Are happiness and suffering two opposites of the same continuum, or are they actually two different scales?
This question hit me as I have been listening to some of Jordan Peterson's philosophical work ( http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2018/02/jordan_peterson.html ). One of the comments he made is that every major philosophical system holds as a basic tenet that life is full of suffering, and that the goal of a healthy life is not to seek to be happy but to be free of suffering (I may be misquoting him slightly, but I am willing to embrace this statement as my own, regardless).
By way of example, Peterson talks about Buddhism's Four Noble Truths, the first of which is "life is suffering", and the second of which is "suffering is caused by attachment". I would add, in a similar vein, that Stoicism holds suffering arises from the desire to control that which is beyond our control. In both systems, one seeks to achieve peace and enlightenment by letting go of that which is beyond our control and recognizing the illusion of permanence. Both systems seek contentment rather than happiness.
I heard a lecture a few months ago (I wish I could find it) where the speaker talked about emotions as being like a compass for our behavior. Happy, sad, anger, joy are all emotions that change with circumstances. One does not mindlessly pursue happiness any more than one drives mindlessly north. Sometimes to get to where you want to go, you have to drive south.
So what I am thinking about is the idea that happiness and suffering are not on the same continuum. Happiness, at least as it is conceived in 2018 in the US, is a temporary state. It is an emotion that comes and goes the way a compass dial turns. Happy/sad is probably the right scale. This should be contrasted with contentment/suffering, which are existential conditions. I am making a point that emotional states like happy/sad are like the weather - on any given day we might have rain or sun, but the next day could (and probably will be) different. Contrast this with existential states which are more like climates. To be content or suffering is a long lasting pattern, like temperate, arid, tropical, etc.
A person who works toward wisdom is a person who builds in his soul a pleasing climate. In Hawaii there are occasionally cold days and occasionally hot and uncomfortable days, but there are few of them. Mostly the weather in Hawaii is a pleasant 80 degrees. Contentment is more than just freedom from suffering. I think one can achieve contentment while still have a degree of suffering. I think we can look at people on hospice who make peace with death achieve contentment even as they face death. Perhaps then, contentment is also not on the same scale suffering? I think contentment is linked to meaning, and thus one can both suffer and be content. More to ponder.
I ask my students during the first day of my Management I class, which comes at the beginning of their junior year of college typically, what a good life looks like. One of the most common responses is "to be happy." But I think they actually mean, "to be content". I think their sentiment is correct, but they lack an understanding of what they mean.
The pursuit of happiness in 2018, as opposed to the Jeffersonian pursuit of happiness, is a hedonic treadmill. To get to happiness, one must always covet one more thing - one more car, one more vacation, one more lover. This is the poisonous desire the Buddhists warn against, and it is the desire for things one cannot control that the Stoics warn against. The blind following of the compass in the direction of happiness inevitably leads to suffering rather than contentment.
I think it is a mistake to put happiness and suffering on the same scale. Happiness is a temporary emotion; suffering is existential. I am unsure whether I put suffering and contentment on the same scale, but I think it is closer to truth.
This question hit me as I have been listening to some of Jordan Peterson's philosophical work ( http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2018/02/jordan_peterson.html ). One of the comments he made is that every major philosophical system holds as a basic tenet that life is full of suffering, and that the goal of a healthy life is not to seek to be happy but to be free of suffering (I may be misquoting him slightly, but I am willing to embrace this statement as my own, regardless).
By way of example, Peterson talks about Buddhism's Four Noble Truths, the first of which is "life is suffering", and the second of which is "suffering is caused by attachment". I would add, in a similar vein, that Stoicism holds suffering arises from the desire to control that which is beyond our control. In both systems, one seeks to achieve peace and enlightenment by letting go of that which is beyond our control and recognizing the illusion of permanence. Both systems seek contentment rather than happiness.
I heard a lecture a few months ago (I wish I could find it) where the speaker talked about emotions as being like a compass for our behavior. Happy, sad, anger, joy are all emotions that change with circumstances. One does not mindlessly pursue happiness any more than one drives mindlessly north. Sometimes to get to where you want to go, you have to drive south.
So what I am thinking about is the idea that happiness and suffering are not on the same continuum. Happiness, at least as it is conceived in 2018 in the US, is a temporary state. It is an emotion that comes and goes the way a compass dial turns. Happy/sad is probably the right scale. This should be contrasted with contentment/suffering, which are existential conditions. I am making a point that emotional states like happy/sad are like the weather - on any given day we might have rain or sun, but the next day could (and probably will be) different. Contrast this with existential states which are more like climates. To be content or suffering is a long lasting pattern, like temperate, arid, tropical, etc.
A person who works toward wisdom is a person who builds in his soul a pleasing climate. In Hawaii there are occasionally cold days and occasionally hot and uncomfortable days, but there are few of them. Mostly the weather in Hawaii is a pleasant 80 degrees. Contentment is more than just freedom from suffering. I think one can achieve contentment while still have a degree of suffering. I think we can look at people on hospice who make peace with death achieve contentment even as they face death. Perhaps then, contentment is also not on the same scale suffering? I think contentment is linked to meaning, and thus one can both suffer and be content. More to ponder.
I ask my students during the first day of my Management I class, which comes at the beginning of their junior year of college typically, what a good life looks like. One of the most common responses is "to be happy." But I think they actually mean, "to be content". I think their sentiment is correct, but they lack an understanding of what they mean.
The pursuit of happiness in 2018, as opposed to the Jeffersonian pursuit of happiness, is a hedonic treadmill. To get to happiness, one must always covet one more thing - one more car, one more vacation, one more lover. This is the poisonous desire the Buddhists warn against, and it is the desire for things one cannot control that the Stoics warn against. The blind following of the compass in the direction of happiness inevitably leads to suffering rather than contentment.
I think it is a mistake to put happiness and suffering on the same scale. Happiness is a temporary emotion; suffering is existential. I am unsure whether I put suffering and contentment on the same scale, but I think it is closer to truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment