The Pursuit of Happiness
The preamble to the American Declaration of Independence opens with, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
But what is happiness?
What would make you happy? Is it more than ‘feeling happy’?
More than walking around with a smug look of satisfaction?
More than having all the things you have?
Jonathan Swift (1667-1745) wrote that happiness is “Being well deceived; the serene peaceful state of being a fool among knaves.”
The American author Willa Cather (1873-1947) defined happiness as the state of “Being dissolved into something complete and great.” Both definitions have an air of surreality about them, a sense that happiness is illusionary, yet the quest for happiness remains one of life’s great challenges. With Swift, being a fool among knaves, deceitful, dishonest, unscrupulous people, where as with Cather, the idea of something complete and great is really a very nebulous concept, it could be for her completing a great novel such as the Pulitzer Prize winning One of Ours, set in World War 1, or it could be for a terrorist that a mass killing is is something complete and great, flying two aircraft into the twin towers in New York 9/11/2001, something complete and great.
Or happiness could be winning an event, putting some-one you are in conflict with in their place. Your team winning the season’s Grand Final, your horse coming in as the winner of the Melbourne Cup, your favoured candidate winning an election, any number of ‘wins’. But for every win, there are others who do not share that happiness, for them the event was a loss.
Happiness doesn’t need to be about winning a contested battle, it can be a sense of satisfaction, in Positive Psychology, happiness is defined as ‘an enduring state of mind consisting not only of feelings of joy, contentment and other positive emotions, but also a sense that one’s life is meaningful and valued’.
The bit about ‘enduring state of mind’ is interesting. Can we be happy all the time, can life be so good that it is filled with ‘joy, contentment and other positive emotions’ all the time, or is are there times when the sense of happiness is challenged?
Does happiness come to us from external influences, or does it become something intrinsic? The consideration of the ‘sense that one’s life is meaningful and valued’ becomes part of the equation. How does that work?
These questions are not just some esoteric ramblings of a old man with too much time on his hands, they are important in considering not just our own happiness, but the quality of lives we can influence.
Would it make Vladimir Putin happy if Ukraine gave up its quest to remain independent and allowed Russia to take control of its people, its economy and its culture, or would that be just a stepping stone to find other parts of eastern Europe to subsume into Greater Russia. Would it really make Benjamin Netanyahu happy if Hamas and Hezbollah surrendered to the Israelis, continuing the ethnic cleansing of Israel to realise the promise made to Abraham after his fight with God as told in the Biblical book of Genesis.
They are big questions which we, as very ordinary people cannot answer, but what we can answer is how we deal with those within our sphere of influence, the family, friends, work colleagues and other people we meet socially or through other connections.
And so much of that depends on how we view ourselves. How we answer the Socratic question, What sort of person should I be? It’s not a question of telling others what sort of people they should be, it is very much a personal question. It flows into a series of sub questions including ‘What kind of life should I lead?’, ‘What values should I live by?’ ‘What should be my aims in life?’ and ‘What really matters?’
I had a work colleague who plays an ancient stringed instrument, the oud, and when ever he performs with one of the two ensembles he is part of I go to listen to their performance. About a year ago, I sensed that his music was free-er, more confident than previously, and when I told him what I thought, he said he understood that he would never be as good as the professional player he idolised and tried to emulate, that he should play for his own enjoyment. He had judged himself by a standard that he imposed on himself, it restricted him, it tied him down. Up until he released himself from that bond, he never felt quite good enough, now he is blossoming. I have seen him three times since then, and the joy he has from playing is so very evident, and it has reflected so much on other aspects of his life.
And that is part of our problem isn’t it, when we are set the standards by some external force whether imposed or by choice?
In relationships, to allow our partners to be who they are, that we can be who we are, that we do not ask for change from our partners but we accept them for who they are. Isn’t that what the initial attraction was about?
How high is the bar that religion places on us, read the bit in Genesis about the fall and banishment from the garden of Eden. For having dared to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil all humanity, all the descendants of Adam and Eve are punished. Read the Ten Commandments in Exodus and Deuteronomy, read the minor laws given to the Israelites after their escape from Egypt, these are the foundational laws, rules that religions place on us. As part of those laws, relationship issues, sex, are included, the matter of adultery, the matter of homosexuality. Interestingly, I believe homosexuality is mentioned twice, but I am ready to be corrected, while adultery is mentioned more times that I care to count, yet the focus of most religions is on homosexuality, with the occasional reference to adultery. But the expression of guilt, the cloud hanging over the pew sitter is one of condemnation except through you know who, but the layers of guilt are built on, week after week, sermon after sermon, the whole idea that we are just not able to live up to the standards laid down. Those who revel in the ‘forgiveness’ of Christ become at times a bit sneeringly judgemental at those who refuse to be ‘washed by the blood of Jesus’.
Those external forces are not limited to religion and politics; materialism is a great driver of unhappiness, the quest to have it all, to never be satisfied with what we have, to be on the lookout for the latest fashion, the newest furniture, the latest gizmo. To be like or preferably better than ’the Jones’s’
For the power-brokers, be they religious or political, the condemnation they bring for their sense of happiness has seen rivers of blood through the ages, and they continue today, the sense of superiority because of their self-righteousness devalues lives which do not conform to their criteria. The conflicts, especially between the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam continues today in the Middle East, the superiority once the claim of being of God’s People means that throughout the European colonisation of Africa, the Americas and Asia, indigenous lives were valueless.
Christopher Columbus befriended an indigenous leader in what is now Haiti, managed teach him basic language and wrote in his journal that he could ‘Christianise him and take him back to be a slave for the Queen’. The quest for the newly ‘discovered’ lands over the next five hundred years have seen indigenous populations decimated through war, kidnapping for enslavement and mass deaths through diseases such as small pox.
The plight of the Palestinian people in Gaza and in the West Bank is treated with the same contempt.
But we cannot solve those problems, they really are not ours to solve, except as one person said to me this morning over coffee, that we should allow more refugees in, we need to be more humane. We can carry that burden as we talk to our politicians, and hopefully they will listen.
So coming to what we can influence, what we can do to be happy, to have happiness.
We can ourselves the Socratic questions, and in the at times heated discussions we can have over the political issues which can divide us, remember that the greatest unifiers that we have are the arts, music, dance, art, literature, love.
Ultimately there are four things that mark our lives, that impact on how we live our lives, our state of happiness:
Death: The great inevitable.
Love: The great desire.
Meaning: The great mystery.
Happiness: The great hope.
How we answer the Socratic questions for ourselves determines how we will live and deal with the four ‘greats’.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
36 comments
Login here Register here-
Steve Davis -
wam -
Gregory -
Clakka -
B Sullivan -
Roswell -
Lyndal -
Steve Davis -
B Sullivan -
GL -
Roswell -
Steve Davis -
GL -
Steve Davis -
GL -
Steve Davis -
GL -
Steve Davis -
GL -
Steve Davis -
Bert -
Frank Sterle Jr. -
Steve Davis -
Roswell -
Roswell -
Steve Davis -
GL -
Roswell -
Steve Davis -
Roswell -
leefe -
Canguro -
Steve Davis -
Steve Davis -
Fred -
Steve Davis
Return to home page“Happiness: The great hope.”
And therein lies the problem.
It’s a futile hope because happiness is fleeting.
Positives always have their inescapable negatives.
The wise approach is to seek contentment.
my vocabulary is poor so meaning is a mystery. but pursuit is not a word I have ever associated with ‘happy’ it comes from prosequi and suggests it is chasing hardly making a happy situation??? I think happiness is an instant smile always inside and often outside but so is smugness, relief, satisfaction, expectation so the septic preamble is as much bullshit as its Indigenous killing gun laws.
