Chapter 3 Life Satisfaction

 I loved the beginning of this chapter and reading the story of Moreese 'Pop" Bickman. This man spend 37 years of his life in prison for a crime that was self-defense and was truly satisfied when he was released. As a black man he had everything in the world to be angry about but he just to be thankful instead. Even though he was in the most grime of circumstances for the majority of his life he somehow found a way to be satisfied with his life. It makes me a bit ashamed about some of the things I've complained about in my own life. 

Haybron states that life satisfaction is thought to be a matter of judgements. Meaning to be satisfied with your life is to regard it as going well enough by your own standards and values. For me personally, I agree with this theory but I think the meaning of life satisfaction just like happiness can vary for each of us.  

SL

Chapter 2 What is Happiness

I liked how Haybron discussed The Three Faces of Happiness in chapter two. For instance, the endorsement period which is the aspect of happiness that most of us are familiar with because this phase is based on the feeling of happiness. I think most of us probably love this stage of happiness because its what we commonly want to experience. That being said, I also liked that Haybron said that we can overestimate the significance of this experience. The feelings are typically fleeting and we can often begin to focus too much on this area of happiness. 

The second phase, engagement: vitality and flow encompasses how we are engaged in our lives. Vitality is made up by how passionate we are about life, while flow is when you lose all awareness and are engaged pleasantly in the flow of life. I can definitely see myself in this phase a lot when I'm passionate about my activity. For example, I'm often in the vitality and flow stage of happiness when I'm working out or working on home projects or decorating. I have a small decorating business and I often lose myself in projects for myself or others. It's my happy place and I tend to lose track of time when I'm doing it. 

Lastly, the third stage attunement: peace of mind, confidence and expansiveness basically means to have tranquility. Haybron suggested that this stage of happiness often gets over looked today because people crave entertainment and excitement. While I think that is definitely true to an extent, I personally crave peace of mind and feeling carefree over excitement any day. 

SL

Happiness on YouTube

School of Life videos on Happiness...

TED Talks on Happiness...

Chapter 4 measuring happiness

I find the quote at the beginning of the chapter very intriguing, as I should, being that of Ernest Hemingway; whom stated that "happiness in intelligent people, is the rarest thing I know." 

I think I know what he means by that. However, I've known some highly intelligent people; whom don't necessarily lead the type of lives that are stereotypical of what one would consider "a happy American life," yet I believe that some of those people would report as being happy, by their own standards.

Although some people, such as my parents, claim to be happy alone; they enjoy their own company, and find their own-selves to be highly entertaining. Lol.

Anyways in this chapter Haybron focuses on the problem with measuring happiness. He discusses how we tend to measure it of other people by evaluating what we see on the outside. 

But then goes on to discuss how it has been discovered that happiness is more of an internal measure taken by the individual themselves.

And then further discusses how even that measure can be a skewed measure, as people doing self evaluations of their happiness, and to lean more towards the positive when reporting their own happiness. 

And so, he begins to ask "are people as happy as they say they are?" He says that numbers measured in the studies and world poll on happiness, that indicates that 94% of Americans claim to be happy, are preposterous. 

Haybron then provides quantitative reasoning or his opinion, by providing data from other surveys; conducted on, for instance, depression and anxiety; and loneliness and stress, within the United States. And also surveys, which were conducted on children (as well as college age young adults,) in the United States, reported having contemplated or attempted suicide, and or reported as having eating disorders. 

Haybron also, discusses the 1% of Americans that are incarcerated; and the 3%, being under the supervision of the criminal Justice system; and how those figures alone discredit the possibility that only 6% of all Americans are unhappy.

He ends the chapter by saying that "people might tend to overstate their happiness for two different reasons: one being positivity biases affecting the way that we think about ourselves," and says that "we tend to have overly rosy views on ourselves and our futures, a phenomenon known as positive illusions" (which I referred to above, and he defines as "leaning towards the positive side of things.") And the second reason that he gives, being that "we lack clear standards of what it means to be happy." He basically says that not having clear definition of what it means to be happy allows people to lie about their happiness without actually lying. This is kind of like saying that without laws people are more likely to break basic moral codes of ethics, in a way. I mean without a true definition of happiness, people aren't accountable, if you will; for skewing their answers towards the positives, if they don't have a valid definition to go off of.

 These 12 Women Don’t Want It All. They Want Better.

Feb. 22, 2022, 12:01 a.m. ET

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/22/opinion/gender-focus-group.html?campaign_id=39&emc=edit_ty_20220222&instance_id=53926&nl=opinion-today&regi_id=83120212&segment_id=83533&te=1&user_id=5aff38087f3838d6db6fc63e4c723230

By Sarah Wildman

Ms. Wildman is a staff editor and writer in Opinion.

What are the choices in life that shape our happiness, our self-worth, our sense that we’ve grown up and evolved past the model provided by our parents? What about the ways others treat us, and the ways we treat ourselves, that leave us feeling uncertain, exhausted, lonely? What success do we believe we can achieve — and what success do we believe we deserve?

For our new focus group by Times Opinion, we decided to explore some of these ideas in our pressure-filled era, by listening to women about the shifts they’ve seen and felt in work life, careers, relationships, parenting and gender roles in recent years.

The members of the group, ages 22 to 43, are married and unmarried, partnered and unpartnered, mothers and avowed never-mothers. Eleven are cis-gendered and one identified as a woman and nonbinary. They ran the gamut in work experience and politics (six Biden supporters, four Trump supporters, and two who were for “someone else” in 2020). Those differences aside, all of them saw gender as a defining aspect of their lives. Several had seen men leap ahead of them at work, yet were also deeply skeptical of movements aiming to help women like #MeToo. Mothers, they all agreed, bore the brunt of the practicalities regarding child care, as well as the expectations of caregiving. That, in turn, had led more than one woman to decide parenting was not in their future.

The conversation, moderated by focus group veteran Kristen Soltis Anderson, was frank and personal. Younger participants were, for the most part, opting to delay or forgo parenthood and marriage, often seeing those choices more in the framework of constraint and burden rather than as happy life-cycle events. Many of the women were making different decisions — and seeing their options as more expansive — than those of their mothers.

This is the fifth group in our series, America in Focus, which seeks to hear and understand the opinions of wider cross-sections of Americans. This transcript has been edited for length and clarity; an audio recording and video clips of the session are also included.

(Continues with interviews at link above)

Working at it

It seems very strange to me to want to turn the pursuit of happiness into work. I'm reasonably happy, but don't feel it's something that I should be slaving to improve. I agree with Mill that happiness is usually found in pursuing some other end.
https://t.co/AiLjiAVxmR
(https://twitter.com/philosophybites/status/1495789596428414983?s=02)

Yale’s Happiness Professor Says Anxiety Is Destroying Her Students

The cognitive scientist Laurie Santos says "we're fighting cultural forces that are telling us, 'You're not happy enough.'"

Since the Yale cognitive scientist Laurie Santos began teaching her class Psychology and the Good Life in 2018, it has become one of the school's most popular courses. The first year the class was offered, nearly a quarter of the undergraduate student body enrolled. You could see that as a positive: all these young high-achievers looking to learn scientifically corroborated techniques for living a happier life. But you could also see something melancholy in the course's popularity: all these young high-achievers looking for something they've lost, or never found. Either way, the desire to lead a more fulfilled life is hardly limited to young Ivy Leaguers, and Santos turned her course into a popular podcast series "The Happiness Lab," which quickly rose above the crowded happiness-advice field. (It has been downloaded more than 64 million times.) "Why are there so many happiness books and other happiness stuff and people are still not happy?" asks Santos, who is 46. "Because it takes work! Because it's hard!" (continues)

"So what’s the answer? What’s the purpose of life? It’s smelling your coffee in the morning. [Laughs.] Loving your kids. Having sex and daisies and springtime. It’s all the good things in life. That’s what it is." Don't forget to read, walk, be kind etc.https://t.co/xQvmvTWCMC

— Phil Oliver (@OSOPHER) February 21, 2022

Morning mantra

 "When you arise in the morning, think of what a precious privilege it is to be alive - to breathe, to think, to enjoy, to love… Dwell on the beauty of life. Watch the stars, and see yourself running with them." --Marcus Aurelius

Haybron's chapter 3

 Haybron basically discredits the life satisfaction theory in chapter 3; and even ends the chapter by saying "I just want my kids to be happy might be a little exaggerated. But it sounds a whole lot more compelling than I just want my kids to be satisfied. If you want them to be satisfied, suggest they think of Tiny Tim and count their blessings."

