Happiness is a perennial hot topic for, as it turns out, it is not as simple as it sounds. Like “the art of living” or “the meaning of life,” it is fiendishly difficult to define, let alone achieve, and hence has been the subject of intense scrutiny for centuries.
Today, you’ll find countless books – from the Dalai Lama’s Art of Happiness and Gretchen Rubin’s Happiness Project to Neil Pasricha’s Happiness Equation – offering suggestions for a sunnier way forward.
Dominating the happiness front are the “positive psychologists” – those psychologists confident there are identifiable scientific underpinnings to a happy, fulfilling life. Coined by Martin Seligman in 1998, positive psychology plumbs the wisdom of a vast spectrum of precedents – humanistic psychology, ancient philosophy, Eastern spiritual beliefs – to support its particular equation for happiness. Central to the equation seems to be to what degree happiness is found “within” (oneself) and/or “without” (in interactions with the world).
In his recent book A Happiness Hypothesis, positive psychologist Jonathan Haidt borrows from ancient Stoic and Buddhist teachings to arrive at his happiness hypothesis or theory. Using the rider and the elephant as metaphorical stand-ins for mind and emotions, he suggests (in true Stoic/Buddhist/Taoist fashion) that by retraining the elephant, we can achieve the inner harmony needed to sail effortlessly, or at least less tumultuously, through life.
Emotion or passions are not inherently problematic, it’s that they often confuse the issue when we automatically deploy them – in the form of deep-seated judgments, biases, values, assumptions and compulsive thinking – when dealing with people and situations in our lives. We are prone to pronouncing or labelling things as “bad” or troublesome when a more philosophical viewpoint might allow us to calmly assess the situation and thereby reduce undue emotional distress.
Our philosophical voice is the one that reminds us to “not sweat the small stuff,” “rise above,” “choose your battles,” etc. While this is a great strategy for maintaining our emotional equilibrium, does that mean “disengaging” is always a prerequisite for happiness? No, and it was the Stoics who identified the most instructive way of determining what deserved our emotional energy, and what didn’t.
A school of philosophy founded by Zeno of Citium, Cyprus, and which flourished during the zenith of Hellenic civilization (301-31 BCE), the Stoics were the ones who felt that if you could distinguish between what is up to us and what is not, then one was well along the path to emotional freedom and happiness. Referred to as “the Stoic fork,” this theory has been enshrined in The Serenity Prayer: “Lord, give me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.”
To a Stoic, the things we must accept, because they are beyond our direct control, are extrinsic factors such as natural occurrences, other people, fame, status, power, reputation, wealth, even health, life, death and love.
The things that we can change or develop are intrinsic, i.e. ourselves. Cultivating certain virtues – wisdom, justice (benevolence), courage and self-discipline – are within our control and are esteemed and honourable ways to achieve arete, or excellence of character. If one focused energy on oneself, and the goodness of one’s intentions and diligence, what transpires (so often subject to the whims of fortune) is “indifferent” or immaterial.
This wholehearted dedication to the development of one’s arete – also known as the diamon or divine spark – was believed to bring one into harmony with oneself, with others and ultimately with the cosmos. And where there is harmony, there is happiness.
And while the Stoics, like Aristotle who said that “happiness depends on oneself,” are clearly behind the idea that “happiness is found within,” or that “you must run your own race,” one could not be considered virtuous, and live harmoniously in the world without a degree of benevolence towards others. As Marcus Aurelius, a proponent of Stoicism, was known to say, “one must be free from passion, yet full of love.”
Indeed, philanthropy was considered the highest virtue of a sage or “great soul.” Arete and personal happiness could not be achieved without serving others. Not surprisingly, the positive psychologists today agree. Jonathan Haidt hypothesizes that happiness lies “between”: between one’s individual self-development and engagement in personally gratifying tasks and in knowing that one’s work serves or has meaning for others.
Happiness found within and without is likely a common conclusion to most happiness hypotheses given it recognizes our individual and socio-cultural needs. But, should you lose your notes from the last symposium on happiness, just remember the words still heard in Greece upon departing: sto kalo, which means “go for the good” and you’ll be headed in the right direction.
1,712 views