The Humble Humanist
  • Home
  • the humble Humanist links
  • Where the Rubber Meets the Road
  • Contact the humble Humanist
  • Forum...Say It Here
  • RSS Feed Reader
  • Link Page

if you're happy and you know it clap your hands (another post from the past because I was thinking about happiness.

6/14/2012

7 Comments

 
I am reading the Happiness Myth by Jennifer Michael Hecht and holy shit I am happy.  The myths in the title are the sum of all the ways we have defined and constrained the pursuit of happiness through the ages.  If you need justification/permission to be REALLY HAPPY you just might find it in Jennifer Hecht's book.  In the first chapter she asks us to reconsider the legitimacy of drug induced happiness.  It's a hook that worked on me and before I knew it I was ass deep in the philosophy/history of happiness.
As a humanist I am concerned with the quality of life on earth in the here, now and future.  I judge the state of my life by the amount and quality of happiness I feel in the present and to a certain extent the happiness I anticipate in the future.  This judgement includes the happiness of those closest to me and then in ever widening concentric circles the rest of humanity and other sentient beings.  

what is happiness?
  
 The Happiness Myth as well as the Psychology Today article referred to below prompted me to think about exactly what I mean by the word 'happiness'.  Is happiness "an objective condition of life rather than a hedonic mental state" is one way to get at a definition. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-fair-society/201108/what-good-is-happiness-part-two  I believe there are certainly objective conditions which must be met in order to achieve a "hedonic state of mind".  The most basic and obvious are enough to eat, a safe environment and access to the resources to acquire the basic needs.  Or is a more clear definition found in Hecht's book, simply put as "Happiness is feeling good."?  She does offer a more concrete suggestion, breaking the concept into 3 distinct categories: a good day, euphoria and a happy life. A good day might consist in getting something to eat or buying a new ipad. Euphoria could be gotten through sex, drugs or some mystical experience, etc..  A happy life is a bit more complicated.  As Hecht points out the pursuit of the happy life may involve us in difficult or unpleasant tasks such as labor, delaying or even forgoing gratification in order to create the conditions for achieving a happy life. Sometimes the various types of happiness are in sync sometimes not so much.

In the Psychology Today article cited above Peter Corning suggests that real happiness is about satisfying our basic  biological needs including our innate sense of fairness. As Corning puts it "The bottom line is simply this:  Happiness is a worthy goal (I wish it Godspeed), but as a nation we would do much better to be guided by a biological perspective and to give the highest priority to meeting the basic needs of all of our people, with full employment being only a starting point.  This is the very foundation of social justice, and it is an essential prerequisite for "the pursuit of happiness.". "

Is happiness a matter of satisfying certain basic everyday biological needs spiced with a dash of euphoria and pursuit of a common value based goal?  Most of the things that induce my personal happiness would fit into one or more of these categories. I wouldn't argue with the baseline for happiness being the satisfaction of basic biological needs especially since as a hardcore materialist I believe the whole of human experience is defined by our biological nature. As for euphoria, can there ever be enough? I don't think so.  Hecht says otherwise, "Euphoria is the spice of life: you don't need much but most of us really need some."  I would amend that statement to "most of us really need some more."  While I agree with her that true euphoria is not a commonplace experience I believe the investment of time and energy in its pursuit is worthwhile in and of itself.  As for sharing value based common goals, well we are all in this together.  Sharing the rewards and risks inherent in life is just an ethic I believe in deeply. Does anyone reading this really believe it's every man for himself?  I agree with Hecht when she says "We are not individuals, not really. We are each a node in a mesh of relationships." And for me the wider and deeper the mesh the happier I am.


That is all I have for now.  If you happen to read this let me know what you think about happiness and what makes you happy.
7 Comments
Paul S
6/14/2012 08:42:43 am

I'm not sure full employment is the starting point for happiness as a whole. It would require people to work the job, live the role they were assigned versus the role/job they want. Of course, a society that mandated full employment might also tell the people to stop wanting what they cannot have. Be happy with what we have given you, it is enough.
One other thought, full employment is great, but forcing it is generally going to be unsustainable as it would require society to support inefficient work, smother innovation and over-achievement because it must maintain as smooth of an economic cycle as possible (very few and very small ups/downs). You know what they say 'necessity is the mother of invention' and economic cycles drive necessity. but I'm no economist or sociologist so take it for what its worth. :)
Yes, we are all in this together and what makes me happy is seeing others enjoying life. Too bad there are the jerks out there who are in it just for themselves. :) I think its more about freedom to pursue happiness comes with responsibility to ensure the survival of the whole society and not just the individual.

Reply
ron
6/14/2012 09:02:24 am

Paul, I agree with you about full employment. I think it is a strange place start the search for happiness. Socrates said something about happiness being the ability to live with yourself, which requires that you know yourself. I think personal happiness is a personal thing and getting to know yourself seems like a good place to start. I can also get to know myself by engaging with others, I will see myself in them and learn more about what kind of person I am through the eyes of another. Caring about other people is often a fine way to be happy. I agree with you that happiness and its pursuit comes with a responsibility to your fellow creatures.
Thanks for the comment. Hope to hear more from you.

Reply
ann link
6/15/2012 10:22:56 pm

re: full employment, i can see the reasoning behind that idea...vonnegut's 'player piano' comes to mind (i swear i read other writers!). as to your question: 'Does anyone reading this really believe it's every man for himself?' not me - no way! the most miserable people i've ever met have been 'for themselves'...the most fulfilled, inspired and inspiring people i've met have been literally surrounded by people who need them and who they need. jule styne nailed it, i think: 'people who need people are the luckiest people in the world.' if we could all figure that one out for real, i think we'd all be a lot happier for it.

Reply
ron
6/16/2012 06:06:11 am

i wonder if full employment can mean more than just a job? could it mean employing our talents/gifts/abilities/faculties in ways we find fulfilling? happiness is an elusive brass ring and i suspect there are as many ways to catch it as there are voices to describe it. As for your reading habits i have never doubted there is a considerable scope to it and besides if one were to read a single author vonnegut would make the final list with ease. i am a big enough geek to have 'people who need people' by streisand on my ipod. one of the beautiful things about the social networks like facebook, twitter, tumblr, linkedin...for all their drawbacks they are expanding the connections between people and that can only be good. i have 'met' and connected and shared opinions/insights with people all over the world, france, england, kenya, egypt and all over the usa...ok my point is that individuals are finding out they are not as different as our leaders would have us believe - and that makes me happy.

Reply
ann link
6/16/2012 09:37:26 pm

all beautifully put, and i've naught to add save this: while having barbara streisand on your ipod does indeed make you a geek, it is a geek of the single greatest variety: a sentimental one. few versions of few songs evoke such a reaction...i'm thinking of nina simone's versions of ne me quitte pas and here comes the sun...both of which, if i had an ipod, would be on it.

Reply
Jennifer link
6/20/2012 03:15:48 pm

Great post. I rather agree with the basic needs being met definition. When I am confident about those basic needs, I'm not stressed and that means, I'm pretty relaxed and happy. So I think there is something g to that. It's a prerequisite

Reply
Ron
6/21/2012 06:46:36 am

Hi Jennifer, thanks for reading my blog and commenting. I really enjoy your posts on FB and Twitter. Providing for basic needs is one of the most important services we can perform...it lifts everyone involved and is a path to a most satisfying kind of happiness.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Picture
    Editorial Board
    View my profile on LinkedIn

    Archives

    December 2012
    September 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    March 2011
    November 2009
    October 2009


    RSS Feed

    Share

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    poetry on the run

Proudly powered by Weebly