On Happiness
Cayetano Sotomayor Landazuri
Thinker, Future Analyst, Strategic Penmanship
Happiness is intrinsic to human nature and the ultimate goal to reach a fulfilled life, but at the same time happiness is probably the most complex struggle human kind faces being affected directly by individual perception of reality dependant on ethics and society, makes the path to achieve the goal a fluid one that should be approached with a flexible mind open to change. Happiness is the ultimate goal innate to human nature and conditioned by society and ethics while also being a constant struggle, constant due to the ever changing nature of human nature stemming from the perception of a shifting reality, therefore making happiness a fluid concept rather than a static one resulting in the need of transformative philosophy of life opposed to a conventional set of unwavering values in order to achieve a fulfilled life.
Hedonistic philosophies are a great starting point being views made in pursuit of happiness. One of them, stoicism, showed to fixate upon desires as a key component to happiness while proposing a strong, different alternative way to handle them. In order to contextualize the stoic philosophy a brief summary of their philosophical views is provided.?
Stoicism was really popular throughout the hellenistic era. It’s principal influences were mostly from western civilization with its main preach: “calmness in the face of adversity or any trying circumstance”. They focused on shifting Hellenic Greeks' speculative views toward some more concerned for individuals and their wellbeing inside complex society.?
The creator was Zeno, a former disciple of the cynic philosophy and an admirer of socratic philosophy. Just as the cynics, the early stoics believed happiness was not made to be reached through wealth or glory, but rather through self sufficiency and rational order of intentions. Stoics developed a whole doctrine consisting of epistemology, cosmology and logic systematics.?
In logic they developed the logic of prepositions which later authors like Russell formalized.?
In epistemology empiricism prevailed as the only truth opposing Plato and Aristotle's view of abstract forms. They were essentially materialistic; everything is material, views according that even the soul is a material thing and abstract realities are not true.?
Metaphysics was seen by the stoics by what they called the two principles of reality. The passive principle they said; “matter devoid of quality”, while the active they identified with “the logos; reason as god”. This means that God is just the laws and basic principles of nature. The stoics believed that the universe is a perfect rational whole and whatever happens does because it needs to happen because nature and life follow universal laws. If reality is tied to laws then when studying life empirically we can instrumentalize ethical and practical knowledge.?
Epictetus developed the religious and ethical side of stoicism and proposed some key ideas so as to be understood which leads to the idea of apatheia, which is defined as the freedom that comes from the lack of emotion and excitement.?
The life of virtue:
We must be able to know the difference between what is up to us and what is not:
The rights of freedom to what our doing is, belongs to us, while the freedom of what is not our doing doesn't belong to us. We only have control over what we do that essentially comes from our faculty of judgment, so anything coming from anywhere else should not be tried to control and be approached with indifference.
Situations don't cause unhappiness but our judgment about them do (death itself isn't dreadful but our judgment about it is). If distress comes only from our attitude towards things, then the only logical solution to avoid suffering is to approach everything which we can’t control with apathy (including the past). Indifference doesn't mean we should be emotionally cold to life, but instead means we should keep a leash over passion and don't let excessive attachment disrupt life.
To be more specific, the stoics made a distinction between the things we can control and what we can′t while understanding that desires stem only from our perception of situations. Understanding that the world is all corporeal and material, what we can′t control are the things that escape our bodies, the external. We can't control nature, the weather, other people's feelings or actions. But we can control the internal and how we feel about what we can’t control. What we learn about the external is based on our perception, therefore we can control how the external affects us. Meaning that we can not only control our actions, but how we feel about them; our desires.
Aristotelic views cover a wide array of topics regarding aspects of human life. While Aristotle agrees happiness is the ultimate end, the Stoics look to control desire either through the external or internal but Aristotle doesn’t give the effect every desire has on us the importance the last two do, he instead beliefs that to lead a fulfilled life with happiness as the ultimate end, leading a life with some sort of meaning is necessary to reach that point and those desires that hinder meaningful actions should not be fulfilled. To explain this concepts some context on his philosophy is due:
First, having a clear distinction between means and ends is fundamental to Aristotle, he believes there are countless means to reach and end and careful analysis is necessary to reach the correct means. How do we choose it??
