- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topics
- Tests
- Magazine
- Psych Basics
- Blogs
- Diagnosis Dictionary
Somewhere around 2500 years ago, a little argument developed among a bunch of free Greek men with too much time on their hands and too many neurons for their own good. They were trying to create a definitive description of the Good Life. Their argument stretched across several decades, and many luminaries joined in; Gorgias, Aristotle, Aristuppus, Epicurus, Epictetus, Plato, etc. Believe it or not, their argument isn't really settled even now. Read More
Smackdown! - Happiness
The issue, today, with defining "happiness" is in language. The eudaimonic argument speaks to "self-satisfaction," whereas the hedonic argument is simply "pleasure." There is a specific difference between the two - one can feel both, one or the other, or neither - thus the difficulty in defining "happiness" as one or the other. (I guess you just said exactly this.) Could it be that, as we learn more about ourselves, "happiness" becomes less a definitive term? Consider our terminology today compared with two-thousand years ago. Psychology has expanded our terminology to encompass a much more complex state of being than simply "being." And perhaps this is exactly the line between philosophy and psychology. No matter how it tries, philosophy does not speak to individuality; rather, it simply acknowledges the complexities of being societal creatures. Psychology is much more effective at realizing the intricate differences, and why they exist, between each of us.
Or, at least, that's what I think ;)
two great points here: we do
two great points here: we do indeed have an expanded language for talking about psychological states ("being"), and philosophy struggles with the individual...it uses individuals to make points, but there's always some other individual to go and mess up that point!
thanks for the comment!
Three things?
I've been reading a lot of blog posts and articles on psych today, and your post reminds me of two I've read before:
The Last Lecture: A Positive Psychology Case Study
The Glee Club
Positive psychology says happiness has three components: pleasure, engagement, and meaning. When I read that, it made a lot of sense to me. Like you mentioned, the happiest people have all three (in this case).
The eudaimonic argument doesn't quite make sense to me. I don't see how meeting higher standards is satisfying. For example, Michael Jordan / TIger Woods / Roger Federer won't be sitting there happily simply because they are awesome. I'm sure they enjoy playing and being good at it. Vastly inferior casual sports players will enjoy sports just as much if they find it engaging and meaningful.
I have a friend who isn't sure what he's looking for in life, but I know he wants to be "awesome" (i.e. self-fulfillment). But he still doesn't seem happy most of the time, because being athletic, smart, and talented doesn't make you happy. But I'm sure the eudaimonic argument isn't simply a matter of meeting standards. Could you enlighten me on this?
"standards"
It's a tricky notion, this idea of 'what is happiness.' Aristotle's ideas about happiness (like his ideas about women) are kind of odd to our modern minds. First, the word he used for it, eudaimonia, can be translated as 'good true self' (or so the greek scholars tell me). It's generally accepted that achieving your best true self, a kind of self-actualization or fulfillment required conforming to those tings that were expected of the "best" of things. Kind of like Plato's ideas of the "forms," there was a best form of the self, and making that manifest was happiness. The alternative was just doing what made you feel good. Today, hedonic approaches, like Ed Diener's subjective well-being aren't necessarily about "follow your bliss," but they do make clear that the individual is his or her own judge. The three dimensions of happiness you mention (pleasure, engagement, meaning) are the three dimensions Martin Seligman proposed, and there are other important models as well. Carol Ryff identified 6 dimensions, Ed Deci & Rich Ryan identified 3. In each case, the most complete, or 'best' in a rough sense, happiness or well-being comes when you have all of the dimensions. You can't be happy, fulfilled, what-have-you, without them. They are considered necessary for well-being. In that sense, they are standards. The key feature of eudaimonic theories is that there is some sort of requirement (that varies from theory to theory) that must be met. Hedonic theories have no such requirement. The difference between Homer Simpson and Meredith Grey is that Homer follows his bliss, and Meredith strives for something "deeper." She has standards she wants to meet. So, that was my main point about standards...for Homer, there's only what feels good, for Meredith, there are certain things she needs to accomplish. Your "awesome" friend could very well be happy according to theories like Aristotle's that prioritize excellence over exuberance.
I'm happy
there are people who seem happy.
for today society, i think we have a better change to happy then before when there were War I and War II. at those time life was changing and with racism and many for trouble we human course.
I feel that today we have a better change to be happy because we simply don't have to do anything we don't want to do. and we can do anything we want to, to be happy and life the American dream, which i still think it's possible.
it's just that we give up on ourselves and to go back living the life we don;t want to live.
While doing a graduate
While doing a graduate research paper on women and self-esteem many many years ago, this writer explored Aristotle's question of, "What is Man?" as it was related to his next question, "What is woman for?".
Does one need to ponder why he trys to view "man" as a whole and woman as a behavior?
yes! :)
I think so. If we're going to rely on Aristotle for ideas about what the best of human flourishing is about, we need to scrutinize what he was about. We do that through what he wrote. I think we do need to ponder his ideas about women, "low-born," and other "sub-human" kinds of folks because it hints at some of his ideas about humanity, and what needs to be maximized for happiness.
Those ancients are a barrel of laughs, huh?
:)
Post new comment