In our modern capitalist societies the pursuit of ‘happiness’ is more in tune with keeping up with the neighbours. If they have a pool you will be happier if you buy one too. And that fancy new imported car Mr Smith across the road has bought. I need to have one just like it in my driveway so I can sneer at the other neighbours and raise my nose to the heavens. We are a fickle species, believing that material possessions are the way to a happy and fulllfilling life when in reality they are amongst the least important things in our lives. People who believe new toys make them happier must have very empty lives with nobody to love or care about them.
Happiness is surely something that occurs usually fleetingly, glimmer-like, as a if a birdsong, a shaft of sunlight, a rainbow, a min min, or a mirage. Pursuing them as if to capture them or make time stand still is surely futile. It would seem that a mindset of, or need for possession and control, proscribes the essence needed to experience happiness.
You have quoted the preamble to the US’s Declaration of Independence, not the preamble to the US’s Constitution.
Fixed.
My father’s view was that happiness was from freedom from pain.
For myself, happiness comes from working with a group of like minded people to achieve a worthwhile change in my local area – working with my Landcare group weeding and planting etc, is definitely a source of happiness for me
Lyndal, good point.
Work done without a selfish motive.
In line with advice given in the Bhagavad Gita.
“ Would it make Vladimir Putin happy if Ukraine gave up its quest to remain independent and allowed Russia to take control of its people, its economy and its culture, or would that be just a stepping stone to find other parts of eastern Europe to subsume into Greater Russia. ”
This is not a big question that ordinary people cannot answer. It is a contemptible, dishonest question that deliberately misrepresents Putin and Russia’s intentions. The simple answer is that Putin would be happy if Ukraine really was independent and neutral instead of being controlled as a dependent and hostile force of the USA/NATO empire via the former president now mad dictator Zelensky. Putin would be happy if the US and it’s allies gave up their quest to destroy Russia, no matter what the cost to the people of Ukraine whose corpses have been used by the US as stepping stones in this ‘pursuit of happiness’ which they mistakenly hoped would ‘extend Russia’ and so bring about its collapse.
B Sullivan,
If you were any more full of shit your body would explode! Want to provide any evidence to back up that crap about Mr Wonderful Putin? If you can’t then, and I’m not apologising, fuck off you Putin troll!
I’m with GL.
Actually, GL, Sully is correct.
Russia’s concern about the future of Ukraine involved Ukraine’s wish to join NATO, and the presence of NATO personnel and equipment in Ukraine. In short, as Sully said, Russia saw Ukraine as being influenced by a hostile entity and therefore a potential threat to Russia.
In regard to Ukraine’s economic independence, this from EURONEWS 18.6.22 — Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Friday he had no objections to Ukraine joining the European Union following the European Commission’s historic decision to back Kyiv’s bid to become a member. “We have nothing against it. It is not a military bloc. It’s the right of any country to join economic unions,” Putin said on Friday when asked about the prospects of Ukraine joining the EU.
Were you aware of that?
Obviously not.
You should be asking yourself why you were not made aware of it.
Would you have a different view now if you had been made aware of it?
Saying that B Sullivan is right does not answer my question about HIM providing some sort of credible evidence for his comment. What you have said is your opinion, but the onus lies with him.
As to what you said:
“We have nothing against it. It is not a military bloc. It’s the right of any country to join economic unions,” Putin said on Friday when asked about the prospects of Ukraine joining the EU.” Then why did he invade the Ukraine if he was all for it? He’s been obsessed with re-uniting the Ukraine with his dreams of recreating the Russian empire for years.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/russia-s-invasion-ukraine-why-why-now
https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/weakness-lethal-why-putin-invaded-ukraine-and-how-war-must-end
“Would you have a different view now if you had been made aware of it?”
Simple answer, no!
“Then why did he invade the Ukraine if he was all for it?”
You do know that there’s a difference between the EU and NATO don’t you?
Two different issues. Putin made that plain. “It is not a military bloc.”