He observes human nature and reaches the conclusion that we tend to take the easiest, quickest and most likely to succeed mean when we act with purpose in mind while at the same time sees that sometimes men act with nothing on their mind making the mean less likely to succeed. That is how he deducts that meaning or purpose behind our every action is a necessary component to fulfillment.
Another thing he realizes is that sometimes we act for an end that in reality is just a means to a higher end. That’s how he distinguishes that not every end has the same value and some ends shouldn’t be pursued if they overlap with a higher hierarchical end making some desires counterproductive to pursue in order to reach a fulfilled life. To reach an end, productive thinking is necessary and born when goals, reason of pursuing and the know-how are at disposal but with no action they won't get us anywhere meaning both thought and action are needed in reaching an end.
To sum up in order to reach an end you have to go through a means. A mean sometimes needs another mean to be fulfilled, thus making the first mean an end. Aristotle's then asks 2 questions
If we desire an end for a mean to the other end, and that end for a mean to the other end, and so on endlessly; then practical thinking can’t begin by definition because there is no final end. When practical thinking is practiced, a first mean must be done to comply with an end, but if that first mean is an end then practical thinking has no start.
The final end of which every mean comes from doesn’t have to be asked nescesarilly to practice practical thinking, we tend to take lesser end’s and suppose them as final means to fulfill first tasks. He then observes again.
The younger we are we act more aimlessly, if not playfully. While aimlessly means we have no aim, when we act playfully we do: pleasure and no other ulterior purpose which distinguishes it from work. When young, we are more focused on immediate goals, while most older people aim for a way of living, some of them a way that won′t be criticized.?
Socrates said that an unexamined life is not worth living, a statement which Aristotle complemented with the phrase: “An unplanned life isn't worth examining. An unplanned life doesn’t seek means to an end, that makes it not worthy of living.” Aristotle concludes we have to have a plan but it must be the right one to live well.
What can make one plan right? The right plan aims for the ultimate end and if a goal doesn't go according to it we ought to deem it as wrong. But what is the ultimate end??
We can see by conduct that everyone agrees that happiness, or living well, is the ultimate end tho’ many disagree on the means to it. If we reach happiness by different means then happiness is not the same for everyone so there isn’t just one ultimate end ergo there isn’t just one route of means, so, which one is the best?
What we see good is desirable, more desirable is better, the most desirable is the best. Aristotle says we all have one ultimate end which we share (living good or happiness), but if there are many definitions of happiness then how can we all share the same end?
Desires are not the same, individuals have different desires which differ because of acquired individual experience. Even if each human is different we share equal traits present in all of us. Our differences are differences in degree, our desires are also of different natures; needs, wants. Some needs are not gained by experience but are innate meanwhile wants are more individual. Example: we all need food but the type chosen varies from person to person.
Men distinguish himself from animals because of reason, that being innate Aristotle says knowledge is a common need. The difference between the want of food and knowledge is that we do not always distinguish the lack of knowledge. Sometimes wants may seem good but turn out to be bad and others you might confuse your wants with needs. The things that are naturally good for you are needs while the acquired desires are wants. Sometimes we desire “wants” that are wrong for us and see them as good.If we seek those things that are actually needed for a good life then we are adopting the right means toward our ultimate end. Since our natural needs are the same for everyone, then prioritizing them leads us toward the right plan for living well as the ultimate goal for every human. The right plan should seek to fulfill our natural need’s and be able to acquire wants as long as it doesn’t interfere with our needs. First need’s then wants, wants should not interfere with needs. But to find this answer, answering two questions is necessary:
Everyone has the right to pursue happiness. If a pattern is imposed and we are not free to choose our life we cannot plan our lives, freedom is a need then. We need to stay alive in order to achieve this so surviving is also a need.
Do we need to pursue happiness? Happiness is the ultimate end, it is not a means to anything, that what we want tends to appear good for us, and that which iis really good sometimes doesn't look good. Having everything good for us is living well so we ought to desire it, it is our duty. If we didn't need something to live well we wouldn't have the right for it.
