Defining Happiness…
A tiny little brief history
Plenty has been written about the concept of happiness, one conclusion is sure, it is a fuzzy concept! In the weeks I spend to investigate, deepen and widen my understanding of the word and concept of “happiness” I always ended up in studying yet another sub-sub-sub-domain of the concept. I bet “rocket-science” is more comprehensible and doable. It is pretty much impossible to encircle and demarcate the topic without diminishing it but I am going to do that anyways, saving you the reading 😉.
The word “happiness” is relatively new. Originally it is derived from Middle English ‘Hap’ coming from Proto-German and Old Norse ‘Happ’ which around the 12th century meant “chance, fortune, good luck”. The first known use of ‘happy’ (hence happ+y) was in the 14th century and denoted to be “lucky, favored by fortune, being in advantageous circumstances, prosperous or turning out well”. Eventually the first known recording of happiness was in 1590 to describe a “pleasant and contented mental state” (Etymonline, 2019).
However, long before in Ancient Greek (300 to 500 years B.C.) well-known philosophers such as Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Pyrrho and Epicurus obviously didn’t leave the subject of happiness untouched. They did call it different though, they referred to it as “eudaimonia” derived from “eu” (meaning good) and daimon (meaning spirit). And as befits philosophers, they didn’t necessarily fully agree on the details of the concept but roughly speaking they all seem to agree that eudaimonia is something everybody wishes to achieve, moreover, it is the “highest good for human beings”.
Eudaimonia entails pleasure, doing well but above all living in virtue – a lifestyle of high morality and nobility. And while it was generally agreed that pursuing eudaimonia was good for everybody, it was also generally agreed that achieving such state could be a different path for each individual. In other words, there was not a one-size-fits-all method.
Two school of thought
Both eudaimonia and happiness are similar in that they both convey a “positive state of mind” but there is definitely also a difference. Eudaimonia seems to be more concerned with achieving virtues behavior, good ethics and a desirable social-political state. Happiness on the other hand seems to be inseparably associated with prosperity, wealth, fortune and the socio-economical state of affairs. But whatever term you would go for, academics, scholars and philosophers in the past and present seem to agree that there are two schools of thought when it comes to studying and explaining happiness (or eudaimonia for that matter):
- The current state of mind type of happiness: The sense of a positive and pleasant feeling in the here and now. It typically includes neurological and psychological science which seek to explain how positive feelings and emotions of joy, pleasure and contentment come and go, comparable to the opposite domain of unhappiness (hence, to reverse depression). In this school of thought the hedonist thinking prevails or what Sigmund Freud would describe as the “Pleasure Principle”: people seek pleasure and avoid pain.
- The overall state of life type of happiness: The more holistic view on life, the quality of life and the perception of one’s life as a whole. It typically includes political, religious, sociological and ethical science which seek to create societies in which everybody is happy and in contrast unhappiness due to harm by others is contempt.
I like to clarify and emphasize that in my further writing I agree and take into account both schools of thought. On the one hand I definitely agree that happiness is a current state of mind which can be measured, sensed and altered here and now, as will be reflected in “my definition of happiness” below. And on the other hand I belief that it is essential to be aware that the “sum” of these singular current states of mind make up our overall perception of happiness in life which will be best reflected in my definition of “sustainable happiness”, described later.
Contemporary Definitions
Contemporary definitions of happiness are more in line with the first “current state of mind” school of thought. Their definitions are short and to the point but fully open to interpret how one can achieve such “feeling” or “state”:
“A state of well-being and contentment” – Meriam-Webster (2019)
“The state of being happy.” – Oxford Online (2019)
“The feeling of being pleased or happy” Cambridge Online (2019)
According to these definitions we could basically say that happiness is just about feeling well, lucky, pleasant, fortunate and whatever positive state of mind you can create for yourself. Whether it be a drug addict after a shot of heroine, a child getting an ice-cream, a student graduating or a gambler winning the jackpot, all falls within this definition of “happiness”.
Religious Perspectives
In Buddhism such superficial conception of happiness would be ‘cursing in the temple’! It completely contradicts their view on reaching ultimate happiness (nirvana) which is to free ourselves from our ego which craves for pleasure and averts suffering. To reach nirvana one has to follow the Noble Eightfold Path, a guide to live, act and think in virtue.
Also in many Abrahamic-derived religions guides to happiness have been and are proposed in which living in virtue is a prerequisite. However, over the centuries the meaning of virtue, after the many known forms of self-enrichment in- and outside the holy houses, are pretty much equal to the norms and values of capitalistic democracies and consumerism. It is furthermore debatable whether these religious guides lead us to achieve ultimate happiness (living in paradise) in this or the next (after)life.
All-in-all it brings us back to the intro-conclusion, happiness is a fuzzy concept.
My definition of happiness
But despite the fuzziness, multi-interpretation and misunderstanding of “happiness”, it is also a beloved and popularly used buzzword with a positive connotation. And at the same time it is the epic center of my stories, philosophy and vision. Therefore I like to propose a clear and comprehensive definition to make sure we are at least on the same page, or let’s say, so you know on which page I am.
It is a definition which does not necessarily diminishes the above definitions but it is simply a bit more thorough. A thorough definition on which we can build a robust concept of “regular happiness” and “sustainable happiness” but more importantly, so we are able to clearly distinguish the two. My definition of “happiness” is as follows:
“Happiness is a positive state of mind influenced by various factors which occur(ed) in the past, present or future.
Six principles
Let me explain and dissect my definition using the following six principles:
- Happiness is ‘positive‘: Happiness is a positive and pleasant state of mind as opposed to unhappiness which is a negative and unpleasant state of mind’.
- Happiness is a ‘feeling’: Happiness is a reflection of our positive feelings about a moment or our overall life.
- Happiness is ‘impermanent‘: Happiness is an impermanent state of mind, in other words, a snapshot of a “positive feeling” which can be different 1 second, minute, hour, day, year later.
- Happiness is ‘comprehensive’: Happiness is influenced by various factors
- Happiness is ‘perception’: Happiness is a state of mind based on your perception of events in the past, present and/or future.
- Happiness is ‘personal‘: Happiness is how you personally feel and not what somebody else can tell you. Therefore, how people perceive and experience happiness is as unique as people are.
So now we have a thorough definition and composition of the term “happiness” let’s elaborate and (firstly) learn about “regular happiness” and (ultimately) “sustainable happiness” in the next stories.