The value of happiness

JohnGalt

This is a question which I have not resolved with any degree of satisfaction. It can be easily summed up by that familiar old quote of John Stuart Mill

"It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied"

It seems inevitable that if one is to partake in truly free inquiry, be it philosophical or scientific, one must be open to the possibility that conclusions which are not entirely joyful or pleasant could be reached. But if happiness is your number one goal, truth is secondary in importance, and thus any attempt at free inquiry will be burdened by a desire to avoid potentially painful conclusions. The question, I guess, really comes down to the matter of truth versus happiness, and which you value more. It is not a dichotomy, it is possible to reach both, but it seems that the two are fundamentally opposed when it comes down to certain questions. What are your thoughts on this question?

Joe1919

It's not so much that 'truth' and 'happiness' are opposed, its more that we are talking about two completely separate things.

Truth usually refers to facts or knowledge, its part of the intellect.

Happiness refers to feelings, its connected to the 'will' (we 'will' to be happy).We usually refer to the 'value' of happiness and what we 'ought' to do to be happy.

There is a long history of this dichotomy between truth/ happiness, intellect/will, fact/value (Moore) and is/ought (Hume).

You could argue that happiness is an internal psychological state whereas pain is an external physical state.

Truth is often considered to be a correspondence, say between our internal thoughts or conceptions of the world and the external real world itself. ( I am pre-supposing realism here and some would disagree).

To apply the idea of truth to happiness, one could argue that one could be truly happy when one external situation is good (i.e. one is healthy, stimulated, fulfilled, free of pain, desire etc.) and one is aware of this and desires this.

However, since happiness is an internal psychological state, on could be happy if 'one thinks' or is under the illusion that everything is great or going to be great (perhaps in the next world).
This is perhaps because we are 'goal directed animals' (Aristotle) and our anticipated future prospects can make us happy, although these may be false.
Conversely, anticipated future 'dread' or worry or anxiety can make us unhappy although this may not likely be the case.

Therefore, happiness may only be an illusion in many cases. The happiness itself is real, the illusion being in 'what' is making us happy.
Conversely, sadness may also only be an illusion too if this is the case. (if not actually suffering the reality of pain).

Of coure, there are arguments that happiness is more about brain chemistry and that we have a sort of 'happiness thermostat' that is set at different levels for different people and that no matter what good or bad luck we have, our thermostat will bring us back eventually to our original residual level . However I personally find this argument perhaps a little too reductive.

Finally, if you are interested in the topic of the history of happiness, I found the book 'The Pursuit of Happiness' by Darrin McMahon a great read.

JohnGalt

Joe1919 wrote: »

It's not so much that 'truth' and 'happiness' are opposed, its more that we are talking about two completely separate things.

Truth usually refers to facts or knowledge, its part of the intellect.

Happiness refers to feelings, its connected to the 'will' (we 'will' to be happy).We usually refer to the 'value' of happiness and what we 'ought' to do to be happy.

There is a long history of this dichotomy between truth/ happiness, intellect/will, fact/value (Moore) and is/ought (Hume).

You could argue that happiness is an internal psychological state whereas pain is an external physical state.

Truth is often considered to be a correspondence, say between our internal thoughts or conceptions of the world and the external real world itself. ( I am pre-supposing realism here and some would disagree).

To apply the idea of truth to happiness, one could argue that one could be truly happy when one external situation is good (i.e. one is healthy, stimulated, fulfilled, free of pain, desire etc.) and one is aware of this and desires this.

However, since happiness is an internal psychological state, on could be happy if 'one thinks' or is under the illusion that everything is great or going to be great (perhaps in the next world).
This is perhaps because we are 'goal directed animals' (Aristotle) and our anticipated future prospects can make us happy, although these may be false.
Conversely, anticipated future 'dread' or worry or anxiety can make us unhappy although this may not likely be the case.

Therefore, happiness may only be an illusion in many cases. The happiness itself is real, the illusion being in 'what' is making us happy.
Conversely, sadness may also only be an illusion too if this is the case. (if not actually suffering the reality of pain).

Of coure, there are arguments that happiness is more about brain chemistry and that we have a sort of 'happiness thermostat' that is set at different levels for different people and that no matter what good or bad luck we have, our thermostat will bring us back eventually to our original residual level . However I personally find this argument perhaps a little too reductive.

Finally, if you are interested in the topic of the history of happiness, I found the book 'The Pursuit of Happiness' by Darrin McMahon a great read.

Thanks for offering your perspective. I am sure that happiness can be explained as a physiological response to certain stimuli, but that isn't exactly what I refer to. To crystallise my point, take the idea of the after life as an example. It may be comforting to accept the idea that we will live again after we die and meet those who we knew during our time one earth. If happiness was your primary goal in life, you would not look at this idea critically, you would simply decide that it makes you happy so you believe it. However if you value the persuite of truth, you would not accept it blindly.