Thomas Jefferson also thought that all humans have the same nature so they have the same natural rights, that amounts to saying all humans have the same natural needs. He in some way agrees with Aristotle in saying that all humans pursue the good life and that we should get it.
What should I do in order to produce happiness?
What steps should I take in order to make something?
How do you ought to pursue happiness?
He proposed two questions in order to answer this one, the first being:
What needs do we need?
The second question he proposed was:
How to get those needs?
In order to be able to achieve the ultimate end and the means to it aristotle believed key to develop a good moral character and habits of choice.
Daily habits enable us to perform certain things daily, with excellence and no effort. Habits cultivate skill but can also make us reach for the greater good and avoid bad habits. Performed daily, habits help us take the right decisions without having to go through the process of always making our minds. Goods are sometimes bad when done in excess, good habits help us always choose the right amount, in the right order and in the right relation to one another. A good life is preceded by good virtues which help us make morally virtuous choices.
We need wealth to live well because it's a means to health which we need to live well. Health is also a means in search of other ends, the correct order of goods (prioritize) are those we desire for their own sake or for the sake of a good life, wealth for example is only a means, but friendship or knowledge are desired for the sake of a good life. Some like wealth or bodily pleasures are limited because too much stops being good for you while knowledge for instance is unlimited, you can always indulge in more (tho’ its limited by freedom). To get happiness you should order and prioritize goods, limit the pleasures you have to limit and put aside wants that intervene with the good you need. Your good choices must outnumber your bad choices for you to move towards happiness, habit is the key to always make the right choice, repetition is the key to form a habit. Bad habits can also be formed and leaving them is hard. The good things tend to be good in the long run while vices in the short and that interferes with us getting the real good.?
Good habits are a requisite for success but they don't guarantee it. External interferences come from chance not from choice. Good luck is usually the cause of the great goods we receive during our life but good virtues is in the end the controlling factor because managing the gifts luck gives us requires good virtue. Good habit lets people bear misfortunes. Good habit and moral virtue are the deciding factors when managing our good or bad luck. Good habits always point us in the right direction while good luck is responsible for the goods we have.?
Good luck depends upon the physical and social environments. Our pursuit of happiness also depends on the happiness of others, we must live well with others to avoid solitude. That's why we must apply the virtue of justice which is concerned for everyone in society and their happiness. Justice makes individuals act good for society, it is a good in which all participate. People who are not courageous or temperate often are unjust towards society because they aim in the wrong direction while if they aimed towards the right one they would look to help and benefit the others.
Summarizing, all we act is towards a good we want to acquire. Some ends are subordinated by others. If there is a definitive or ultimate end then it is the ultimate good. Getting to know this ultimate good and aim for it is the vitalest thing for us. Some see it as pleasure, honor or richness. Opinions vary. Aristotle looks for a consensus on human nature: “Humans are the only ones that categorize nature. We are humans and not animals or vegetables because we think.”
To understand needs then is to understand, what is man’s primary function?
Reason grants us skill, love and sociality. To use that capacity our health, vigor and vitality should be kept and to ensure that wealth and security is necessary resulting in the hierarchical value Aristotle gives to every mean necessary to reach happiness as the ultimate end.
Hierarchy,:
Everyone may seem to have individual aims but in the end we all seek happiness. To enjoy happiness we must be not only virtuous but perform virtuous action. Virtue comes from the things that are naturally and only human; reason; profound thinking and reasonable acting.?
How to act reasonable:
Based on Aristotle's philosophy, purpose and meaning are innate to human nature. Our main purpose in life should be happiness, but without a meaning it is impossible to reach it. What is your endgame? When are you going to be happy? Is being happy just the fulfillment of all your desires? Are we ever going to stop having desires? Did careless altruistic acts that served no real meaning failed because of a lack of vision??
Everyone wants to achieve happiness, but happiness is different for everyone. We want to reach the same end, but the means we take are different. Therefore the idea of happiness is individual and not a natural necessity of humanity. That creates the distinction on why a fulfilled life is better than a happy one, because aiming for a happy
life without a meaning behind it won't? bring happiness.