This chapter really made me start to discredit the life satisfaction theory, but for different reasons than he gives; for instance, I feel as though someone could say that they are not satisfied with their life, yet also state that they are happy, despite the dissatisfaction with the overall outcome of their life. For instance someone could be dissatisfied with their life, but happy overall (from the love they feel for their children and grandchildren; and the satisfaction that they see that they have in their lives, despite lacking that satisfaction in their own.

With that being said, I would have to say what's that in order for a life to be deemed good, it should contain both life satisfaction and happiness. 

Thoughts on Haybron's Happiness Chapter One

In the opening of chapter one the author discusses how there has never been a better time to be alive.  While I agree with that opening statement I also found it to be interesting because the last several years our world has been so chaotic. Even with that I know that time period we currently live in is a much happier time than previous generations regardless of the confusion our world is facing. Like the author stated, today we enjoy material and cultural abundance that previous generations only dreamt of, but I question if those resources truly make us any happier.

Socrates was the perfect example of being happier with less. While I don't know that his way of life is the answer, I do know that overconsumption and materialism don't necessarily lead to happiness either. 

I also like how the author discussed how we would be unwise to generalize large groups in humanity because of what they possess or don't possess. Like the author said there are some many levels of poverty and I think that poverty can be a frame of mind and not just a lack of possessions. In my own life for example I'd have to say there were times when I was happier when I had less than all the material possessions I currently own. 

Personally, I  think the meaning of happiness is every changing and like the author stated can mean many things. It's not so much about the word happiness, but about the meaning of the words you use to describe it. 

SL

How Wanting Less Leads to Satisfaction

… Abd al-Rahman III, the emir and caliph of Córdoba in 10th-century Spain, summed up a life of worldly success at about age 70: "I have now reigned above 50 years in victory or peace; beloved by my subjects, dreaded by my enemies, and respected by my allies. Riches and honors, power and pleasure, have waited on my call."

And the payoff? "I have diligently numbered the days of pure and genuine happiness which have fallen to my lot," he wrote. "They amount to 14."

As an observer, I understand the problem. I write a column about human happiness for The Atlantic and teach classes on the subject at Harvard. I know that satisfaction is one of the core "macronutrients" of happiness (the other two being enjoyment and meaning), and that its slippery nature is one of the reasons happiness is often so elusive as well...

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/03/why-we-are-never-satisfied-happiness/621304/

Happiness in a sense (Jennifer, MALA 22)

 Posted for Jennifer... [Jennifer, Ashley, and Shira, please post directly to this site... read and comment on one another's posts]

Wednesday, February 9, 2022

Happiness in a sense

Considering the question first posed in the text, "what is happiness?", and dissecting the elucidation of the word into two subject matters: Happiness as it pertains to a state of mind, and happiness in relation to a life that goes well for the person leading it; I can begin to understand how answering the expansive question " what is happiness?," to be challenging. Considering happiness in a psychological sense, we need to take into account the various mental states that happiness can affect. For one cannot experience the state of happiness without witnessing or at least simply acknowledging the possibility it’s opposite(s). Several opposing emotions to happiness are sorrow, depression, melancholy, grief, disdain, and discontempt. If we contemplate happiness in a mental state of mind sense, we must also infer psychologically that the opposing emotions are also a state of mind. Each one, or the lack of each one, lends itself to include pleasure, satisfaction, or an overall positive emotional condition, as mentioned in the reading. 

The second case of identifying happiness being “a life well spent,” leaves me wanting to explore the concept or idea of “a life well spent” in further depth. As Ashley had mentioned, it is highly probable that two individuals' perception of that life well spent will vary to some degree. I believe that variance depends a great deal on the value placed on the idea or concept of happiness and what consists of a happy state of mind, as well as a happy life. 

In my field of work, I have encountered a variety of individuals whose lives by societal norms would be considered lacking in some capacity. Their hardships and current social standings would be less than ideal for the “average”, let's say American. However, their disposition on their life, being fully aware of their struggles and limitations, and lack of opportunities thus far towards this “life well spent” conceptualization, possesses a uniquely positive mindset. I would dare say they would express their state of mind to be happy, enough. Which encourages me to consider that happiness is a posture between the two subject matters presented in the text. It’s actual truth lies within a domain of reality that we as a society cannot construct simply based on a set of ideas. I believe that limits happiness to its barest minimum. I suppose my current stance would fall  into the hybrid theory of happiness and that the true depth of happiness cannot be measured. 