As for the two articles you linked, how about you study them carefully, and keep a tally of the unjustified assumptions you come across.
But be careful. They leap out of the pages at you.
Let me know how you go.
What he said in 2022 means absolutely nothing and is now a moot point, membership of the EU could lead to joining NATO and that Putin cannot allow.
I’ve seen nothing in either article to dissuade me about the invasion of Ukraine and Putin’s ambitions. How about you give us your list of the “tally of the unjustified assumptions” and why you consider them to be assumptions.
Do you agree, or disagree, with Putin’s excuses for the invasion of the Ukraine?
Would you read, with an open mind, Serhii Plokhy’s book The Russo-Ukrainian War?
“Do you agree, or disagree, with Putin’s excuses for the invasion of the Ukraine?”
Let’s be clear, Putin did not have excuses, he had reasons.
And it’s been covered before, try these.
“How about you give us your list”
No way buddy.
If you cannot identify an assumption, nothing I say will change your mind.
Steve,
I’m not surprised, you do this nonsense every time someone asks you to back up what you post you get the shits.
How about we wait to to hear what “Sully” has to say without you jumping in to defend him. He seems to have gone strangely silent after you leaped in. Why, it’s almost as if he’s used to post a spurious comment in the hope that there will be a bite so the person behind the nom de plume can insert themself into the fray.
I’ll ask again: Do you agree, or disagree, with Putin’s invasion if Ukraine?
“Let’s be clear, Putin did not have excuses, he had reasons.” is a cop out answer.
GL — “Let’s be clear, Putin did not have excuses, he had reasons.” is a cop out answer.”
GL, you obviously did not take advantage of the links I provided in order to not have to go over old ground, but your persistence has paid off. It’s a complex matter that developed over decades, but I’ll give a few important details to plant in your heart and soul a yearning for learning.
Crimea was separated from Ukraine by referendum in January 1991, six months before Ukrainian independence and under Soviet rule. So it’s Ukraine that illegally annexed Crimea in 1995.
In regard to the vote to remove Yanukovych the constitutional guidelines in force at the time called for a review of the case by Ukraine’s Constitutional Court and a three-fourths majority vote by the Verkhovna Rada — i.e., 338 lawmakers. The vote to remove was 328.
The vote failed. The ousting was unconstitutional.
In 2019 Zelensky’s right hand man Oleksei Arestovitch stated in a TV interview (that I’ve seen) that in order for Ukraine to join NATO, Ukraine was told that NATO entry was conditional on Ukraine defeating Russia, and that assistance for this would be provided by NATO. The proposed timeline for the conflict 3 years later was followed almost to the day.
Not only was Ukraine’s attack on the Donbass a breach of UN article 2.4, NATO’s assistance in this illegal action is also a breach of international law. Russia’s right to come to the defence of the Donbass is protected by the Responsibility to Protect, which was unanimously adopted by all members of the United Nations General Assembly at the 2005 World Summit.
So, which is it now GL?
Are those excuses, or are they reasons?
Last time: Do you agree, or disagree, with Putin’s invasion of Ukraine? It’s a simple yes or no question.
One last thing: “In 2019 Zelensky’s right hand man Oleksei Arestovitch stated in a TV interview (that I’ve seen) that in order for Ukraine to join NATO, Ukraine was told that NATO entry was conditional on Ukraine defeating Russia, and that assistance for this would be provided by NATO. The proposed timeline for the conflict 3 years later was followed almost to the day.”
What interview and post a link otherwise it’s just becomes an opinion that can be ignored. Don’t use the hoary and tired, “Do your own research.” schtick, you made the comment so it’s imcumbent upon you to back it up.
“It’s a simple yes or no question.”
No, it’s not.
It’s a “gotcha” question.
And it fails because I neither agree or disagree.
What I’ve done is explain the reasons. If you have a problem with the reasons, it’s up to you to state why.
Here’s the requested link.