It is not a mystery that classic philosophers like Aristotle have shaped the world to what today is. Even in the Victorian times you can see the similarities between the Aestheticism movement described in “The picture of Dorian Gray” and Aristotelic values. A clear example is the almost exact phrasing in these two phrases:
Happiness for the sake of itself (Aristotelic)
Beauty for the sake of beauty (Aestheticist)
Many have described the classical philosophers as the responsibles for a shift between a Dionysian society towards an Apolineus one. This translates to a shift from a simple minded, immediate and desire oriented society into a more structured one determined to preserve values now known as “Traditional”.
领英推荐
Like every other major shift in society, this change didn’t come without its critics. One of the most polemic one’s heavily resembles parts of this novel through his philosophy, his name, Friederich Nietzche. Nietzche is polemic for various reasons, one of them being his unclarity and contradictions making any analysis of his philosophy highly speculative. This relation to the essay comes from a diverse array of personal interpretation to many of his works added here as a disclaimer on the basis for this next part.
The main idea relevant to the subject is that Nietzche believed a fulfilled life is to become the Ubermensch through will to power. To better understand this and find the connection it has to happiness, an explanation on Nietzsche’s work is necessary.
And those spoke zarathustra:
God dies and so do his teachings so now only superman exists. Men are impure like a polluted stream and to receive that stream without becoming polluted one must be a sea. To the supermen, humans are just apes and nothing more, contempt for the human race. Everyone laughed at Zarathustra for saying this.
Humans are guided only by self pleasure and egoism so contempt and despise for them is the only way to not become polluted by it. Happiness comes from egoism and self complacency but happiness in the end justifies human existence. What good are those limitations you self impose to evade sin and behave correctly? Superman will give you the spark of life you need. Society didn't agree.
Beyond morality:
Philosophy should reflect personal concerns but for Nietzsche this meant the abandonment of traditional values. Heroic unrealistic values in western philosophers destroy our healthy life, limiting our ways of escaping our circumstances through the imposition of idealistic values that ignore human desires. Modern values promote only cowardice and tenacity but it is much nobler to break free from those imposing values and accept death as a fitting end to a life dedicated only to personal gain. There are no rules or absolute values on which to rely and only those who challenge them can live authentic and successful human lives.
Beyond good and evil:
Quasi historical account of the harmful consequences of traditional ethics. Good came only from those in power but those on the bottom resented that forceful power as “evil” and coward thinking as “prudence”. Genuine autonomy could only mean freedom from all external constraints. In this state of existence each human being without the artificial limits of morality. No other sanction on conduct would be necessary than the natured one that happens while fighting. Fear of being overwhelmed creates cowardice and moral traditions just give us an excuse to not feel guilty.
Famous Nietzche quotes:
Ecce Homo:
Human all too human:
Beyond good and evil:
Antichrist:
Thus spoke zarathustra:
Twilight of the idols:
Daybreak:
The gay science:
The brief explanations of those 3 works and the quotes above gives us a rather intense mental picture of what Nietzche’s profile actually is. It is scary, opinionated and strongly unconventional, he clearly lacks subtlety when approaching moral and ethics. How is his philosophy relevant to the subject? While he may look rather aggressive, Nietzche many think, is largely misunderstood and, many more can agree, is a necessary component to the study of ethics, s Nietzsche's point of view believed he can and should impose his will in order to fulfill his desires, being a counter argument towards the Stoics and Aristotle.
One angle upon observing Nietzche can result in the interpretation of his despise of humanity, another may be his love for it. Nietzche loved human beings but thought they were chained and not free to live their best lives because of social constructs of morality. While the stoics thought some things in life escape our control, Nietzche thought power can control the way life goes for people, he thought power was the key factor determining the path to happiness and fulfillment, and that power came only from will; “Will to power”.
Contrary to Aristotle, he found life ephemeral giving a reduction in the value of meaning. The concept he describes as “Eternal Return” can be broken down to a mental exercise: Imagine your life loops, when you die you are born again and live the exact same life, make a life you’d want to live again.?