However, as a people, we have certainly tried to define and measure this idea. Material prosperity, as mentioned, appears to be one of the highest currencies for happiness. I believe another is the characteristic that a steady positive disposition equates to being happy; when in reality both of these things, material and a positive disposition, can be fabricated to any degree. That’s not saying that monitarty gain doesn’t have it’s advantages, and a positive disposition doesn’t have a place, I believe they both serve a purpose; however, I am not certain that purpose lends itself to the measure of what happiness is.

Returning to the value of happiness. Is it necessary for the overall well-being of life? I personally, don’t believe so. The idea of well-being itself, to me, encompasses mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual well being. A healthy balance of optimism as well as affliction. Typically the idea of discomfort and happiness don’t coincide with one another. I feel that each is imperative, if nothing else, unavoidable, in acquiring a well being self. 

Here is where many stumble in pursuit of happiness. Our normative views exclude the notion of suffering, true suffering, in regards to a happy life. Struggle, yes. Struggle is almost this idea that is essential to the “American standard” of happiness; however, to suffer…suffering would imply happiness is lost or has been lost to some degree.  Placing the value of one’s happiness at a level I am uncomfortable with. Happiness is not a state of one’s character, yet at times it seems that we value it as such. I believe to do so is a discredit to the individual and the “life they spent”, well or unwell, an impossible scale that is not equitable from one to judge.

 

So for now, I suppose we will continue to philosophize on the idea of happiness. Is it like beauty? It’s simply in the eye of the beholder.   

Chapter 2 Haybron's short intro

I particularly like this chapter. Daniel Haybron's opens up with an excerpt from Ron Haybron's, "Island;" the way he describes the sun going down on the pond and the birds upon the water; and the water in the sand, helps to place you in his shoes and feel like you're there. And when he talks about the veil between us and the truth of existence being very thin, I guess his referring to us as humankind, they're not being much difference between us and I assume the truth of existence being that feeling of being so small in the grand scheme of things. I can relate and being in a similar scene in nature, where your mind as he describes the is free of other interruptions. Although he describes it as a mindless existence and normally we think of mindfulness in terms of meditation; the author also describe this as being "meditative, with no need of mantras or quiet rooms." I can relate to having this feeling not only on the open water, but also in some other settings, also.

I also really liked this chapter because Hebron goes on to describe a happy man that he calls Big Joe and he too uses descriptive writing to make you feel like you're in the setting- with Big Joe catching dolphin in the ocean, reeling in fish; and even admiring them for their beauty although on the hunts to capture them, to eat. And even makes you feel the danger associated with his mission. He describes Joe and his wife's life of needing little resources to live on, building his own home, and doing all of his own maintenance, only a carpentry job in addition to the fishing that he does, keeping the bills paid. Sounds like a very confident man, get mild tempered; and independent- enjoying very much so being his own boss. Haybron used the example of Joe, to show how as society, we judge someone's happiness (sometimes,) by observing the person to assess their emotional condition. However Hebron goes on to say that emotional condition is much deeper than just a person's body language etc. 

In this chapter he focuses on the emotional state theory of happiness. And says that considering this date to be happy is to have a favorable emotional condition. However he basically says you can't just go off of outward appearances of happiness such as smiling etc because there's more to it than just being happy you have to actually feel happy. He says most people list days such as the birth of their child etc as the happiest days of their lives; however, basically says that you can't just factor that one day into being happy; and describes sustained periods of happiness more in relation to a person actually being happy and then just having one extremely happy day because of extremely happy event. 

Then he goes on to describe the three aspects that are important and happiness, in relation to the emotional state theory. The first is endorsement which is feeling happy and other classic emotions, the second is engagement through vitality and flow which is basically finding interest in your own life/ not being depressed, or uninterested in the things in it. And the third being attunements which is a piece of mind, confidence, expensiveness... And for this he gives the example of tranquility. He describes this state of attunement as when a person relaxes blossoms and living seems to be natural without inhibition." And further describes it as when you feel safe secure and unthreatened. Attainment has three basic aspects that he lists as inner calmness (or tranquility,) confidence, and expansiveness of mood or spirit (or being carefree or uncompressed.) He goes on to say that confidence he means here as a somatic confidence (of feeling wholy at home in your body,) rather than the egotistical assumption of the word confidence. And describes stress sort of as something that can smolder ones ability for their happiness to burn brightly, if you will. 

