Satisfaction

LISTEN. Today in Happiness we consider "life satisfaction" and Daniel Haybron's assertion that To be satisfied does not mean you think your life is going well for you...

If you've spent the bulk of your life imprisoned, and declare upon eventual release that you were and are happy, does that bode ill for happiness as a worthy object for a life's quest? Or does it just speak well of the temperament of the ex-con who persevered so heroically?

Plato's cave-dwellers in Book VII of the Republic must have thought themselves happily ensconced in their subterranean prison, else they'd not so have resented their enlightened peer's attempt to shine a light on their situation. Happiness surely does not supersede delusion... (continues)

School of Life... on Happiness... on Aristotle...

Aristotle wrote two ethical treatises: the Nicomachean Ethics and the Eudemian Ethics. He does not himself use either of these titles, although in the Politics (1295a36) he refers back to one of them—probably the Eudemian Ethics—as “ta êthika”—his writings about character. The words “Eudemian” and “Nicomachean” were added later, perhaps because the former was edited by his friend, Eudemus, and the latter by his son, Nicomachus. In any case, these two works cover more or less the same ground: they begin with a discussion of eudaimonia (“happiness”, “flourishing”), and turn to an examination of the nature of aretê (“virtue”, “excellence”) and the character traits that human beings need in order to live life at its best. Both treatises examine the conditions in which praise or blame are appropriate, and the nature of pleasure and friendship; near the end of each work, we find a brief discussion of the proper relationship between human beings and the divine... (SEP)

 TED Talks on Happiness...

==

Two more very short chapters from Daniel Haybron today, on Life Satisfaction and Measuring Happiness. The former sounds slippery, the latter potentially too precise. But it might in fact be easier to measure slippery satisfaction, suitably specified, than elusive happiness. The title of Haybron's bigger book suggests that, to me: The Pursuit of Unhappiness: The Elusive Psychology of Well-Being.

Most of us would probably say our lives were going badly if we found ourselves in Moreese "Pop" Bickham's situation (as recounted on Story Corps) - thirty-seven years (fourteen on death row) in Louisiana's Angola Prison, for returning fire against the Klan Cops who tried to kill him. He said, on release, "I don't have one minute's regret. It was a glorious experience." He was "glad and happy and praising the Lord." I'm pretty sure I'd have responded differently. Good for him?

Wonder how he'd rate his life on a scale of 1 to 10, and whether it matters or is simply arbitrary. If you think you're a 10, shouldn't you be happier (more content, more satisfied, more something) in some subjective sense than if you think you're a 4? Surely.

The numbers may not add up, certainly may not nail happiness down with anything like the precision they imply, but the Eulogy Standard seems helpful here. What will they say aboutyour life, at your funeral? Wouldn't you like to be there to find out? By this standard it seems plausible to think "most people actually have good lives" whether they know it or not.

So one of the takeaways today seems to be that very rough and approximate ballpark estimations of happiness are good enough, in terms of their practical utility. People understate their happiness on rainy days (except for the perverse people who say they always prefer inclement weather because it makes the indoors that much more appealing). Unemployed people tend to be less happy. Etc. These generally reliable generalizations remind us not to waste the good days, and not to be unemployed. Valuable reminders, those.

If you have a slight preponderance of positive over negative emotional states, are you (slightly) happy? Haybron doesn't think so. Your happiness should not be a close call, he suggests. But I don't know, maybe we ought to just take what we can get and be grateful for it. Wasn't that Pop Bickham's message? Start slight if you must, and work from there, if the glass is only 5/8 full.

By the way, which face on the scale (p.47) is yours today?

Can you believe this guy's parting words were that he'd had a wonderful life? He did have, but rarely let his face know it. Or his sister's house.

Considering suicide is one thing, what Camus called life's ultimate philosophical question, but acutally contemplating it is something else, I'd have said. The stats we'll consider are sobering. Hoping we don't echo them, in our Happy class.

I disagree with Camus's emphasis, I'd say the more pressing question for most of us is whether we're having wonderful lives, not whether we're thinking about ending them. But of course, George Bailey faced both.

 

9.7.17

==

LISTEN. In Happiness today we're catching up with the early chapters of Daniel Haybron's Very Short Introduction. Can we really objectify, quantify, measure, and compare our happiness? Is "life satisfaction" something different? Is it enough? If "most people actually have good lives," why has there been such an epidemic of reported episodes of young people contemplating suicide?

