Happiness through Improvement of Character - Essay Example

? Happiness through Improvement of Character, Meditation and Increasing Generosity and Kindness There must be at least one reason why he is happy, but no matter what that reason is, what is important is that one knows happiness itself. Happiness is not the ego or the fulfillment of basic animal desires like being able to drink and eat as much as one wants. Happiness is also not synonymous to money nor is there a dictionary meaning for it. Happiness is neither measurable nor definable but it is all about the result of an individual’s appreciation and reflection of things and people in his life, and of the kindness and generosity that these things and people instill in him. True happiness is beyond meaning and description. In his article “Happy Like God,” Critchley emphasizes the idea of happiness as something that even the French philosopher Rousseau could hardly define. This is because the beauty of the moment of happiness is something that is only likened to “a state where the soul can find a resting-place secure enough to establish itself and concentrate its entire being there” (Critchley 449). This is actually a time where “the present runs on indefinitely” and where the past and the future do not matter yet it is something that no one can define as just the present (449). It is therefore true that “happiness is not quantitative or measurable and it is not the object of any science, old or new” (450). This means that, for Critchley, happiness is something that can never be gauged for not only does happiness depend on the person who is feeling it but also it depends on the value of the present moment and how each person defines that moment for him. The experience and the feeling one has naturally cannot be quantified and cannot even be expressed in words. Nevertheless, it is closest to the term “feeling of existence,” or the time when someone feels the moment that he exists and he experiences such happiness (450). Moreover, although unquantifiable, this moment of happiness is very much sufficient. In fact, Rousseau defines such a state of happiness as a God-like state: “as long as this state lasts we are self sufficient like God” (450). This is therefore the highest state of things, or the state where one does not want anything else but to be in such a feeling or such a state. Nevertheless, happiness in any form defies measurement. Happiness is also an experience of appreciation and reflection of things and people in one’s life. While Critchley and Rousseau would equate this appreciation and reflection with being alone in the experience of stillness, there were once people like the Greek philosopher Epictetus, who thought that happiness is also one’s experience of stillness but this stillness is wisdom, and such wisdom is not about being alone but being aware of how to deal with others. For Epictetus, the lack of wisdom and reason makes one either a sheep or a wild beast, which is what most people are. A sheep will naturally simply “act gluttonously…lewdly…rashly, filthily [and] inconsiderately,” while a wild beast would normally act “harmfully, passionately [and] violently” (Epictetus). The wisdom that Epictetus means must be similar to the wisdom that Rousseau realized when he thought of a God-like state of existence, only that Epictetus’ wisdom is directed towards one’s fellowman. Moreover, according to Epictetus, if people lack wisdom, they tend to worry about and change things that are beyond their control, such as “What would others think?” or “What would others say if I did this?” and they then cease being happy. They do not anymore experience that blissful God-like state that Rousseau described earlier. The point of Epictetus is that no matter how intelligent or good someone is, if he does not possess wisdom, he will always be swayed by other people’s influence as well as by his opinions of the things over which he has no control. Therefore, if one lacks wisdom, one lacks contentment and happiness, and one tends to change the unchangeable. The man of wisdom simply does the opposite and is therefore happy. Nevertheless, how does this wisdom affect others and one’s relationships with others? It does so by teaching one how to accept others as well and not to condemn them for who they are. If one accepts others as they are, then one is always happy and forever contented in life. Moreover, Epictetus’ philosophy is all about possessing wisdom and reason in order to attain happiness. In fact, Epictetus believes that the lack of reasoning power and wisdom will make people tend to be emotional, vengeful and passionate: “Passion overpowers the better council [and may therefore result] in wars and civil commotions, and the destruction of many men and cities” (Epictetus). Perhaps, what Epictetus states here is that the civil unrest and wars and poverty that one sees on TV are actually a result of unhappy people who actually lack reason and wisdom and who cannot accept the world as it is and people as they are. Critchley’s God-like moment of existence and Epictetus’ state of wisdom are the same as Aristotle’s state of “a being-at-work of the soul in accordance with reason, or not without reason” (Aristotle). This means that the attainment of happiness is dependent on one’s capacity to fulfill one’s work or function in society based on a particular standard and based on reason. This means that if man does not let reason rule him and his thoughts, and if he lets emotion, anger and pride and other negative qualities overcome him and direct his thoughts and actions, then he will not be truly happy. Perhaps, with emotions, he will be temporarily happy because he needs these emotions as objects to make him happy. However, Aristotle clearly reiterates that happiness always comes together with its main feature – completeness: “…we choose [happiness] always on account of itself and never on account of anything else” for “no one chooses happiness…for the sake of anything else at all (Aristotle). Emotions of love, relationships and money are all pursued for the sake of happiness and are therefore not the same as happiness itself. Moreover, aside from reason, the best thing to do to ensure the happiness of oneself and others is through virtue: “The one who is at work in accordance with virtue will act and act well” and “it is the ones who act rightly who become accomplished people” (Aristotle). This means that if one truly wants to be happy, then he must act towards himself and others with virtue, or with rightness and reason. If one treats people right with reason and justice, then it must be the same as giving them kindness and generosity. This then makes one happy and contented. In the same way, whether one likes it or not, kindness and generosity will always be returned. Moreover, for Aristotle, for virtue to foster happiness, virtue must be a mean and this mean or virtue is a quality that is semantically located between two extremes or two vices – a lack and an excess. This is the Doctrine of the Mean. For example, in terms of appetite, “insensibility” is the vice of lack, “self-indulgence” is the vice of excess, and “temperance” is the mean or virtue (Aristotle). Although Aristotle admits that “it is no easy task to find the middle,” happiness can only be attained by constantly living a life according to the mean, and that is the virtuous and happy life (Aristotle). In the same way that Rousseau and Epictetus glorified the role of contentment in the pursuit of happiness, Beothius did the same in his Consolation, where he states, “…when something happens which appears contrary to your opinion of right and wrong, it is your opinion which is wrong and confused, while the order of things is right” (Boethius). In short, Boethius somehow teaches someone to simply accept everything – both the good and the bad – as something that God or Providence has willed to happen. This is the only way to be happy. Boethius’ philosophy is similar to the Christian principle of fully trusting God and accepting his will and believing that no matter how bad things may seem, one must trust that everything happens for good. In the same way, in order to be happy, one should accept people as they are and as the good and bad and imperfect creatures that they are. One must therefore not withhold kindness and generosity towards everyone – both good and bad – for kindness and generosity speak of love, and “love rules the earth and the seas, and command the heavens” (Boethius). Therefore, if one has to continue being happy, then one should never stop loving despite how the world treats him back. In the same way that Aristotle emphasized virtue and doing good to others, Boethius advocated love for others. In fact, while Aristotle’s ideas must be done according to reason, Boethius’ must be done according to this unconditional love, which is actually even purer than reason and certainly much more difficult. However, unlike Boethius, who advocated the acceptance of suffering in order to be happy, the British philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that happiness is the avoidance of suffering and pain and the pursuit of pleasure: “an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments [or pleasure], both in point of quantity and quality” (Mill 412). Nevertheless, Mill emphasized that in order to experience a higher degree of pleasure than the beast, man needs only one thing – an education that will teach him the higher faculties (433). This means that if one feels the same way as an animal whenever he experiences pleasures, then this is not the true happiness that one is destined to experience as a human being. Moreover, like Epictetus and Aristotle, Mill also advocates making other people happy in order to make oneself happy. This can be done by seeking the happiness of the greatest number in every moral decision that one has to make (422). This means that actions can only promote happiness only if it benefits and makes happy the greatest number of people involved. Moreover, like Rousseau and Boethius, the basis of Mill’s principle of happiness is also religious. In fact, according to Mill, “If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures…utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other (421). This therefore means that one should be happy in the same way that God wants all His creatures to be happy. Therefore, the kindness and generosity that one shows his neighbor must be a reflection of God’s kindness and generosity towards people. Happiness is not only a feeling as what Rousseau contended and not just the physical pleasure that Mill taught. Happiness is a scientific phenomenon which although cannot be measured, can be proven to exist. In fact, the claims that Buddhists are happy are not just unwarranted claims but are heavily supported scientific data: “The left prefrontal lobes of experienced Buddhist practitioners light up consistently rather than just during meditation” (Flanagan). Nevertheless, the idea of happiness is not a matter of left or right lobes but that true happiness is living a life full of happiness and being happy all the time, and not just during times of meditation, times of pleasure or times of love. Constant happiness is demonstrated by the lives of the Buddhist monks. This is something that all people should try to emulate. This means that happiness is constant, non-stop kindness and generosity. Moreover, similar to Mill’s ideas of pleasures refined by education and somewhat similar to Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean, happiness must be done with discipline. According to Artel, “What we’ve been promised is the right to run after happiness, not happiness per se.” This means that the pursuit of happiness is not equivalent to drugs and chocolate and other forms of temporary pleasure, because happiness is none other than a calm mind and the desire to know joy (Artel). This means that happiness is not about excessive and absolute freedom. Rather, it is about the refinement of one’s definition of pleasure at any point, it must be synonymous to discipline. If there is one person who would question happiness and the idea of being kind and generous to others in order to attain happiness, then it must be Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche believed that such altruistic acts of kindness and generosity will only promote destruction of the self: “How can the man of a good will offer himself as sacrifice for humanity and at the same time preserve himself?” Therefore, for Nietzsche, it would be cruel to oneself if one gives to others (Nietzsche). Nevertheless, Nietzsche missed the point when he accused kindness and generosity of their tendency towards destroying the individual. What he does not realize is that giving as advocated by Mill, Aristotle, and others is all about wholehearted giving. Nobody naturally gives for his own destruction. The basis of giving should only be done if there is sincerity in one’s heart, and even if giving were to be a sacrifice, the giver is never destroyed as what Nietzsche implies but is rather even blessed even if that blessing were to happen only in death. Happiness is indeed immeasurable considering these various ideas on how to attain it. However, it is, as what many great minds have concluded, a virtue that is governed by many principles but all of these support kindness and generosity towards others and a reasoned life for oneself. Some of these principles include the feeling of God-like existence by Rousseau and Critchley, the value of wisdom by Epictetus, the Doctrine of the Mean and the idea of virtue by Aristotle, the idea of love and acceptance by Boethius, the idea of refined pleasures by Mill, the idea of scientific love by Flanagan and the concept of disciplined love by Lili. Moreover, despite Nietzsche’s accusation that giving and kindness rather foster pain and destruction of the giver, what he does not realize is that sincerity in giving does not let the self be harmed. Top of Form Bottom of Form Works Cited Boethius. The Consolation of Philosophy. London:  Penguin Books, Ltd, 1969. Print. Critchley, Simon. “Happy Like God.” Reassessing the Presidency. New York: Prentice Hall, 2008. Print. Epictetus. Discourses. Trans. George Long. Constitution Society. 2011. Web. 2013 Dec 2. Flanagan, Owen. “The colour of happiness.” My New Scientist. Print. Lili, Artel. “The Pursuit of Happiness.” 2004. Free Inquiry. Print. Mill, John Stuart. “Utilitarianism.” Ten Great Works of Philosophy. Ed. Robert Paul Wolff. New York: Penguin Books USA Inc., 1984. Print. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. 2008. Print. 2013 Dec 2. Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals. Vancouver Island University, 2011. Web. 2 Dec 2013. Read More