Then the author introduces us to another fictional character by the name of Robert who outwardly appears to be very happy but whom he says breaks down in tears before falling asleep each night. Hedonicly speaking Robert would be considered as happy however psychologically speaking he is obviously depressed to be crying every night, and therefore can't be technically happy. Haybron says that there are non-conscious aspects of our emotional conditions as well.  And those non-conscious aspects he says our defense within our happiness. He describes the person's mood propensity as they're likelihood to experience certain moods and emotions over others and temperament he says is more fixated around somebody's mood propensity which he says changes with circumstances.

Here Haybron sums up the chapter by saying that looking at happiness as emotional well-being would have two parts which consist of your emotions and your moods in addition to your mood propensity and so he says that to be happy and for once emotional condition to be favorable as a whole not only do their emotions and mood matter but also their propensity to them, which he contributes to circumstances. As opposed to hedonism, which just looks at the experiences that you're given rather than your emotions to them. He then quotes a colleague and Buddhist thinker who describes a similar view as his when he says "by happiness I mean here a deep sense of flourishing that arises from an exceptionally healthy mind." And then he leads into the next chapter in which he will cover the third theory the life satisfaction theory.

Chapter one of Haybron's happiness a very short introduction

 In chapter 1 Haybron quotes Crito to Socrates, who awaited execution. I think this really depicts the extremely mindful person that Socrates was. Crito seems to be saying that he always knew that Socrates was highly filled with mindfulness; but that he can't believe that even in, what would be an extremely terrifying experience to anyone else, that Socrates maintains that unaltered state of mindfulness (even when awaiting his own death. ) 

Quotes Daniel Everett who had studied the Pirahas lifestyle, and what makes their society such a happy place to live; as they live in the Amazon, without the materialistic things that we are accustomed to in our society, but when studied by psychologist have appeared to be some of the happiest people ever. Everett had written that he had once asked the Pariaha's if they knew why he was there; and judging from their responses it seems that they were oblivious to why someone would want to study them or that somebody was. It seems that they assumed that he felt the same way that they did, that it was just wonderful place to be.

 At the end of the chapter, Haybron begins to outline the same different outlooks on happiness, as he had described in his encyclopedia entry; and then throws in a little humor by telling the readers that if they're just interested and finding out quickly the meaning of happiness they don't have to proceed through the whole book, for they could simply just read chapters 1, 2, 5 and 8. Lol. 

Thoughts on Haybron's Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Entry

 Well, of course this text is only centered around the psychological consideration for happiness and not happiness in the sense of the value term; but I would have to agree; however, with the fact that happiness cannot simply be equal or the same as well-being because there are other factors (that one would have to take into account,) that when summed up, equate to well-being, for each individual, as a whole.

That being said, and looking at happiness in terms of a psychological description, I do see why happiness; even narrowing it down to a psychological state, becomes such a topic of debate. 

Considering the two aspects to be considered within the psychological theories, surrounding the term and meaning, of the word happiness: state of mind and a life gone well; I feel as though happiness could actually be a combination of the two. 

Although I do not agree with the first case, in which, psychologically speaking, some believe that happiness is not valuable at all. I would have to agree with the second case, which gives prudential value to happiness.

But at the same time, like I said, I do not think that happiness is equal to well-being; nor that they are in essence, in or of the same thing.

However I do lean strongly towards the individuality factor, within the article, which discusses how we consider that what benefits one person, may not benefit another; or what one person desires, may not be desirable, to another.

I feel like this is because what each of us values within our lives are different, because we are all different; and even if two people were to say value the same things, they are still individuals; and they may value those same things, but at different degrees. The saying that comes to mind, when considering this factor, for me is: "what's good for the goose, is not always good for the gander." I feel like two individuals, could even have the similar morals and ethics (in terms of virtues they posses;) and possibly even the same religious (or non-religious outlooks on life;) yet could still value similar attributes to their happiness at differing degrees. 