If you or anyone you know is ever in that dark place, please consider and share the wisdom of Jennifer Michael Hecht in Stay: A History of Suicide and the Philosophies Against It. 

“None of us can truly know what we mean to other people, and none of us can know what our future self will experience. History and philosophy ask us to remember these mysteries, to look around at friends, family, humanity, at the surprises life brings — the endless possibilities that living offers — and to persevere. There is love and insight to live for, bright moments to cherish, and even the possibility of happiness, and the chance of helping someone else through his or her own troubles. Know that people, through history and today, understand how much courage it takes to stay. Bear witness to the night side of being human and the bravery it entails, and wait for the sun. If we meditate on the record of human wisdom we may find there reason enough to persist and find our way back to happiness. The first step is to consider the arguments and evidence and choose to stay. After that, anything may happen. First, choose to stay.” 

My go-to guide for many of our questions is Bertrand Russell's Conquest of Happiness, still holding its value as a reminder that we can't just wait for the world to shower us with joy, we must take steps. But a relatively few steps yields great rewards.

“The secret of happiness is very simply this: let your interests be as wide as possible, and let your reactions to the things and persons that interest you be as far as possible friendly rather than hostile.”

“What I do maintain is that success can only be one ingredient in happiness, and is too dearly purchased if all the other ingredients have been sacrificed to obtain it.” 

“I do not myself think there is any superior rationality in being unhappy. The wise man will be as happy as circumstances permit, and if he finds contemplation of the universe painful beyond a point, he will contemplate something else instead.”

“Very many people spend money in ways quite different from those that their natural tastes would enjoin, merely because the respect of their neighbors depends upon their possession of a good car and their ability to give good dinners. As a matter of fact, any man who can obviously afford a car but genuinely prefers travel or a good library will in the end be much more respected than if he behaved exactly like everyone else.”

"One who acquires easily things for which he feels only a very moderate desire concludes that the attainment of desire does not bring happiness. If he is of a philosophic disposition, he concludes that human life is essentially wretched, since the man who has all he wants is still unhappy. He forgets that to be without some of the things you want is an indispensable part of happiness.”

“To be happy in this world, especially when youth is past, it is necessary to feel oneself not merely an isolated individual whose day will soon be over, but part of the stream of life flowing on from the first germ to the remote and unknown future.”

Russell was no Stoic, he was more nearly Epicurean in the falsely-ascribed hedonistic sense... but here's a strong stoic insight:

“When some misfortune threatens, consider seriously and deliberately what is the very worst that could possibly happen. Having looked this possible misfortune in the face, give yourself sound reasons for thinking that after all it would be no such very terrible disaster. Such reasons always exist, since at the worst nothing that happens to oneself has any cosmic importance."

And when all else fails, just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving... as we were saying yesterday about cosmic philosophy and this crucial make-or-break moment in our species' history.

“We have reached a stage in evolution which is not the final stage. We must pass through it quickly, for if we do not, most of us will perish by the wa y, and the others will be lost in a forest of doubt and fear... civilised man must enlarge his heart as he has enlarged his mind. He must learn to transcend self, and in so doing to acquire the freedom of the Universe.” 

* * *

Russell's reflections on the value of philosophy still hold their value, as we'll note in CoPhi today. Here are some complementary thoughts from his History of Western Philosophy, also still standing strong all these years on. LISTEN... (recorded @dawn, 8.30.18)

"Philosophy" is a word which has been used in many ways, some wider, some narrower. I propose to use it in a very wide sense, which I will now try to explain. Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something inter- mediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable ; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation. All definite knowledge so I should contend belongs to science ; all dogma as to what surpasses definite know- ledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man's Land, exposed to attack from both sides; this No Man's Land is philosophy. Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so con- vincing as they did in former centuries. Is the world divided into mind and matter, and, if so, what is mind and what is matter? Is mind subject to matter, or is it possessed of independent powers ? Has the universe any unity or purpose? Is it evolving towards some goal ? Are there really laws of nature, or do we believe in them only because of our innate love of order ? Is man what he seems to the astronomer, a tiny lump of impure carbon and water impotently crawling on a small and unimportant planet ? Or is he what he appears to Hamlet ? Is he perhaps both at once ? Is there a way of living that is noble and another that is base, or are all ways of living merely futile? If there is a way of living that is noble, in what does it consist, and how shall we achieve it? Must the good be eternal in order to deserve to be valuc'd, or is it worth seeking even if the universe is inexorably moving toward? death?

9.5.19

jpo