Archive | eudaimonia RSS feed for this section

Aristotle meets the Dalai Lama

1 Feb

Aristotle-Face1 Dalai Lama 2

Generally speaking, in spite of the fuss we make about its onset, January is not a month for happiness. Personally I’m not sorry it’s over. However, its early stages are often marked by discourses on the happiness theme, and one of them was provided by Mark Tully in Something Understood, broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on January 6. This is the date when Christians celebrate the festival of the epiphany – meaning revelation or ‘bringing to the light’.

epiphany

According to Tully the Dalai Lama (not himself a Christian, of course) believes that  the purpose of our life is to seek happiness – that the whole motion of our life is towards it. But is this a reasonable goal? Yes, the Dalai Lama replies. We can attain happiness by training our minds. Inner discipline helps us to transform our attitudes – our approach to living. We need to identify the factors in our lives that lead to happiness and those that lead to suffering, and then gradually eliminate the latter, and cultivate the former. 

Although I’m not in general a fan of the ‘pursuit of happiness’ idea, I’m really not disagreeing with any of this. I do want to be happy, and unlike some of the friends I talk to I believe that happiness is something we can work at. Some people have made the decision not to aim at happiness, and I respect them for this – it’s a reasonable and I think in some ways a moral point of view.  But most of us seek it, and this is probably a necessary thing, and possibly even a good one, provided it doesn’t lead to complacency (which I suspect is not something we can accuse the Dalai Lama of). But I do feel strongly that the pursuit of happiness is a personal endeavour – a product of the principle of individualism – and that it isn’t going to change the world. As a species we might even be better off without it. 

One reason why I’m inclined to favour the Dalai Lama’s views is that they seem to be quite close to those of Aristotle, although I do find Aristotle a bit more convincing. In the Nicomachean Ethics the philosopher argues that what distinguishes us humans from other animals is that we have a rational soul: our capacity to guide ourselves by using reason is our distinguishing feature – our ‘telos’ or end. So if we use our reason well, we are living well as human beings, and this is what our happiness (our ‘eudaimonia’) consists of.  Living well means doing something, not just being in a particular condition – it means pursuing those lifelong activities which will satisfy the rational part of our being. But Aristotle also makes it clear that in order to be happy we need other things as well – such as friends, money, and political power –  because our capacity to live in accordance with reason will be diminished if we lack these advantages.

“This gives rise to the question, can happiness be learnt, or acquired by training? … or is it bestowed by some divine dispensation or even by fortune?  Well, if anything that humans have is a gift from the gods, it is reasonable to suppose that happiness is divinely given … Still, even if happiness isn’t sent to us from heaven, but is gained by virtue and by some kind of study or practice, it does nevertheless seem to be one of the most divine things that exists.”    

(Nicomachean Ethics 1097b-1099b ). 

Does this mean that we also have a duty to be happy, as one of Tully’s other contributors – theologian Christopher Kaczor – was arguing? I’m afraid that it might, but for the time being I’m resisting the idea.  When you’re feeling depressed, the last thing you need is someone standing over you, saying, ‘Come on, snap out of it! You’re under a moral obligation to be happy, don’t you realise that?’ This approach, I find, isn’t remotely helpful. 

 

Advertisements

Anyone for eudaimonia?

17 Jan

 

The results of the  2012/13 ‘happiness’ survey, released last autumn by the Office for National Statistics, show a small improvement in our well-being ratings compared with the results for 2011/12 (see this blog, Sept 8th 2012).

Average anxiety levels dropped from 3.1 to 3 in 2012/13 (on a scale of 0 to 10). Average life satisfaction rose from 7.41 to 7.45, worthwhile feelings from 7.66 to 7.7, and ‘I felt happy yesterday’ from 7.28 to 7.29.  The ONS says in its report that it doesn’t  know why this small improvement has occurred, prompting ‘The Guardian’  to ask in one of its headlines, ‘Are Britons really more happy than in 2012?’ The paper doesn’t think that it’s true, and suggests that the statistics may be a bit dodgy (October 23rd 2013). I remain neutral.

The ONS report did tell me a bit more about the thinking behind the questions which are posed in the survey. ‘Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays?’ reflects the evaluative approach – people are asked to think about how their lives are going overall. This corresponds, I think, with Daniel Kahneman’s  ‘life satisfaction’ strand, the response to our lives evoked by our ‘remembering’ selves. Kahneman’s ‘experiencing’ self is addressed in the questions, ‘Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday?’ and ‘Overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday? This is what the ONS calls the ‘experience’ approach, which measures people’s positive and negative experiences over a short timeframe to capture their sense of well-being on a day-to-day basis.

 Finally the ‘eudemonic’ approach is addressed in ‘Overall, to what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile?’  This is derived from the Greek word ‘eudaimonia’ (‘having a good spirit’), which is generally translated as ‘happiness’. For the ONS this measures people’s sense of meaning in their lives, their connections with family and friends, their sense of control over their own activities, and whether they feel part of something bigger than themselves. All of these factors would indeed have been seen by many ancient Greeks as essential contributors to their sense of ‘having good spirits’.

Happy New Year.