How much unhappiness can an article produce?
Quite a bit it appears.
Sorry I made the mistake of quoting the wrong origin of the headline.
There also is an illusion that we live and buy in a truly competitive and therefore consumer-just market.
Especially in Canada, big businesses/industry can and are getting unaccountably even bigger, defying the very spirit of government oversight rules established (though un-enforced) to ensure healthy competition by limiting concentrated ownership — especially in regards to corporations selling and profiteering from the necessities of life, notably food. Our heavily corporatized mainstream news-media, which is virtually all of our news-media, has been editorially emasculated thus negligent when it comes to investigating and exposing such societally consequential corruption.
I see this as a problematically large part of a corpocratic existence fueled by elected officials getting indebted thus beholden to huge corporate entities, particularly due to their generous political monetary donations.
Meanwhile, way too many people, perhaps an all-time-high percentage, have to choose between which necessities of life they can afford. A very large and growing populace are increasingly too overworked, tired, worried and even rightfully angry about food and housing unaffordability thus insecurity for themselves or their family — largely due to insufficient income — to criticize or boycott Big Business/Industry for the societal damage it needlessly causes/allows, particularly when not immediately observable. And I doubt that this effect is totally accidental, as it greatly benefits the interests of insatiable corporate greed.
The more that such corporations make, all the more they want — nay, need — to make next quarterly. It’s never enough, yet the news-media will implicitly celebrate their successful greed, a.k.a. ‘stock market gains’.
At the same time, corporate officers will shrug their shoulders and defensively say their job is to protect shareholders’ bottom-line interests. And, of course, the shareholders also will shrug their shoulders and state they just collect the dividends and that the big bosses are the ones who make the decisions involving ethics or lack thereof.
It really seems there’s little or no human(e)/moral accountability when the biggest profits are involved, perhaps even inversely proportionally so. Nor can there be a sufficiently guilty conscience if the malpractice is continued, business as usual. ‘We are a capitalist nation, after all,’ the morally lame self-justification may go.
Still, there must be a point at which corporate greed thus practice will end up hurting big business’s own monetary interests. Or is the unlimited-profit objective/nature somehow irresistible? It brings to mind the allegorical fox stung by the instinct-abiding scorpion while ferrying it across the river, leaving both to drown.
” ‘We are a capitalist nation, after all,’ the morally lame self-justification may go.”
Exactly Frank.
So if justifications of capitalism are morally lame, the sensible thing to do is ditch capitalism.
Why persist with a system that is either immoral or amoral, with all the negatives, including suffering, that this entails?
Fair question. Shouldn’t have been too hard to answer.
But somehow it was. 🤷🏻♂️
It’s not a problem, Bert. No need to apologise.
“Fair question.”
No Roswell, it most certainly was not.
It’s almost in the same league as “When did you stop beating your wife?”
As I said, it was a “gotcha” question, and it failed.
It’s the height of bad manners to demand an answer from me, just as it would be ill-mannered of me to demand of GL that he defend the provocation of Russia by NATO and Ukraine.
GL requested a link to a video I referenced. There was no response from GL, but did I follow up with an unreasonable demand that he express an opinion on it?
I believe it was a very telling video, but did I try to make a “gotcha” out of it?
There is no point in me giving my opinion on any matter. That will not persuade readers. Presenting reasons for certain events is far more effective, particularly in a case like this where the misrepresentation and deception by the Western media has been so intense.
Steve @October 24, 2024 at 11:45 am
That was a dummy spit and childish petulance of almost monumental proportions.
Let’s break some it down shall we:
““Fair question.”
No Roswell, it most certainly was not.
It’s almost in the same league as “When did you stop beating your wife?”
As I said, it was a “gotcha” question, and it failed.”
Paranoid much?
I am NOT in the habit of the “gotcha” crap, it’s demeaning. If you had simply answered my next question was going to be, “Why?” although I expect you would have also seen this as me attacking you.