That’s one distinction to Aristotle’s philosophy, another one is found in his views from what he called “Morality of the masters and slaves”. He believes many social constructs that pressure our way of living through values come from an erroneous antagonisation of dionysiac desires consequence of an apolineus development of moral and ethics born from aristotelic values of what he describes of good moral character. Furthemore he debates not only conventional values but theology in general with a fierce disgust for christianity. He believes traditional values are meant to be an excuse to escape the shame and guilt incompetence brings. One example of this is the chrisitan belief on forgiveness which he describes as only a safe haven from the feeling of impotence when not being powerful enough to fulfill revenge. He may seem as a philosopher dedicated to finding enemies instead of answers, but that can't be much further from the truth.
One of the main philosophical subjects Oscar Wilde later tackled in his works, is the Aestheticism philosophy. During the Victorian era, Materialism philosophy flourished among the middle class and the Aestheticism views, largely spread among the elite, opposed those views. Materialism seeked a meaning of teaching, morality and enlightenment to validate art while aestheticism focused on beauty in itself.
The moral of the slaves looked for meaning in a larger scheme of things to validate their actions while Nietzche believed the wealthy nobleman reflected a deeper love for life in its purest and simplest ways free of judgment and that was the reason why Nobles were nobles and slaves, slaves.
Materialism seems as a reflection of both Aristotelic values and slave morality while Aestheticism reflects the morality of the masters, while indirectly opposing the judgmental principles of Stoicism. The uncanniness of these similarities goes a step further when the book mentions Aestheticism growing among the wealthy and Materialism growing among the middle classes.?
Before reaching the last point of view, a brief interlude summarizing the relation between the previous philosophies may provide refreshment.
Nietzche gives a compelling argument against the Stoics and Aristotle, furthermore one can even say that the philosophy of Aristotle supports Nietzche. While that may seem paradoxical at this point, Aristotle did mention that happiness is subjective and individual desires vary, Nietzche opposes social constructs and describes them as the chains holding back individuals. That point is fundamental to complete the equation and reach a conclusion.
Up to now, every view observed has focused on individuals. The Stoics, Aristotle and Nietzche have all analysed society’s effect on individuals and given distinct answers on how to handle the environment's effect on one, but none of them has focused on society itself as a desire and part of human nature. While they might’ve briefly mentioned, or in other works focus heavily on those aspects, it always comes from a point of view based on how society affects the individual and never stemmed from how the individual interacts with society, being similar to the dionysiac idea of finding pleasure by own means to fulfill one’s desires and not thinking on why one gets those desires and how does the society affects the means towards fulfilling those desires.?
The stoics focus on internal control. Aristotle on cultivating own ways. Nietzche may agree with the idea that society is responsible for holding back individuals. But ultimately the three of them know “We are not a collective, we are individuals...”, but Mounier goes a step further: “We are not a collective, we are individuals, individuals that connect”. This gives an answer to a lack of global thought in search towards happiness.?
Mounier called his philosophy “Personalism”, in his eyes it is required to affirm “Individuals for the sake of individuals”, as the other views mentioned, for Mounier the existence itself of an individual is the most important aspect of life, but upon that similarity with the others he begins to differ upon two other statements:
“The state for the sake of men not men for the sake of the state”, while he may focus on politics, the phrase can be evaluated from an ethical study if interpreted this way “Society for the sake of Individuals, not Individuals for the sake of society”, it is not far fetched to make this assumption if we base our principles of what a state is in conceptions of politics stemming from a necessity to collectivise in order to face the natural state and centralize power in order to not pray on each other.
Disclaimer aside, this statement is relevant to oppose Nietzchenian conceptions on moral because while they both glorify individuals as the core subject in ethics, he also believes no individual should sacrifice for the sake of other contrary to Nietzschenian perception of glorifying the master ethics and their power to achieve at the sake of the slaves. That is shown in the second statement Mounier proposes: “Individuals are an end in itself and should be utilized as a means to an end”.
While some distinction can be made with Nietzchenian conceptions, they are weak in the sense of lacking substance to be relevant to reach a conclusion, not only that but many of those conceptions share similarity with aristotelic views and don’t oppose stoicism, that is until he begins his critique on individualism.?
