment to the next?
Perhaps, if happiness is only comfort and pleasure, we should all live fast, die young, be selfish and shallow, take lots of risks as well as advantage of everyone we know. We'd be pretty successful at making everyone around us miserable at least.
- Log in to post comments
The fact that the producers of "Heroes" have Malcolm McDowell delivering that message about happiness, though, is a subliminal message that you shouldn't take it at face value. McDowell is a classic film villain. He's been playing bad guys since 1971, you know?
And, FWiW, that book, "Be Here Now," that's mentioned in the podcast...it's gibberish. I've got a copy, and I mean, I'm all for LSD and experimenting with consciousness, but there's limits, and that person, "Ram Dass," is seriously spaced-out.
Also, am I wrong or are the two research studies that the podcast references (the one by Michael Hagerty at UC-Davis and the one at U-Minn) contradictory? One says that a person's environment (community) determines their happiness; the other says that people's genes determine their happiness.
Which is it??
I would certainly say that neither are completely "responsible," and its over-simplistic to think it might be (unless of course we ID some gene that can do as much--haven't yet). There might be environmental exceptions too--like being born into a particular nasty set of situations, etc. But people can still certainly be happy even when calamity strikes. The studies in the podcast pointed out that both are implicated...and that perhaps happiness is such an ephemeral thing it cannot be well quantified with the tools at hand.
I call bull on the meaninglessness is fun concept. Sure, I do have loads of fun gaming (Sierra rereleased its quest games! w00t!) but I have never had more fun doing anything than what I am doing now.
Teaching biology to college students.
My grad research days were great when things worked, or we got a paper pubbed, but the highs were rare compared to the long lows, especially when I was repeating an experiment to get the statistical reliability that you needed to pub, even though you knew the answer.
I get that high twice a week now, seeing light bulbs go on for the students, or when a student tells you that they really enjoyed an assignment because they learned something exciting!
I want to keep my hands on research, but can there be anything more meaningful than giving someone scientific literacy? The pay as an adjunct prof is just enough to cover a few bills, and I thank FSM for my wife's job, so it certainly isn't the money.
A good life has both.
Is there a way to objectively define happiness? Or to define it at all?
Many people seem to equate happiness with pleasure, but this seems wrong-headed. While pleasure can bring happiness, it is not the only thing to do so, and it is often ephemeral. There are also different types of pleasure. Mill has an interesting dicussion of happiness (I think it's in Utilitarianism) where he tries to differentiate between greater and lesser pleasures. But ultimately he admits that what makes people happy is largely subjective, and can be altered.
You can be happy and have a meaningful life, if living such a life is what makes you happy. Thus the best thing society can do is to make people grow up so that doing good things is what makes them happy. It's obviously very complicated, but ultimately I think anyone who leads a meaningful life is at least happier than they would be otherwise, if only from guilt. Barring outside intereference, we generally do what makes us happy. And if that ends up doing good, so much the better.