“It’s the height of bad manners to demand an answer from me…” What a load of complete bullshit! How did you arrive at “…demand an answer…”? Dog help help us if had stated, “I demand an answer to the next question.” Don’t presume to know how I think, that’s arrogance on your part.
“GL requested a link to a video I referenced. There was no response from GL…” Could it be that…gasp…I had other things to do and just hadn’t gotten around to watching it right away? Had that thought entered your mind? Probably not. I’ll get around to watching it in my own good time. Whether or not I post a comment is entirely up to me.
In closing: Refer to opening sentence.
By the way, you never answered my question, “Would you read, with an open mind, Serhii Plokhy’s book The Russo-Ukrainian War?” You added links for pieces you wanted me to read and/or watch so maybe you could, at the very least, consider checking the book out. You never know, you might learn something.
Reply away, but I’m done with this and shall move on.
Steve, you share a common trait with AC: an intolerance of people who hold opposing views and opinions to yours.
Just my observation.
“That was a dummy spit …”
And I thought my restraint was exemplary. 🙂
“I expect you would have also seen this as me attacking you.”
Go back to your response to Sully.
You have form.
“If you had simply answered my next question was going to be, “Why?” ”
I doubt that very much.
Why do I doubt that?
Because it’s easy to say that now, but it was easy to say it at the time, so why not?
“Reply away, but I’m done with this and shall move on.”
Why does everyone get so emotional over this stuff?
Let’s move on.
Obviously, I’m with GL all the way in this one.
“Have you stopped beating your wife” presupposes that the person addressed has, in the past at least, used physical violence against their partner.
“Do you agree with Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, yes or no?” makes no assumptions. The invasion occurred, the fighting is ongoing, the question is simply whether or not the person addressed supports that action.
Kind of glad I missed the main contest, however.
Happiness is a fleeting thing; it comes, it goes, pursuit is pointless. Embrace it when it arrives but don’t try to cling onto it. Kind of like a domestic or intimate partner, really …
My brother was an A-Grade narcissist before Parkinson’s took his mind away. He would argue with his protagonists for hours, literally; consuming copious amounts of wine or port (he was an oenologist by training, latterly a vigneron by choice, and a barely controlled alcoholic), and would badger his interlocutors relentlessly over both major and minor points of difference, even when he was in the wrong.
Eventually, and totally predictably, he wore out his welcome everywhere, given that everybody at some point twigged to what an arsehole he was. His first wife divorced him after ten years, and I admit it gives me great pleasure to say she remains a very close friend and confidant. She said that when they set up their first vineyard as pioneering cool climate grape growers in a district that had never before seen grapes grown in it, everyone took an interest and offered assistance when needed. By the time he left that region, he’d burned through every person who’d offered help.
I suspect if he wasn’t a veggie these days he’d fit right in with some of these never-ending discussions that thrash points of dissension as if the future of the planet depended on them.
Crikey Roswell, I had a lengthy reply for you, and now I’ll look churlish if I post it!
I’d hate anyone to think poorly of me. 🙂
“Happiness is a fleeting thing; it comes, it goes, pursuit is pointless. Embrace it when it arrives but don’t try to cling onto it. Kind of like a domestic or intimate partner, really …”
Nicely put leefe.
Wow, the big questions brought the simmering enmity to the fore. As for happiness, it’s definitely fleeting. Mr Netanyahu’s/IDF actions have reduced the “happiness quotient” in the middle east to a very low level and possibly created “permanent hatred”.
This brought a wry smile.
SKY reporter to George Galloway — Are you supportive of the war in Ukraine? …It’s a simple question.
GG — what are you looking for, a “gotcha”?
A couple of days earlier;
GL to SD — Do you agree, or disagree, with Putin’s invasion of Ukraine? It’s a simple yes or no question.
SD — No, it’s not. It’s a “gotcha” question.
I could make about twenty comments, but shall exercise admirable restraint.