Individualism centralizes men in themselves while Personalism descentralizes. He believes that the existence of people is enough to make them irreplaceable while also acknowledging we live in a society because it’s part of our nature and happiness can only be fulfilled by coexistence or to put it how he does, we need love.?
He sees love as the currency of happiness, but is an economic system based only on donation. He thinks humans can’t be happy without interaction with other human and receiving love from them, but he also thinks that if you give expecting to receive, the expectations of the exchange will limit your capacity to appreciate love, so love has to be given as a donation and received without expectation, “love multiplies love”.?
In the center of personalist philosophy, the ability of communication in the exclusive form humans have explains our desire to commune with other people in order to reach happiness, a way he thought came from human nature, or how he described it being a christian philosopher; from the soul. A second principle came from his acknowledging the human characteristic of creativity being the one that explains the third key component of his philosophy; search for vocation.
His first concept affirms that each and every person is a unique and irreplaceable human being with a unique creativity, therefore vocation for each and everyone is different and worth pursuing. At the same time he believes interactions with others are necessary to lead a fulfilled life, that is how he reached love as the means to create a world where people can be happy, his utopian society is one where everyone “lives and lets live”.?
To clarify his ideas a brief summary on one of his dialogues is necessary:
Human beings must be free but absolute freedom is somewhat artificial, in real life humans depend on others. Being independent is vital but that must not make us turn away from others. We are all part of the human family but we are not merely a cog in the social machinery, collectives are an important part of human drama and their struggles make us move forward, but we must never lose sight of the role and importance of individuals.
Human beings in all their uniqueness and value; humans are not a mere tool to be used without regard to their dignity and feelings. Each person is different and it is a great thing that makes every personality.?
A person enjoys the liberty of developing his life as he wishes; values, identify and rank what is important and pursue those things in a responsible way. Personhood is a form of existence that allows people to develop a story that they may truly call their own. Often, even though we have a life project in the back of our mind that affects our decisions, we choose to act spontaneously rendering our life as incoherent, personalism encourages coherent behaviour according to our values.
There is an ideological thread that intervenes in humans creating a coherent unity inside us, this may be our basis but perfection is only achieved through time because of our changing nature. “Humans are more like a musical symphony unfolding through time than an unchanging architectural construction”. Free self configuration.
Humans show through science, philosophy, etc... that we transcend primal instincts and social norms, we can create a unique inner world totally free and without restrictions.
Body is not a mere vessel for the soul, it's unified and connected with each other.
Conjugal life is an example of the greatest expression of human connection, two people choose a communal unification of all aspects of their life. Relating with others is necessary for humans; fulfillment cannot be achieved without relating to others, we are made for friendship and we need it. Solitude is spiritual suicide. To many bonds prejudice total freedom and one must choose to depend on others or enjoy life only by himself. We must practice solidarity and communion to nurture this bonds.
When we give we mustn't calculate what we receive, love generates more love and we will receive it sooner or later. Some degree of self sacrifice is needed depending on how much you love the other.
Personhood implies not only relating to others but to god as well. God is the most important “you” we can ever address. Religion is a consequence of the openness of the human heart, God is love and he offers this to us if we are willing to meet him halfway. Men are made as an imperfect reflection of god and we are equipped to communicate and mirror him.
A world ruled by this philosophy would be much kinder and more peaceful but we are too far from it, only if we struggle together we can achieve it. We can’t reach it because quarrell arise everywhere but there is an absolute truth that transcends all these subjective opinions.?
Without addressing the obvious differences on theology, and more subtle ones in his ethical philosophy as a whole, a clear distinction on Mounier comes when he talks about what he believes is a utopian society. Stoics, Aristotle and Nietzche look for answers inside the individual because the 3 on their own way believe there is something missing and want to search a way to supply those needs, they focus on the individual because they share the view of what is available to control being through Judgment like the stoics, Habits according to Aristotle or be it by Will like Nietzche beliefs. Mounier is radically different in the sense he addresses the intrinsic relation between society as a whole and individuals as themselves. The other 3 see only what an individual can do in an imperfect society while Mounier acknowledges the interdependence they both have with one another. His philosophy upon deeper interiorization is not opposed to the other one’s views, is more of a continuation of their values and a place where they can coexist, if dependence on society is accepted, then one could compatibilize the 4 philosophies into one. For example: Aristotelic habits are a means to peaceful communion and cultivating them requires will which leads to the power necessary to fulfill desires.
The same happens with all the philosophers analyzed. Each of their methods towards happiness represent an alternative approach to reaching fulfillment, but they are all incomplete to some degree. With the Stoics, you should control your judgment of things through perception. The problem with that is that in order to control how the external affects the internal, you need to suppress many natural desires or feelings, or the intensity of them, thus making it a current that allows you to find stability in the way things affect you, but at the cost of changing aspects of our individual natural form paradoxical to their own conception of the universe held by innate laws.?
With Aristotles, our character is created through good habits and purpose which are ultimately what will lead us to live a plentiful fulfilled life. This way of approaching happiness is goal oriented and takes the focus of searching happiness away, making living a complete full life, which is practical, the method towards stability. This approach lack to key components of our human nature in the sense of searching happiness: limiting yourself to practical acting towards your ends will not allow you to put yourself in an unknown situation, and the structured life plan needed to live a life this way takes away the chance to grow towards happiness because it seeks to find stability, which we can understand the end game, but not with happiness. In other words, Aristotle’s method won't ever conclude in happiness because it lacks the exploration towards understanding your instinctive feelings, and the abstract introspection necessary to understand what your own happiness means for your individual self.?
The same argument of being incomplete continues with Nietzsche and Mounier in their method to achieve happiness. Nietzsche’s approach to happiness is achieved through power and that power is achieved through will. The problem is when we have the will but not the power to act on it. Nietzsche believed that the social construct on values is an excuse for the weak to remain safe. The problem is that it is impossible to control everything through power, and if you don’t have the power necessary to fulfill your will, then you would never be happy and be stuck in an endless cycle of impossible desires. My interpretation on Mounier’s approach, which focuses more on society than the individual, and believes that the human being is bound to commute with others and find a vocation through the use of creativity, is that it's impossibly idealistic, you can′t be the perfect human but you can′t also create a utopian society, because of the same factor of individuality and our natural desires that will always create a barrier in which not everyone can be happy as a whole, because of our differences in capacity and experience.
With all this being said and contrasting all the different philosophies exposed through the text, I came to my own conclusion on how to approach life with the ultimate goal of achieving happiness. For this, I believe that a balance between all the different approaches, taking the best of each (and disregarding the flaws), together as a palpable and possible method is the key towards happiness.?
I believe that happiness is a word extremely complicated to define. Happiness is different for everyone. For example, my biggest fear in life is to lose all of my motivation towards life. Does it mean that if I am motivated I am happy? Is happiness a constant state? A feeling? There is no right answer, but I believe there is a right way to approach.?
The lessons from the stoics are key; you gotta be able to accept the things you can′t change and change what you can, but without trying to control your judgement of things. Our perception of things should always be born through our natural desires, but putting it into the context of a global societal perspective. We should seek a structure to live a plentiful life, but not focusing on just acting practically towards that goal.?
As human beings, we are contradictory dual beings. We feel one way and act differently and are bound to social constructs. I believe that we should seek happiness by listening to our desires and trying to fulfill them, but without losing the context of our society. We should act towards our happiness, without losing sight of the sense of happiness in a community as a whole. Reaching a fulfilled life, starts with accepting what escapes our control, having the power to change what we can, but not changing just what we want or need to change, but looking to not doing it at the expense of someone else.?
Another realization I've reached about human nature, society and reality is one about fluidity. The other views give a solid answer that doesn’t waver, but humans change, desires change, community changes and by consequence reality too. There is no right formula to achieve happiness because happiness is not unchanging, using the best parts of each view, life should be approached differently one day at a time. It is necessary to constantly learn and understand our desires and needs, accept them as they come, and act upon a balanced way weighting our personal desires at the same level of the social construct of order, morals, and values while taking into account that they have an unpredictable and ever changing nature. Happiness is different day to day, some days you’ll be happy and some days you won't and the days you are happy are when what you really want is what you need, and what you need is what you want.?
Cayetano Sotomayor Landazuri, Navarra Spain, 2019