Joe1919

I think I see where you're coming from. There is a long tradition in philosophy in stating that happiness is the ultimate value. i.e. Happiness= 'the good'

Many people have challenged this, stating that this is really only another form of hedonism and suggesting that other values need to be taken into account. e.g. Virtue, knowledge, beauty, truth, love, duty. ( also see Roberts Nozick's anti-hedonist argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Experience_Machine )

I think JS Mill was aware of the limitations of Utilitarianism but perhaps thought that it was the best that could be achieved. His famous sentences "sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it." http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill4.htm has also come in for considerable criticism. If I am a sadist and desire seeing people in pain, then seeing pain is desirable to me but that does make my sadism desirable or sadism 'in itself' desirable. Similarly it can be argued that a society in desiring something does not necessarily make that 'thing' itself desirable.

I still think that if we take 'truth as correspondence', then perhaps one could argue that it's not happiness that is 'the good'. But an argument could be made that 'true happiness' is good. i.e. Its good is when a person is happy (subjectively reason) if and only if that 'thing' that they are happy about itself has value.(objective reason).

To apply this argument to religion then, I would say that been happy by looking forward to an afterlife is only 'true happiness' if and only if there is an actual afterlife to look forward to.

ChocolateSauce

I believe the primary goal of life should be to attain as much happiness as is possible, without negatively affecting the happiness of others. How this is done is left open to interpretation and debate...Sometimes this means sacrificing your own for someone else's.

humbert

If we seek truth knowing that what we might learn could make us less happy, why do we do it?

I would be of the opinion that anything we do of our own volition is done to make us happy(I use the word happy very generally here). This is the result of the question, "Is anything truly selfless?".

I think, for those of us that will seek a truth that may lead to unhappiness, that we are unable to be happy knowing that the belief our current happiness is based on may be false. I think this is the significant difference.

Capt'n Midnight

ignorance is bliss :pac:

By all means marry. If you get a good wife, you'll be happy. If you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher and that is a good thing for any man.
So Crates

Skadi

happiness is an overrated feeling. But yes if you aim for happiness then seeking the truth or questioning your surroundings is going to destroy that happiness.

What is it they say, in order to feel and know happiness you have to know sadness. So maybe by seeking answers and straying from mental comfort states you are able to increase the capacity for happiness which you feel.

To me the ultimate goal is more about calmness. Happiness cannot be maintained for long periods of times but calmness can probably be. Haven't experience that yet, but i still have a long time to live.

JohnGalt

humbert wrote: »

If we seek truth knowing that what we might learn could make us less happy, why do we do it?

I would be of the opinion that anything we do of our own volition is done to make us happy(I use the word happy very generally here). This is the result of the question, "Is anything truly selfless?".

I think, for those of us that will seek a truth that may lead to unhappiness, that we are unable to be happy knowing that the belief our current happiness is based on may be false. I think this is the significant difference.

Interesting angle, I hadn't considered that approach to the matter before, I will have to give this more thought

metrovelvet

JohnGalt wrote: »

This is a question which I have not resolved with any degree of satisfaction. It can be easily summed up by that familiar old quote of John Stuart Mill

"It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied"

It seems inevitable that if one is to partake in truly free inquiry, be it philosophical or scientific, one must be open to the possibility that conclusions which are not entirely joyful or pleasant could be reached. But if happiness is your number one goal, truth is secondary in importance, and thus any attempt at free inquiry will be burdened by a desire to avoid potentially painful conclusions. The question, I guess, really comes down to the matter of truth versus happiness, and which you value more. It is not a dichotomy, it is possible to reach both, but it seems that the two are fundamentally opposed when it comes down to certain questions. What are your thoughts on this question?

It doesnt seem to me that they are opposed but that one does not necessarily beget the other.

There are many kinds of truth, some are burdened and some arent. It is the burden which hurts.

monkeyfudge

To me the fundamental aspect of being human is being discontent... and that stems from being unhappy.

As a race we can never be happy... it's what makes us exceptional... we constantly strive to improve our lives. Of course this also leads to wars and violence as well.

To me happiness exists in other people not within yourself. It's almost parasitic in that way. No one actually feels happy, but they precieve it in other people and try to nurture it in that respect.

furrylemmings

If you can stay consistently happy, genuinely, theres something wrong with you. But there are a lot of poeple who fill up there lives so that they dont have to stop and think. I mean, just being busy is condusive to being happier for a lot of people. They're not fools, they just want to get on in life, survive each day and aim for achievable real goals. Theres nothing wrong with it. Its a very valid point of view, but i personally would think that its better to question your hapinness. And it is possible to be happy and understand the truth, it just requires a great degree of callousness.