I also feel like the topic of how we feel towards other people's success and happiness or misfortune, to me at least, seems like a tricky area of discussion. It is also subjective to individuality, in my mind. Because while I would have sympathy for someone who was doing poorly, there are always some individuals; regardless of the reason, that will rejoice actually in the misfortune of someone else. And while we should rejoice in the good fortunes of others, as the text does state, there are those who envy when someone else is doing well.

While often, I would agree with the aristotleans, that a life will lived- a life full of virtuous activity, in which one fills their human capacity to the fullest extent; should be most desirable, I also feel that one cannot an honesty say that one is truly happy, without ever fully receiving anything outside of those virtues, that attributed to their happiness; other than the happiness they received by just doing what was right, throughout the course of a life.

While I agree to some extent that a happy life could be a balance of pleasant and unpleasant experiences, to some extent; I would have to lean more towards the life satisfaction theory, which gives an affirmation of the happiness one feels about one's life as a whole; and also feel some agreement towards the emotional state view with the different categories that make up once happiness. I think again for me the term that comes to mind is individuality- we all come from different heredity, different social backgrounds; and what makes each of us unique, and even makes each of us have perhaps a differing set of virtues or moral standards, and of course what makes each of us happy, will always be different, and unique, just as we are.

I for one feel that the Gallup world pole study on life satisfaction is an inaccurate account, of the relationship between material and prosperity and life satisfaction. I feel that happiness is a very big component of life satisfaction; and I do not feel that happiness comes in material form. 

As an individual I have always found perspective to be a very interesting topic. As it relates to this reading, one onlooker could see someone with a high household income, and luxury conveniences; as someone who has everything together, and could mistakenly assume that that person is happy. Meanwhile they could feel sorrow for a family let's say that is struggling through homelessness; however, not realizing that the true calculation of the homeless family's happiness, is in actuality, quite higher than that of the family who is better off in terms of material value. Especially over the past couple of years with the pandemic, and the astronomical number of families suffering through homelessness; and if one were to watch some of the advertisements of companies like rocket mortgage, which released videos, to broadcast the severity of the problem of homelessness in our nation right now; I would think that even more so than ever, it would be obvious that the calculations of people reporting to be happy even in homelessness, would be even higher than usual.

For me I even feel that some things that make us feel happy, can also create additional talents, etc; and in essence create additional happiness in us; and also can create additional happiness in which we want to share with others, through those talents. I guess what I'm saying is that I believe there are different tiers of happiness; someone could be happy in their relationship for instance, and it could make them so happy that they find talents within them, that they feel like they could share with the world; and from sharing those talents with the world they couldn't essence create additional happiness in other people.

At any rate, I definitely see why happiness is such a hot topic of debate amongst philosophers. I for one do believe in God, and a heaven; however, much like my views on happiness, I feel that each individuals version of heaven, is different from anyone else's. Just as I feel that each individual's definition of happiness is different. And also, that there are different tiers and aspects that make up our happiness as a whole; and that the happiness of our lives as we see them overall can also change over time through life experiences.

"Collaborative Living"

What would Epicurus say?

They Took a Chance on Collaborative Living. They Lost Everything.
A group that sought to create Connecticut's first experiment in collaborative living fell short. Some of the investors lost their life savings.

For Claudia Ruffle, living in a co-housing community was a lifelong dream. She longed for connection with people who shared her values, particularly around concern for the environment. But as an introvert, she found it hard to meet people on her own.

Co-housing, a form of collaborative living that originated in Denmark, provided "a structure where I didn't have to be outgoing and could still get the benefit of getting to know people," said Ms. Ruffle, 72, a former substitute teacher and administrative secretary. "It compensated for my lack of outgoingness."

So she was among the early supporters of what was envisioned as Connecticut's first co-housing community. After more than a decade of planning, the project, called Rocky Corner, finally broke ground in 2018 on a 33-acre plot in Bethany, a suburb of New Haven.

Ms. Ruffle and a friend contracted to purchase one of the attached housing units there, and sold their home in New Haven in anticipation of closing in 2019. But their closing date kept getting extended. And then members of the community were told that the project was having a cash flow problem... nyt

This made me smile this morning! I hope all have a great weekend!!!